From Ron.Bourgeault at uregina.ca Sun Nov 1 08:53:19 2009 From: Ron.Bourgeault at uregina.ca (Ron Bourgeault) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:53:19 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The heart of India is under attack References: <4AED4C13.31E7.0046.0@uregina.ca> <4AED4C4D.31E7.0046.0@uregina.ca> Message-ID: <4AED4C81.31E7.0046.0@uregina.ca> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/30/mining-india-maoists-green-hunt The heart of India is under attack To justify enforcing a corporate land grab, the state needs an enemy - and it has chosen the Maoists Arundhati Roy Friday 30 October 2009 The low, flat-topped hills of south Orissa have been home to the Dongria Kondh long before there was a country called India or a state called Orissa. The hills watched over the Kondh. The Kondh watched over the hills and worshipped them as living deities. Now these hills have been sold for the bauxite they contain. For the Kondh it's as though god had been sold. They ask how much god would go for if the god were Ram or Allah or Jesus Christ. Perhaps the Kondh are supposed to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to their Niyam Raja, God of Universal Law, has been sold to a company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge). It's one of the biggest mining corporations in the world and is owned by Anil Agarwal, the Indian billionaire who lives in London in a mansion that once belonged to the Shah of Iran. Vedanta is only one of the many multinational corporations closing in on Orissa. If the flat-topped hills are destroyed, the forests that clothe them will be destroyed, too. So will the rivers and streams that flow out of them and irrigate the plains below. So will the Dongria Kondh. So will the hundreds of thousands of tribal people who live in the forested heart of India, and whose homeland is similarly under attack. In our smoky, crowded cities, some people say, "So what? Someone has to pay the price of progress." Some even say, "Let's face it, these are people whose time has come. Look at any developed country - Europe, the US, Australia - they all have a 'past'." Indeed they do. So why shouldn't "we"? In keeping with this line of thought, the government has announced Operation Green Hunt, a war purportedly against the "Maoist" rebels headquartered in the jungles of central India. Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over the country that people are engaged in-the landless, the Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers. They're pitted against a juggernaut of injustices, including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover of people's land and resources. However, it is the Maoists that the government has singled out as being the biggest threat. Two years ago, when things were nowhere near as bad as they are now, the prime minister described the Maoists as the "single largest internal security threat" to the country. This will probably go down as the most popular and often repeated thing he ever said. For some reason, the comment he made on 6 January, 2009, at a meeting of state chief ministers, when he described the Maoists as having only "modest capabilities", doesn't seem to have had the same raw appeal. He revealed his government's real concern on 18 June, 2009, when he told parliament: "If left-wing extremism continues to flourish in parts which have natural resources of minerals, the climate for investment would certainly be affected." Who are the Maoists? They are members of the banned Communist party of India (Maoist) - CPI (Maoist) - one of the several descendants of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), which led the 1969 Naxalite uprising and was subsequently liquidated by the Indian government. The Maoists believe that the innate, structural inequality of Indian society can only be redressed by the violent overthrow of the Indian state. In its earlier avatars as the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in Jharkhand and Bihar, and the People's War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh, the Maoists had tremendous popular support. (When the ban on them was briefly lifted in 2004, 1.5 million people attended their rally in Warangal.) But eventually their intercession in Andhra Pradesh ended badly. They left a violent legacy that turned some of their staunchest supporters into harsh critics. After a paroxysm of killing and counter-killing by the Andhra police as well as the Maoists, the PWG was decimated. Those who managed to survive fled Andhra Pradesh into neighbouring Chhattisgarh. There, deep in the heart of the forest, they joined colleagues who had already been working there for decades. Not many "outsiders" have any first-hand experience of the real nature of the Maoist movement in the forest. A recent interview with one of its top leaders, Comrade Ganapathy, in Open magazine, didn't do much to change the minds of those who view the Maoists as a party with an unforgiving, totalitarian vision, which countenances no dissent whatsoever. Comrade Ganapathy said nothing that would persuade people that, were the Maoists ever to come to power, they would be equipped to properly address the almost insane diversity of India's caste-ridden society. His casual approval of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka was enough to send a shiver down even the most sympathetic of spines, not just because of the brutal ways in which the LTTE chose to wage its war, but also because of the cataclysmic tragedy that has befallen the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, who it claimed to represent, and for whom it surely must take some responsibility. Right now in central India, the Maoists' guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa. They are people who, even after 60 years of India's so-called independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel. Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for decades. If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have - their land. Clearly, they do not believe the government when it says it only wants to "develop" their region. Clearly, they do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forests in Dantewada by the National Mineral Development Corporation are being built for them to walk their children to school on. They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated. That is why they have taken up arms. Even if the ideologues of the Maoist movement are fighting to eventually overthrow the Indian state, right now even they know that their ragged, malnutritioned army, the bulk of whose soldiers have never seen a train or a bus or even a small town, are fighting only for survival. In 2008, an expert group appointed by the Planning Commission submitted a report called "Development Challenges in Extremist-Affected Areas". It said, "the Naxalite (Maoist) movement has to be recognised as a political movement with a strong base among the landless and poor peasantry and adivasis. Its emergence and growth need to be contextualised in the social conditions and experience of people who form a part of it. The huge gap between state policy and performance is a feature of these conditions. Though its professed long-term ideology is capturing state power by force, in its day-to-day manifestation, it is to be looked upon as basically a fight for social justice, equality, protection, security and local development." A very far cry from the "single-largest internal security threat". Since the Maoist rebellion is the flavour of the week, everybody, from the sleekest fat cat to the most cynical editor of the most sold-out newspaper in this country, seems to be suddenly ready to concede that it is decades of accumulated injustice that lies at the root of the problem. But instead of addressing that problem, which would mean putting the brakes on this 21st-century gold rush, they are trying to head the debate off in a completely different direction, with a noisy outburst of pious outrage about Maoist "terrorism". But they're only speaking to themselves. The people who have taken to arms are not spending all their time watching (or performing for) TV, or reading the papers, or conducting SMS polls for the Moral Science question of the day: Is Violence Good or Bad? SMS your reply to ... They're out there. They're fighting. They believe they have the right to defend their homes and their land. They believe that they deserve justice. In order to keep its better-off citizens absolutely safe from these dangerous people, the government has declared war on them. A war, which it tells us, may take between three and five years to win. Odd, isn't it, that even after the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, the government was prepared to talk with Pakistan? It's prepared to talk to China. But when it comes to waging war against the poor, it's playing hard. It's not enough that special police with totemic names like Greyhounds, Cobras and Scorpions are scouring the forests with a licence to kill. It's not enough that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF) and the notorious Naga Battalion have already wreaked havoc and committed unconscionable atrocities in remote forest villages. It's not enough that the government supports and arms the Salwa Judum, the "people's militia" that has killed and raped and burned its way through the forests of Dantewada leaving 300,000 people homeless or on the run. Now the government is going to deploy the Indo-Tibetan border police and tens of thousands of paramilitary troops. It plans to set up a brigade headquarters in Bilaspur (which will displace nine villages) and an air base in Rajnandgaon (which will displace seven). Obviously, these decisions were taken a while ago. Surveys have been done, sites chosen. Interesting. War has been in the offing for a while. And now the helicopters of the Indian air force have been given the right to fire in "self-defence", the very right that the government denies its poorest citizens. Fire at whom? How will the security forces be able to distinguish a Maoist from an ordinary person who is running terrified through the jungle? Will adivasis carrying the bows and arrows they have carried for centuries now count as Maoists too? Are non-combatant Maoist sympathisers valid targets? When I was in Dantewada, the superintendent of police showed me pictures of 19 "Maoists" that "his boys" had killed. I asked him how I was supposed to tell they were Maoists. He said, "See Ma'am, they have malaria medicines, Dettol bottles, all these things from outside." What kind of war is Operation Green Hunt going to be? Will we ever know? Not much news comes out of the forests. Lalgarh in West Bengal has been cordoned off. Those who try to go in are being beaten and arrested. And called Maoists, of course. In Dantewada, the Vanvasi Chetana Ashram, a Gandhian ashram run by Himanshu Kumar, was bulldozed in a few hours. It was the last neutral outpost before the war zone begins, a place where journalists, activists, researchers and fact-finding teams could stay while they worked in the area. Meanwhile, the Indian establishment has unleashed its most potent weapon. Almost overnight, our embedded media has substituted its steady supply of planted, unsubstantiated, hysterical stories about "Islamist terrorism" with planted, unsubstantiated, hysterical stories about "Red terrorism". In the midst of this racket, at ground zero, the cordon of silence is being inexorably tightened. The "Sri Lanka solution" could very well be on the cards. It's not for nothing that the Indian government blocked a European move in the UN asking for an international probe into war crimes committed by the government of Sri Lanka in its recent offensive against the Tamil Tigers. The first move in that direction is the concerted campaign that has been orchestrated to shoehorn the myriad forms of resistance taking place in this country into a simple George Bush binary: If you are not with us, you are with the Maoists. The deliberate exaggeration of the Maoist "threat" helps the state justify militarisation. (And surely does no harm to the Maoists. Which political party would be unhappy to be singled out for such attention?) While all the oxygen is being used up by this new doppelganger of the "war on terror", the state will use the opportunity to mop up the hundreds of other resistance movements in the sweep of its military operation, calling them all Maoist sympathisers. I use the future tense, but this process is well under way. The West Bengal government tried to do this in Nandigram and Singur but failed. Right now in Lalgarh, the Pulishi Santrash Birodhi Janasadharaner Committee or the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities - which is a people's movement that is separate from, though sympathetic to, the Maoists - is routinely referred to as an overground wing of the CPI (Maoist). Its leader, Chhatradhar Mahato, now arrested and being held without bail, is always called a "Maoist leader". We all know the story of Dr Binayak Sen, a medical doctor and a civil liberties activist, who spent two years in jail on the absolutely facile charge of being a courier for the Maoists. While the light shines brightly on Operation Green Hunt, in other parts of India, away from the theatre of war, the assault on the rights of the poor, of workers, of the landless, of those whose lands the government wishes to acquire for "public purpose", will pick up pace. Their suffering will deepen and it will be that much harder for them to get a hearing. Once the war begins, like all wars, it will develop a momentum, a logic and an economics of its own. It will become a way of life, almost impossible to reverse. The police will be expected to behave like an army, a ruthless killing machine. The paramilitary will be expected to become like the police, a corrupt, bloated administrative force. We've seen it happen in Nagaland, Manipur and Kashmir. The only difference in the "heartland" will be that it'll become obvious very quickly to the security forces that they're only a little less wretched than the people they're fighting. In time, the divide between the people and the law enforcers will become porous. Guns and ammunition will be bought and sold. In fact, it's already happening. Whether it's the security forces or the Maoists or noncombatant civilians, the poorest people will die in this rich people's war. However, if anybody believes that this war will leave them unaffected, they should think again. The resources it'll consume will cripple the economy of this country. Last week, civil liberties groups from all over the country organised a series of meetings in Delhi to discuss what could be done to turn the tide and stop the war. The absence of Dr Balagopal, one of the best-known civil rights activists of Andhra Pradesh, who died two weeks ago, closed around us like a physical pain. He was one of the bravest, wisest political thinkers of our time and left us just when we needed him most. Still, I'm sure he would have been reassured to hear speaker after speaker displaying the vision, the depth, the experience, the wisdom, the political acuity and, above all, the real humanity of the community of activists, academics, lawyers, judges and a range of other people who make up the civil liberties community in India. Their presence in the capital signalled that outside the arclights of our TV studios and beyond the drumbeat of media hysteria, even among India's middle classes, a humane heart still beats. Small wonder then that these are the people who the Union home minister recently accused of creating an "intellectual climate" that was conducive to "terrorism". If that charge was meant to frighten people, it had the opposite effect. The speakers represented a range of opinion from the liberal to the radical left. Though none of those who spoke would describe themselves as Maoist, few were opposed in principle to the idea that people have a right to defend themselves against state violence. Many were uncomfortable about Maoist violence, about the "people's courts" that delivered summary justice, about the authoritarianism that was bound to permeate an armed struggle and marginalise those who did not have arms. But even as they expressed their discomfort, they knew that people's courts only existed because India's courts are out of the reach of ordinary people and that the armed struggle that has broken out in the heartland is not the first, but the very last option of a desperate people pushed to the very brink of existence. The speakers were aware of the dangers of trying to extract a simple morality out of individual incidents of heinous violence, in a situation that had already begun to look very much like war. Everybody had graduated long ago from equating the structural violence of the state with the violence of the armed resistance. In fact, retired Justice PB Sawant went so far as to thank the Maoists for forcing the establishment of this country to pay attention to the egregious injustice of the system. Hargopal from Andhra Pradesh spoke of his experience as a civil rights activist through the years of the Maoist interlude in his state. He mentioned in passing the fact that in a few days in Gujarat in 2002, Hindu mobs led by the Bajrang Dal and the VHP had killed more people than the Maoists ever had even in their bloodiest days in Andhra Pradesh. People who had come from the war zones, from Lalgarh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa, described the police repression, the arrests, the torture, the killing, the corruption, and the fact that they sometimes seemed to take orders directly from the officials who worked for the mining companies. People described the often dubious, malign role being played by certain NGOs funded by aid agencies wholly devoted to furthering corporate prospects. Again and again they spoke of how in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh activists as well as ordinary people - anyone who was seen to be a dissenter - were being branded Maoists and imprisoned. They said that this, more than anything else, was pushing people to take up arms and join the Maoists. They asked how a government that professed its inability to resettle even a fraction of the 50 million people who had been displaced by "development" projects was suddenly able to identify 1,40,000 hectares of prime land to give to industrialists for more than 300 Special Economic Zones, India's onshore tax havens for the rich. They asked what brand of justice the supreme court was practising when it refused to review the meaning of "public purpose" in the land acquisition act even when it knew that the government was forcibly acquiring land in the name of "public purpose" to give to private corporations. They asked why when the government says that "the writ of the state must run", it seems to only mean that police stations must be put in place. Not schools or clinics or housing, or clean water, or a fair price for forest produce, or even being left alone and free from the fear of the police - anything that would make people's lives a little easier. They asked why the "writ of the state" could never be taken to mean justice. There was a time, perhaps 10 years ago, when in meetings like these, people were still debating the model of "development" that was being thrust on them by the New Economic Policy. Now the rejection of that model is complete. It is absolute. Everyone from the Gandhians to the Maoists agree on that. The only question now is, what is the most effective way to dismantle it? An old college friend of a friend, a big noise in the corporate world, had come along for one of the meetings out of morbid curiosity about a world he knew very little about. Even though he had disguised himself in a Fabindia kurta, he couldn't help looking (and smelling) expensive. At one point, he leaned across to me and said, "Someone should tell them not to bother. They won't win this one. They have no idea what they're up against. With the kind of money that's involved here, these companies can buy ministers and media barons and policy wonks, they can run their own NGOs, their own militias, they can buy whole governments. They'll even buy the Maoists. These good people here should save their breath and find something better to do." When people are being brutalised, what "better" thing is there for them to do than to fight back? It's not as though anyone's offering them a choice, unless it's to commit suicide, like some of the farmers caught in a spiral of debt have done. (Am I the only one who gets the feeling that the Indian establishment and its representatives in the media are far more comfortable with the idea of poor people killing themselves in despair than with the idea of them fighting back?) For several years, people in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal - some of them Maoists, many not - have managed to hold off the big corporations. The question now is, how will Operation Green Hunt change the nature of their struggle? What exactly are the fighting people up against? It's true that, historically, mining companies have often won their battles against local people. Of all corporations, leaving aside the ones that make weapons, they probably have the most merciless past. They are cynical, battle-hardened campaigners and when people say, "Jaan denge par jameen nahin denge" (We'll give away our lives, but never our land), it probably bounces off them like a light drizzle on a bomb shelter. They've heard it before, in a thousand different languages, in a hundred different countries. Right now in India, many of them are still in the first class arrivals lounge, ordering cocktails, blinking slowly like lazy predators, waiting for the Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) they have signed - some as far back as 2005 - to materialise into real money. But four years in a first class lounge is enough to test the patience of even the truly tolerant: the elaborate, if increasingly empty, rituals of democratic practice: the (sometimes rigged) public hearings, the (sometimes fake) environmental impact assessments, the (often purchased) clearances from various ministries, the long drawn-out court cases. Even phony democracy is time-consuming. And time is money. So what kind of money are we talking about? In their seminal, soon-to-be-published work, Out of This Earth: East India Adivasis and the Aluminum Cartel, Samarendra Das and Felix Padel say that the financial value of the bauxite deposits of Orissa alone is $2.27 trillion (more than twice India's GDP). That was at 2004 prices. At today's prices it would be about $4 trillion. Of this, officially the government gets a royalty of less than 7%. Quite often, if the mining company is a known and recognised one, the chances are that, even though the ore is still in the mountain, it will have already been traded on the futures market. So, while for the adivasis the mountain is still a living deity, the fountainhead of life and faith, the keystone of the ecological health of the region, for the corporation, it's just a cheap storage facility. Goods in storage have to be accessible. >From the corporation's point of view, the bauxite will have to come out of the mountain. Such are the pressures and the exigencies of the free market. That's just the story of the bauxite in Orissa. Expand the $4 trillion to include the value of the millions of tonnes of high-quality iron ore in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and the 28 other precious mineral resources, including uranium, limestone, dolomite, coal, tin, granite, marble, copper, diamond, gold, quartzite, corundum, beryl, alexandrite, silica, fluorite and garnet. Add to that the power plants, the dams, the highways, the steel and cement factories, the aluminium smelters, and all the other infrastructure projects that are part of the hundreds of MoUs (more than 90 in Jharkhand alone) that have been signed. That gives us a rough outline of the scale of the operation and the desperation of the stakeholders. The forest once known as the Dandakaranya, which stretches from West Bengal through Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, parts of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, is home to millions of India's tribal people. The media has taken to calling it the Red corridor or the Maoist corridor. It could just as accurately be called the MoUist corridor. It doesn't seem to matter at all that the fifth schedule of the constitution provides protection to adivasi people and disallows the alienation of their land. It looks as though the clause is there only to make the constitution look good - a bit of window-dressing, a slash of make-up. Scores of corporations, from relatively unknown ones to the biggest mining companies and steel manufacturers in the world, are in the fray to appropriate adivasi homelands - the Mittals, Jindals, Tata, Essar, Posco, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and, of course, Vedanta. There's an MoU on every mountain, river and forest glade. We're talking about social and environmental engineering on an unimaginable scale. And most of this is secret. It's not in the public domain. Somehow I don't think that the plans afoot that would destroy one of the world's most pristine forests and ecosystems, as well as the people who live in it, will be discussed at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Our 24-hour news channels that are so busy hunting for macabre stories of Maoist violence - and making them up when they run out of the real thing - seem to have no interest at all in this side of the story. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because the development lobby to which they are so much in thrall says the mining industry will ratchet up the rate of GDP growth dramatically and provide employment to the people it displaces. This does not take into account the catastrophic costs of environmental damage. But even on its own narrow terms, it is simply untrue. Most of the money goes into the bank accounts of the mining corporations. Less than 10% comes to the public exchequer. A very tiny percentage of the displaced people get jobs, and those who do, earn slave-wages to do humiliating, backbreaking work. By caving in to this paroxysm of greed, we are bolstering other countries' economies with our ecology. When the scale of money involved is what it is, the stakeholders are not always easy to identify. Between the CEOs in their private jets and the wretched tribal special police officers in the "people's" militias - who for a couple of thousand rupees a month fight their own people, rape, kill and burn down whole villages in an effort to clear the ground for mining to begin - there is an entire universe of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders. These people don't have to declare their interests, but they're allowed to use their positions and good offices to further them. How will we ever know which political party, which ministers, which MPs, which politicians, which judges, which NGOs, which expert consultants, which police officers, have a direct or indirect stake in the booty? How will we know which newspapers reporting the latest Maoist "atrocity", which TV channels "reporting directly from ground zero" - or, more accurately, making it a point not to report from ground zero, or even more accurately, lying blatantly from ground zero - are stakeholders? What is the provenance of the billions of dollars (several times more than India's GDP) secretly stashed away by Indian citizens in Swiss bank accounts? Where did the $2bn spent on the last general elections come from? Where do the hundreds of millions of rupees that politicians and parties pay the media for the "high-end", "low-end" and "live" pre-election "coverage packages" that P Sainath recently wrote about come from? (The next time you see a TV anchor haranguing a numb studio guest, shouting, "Why don't the Maoists stand for elections? Why don't they come in to the mainstream?", do SMS the channel saying, "Because they can't afford your rates.") Too many questions about conflicts of interest and cronyism remain unanswered. What are we to make of the fact that the Union home minister, P Chidambaram, the chief of Operation Green Hunt, has, in his career as a corporate lawyer, represented several mining corporations? What are we to make of the fact that he was a non-executive director of Vedanta - a position from which he resigned the day he became finance minister in 2004? What are we to make of the fact that, when he became finance minister, one of the first clearances he gave for FDI was to Twinstar Holdings, a Mauritius-based company, to buy shares in Sterlite, a part of the Vedanta group? What are we to make of the fact that, when activists from Orissa filed a case against Vedanta in the supreme court, citing its violations of government guidelines and pointing out that the Norwegian Pension Fund had withdrawn its investment from the company alleging gross environmental damage and human rights violations committed by the company, Justice Kapadia suggested that Vedanta be substituted with Sterlite, a sister company of the same group? He then blithely announced in an open court that he, too, had shares in Sterlite. He gave forest clearance to Sterlite to go ahead with the mining, despite the fact that the supreme court's own expert committee had explicitly said that permission should be denied and that mining would ruin the forests, water sources, environment and the lives and livelihoods of the thousands of tribals living there. Justice Kapadia gave this clearance without rebutting the report of the supreme court's own committee. What are we to make of the fact that the Salwa Judum, the brutal ground-clearing operation disguised as a "spontaneous" people's militia in Dantewada, was formally inaugurated in 2005, just days after the MoU with the Tatas was signed? And that the Jungle Warfare Training School in Bastar was set up just around then? What are we to make of the fact that two weeks ago, on 12 October, the mandatory public hearing for Tata Steel's steel project in Lohandiguda, Dantewada, was held in a small hall inside the collectorate, cordoned off with massive security, with an audience of 50 tribal people brought in from two Bastar villages in a convoy of government jeeps? (The public hearing was declared a success and the district collector congratulated the people of Bastar for their co-operation.) What are we to make of the fact that just around the time the prime minister began to call the Maoists the "single largest internal security threat" (which was a signal that the government was getting ready to go after them), the share prices of many of the mining companies in the region skyrocketed? The mining companies desperately need this "war". They will be the beneficiaries if the impact of the violence drives out the people who have so far managed to resist the attempts that have been made to evict them. Whether this will indeed be the outcome, or whether it'll simply swell the ranks of the Maoists remains to be seen. Reversing this argument, Dr Ashok Mitra, former finance minister of West Bengal, in an article called "The Phantom Enemy", argues that the "grisly serial murders" that the Maoists are committing are a classic tactic, learned from guerrilla warfare textbooks. He suggests that they have built and trained a guerrilla army that is now ready to take on the Indian state, and that the Maoist "rampage" is a deliberate attempt on their part to invite the wrath of a blundering, angry Indian state which the Maoists hope will commit acts of cruelty that will enrage the adivasis. That rage, Dr Mitra says, is what the Maoists hope can be harvested and transformed into an insurrection. This, of course, is the charge of "adventurism" that several currents of the left have always levelled at the Maoists. It suggests that Maoist ideologues are not above inviting destruction on the very people they claim to represent in order to bring about a revolution that will bring them to power. Ashok Mitra is an old Communist who had a ringside seat during the Naxalite uprising of the 60s and 70s in West Bengal. His views cannot be summarily dismissed. But it's worth keeping in mind that the adivasi people have a long and courageous history of resistance that predates the birth of Maoism. To look upon them as brainless puppets being manipulated by a few middle-class Maoist ideologues is to do them a disservice. Presumably Dr Mitra is talking about the situation in Lalgarh where, up to now, there has been no talk of mineral wealth. (Lest we forget - the current uprising in Lalgarh was sparked off over the chief minister's visit to inaugurate a Jindal Steel factory. And where there's a steel factory, can the iron ore be very far away?) The people's anger has to do with their desperate poverty, and the decades of suffering at the hands of the police and the Harmads, the armed militia of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that has ruled West Bengal for more than 30 years. Even if, for argument's sake, we don't ask what tens of thousands of police and paramilitary troops are doing in Lalgarh, and we accept the theory of Maoist "adventurism", it would still be only a very small part of the picture. The real problem is that the flagship of India's miraculous "growth" story has run aground. It came at a huge social and environmental cost. And now, as the rivers dry up and forests disappear, as the water table recedes and as people realise what is being done to them, the chickens are coming home to roost. All over the country, there's unrest, there are protests by people refusing to give up their land and their access to resources, refusing to believe false promises any more. Suddenly, it's beginning to look as though the 10% growth rate and democracy are mutually incompatible. To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85% of India's people off their land and into the cities (which is what Chidambaram says he'd like to see), India has to become a police state. The government has to militarise. To justify that militarisation, it needs an enemy. The Maoists are that enemy. They are to corporate fundamentalists what the Muslims are to Hindu fundamentalists. (Is there a fraternity of fundamentalists? Is that why the RSS has expressed open admiration for Chidambaram?) It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the paramilitary troops, the Rajnandgaon air base, the Bilaspur brigade headquarters, the unlawful activities act, the Chhattisgarh special public security act and Operation Green Hunt are all being put in place just to flush out a few thousand Maoists from the forests. In all the talk of Operation Green Hunt, whether or not Chidambaram goes ahead and "presses the button", I detect the kernel of a coming state of emergency. (Here's a maths question: If it takes 600,000 soldiers to hold down the tiny valley of Kashmir, how many will it take to contain the mounting rage of hundreds of millions of people?) Instead of narco-analysing Kobad Ghandy, the recently arrested Maoist leader, it might be a better idea to talk to him. In the meanwhile, will someone who's going to the climate change conference in Copenhagen later this year please ask the only question worth asking: Can we leave the bauxite in the mountain? From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:18:30 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:18:30 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Bagram Military Base: 5,000 Acres and Growing Message-ID: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j76qwMZk05IEjIFYrYclWnkC5ihAD9BMU80O0 Associated Press November 1, 2009 Already the main Afghan war hub, Bagram is growing By HAMZA HENDAWI -Plans are under way to build a new, $22 million passenger terminal and a new cargo yard costing $9 million. To increase cargo capacity, a new parking ramp supporting the world's largest aircraft is to be completed this spring. Elsewhere at Bagram, construction has begun on permanent brick-and mortar housing for troops and headquarters for military units....The base command is acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand the base....When the U.S. military took over Bagram in December 2001, the base was 1,616 hectares (3,993 acres)....It is now 2,104 hectares (5,198 acres).... BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan: Seen from a tiny village on a recent moonless night, the sprawling U.S. base three miles to the north looks more like a medium-size city than a military facility in a war zone. Bagram Air Field, as the base is formally known, is the largest U.S. military hub of the war in Afghanistan and is home to some 24,000 military personnel and civilian contractors. Yet it is continuing to grow to keep up with the requirements of an escalating war and troop increases. With tens of millions of dollars pouring into expanding and upgrading facilities, Bagram is turning into something of a military "boom town." Large swathes of the 2,000-hectare (5,000-acre) base look like a construction site, with the rumble of building machinery and the scream of fighter-jets overhead providing the soundtrack. The rapid growth here is taking place at a time when the Obama administration is debating the future direction of the increasingly unpopular war, now in its ninth year. Among the options under discussion is a recommendation by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the overall commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan, to bring in additional U.S. troops, perhaps as many as 80,000. But even with current troop levels ? 65,000 U.S. troops and about 40,000 from allied countries ? Bagram already is bursting at the seams. Plans are under way to build a new, $22 million passenger terminal and a new cargo yard costing $9 million. To increase cargo capacity, a new parking ramp supporting the world's largest aircraft is to be completed this spring. Elsewhere at Bagram, construction has begun on permanent brick-and mortar housing for troops and headquarters for military units, according to Lt. Col. Troy Joslin, chief of Bagram's operations. Hundreds of Afghan builders in traditional tunics, loose pants and hard hats arrive by bus every morning. Dozens of trucks laden with dirt and other building materials come into the base daily. The water and electricity systems and the waste management facility are being upgraded. The Army Corps of Engineers is increasing the capacity of the base's roads as well as building new ones on the east side of the airfield, said Joslin. The base command is acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand the base, according to Joslin. No figure was given. When the U.S. military took over Bagram in December 2001, the base was 1,616 hectares (3,993 acres), according to Capt. Jennifer Bocanegra, a military spokeswoman at Bagram. It is now 2,104 hectares (5,198 acres), she said. .... The base's main road, a tree-lined thoroughfare called "Disney drive," is so congested at times it looks like a downtown street at rush hour. Kicking up dust on that road are Humvees, mine-resistant vehicles, SUVs, buses, trucks and sedans. A pedestrian path running alongside that road is as busy as a shopping street on a Saturday afternoon, with hundreds of soldiers, Marines, airmen, navy officers and civilian contractors almost rubbing shoulders. Similarly, the lines are long at the overcrowded food halls, the American fast food outlets, cafes, PX stores and ATM machines. .... The air field is already handling 400 short tons of cargo and 1,000 passengers daily, according to Air Force spokesman Capt. David Faggard. A new 3.5-kilometer (2.17-mile runway) was completed in 2006, to accommodate large aircraft, he added. Bagram was a major Soviet base during Moscow's 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, providing air support to Soviet and Afghan forces fighting the mujahedeen. It also was fought over by rival factions during the country's civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal. The view from the old Soviet-built air traffic tower, replaced last year by a new, $50 million tower, reveals a picture more akin to a busy commercial hub than a military facility in a war zone. So frantic is the pace at the air field that giant C-17 transport aircraft fill up with soldiers almost as soon as their cargo is emptied. "The current expansion supports thousands of additional Coalition troops, either assigned to or supported from Bagram Air Field," said Bocanegra. With Bagram's rapid growth and increase in importance to the war effort, the need to protect it was never greater. The responsibility for that primarily falls on Air Force personnel and paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division. Bagram lies in Parwan, a relatively quiet province. The Taliban-led insurgency, while growing in numbers and strength elsewhere, is not known to have a significant presence in the province. Still, the base is susceptible to rocket and mortar attacks. This year insurgents have launched more than a dozen attacks on Bagram, killing four and wounding at least 12, according to military spokesman Lt. Col. Mike Brady. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:18:38 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:18:38 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Taliban Decline US Offer Of 6 Provinces for 8 Bases Message-ID: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23861.htm Taliban Decline US Offer Of 6 Provinces for 8 Bases By Aamir Latif IOL Correspondent November 02, 2009 "IOL" -- ISLAMABAD ? The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed. "US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast," a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the sensitive issue with the media. He said the talks, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, continued for weeks at different locations including the Afghan capital Kabul. Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, were the only states to recognize the Taliban regime which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Turkish Prime Minister Reccap Erodgan has reportedly been active in brokering talks between the two sides. His emissaries are in contact with Hizb-e-Islami (of former prime minister Gulbadin Hikmatyar) too because he is an important factor in northeastern Afghanistan." A Taliban spokesman admitted indirect talks with the US. "Yes, there were some indirect talks, but they did not work," Yousaf Ahmedi, the Taliban spokesman in southern Afghanistan, told IOL from an unknown location via satellite phone. "There are some people who are conveying each others? (Taliban and US) messages. But there were no direct talks between us and America," he explained. Afghan and Taliban sources said Mutawakkil and Mullah Mohammad Zaeef, a former envoy to Pakistan who had taken part in previous talks, represented the Taliban side in the recent talks. The US Embassy in Kabul denied any such talks. "No, we are not holding any talks with Taliban," embassy spokeswoman Cathaline Haydan told IOL from Kabul. Asked whether the US has offered any power-sharing formula to Taliban, she said she was not aware of any such offer. "I don't know about any specific talks and the case you are reporting is not true." Provinces for Bases Source say that for the first time the American negotiators did not insist on the "minus-Mullah Omer" formula, which had been the main hurdle in previous talks between the two sides. The Americans reportedly offered Taliban a form of power-sharing in return for accepting the presence of foreign troops. "America wants 8 army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of Al-Qaeda network," the senior official said. He named the possible hosts of the bases as Mazar-e-Sharif and Badakshan in north, Kandahar in south, Kabul, Herat in west, Jalalabad in northeast and Ghazni and Faryab in central Afghanistan. In exchange, the US offered Taliban the governorship of the southern provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Hilmand and Orazgan as well as the northeastern provinces of Nooristan and Kunar. These provinces are the epicenter of resistance against the US-led foreign forces and are considered the strongholds of Taliban. Orazgan and Hilmand are the home provinces of Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Omer and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "But Taliban did not agree on that," said the senior official. "Their demand was that America must give a deadline for its pull out if it wants negotiations to go on." Ahmedi, the Taliban spokesman in southern Afghanistan, confirmed their principal position. "Our point of view is very clear that until and unless foreign forces do not leave Afghanistan, no talks will turn out to be successful." The ruling Taliban were ousted by the United States, which invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Since then, the Taliban have engaged in protracted guerrilla warfare against the US-led foreign troops and the Karzai government. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:19:37 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:19:37 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Obama continues assault on democratic rights Message-ID: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o12.shtml 12 October, 2009 Obama continues assault on democratic rights by Tom Eley and Barry Grey Actions taken by President Barack Obama over the past month have confirmed that he is every bit as committed as his predecessor, George W. Bush, to the expansion of the police powers of the state. Last week, Obama moved to significantly weaken a "media shield" bill advancing through Congress that would give new protection to government whistle-blowers and journalists in cases involving sources who speak with reporters on condition of anonymity. It marked yet another volte-face for Obama, who as a senator championed a similar measure. Congressional and media allies were taken by surprise. The two leading establishment newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, published editorials criticizing Obama's position. "The administration's opposition to the core of this bill came as a complete surprise and doesn't show much concern for compromise," said New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer. "This turns the bill's near-certain passage into an uphill fight." A version of the shield law that has been passed by the House of Representatives allows judges to weigh the public's right to know against considerations of "national security" in instances where the government takes reporters to court to force them to reveal their sources. In opposition to this bill, Obama offered his own version, which would force reporters to reveal their sources whenever the White House claims national security to be at stake. Obama's transparent aim is to intimidate the press and prevent members of the intelligence and defense apparatus from revealing government secrets and crimes. Purported threats to national security "was the constant cry from the Bush administration as the public learned through the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information of prisoner abuse, secret CIA prisons for terrorist suspects and warrantless wiretapping," the New York Times noted. In another effort by the Obama administration to suppress information relating to abuses by the CIA, a federal judge ruled September 30 in favor of the administration's bid to suppress hundreds of documents relating to the intelligence agency's destruction of 92 video tapes of detainees undergoing torture. The American Civil Liberties Union had sued under the Freedom of Information Act for the release of the documents, which also describe interrogation methods used at the CIA's "black sites." Current CIA Director Leon Panetta had argued in court papers that revealing any documentation of agency interrogation methods would threaten national security. Last month, the Obama administration announced that it would seek to extend three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire by year's end. The provisions allow the government to operate roving wire taps, search any individual's business, personal, and even library records upon presentation of a national security letter, and spy on so-called "lone wolf" suspects, i.e., foreign nationals who have no known links to groups designated as terrorist. It now appears that Congress will extend the provisions. The latest moves follow a well-established pattern. Since his inauguration, the candidate of "change" has consistently upheld the anti-democratic policies of the Bush administration: ? The administration announced its intention to continue the practice of rendition, whereby alleged terror suspects are seized and spirited off to third-party countries that practice torture. ? While announcing his intention to shut down the prison camp at Guant?namo Bay, Obama has opposed the habeas corpus lawsuits of prisoners there and rejected habeas corpus rights for prisoners at the infamous US military prison at Bagram in Afghanistan. The administration has also indicated its intention to carry on the practice of indefinite detention without trial. ? Obama has opposed any investigation of high-ranking Bush administration and CIA officials who ordered and oversaw the torture and killing of detainees. In response to the court-ordered release of a CIA inspector general's report that revealed instances of murder, Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, announced a token investigation of a few "rogue agents" who overstepped Bush administration torture guidelines. ? Obama has suppressed the publication of photos depicting the torture, murder, and rape of prisoners, as well as other evidence of Bush administration criminality. ? The White House has invoked the state secrets privilege in an attempt to quash lawsuits by victims of torture and rendition, as well as those filed in opposition to warrentless wire-tapping of US residents. When Obama ran for the presidency, he promised a new era of government openness and said he would curb or reverse the Bush administration's most egregious abuses of democratic rights. He won the election in part because of public opposition to the Bush administration's authorization of police-state methods. However as with foreign policy, which has seen the continuation of the Iraq war and expansion of war and military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and economic policy, which has continued and expanded the government bailout of Wall Street and attacks on the jobs, wages and benefits of workers Obama has continued his predecessor's assault on democratic rights. In the space of 10 months in office, the Democratic administration has confirmed that there remains no serious constituency for the defense of democratic rights in either party or any section of the American political establishment. The continuity between the right-wing policies of the Republican Bush and Democratic Obama administrations demonstrates that militarism and social reaction are not fundamentally a question of the individual traits of presidents, but rather are rooted in the class structure and historical crisis of American capitalism. Obama, no less than Bush, represents the interests of the American financial aristocracy. Internationally, it increasingly employs military aggression in pursuit of its global economic and strategic aims in an attempt to offset the decline in its world economic position. At home, it turns to anti-democratic methods to defend an economic system that promotes staggering levels of inequality and growing social misery for broad masses of working people. The ever more pronounced concentration of wealth at the very top of society and heightening of class tensions are ultimately incompatible with democratic procedures and methods of rule. The trampling of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus is bound up with an awareness in ruling circles that their policies must give rise to social opposition. The police-state framework built up under Bush and Obama is a response by the ruling elite to a threat not from foreign terrorists, but from its main enemy the American working class. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:20:06 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:20:06 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Economic Crisis Hits States and Municipalities Message-ID: http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wolff011109.html Economic Crisis Hits States and Municipalities November 1, 2009 by Rick Wolff Crises expose the system's irrationalities and wasteful resource allocations. For example, Madoff and his many, smaller imitators reveal the tips of corruption icebergs. More important, the crisis-induced fiscal emergencies looming in most of the 50 states demonstrate several absurdities in our economic system. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) in Washington, DC monitors and calculates the gap between the fifty states' tax revenues and expenditures. The following recent CBPP chart compares the total state budget shortfalls in both the last recession and the current one. Today's record shortfalls measure how many billions states will need to raise in additional taxes or cut their expenditures (or combinations of both) in this and coming years. How Bad Will It Get? [see graph] At a time of crisis, while the federal government injects unprecedented stimulus (tax cuts and expenditure increases) into the U.S. economy, the fifty states are doing the opposite. State tax hikes and expenditure reductions will continue to undermine or slow any recovery. Moreover, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Obama's stimulus program) has offset only modest portions of the states' fiscal budget shortfalls for 2009 and 2010. The CBPP estimates that the worst of the budget crisis will hit states in 2011 and 2012. The carnage will total a huge net $260-billion even after allowing for the federal stimulus funds still available then to flow to states. Another way of putting this is to note that the just released third quarter (Q3) of 2009 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) number was lower than it would have been without the depressing effect of the fifty states' tax hikes and expenditure cuts. We saw states and municipalities spend 1.1% less in Q3 than they had in Q2, despite rising need. State taxes are generally more regressive than the federal income tax and so fall relatively harder on middle and lower income groups. Likewise, state expenditures tend more immediately to impact those same groups since they include major supports for public education and myriad social programs. The negative economic effect of the states' fiscal crises will heavily impact the mass of U.S. citizens already angered by high unemployment and foreclosure rates as they observe trillions of bailout dollars flowing to banks and corporations 'too big to fail.' The CBPP also studied what kinds of budget decisions the states have already made because of the crisis. Key findings include the following: * 27 states have reduced health benefits for low-income children and families; * 25 states are cutting aid to K-12 schools and other educational programs; * 34 states have cut assistance to state colleges and universities; * 26 states have instituted hiring freezes; * 13 states have announced layoffs; and * 22 states have reduced state workers' wages. Since the worst of the states' budget shortfalls lies ahead, we can expect all of these numbers to deteriorate further. These state actions not only undercut the federal government's short-term stimulus goals; they also impose long-term costs on the economy in the diminished health and education of the U.S. workforce. Just when the mass of Americans need more help and support from their state governments, our economic system provides them with less. This raises the human and fiscal costs of the crisis. If the states represent a fiscal train wreck, then the nation's cities and towns represent another train not far behind and hurtling toward the wreck. The basic revenue for U.S. cities and towns comes from property taxes on land, homes, stores, factories, offices, and automobiles. As the prices of most of those properties fall, eventually the local property tax revenues from them also fall. Reassessing those property values usually takes a few years. Thus, the likely drop in tax revenues for cities and towns will only hit over the next few years. Their fiscal distress will then pressure them to raise tax rates, cut expenditures, or both. Doing so will counteract what the federal government is trying to do for the economy thereby worsening what the states are already doing. The depth and duration of this crisis has thus only begun to bite deeply into the economy. Its negative social consequences, in the short and long runs, are rising fast. Recent GDP numbers point to the ability of torrents of deficit spending (and a fall in the U.S. dollar's exchange rate with other major currencies) temporarily to lift the total volume of sales. However, the much touted GDP numbers for the second half of 2009 do not represent beneficial economic change for the mass of citizens. For those who are willing to look beyond the usual economic blinders, here's an old suggestion that only seems new because of the effective ban put on public discussion for so long. At the present time, the vast majority of U.S. states and municipalities exempt intangible property from property taxes. That is, stocks and bonds are kinds of property not subject to the taxes on other kinds of property (land, houses, etc.). If we imposed a very low rate of property tax on intangible property, it would cover the present and anticipated fiscal shortfalls of U.S. cities, towns, and states. Moreover, an intangible property tax would fall on those most able to pay, those who fared best since the 1970s as the gap between rich and poor widened sharply. If coordinated across all states and cities (perhaps levied and collected by Washington and then returned to states and municipalities), intangible property owners would have no incentive to move it from one place to another. In short, an intangible property tax is a logical as well as long-overdue reduction in the unfairness of a property tax system that exempts just that kind of property - stocks and bonds - mostly held by the richest citizens. Indeed, an intangible property tax could exempt, say, the first $150,000 of intangible property per person to avoid hurting small owners and compensate by a progressive intangible property tax schedule for all the larger owners. By falling most on the wealthiest among us, it would have a significantly less negative impact on total spending than broad-based state and local tax increases or public expenditure cuts. An intangible property tax thus represents the best state and local response to the current crisis, minimizing its long-term costs and bringing some justice to the tax system. * Rick Wolff is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:20:16 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:20:16 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Half of US kids will get food stamps, study says Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202518.html?hpid=sec-nation Half of US kids will get food stamps, study says By LINDSEY TANNER The Associated Press???????? November 2, 2009 CHICAGO -- Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood, and fallout from the current recession could push those numbers even higher, researchers say. The estimate comes from an analysis of 30 years of national data, and it bolsters other recent evidence on the pervasiveness of youngsters at economic risk. It suggests that almost everyone knows a family who has received food stamps, or will in the future, said lead author Mark Rank, a sociologist at Washington University in St. Louis. "Your neighbor may be using some of these programs but it's not the kind of thing people want to talk about," Rank said. The analysis was released Monday in the November issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. The authors say it's a medical issue pediatricians need to be aware of because children on food stamps are at risk for malnutrition and other ills linked with poverty. "This is a real danger sign that we as a society need to do a lot more to protect children," Rank said. Food stamps are a Department of Agriculture program for low-income individuals and families, covering most foods although not prepared hot foods or alcohol. For a family of four to be eligible, their annual take-home pay can't exceed about $22,000. According to a USDA report released last month, 28.4 million Americans received food stamps in an average month in 2008, and about half were younger than age 18. The average monthly benefit per household totaled $222. Rank and Cornell University sociologist Thomas Hirschl studied data from a nationally representative survey of 4,800 American households interviewed annually from 1968 through 1997 by the University of Michigan. About 18,000 adults and children were involved. Overall, about 49 percent of all children were on food stamps at some point by the age of 20, the analysis found. That includes 90 percent of black children and 37 percent of whites. The analysis didn't include other ethnic groups. The time span included typical economic ups and downs, including the early 1980s recession. That means similar portions of children now and in the future will live in families receiving food stamps, although ongoing economic turmoil may increase the numbers, Rank said. An editorial in the medical journal agreed. "The current recession is likely to generate for children in the United States the greatest level of material deprivation that we will see in our professional lifetimes," Stanford pediatrician Dr. Paul Wise wrote. Wise said the Archives study estimate is believable. "I find it terribly sad, but not surprising," Wise said. James Weill, president of Food Research and Action Center, a Washington-based advocacy group, said the analysis underscores that "there are just very large numbers of people who rely on this program for a month, six months, a year." "What I hope comes out of this study is an understanding that food stamp beneficiaries aren't them - they're us," Weill said. The analysis is in line with other recent research suggesting that more than 40 percent of U.S. children will live in poverty or near-poverty by age 17; and that half will live at some point in a single-parent family. Also, other researchers have estimated that slightly more than half of adults will use food stamps at some point by age 65. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:20:54 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:20:54 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Cuba: UN for the 18th consecutive year demands end to US blockade Message-ID: http://links.org.au/node/1324 Cuba: UN for the 18th consecutive year demands end to US blockade 28 October 2009 United Nations General Assembly GA/10877 Department of Public Information ? News and Media Division ? New York UN General Assembly, for 18th consecutive year, overwhelmingly calls for end to the US economic, trade embargo against Cuba Vote: 187 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions; Even though many delegates expressed a newfound optimism that United States-Cuba relations could improve with the change of Administration in Washington, the United Nations General Assembly today once again adopted a stern resolution calling on the United States to end a trade embargo, which had created human suffering and wrecked havoc with the economy of the island nation. With a recorded vote of 187 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United States and Palau), and 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands), the 192-Member Assembly in its resolution urged the lifting of stiff commercial, financial and economic sanctions that were slapped on Cuba in the aftermath of the cold war.? This marked the eighteenth year the world body had adopted a similar resolution on the issue.? (See Annex.) As happened last year, a burst of applause greeted the Assembly?s passage of text that reaffirmed the sovereign equality of States, the non-intervention and non-interference in their affairs, and the freedom of international trade and navigation.? The two-page document again called upon all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures such as that promulgated in the 1996 ?Helms-Burton Act? which carried extraterritorial effects that impacted the sovereignty of other States. Introducing the resolution on the Cuban trade embargo, Bruno Rodriguez Parrila, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, called the blockade an ?uncultured act of arrogance? that had hampered the development of Cuba?s economy and was also applied to other countries that wanted to carry out business with the Caribbean nation.? He said it was an ?absurd policy? that caused suffering and led to shortages of basic necessities.? The embargo was a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights.? In the Geneva Convention of 1948, it was classified as an act of genocide, he added. With executive powers, President Obama had an historical opportunity to lead a policy change and lift the blockade.? He was vested with the executive powers to substantially modify the implementation of the measures by granting ?special license? or waivers, making humanitarian exceptions, or acting for the sake of the United States national interests. Full: http://links.org.au/node/1324 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:21:39 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:21:39 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Gunmen Kill Union Leader in Mexico Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/world/americas/01mexico.html?_r=1 Gunmen Kill Union Leader in Mexico By ELISABETH MALKIN Published: October 31, 2009 MEXICO CITY ? Gunmen ambushed a peasant union leader and his family in northern Mexico, killing him and 14 others in an attack that bore the hallmarks of a hit by drug cartels but one that his organization said might have been related to his union work. The victims, who included four children, were leaving a ranch in the northern state of Sonora on Friday afternoon when the gunmen opened fire with AK-47s on a convoy of three trucks, according to one of the three survivors, the state police said. The union leader, Margarito Montes Parra, 56, had built up a powerful organization spanning several states to demand land rights and press for government support of peasants. The group, the Worker, Peasant and Popular General Union, is based in the southern state of Oaxaca, and a leader there said Mr. Montes?s killing was linked to his work. ?There is evidence to believe that he was executed by someone who never agreed with our struggle,? Karina Bar?n, who runs the union?s Oaxaca office, told local newspapers. Battles over land rights in Mexico?s countryside have a history of violence but have also become entangled in drug violence as the country?s cartels have fought for control over territory. Although his group is most active in Oaxaca and the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz, Mr. Montes had been working for the last decade in Sonora, where his organization had been involved in land disputes with the Yaqui Indians. He had also been organizing fishermen in Sonora. His son, Adrian, was killed two years ago in Sonora in a murder that investigators linked to drug cartels. The police said they were investigating whether the killings on Friday were linked to that murder. At the time, Mr. Montes accused the governor of Sonora, Eduardo Bours, of protecting his son?s killers. Four years ago, Mr. Montes accused authorities in the state of Veracruz of protecting drug traffickers, arguing that killings linked to drug violence had been made to appear to be the result of agrarian conflicts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:21:50 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:21:50 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Mexico's Union Bust Reveals Flaws in NAFTA Message-ID: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6519 Mexico's Union Bust Reveals Flaws in NAFTA Laura Carlsen | October 22, 2009 Fernando Lopez woke up on a Sunday morning out of a job. For the electrical worker, the feeling was terrifying. "From one day to the next, they left us with no job ??? nothing," Lopez said, as he marched alongside some 200,000 fellow workers and their supporters in downtown Mexico City on October 15. On the night of Saturday, October 10, thousands of soldiers and federal police moved into position in the darkness. After cutting fences and forcing out the workers, they occupied over 50 installations of the state-owned utility company, Central Light and Power (Luz y Fuerza), awaiting the administrative blow that would follow. At midnight, President Felipe Calderon issued an executive decree to liquidate the company and its union, the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas ??? SME), one of the strongest and most vocal independent unions in the nation. The move had been carefully prepared by the government. Troop movements throughout the central part of the country serviced by Central Light went unnoticed under cover of the massive mobilization of security forces fighting the militarized drug war. The decree follows a union conflict that the government fueled and then took advantage of to eliminate the company and its union. Union elections last June were contested amid rumors that the federal government was actively fomenting division. In a warning sign, on October 5 the Secretary of Labor, Javier Lozano, rejected registration of the new union leadership without waiting for a decision from the labor tribunal. The "Sabadazo," or Saturday Offensive, took place when the union and the government were still in talks. NAFTA and the Battle Over Who Will Pay For the Crisis I talked to Lopez because of the simple poignancy of the bright green sign he carried: "President Calderon ??? Your children eat well. Mine don't." Similar signs read, "And now what do I do? What will my family eat?" Marchers revealed that the political issues of privatization and opposition to the Calderon government are prominent in the movement but above all, workers feel that their very survival is under attack. The ravenous right has set out to prove that it's not the rich who will pay for the crisis. One of the arguments for eliminating Central Light and its union was that it employed too many people, making it "inefficient." For the Calderon government, offering decent employment to more than 40,000 families is a crime in a year when unemployment has doubled and nearly 800,000 Mexican workers have lost jobs due to the crisis. The Mexican economy is at a crossroads as it faces a multi-billion dollar deficit this year. Due to its heavy dependency on the U.S. economy under NAFTA, it is the hardest hit country in Latin America and predicts a 7.5% drop in GDP for 2009. The number of poor has increased above pre-NAFTA levels, leaving millions more families in poverty, while the unemployment rate has doubled. The congressional leader of Calderon's National Action Party, Mario Alberto Becerra, estimated that even after doling out severance pay, the government will save money through the reduced costs of operating Central Light. The government plans to use some of that money for hand-out programs for the poor, a model it considers preferable to maintaining unionized workers in jobs. Treasury Secretary Agustin Carstens announced that the 42,000 SME workers will be replaced with 10,000 new hires. He didn't say any would be hired back; the message was clear ??? union members need not apply. Obama promised a renegotiation of NAFTA to incorporate the toothless labor side agreement into the text and integrate core International Labor Organization principles in defense of workers' rights. At the recent Summit of North American Leaders he said that the promise has been placed on the back burner. But that burner seems to be turned off. At an October 19 meeting between trade representatives of the three NAFTA nations, they reaffirmed their commitment to the trade agreement with no mention of renegotiation. Unionized workers are not the only ones who suffer. NAFTA has displaced some two million Mexican small farmers in the countryside due to competition with U.S. agricultural imports. A recent ruling of a NAFTA tribunal delivered a record ruling of $77.3 million to Cargill Incorporated to compensate the company for a government program that blocked the use of corn syrup to save Mexico's sugar industry ??? an industry heavily protected in the United States. NAFTA's investment provisions (known as "Chapter 11") allow corporations to sue governments under special tribunals as one of the many privileges offered transnational corporations under the agreement. This obscene ruling to one of the world's wealthiest agrobusinesses illustrates the priorities of NAFTA and the constant erosion of worker's rights and livelihoods. When NAFTA was being negotiated in the early 90s, many U.S. unions still considered Mexican workers the enemy of their members as unfair competition in an increasingly globalized workforce. That attitude has now changed. An October 15 declaration of the AFL-CIO states: On behalf of over 11 million working women and men of the United States, the AFL-CIO condemns this unilateral action by the Mexican authorities, which effectively destroys the SME and the trade union rights of the Luz y Fuerza workers. Regrettably, the Mexican Government has employed similar acts of intervention and repression against the Mexican Miners and Metalworkers Union. The AFL-CIO supports the following demands of the SME and of the Luz y Fuerza workers to reverse this egregious act of union-busting and violation of internationally recognized standards of freedom of association and collective bargaining: 1) a revocation of the government decree unilaterally liquidating the company; 2) an end to the occupation of the power plants by the Federal Police; 3) the implementation of good-faith negotiations between the Mexican Government and the Union on the relevant financial and administrative issues." The Road to Privatization Studies have revealed that the Central Light Company hasn't been funded for years, in preparation to make the case that it's nonfunctional. A 2005 report showed that the company had not installed new generating capacity since 1974. Privatization of the parastate company lurks behind the liquidation on October 10. Marchers carried signs that warned "Today it's us ??? tomorrow PEMEX [the national oil company] and SEP [the education system]," and "No to privatization." The Central Light Company leases over a thousand kilometers of fiber optic cable in its electrical network that it planned to offer to consumers in a "triple play" package. This combined service of electricity, telephone, internet and cable threatened existing economic interests and lucrative future contracts in the private sector. Although the Calderon administration has said it isn't privatizing the state-owned enterprise, SME leader Martin Esparza revealed that two former secretaries of energy, Fernando Canales Clarion and Ernesto Martens, have formed a private company to use the publicly funded LFC fiber-optic network for internet and voice services, called WL Communications. Esparza reports that the businessmen have already negotiated government discounts and subsidies for the lucrative enterprise. For now, Central Light has been fused with the Federal Electricity Commission that manages services in the rest of the country. The suspicion is that the consolidated state-owned utility, stripped of a feisty union that rejected both privatization and the erosion of worker rights, will eventually be privatized. Pressures to privatize state-owned enterprises, including the oil company PEMEX and aspects of the education system, have characterized the Calderon administration and those of his predecessors from the PAN political party. The pattern is familiar ??? the majority of Mexico's billionaires made their initial fortunes off state privatizations under scandalous terms during the Salinas administration and since then they have formed a powerful lobby for further privatizations, along with international finance institutions like the World Bank. SME member Juan Carlos Saucedo notes that the struggle to regain the company and the union "is just beginning." But it will be an uphill battle. The union has demanded a legal review of the measure and insisted that it violates the Mexican Constitution. It is currently working with other unions to possibly call a general strike. Following the mega-march, the federal government agreed to open up dialogue with the union, but the talks were broken off on October 19. The government discarded any future possibility for negotiations on reversing the presidential decree and the union declared the dialogue a "farce," since for them preserving their jobs is the top priority. As SME member Apolinar Romero stated at the march, the issue at hand goes beyond income for workers and rests on "what kind of future we will leave our children." A unilateral move to eliminate a union and a state-owned company sets a terrible precedent for union-busting in the nation. Interviews in the Mexican press with government officials reveal that the obliteration of the union was carefully planned for over six months. The Calderon government was just looking for the chance. Ironically, it was the profound economic crisis in Mexico that provided the Calderon administration with its opportunity. 76,000 businesses have closed their doors over the past months. The Mexican daily La Jornada reports that 2.8 million workers have lost their jobs in the Calderon administration. For families living on the edge, the blow against the union places them between a rock and a hard place. Members of the National Association of Democratic Lawyers and the Latin American Association of Labor Lawyers stated in a press conference on October 18 that the decree violates 25 clauses of the Mexican Constitution and urged workers to file injunctions against the measure instead of accepting severance pay. But each day that passes with no wages sees more workers accepting the government's severance offer. The administration has launched a campaign to malign the union, implying that the union members had manipulated cushy jobs at the expense of consumers. Consumers know the administrative problems of Central Light, with unexplained charges in light bills and impossible bureaucracies. These administrative problems could easily have been solved long ago, but by analyzing administrative faults and revamping systems ??? not liquidating the company and its union. Official statistics show that union members made an average of around $500 dollars a month, and 20,000 members earn below this level, hardly a princely wage. What the union did manage to achieve for its members in democratic processes and benefits was an example for Mexican unions. The real question is who will pay for the crisis. The Calderon administration tried to force through a tax on basic foods and medicines in the federal budget ??? another move to make the poor pay for the inordinate wealth and privilege of the elite in a vastly unequal nation. It was blocked at the last minute. The U.S. government, instead of helping to provide jobs and labor protections as Mexico sinks into the deepest crisis in recent history, has concentrated aid in the Merida Initiative to corrupt Mexican armed forces and police through the war on drugs. It also continues to support NAFTA's skewed terms. It's time to develop a more integral and humane binational relationship and renegotiate NAFTA. The long-term effects of allowing this crisis to erode labor rights and further impoverish an already stricken nation will only lead to instability throughout the region. Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen (at) ciponline (dot) org) is director of the Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org) for the Center for International Policy in Mexico City. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:21:59 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:21:59 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap Continues Rapid Retreat Message-ID: (see article URL for links to studies) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/africa/03melt.html?_r=2&hp Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap Continues Rapid Retreat Mount Kilimanjaro's top, shown in June, has lost 26 percent of its ice since 2000, a study says. By SINDYA N. BHANOO Published: November 2, 2009 The ice atop Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania has continued to retreat rapidly, declining 26 percent since 2000, scientists say in a new report. Yet the authors of the study, to be published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reached no consensus on whether the melting could be attributed mainly to humanity?s role in warming the global climate. Eighty-five percent of the ice cover that was present in 1912 has vanished, the scientists said. To measure the recent pace of the retreat, researchers relied on data from aerial photographs taken of Kilimanjaro over time and from stakes and instruments installed on the mountaintop in 2000, said Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and one of the study?s authors. The photographs measure horizontal shrinkage of the ice, and the stakes indicate the reduction in depth. Both are decreasing at the same rate, Dr. Hardy said. Researchers studying the mountaintop, including those involved in this study, differ in their conclusions on how much of the melting could result from human activity or other climatological influences. The lead author of the study, Lonnie G. Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, has concluded that the melting of recent years is unique. In 2000 he extracted deep cylinders of ice from Kilimanjaro?s glaciers and found that the higher layers were full of elongated bubbles ? signs that melting and refreezing had occurred in recent years. There was no presence of the bubbles in the deeper layers of the cores, Dr. Thompson said. If his dating of the ice core layers is accurate, surface melting like that seen in recent years has not occurred over the last 11,700 years. But Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the Institute for Geography of the University of Innsbruck in Austria, said that the ice measured was only a few hundred years old and that it had come and gone over centuries. What is more, he suggested that the recent melting had more to do with a decline in moisture levels than with a warming atmosphere. ?Our understanding is that it is due to the slow drying out of ice,? Dr. Kaser said. ?It?s about moisture fluctuation.? But Dr. Thompson emphasized that the melting of ice atop Mount Kilimanjaro was paralleled by retreats in ice fields elsewhere in Africa as well as in South America, Indonesia and the Himalayas. ?It?s when you put those together that the evidence becomes very compelling,? he said. Cabinet to Meet on Mt. Everest KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) ? Nepal?s cabinet will hold a meeting on Mount Everest to highlight the threat from global warming, which is causing glaciers to melt in the Himalayas, an official said Monday. The cabinet will meet at the Everest base camp this month, just before an international climate change conference in December in Copenhagen, said Deepak Bohara, the forest and soil conservation minister. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and other cabinet members will fly by plane to the 17,400-foot camp, the starting point for mountaineers trying to climb the world?s highest mountain. Last month, the cabinet of Maldives donned scuba gear and held an underwater meeting to highlight the threat of global warming to that nation, the world?s lowest. A version of this article appeared in print on November 3, 2009, on page A6 of the New York edition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 07:22:08 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:22:08 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] New petition re: privatization of Winnipeg's Water Department Message-ID: Subject: New Water Watch Petition - Please circulate widely! Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:56:45 -0600 From: Mary LeMaitre Greetings! Please sign the Water Watch petition opposing the city's plan to choose a multi-national company as a private partner who would receive up to 49% of shares in our waste water services. The Water Watch petition can be found in English and French at www.insidethebottle.org Please circulate widely to your networks and friends and ask everyone you know if they have signed it yet. We need hundreds of thousands of signatures if we are to stop the city from taking on a private partner for our water and waste water services. Please note that this is not the same petition that went around in July which asked that city not vote on the project until the public was properly consulted. 7,000 signatures were collected in one week and presented to city council. They voted it in anyway. That is why, if we hope to stop them, we need lots of signatures. There is also a hard copy of the petition on the site for those who would like to collect signatures. If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to email me. Dr. Mary LeMa?tre, Development & Peace Chair, Archdiocese of Winnipeg, and Water Watch Fran?ais - Bonjour! Comme vous savez, la ville cherche activement un partenaire priv? pour qui recevrait jusqu'? 49% des actions de nos services d'eaux us?es. Veuillez signer la p?tition suivante disant que vous ?tes contre ce projet: http://www.insidethebottle.org/p-tition-dites-non-un-partenaire-priv-pour-nos-services-d-eau-et-nos-services-des-eaux-us-es Une copie papier de la p?tition est disponible ?: ? www.insidethebottle.org? Veuillez noter que cette p?tition n'est pas la m?me qui circulait en juillet qui demandait que le conseil municipal ne vote pas sur ce projet avant de bien consulter le public. En juillet avons eu 7,000 signatures en une semaine et les avons pr?sent?es au coneil municipal. Ils ont vot? quand m?me pour ce projet. Voil? pourquoi nous voudrions avoir 500,000 signatures. SVP envoyez ce courriel ? tous vos r?seaux et ? tous vos amis et demandez ? tout le monde s'ils ont sign? la p?tition sur nos services d'eau. N'h?sitez pas ? l'afficher sur votre compte Facebook! N'h?sitez pas ? me contacter si vous voulez de plus amples renseignements! Dr. Mary LeMa?tre, Pr?sidente de D?veloppement & Paix,? l'Archidioc?se de Winnipeg, et Water Watch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 3 10:45:24 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:45:24 +0100 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Starts with candy, ends in napalm Message-ID: http://mondediplo.com/2009/11/01afpak Le Monde diplomatique November 01, 2009 A war that can?t be won Starts with candy, ends in napalm by Serge Halimi Barack Obama once described the operations in Afghanistan as a ?necessary war?. That war has lasted eight years and General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the US forces there, appointed by Obama, is urging him to deploy 40,000 more troops. In Indochina, the US supported corrupt and illegitimate puppet governments, to no avail. In Afghanistan, Britain and the Soviet Union failed to subdue the country, despite all their efforts. US military losses have been relatively small (880 since 2001, compared with 1,200 a month in Vietnam in 1968) and anti-war protests have been low-key, but have the western armies any chance of winning, lost in mountains, surrounded by drug traffickers (1), and suspected of crusading against Islam? The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner still hopes to ?win hearts and minds with a bullet-proof vest? (2) and McChrystal assures the world that ?the American goal in Afghanistan must not be primarily to hunt down and kill Taliban insurgents but to protect the population? (3). Apart from their cynicism, these statements are based on a common assumption that social development can be combined with military operations in a country where it is impossible to distinguish between insurgents and civilians. In Vietnam, the US journalist Andrew Kopkind summed up this kind of ?counter-insurgency? in 1966 as ?candy in the morning, napalm in the afternoon?. Washington appreciated the strength of Afghan nationalist and religious forces when, with American aid, they drained the Soviet Union. The US may have no hope of decisively beating them now, but it would like to weaken the loose links between the Taliban and al-Qaida militants (4). After all, Washington?s reason for deploying troops and drones in central Asia following the attacks on 11 September 2001 was to destroy al-Qaida, not to secure an education for Afghan girls. If Obama, the latest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, resists the neoconservative call for military escalation, he will have to explain to the US public that it is rarely possible to secure happiness by bombing the people; that there are now only a handful of Osama bin Laden?s followers in Afghanistan; and that US security will not be threatened if an understanding is reached with the less extremist wing of the Taliban (see Culture wars in Afghanistan). Russia, China, India and Pakistan have no interest in perpetuating this serious regional tension and might help to arrange a negotiated settlement. To sacrifice a life for ?democracy? in a foreign country is a challenge, but to die for Hamid Karzai? And to do so when General McChrystal admits that the ?mayor of Kabul?, hanging on to office by electoral fraud, has actually managed to make many Afghans feel ?nostalgic for the security and justice Taliban rule provided?. These questions seem to be of no concern to European leaders, although 31,000 British, German, French, Italian and other European troops are fighting alongside the US forces. Now, more than ever, Nato decisions are taken in Washington. In Paris, President Sarkozy recently announced that France ?will not send one soldier more?, and then added: ?Is it necessary to stay in Afghanistan? I say yes. And to stay to win? (5). Buried in a two-page interview, his statement attracted no comment, perhaps the kindest response. Translated by Barbara Wilson (1) Afghanistan accounts for 93% of heroin production worldwide. See Ahmed Rashid, ?The Afghanistan Impasse?, New York Review of Books, 8 October 2009. See also the map, ?L?opium, principale production afghane?, on the French Monde diplomatique website. (2) Canal +, 18 October 2009. (3) Le Figaro, Paris, 29 September 2009. (4) See Syed Saleem Shahzad, ?Al-Qaida: the unwanted guests?, Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, July 2007. (5) Le Figaro, Paris, 16 October 2009. S?gol?ne Royal joined in, declaring that the war in Afghanistan must and would be won. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 07:59:59 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:59:59 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Economic downturn quiets labor unions Message-ID: <> <> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/03/economic-downturn-quiets-labor-unions/ Tuesday, November 3, 2009 Economic downturn quiets labor unions By Stephen Dinan Labor peace has broken out across the country, and all it took was the nastiest recession since the end of World War II to spawn it. Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers show major work stoppages ? defined as those when 1,000 workers or more go on strike or are locked out ? dropped 95 percent this year compared with last year and are at their lowest level since the government began keeping a tally in the 1940s. "It is the economy. Right now, people are just desperately holding onto their jobs," said Charles B. Craver, a labor law professor at George Washington University. Labor unions have been in decline for decades as a percentage of the work force and have been losing power over that time, but they had hoped an Obama presidency could help them recover lost ground. For now, though, it appears that test will have to wait until after the economy rebounds and employers and employees are ready to start sparring again. "I think you can say that everybody's anxious to keep labor peace right now with the economy being where it is and employment where it is," said Gordon Pavy, the AFL-CIO's director of collective bargaining. Previous recessions saw drops in work stoppages, but nothing like the complete halt of this current recession. >From November 2008 through May, BLS didn't record a single major work stoppage, and since May, there have been just three. Altogether, just 73,500 workdays have been lost to major stoppages through September. In the first nine months of 2008, there had been 14 major strikes or lockouts, costing 1.4 million workdays. Mr. Pavy said not to draw long-term conclusions about the health of collective bargaining from these numbers. He said stoppages go in cycles and part of the explanation for the current drop is that there aren't many big contracts up this year. He also said most of the big stoppages usually occur in manufacturing, such as the automobile industry. But workers at General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC agreed to no-strike clauses through 2015 as part of the government bailout. Another complication is that unions are doing best among government workers at the federal, state and local levels, where 36.8 percent are unionized, according to BLS statistics for 2008. In the private sector, just 7.6 percent are. Indeed, unions in 2008 experienced a rare overall membership uptick, primarily because of an increase in public-sector unionization. However, many government employees, such as police and firefighters, are prevented from striking because they are deemed essential public safety employees. Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation, which defends workers' freedom not to join unions, said unions' tactics have changed as well. He said members want to shy away from confrontational stoppages, and the organizers have listened. As a result, picket lines more often are for unions trying to get new businesses organized and add new members, rather than lines of workers on strike against an employer. "There's basically zero incentive for unions maybe to call these types of strikes over wages and things like that. That just means they're not going to collect dues if the workers go out on strike, versus the way to keep the ATM paying is workers keep working," Mr. Semmens said. Mr. Craver also sees a broader trend in underlying balances of power. The numbers bear it out: In the 1970s, more than 250 million workdays were lost to work stoppages. That dropped to less than 120 million work days in the 1980s, about 46 million in the 1990s, and to about 37 million nearing the end of this decade. "What it really demonstrates to me is the tremendous shift in power from what used to be the power unions had, and the workers, to the power of the employer," Mr. Craver said. He said that balance-of-power debate is spilling into Congress in the fight over the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill unions have deemed their top priority because it would make it easier for unions to form. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 13:00:42 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:00:42 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 72% of Hungarians say economic situation better under communism Message-ID: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125717785492623069.html EUROPE NEWS NOVEMBER 4, 2009 In Eastern Bloc, Wary View of Democracy By CHARLES FORELLE People who lived behind the Iron Curtain are substantially happier with life 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but express reservations about democracy, capitalism and their lot in the modern market economy, a new survey reports. Fewer than a third of Ukrainians approve of the change to multiparty democracy, according to a wide-ranging poll by the Pew Research Center. In Russia, a majority mourns the Soviet Union, and nearly half say there ought to be a Russian empire. In every former Soviet bloc country polled, fewer people now support the shift to capitalism than in 1991. Seventy-two percent of Hungarians say their economic situation was better under the Communists. The survey comes amid a financial crisis that is straining the adolescent market economies of the old Eastern bloc, and its findings reflect mixed -- and sometimes paradoxical -- attitudes in Russia and Eastern Europe. Overall, majorities -- albeit some slender ones -- in every country but Ukraine approve of the shift to democracy. Ethnic hostilities, while persistent, have generally declined, and majorities or pluralities in all countries except Hungary and Ukraine welcome capitalism. But significant worries remain about corruption, judicial fairness and the privileges of the rich and well-connected. Older people are far more wary of the new systems than their younger compatriots. In one paradox, most nations are generally more favorably disposed toward immigrants than in 1991 -- but also support tighter immigration controls. In spring 1991, amid the early, turbulent moments of the East's emergence from communism, Pew's predecessor, the Times Mirror Center, surveyed 12,569 people in nine countries (the U.K., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain) and three Soviet republics (Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine). This fall, the Pew center returned to those places. In some ways, the Eastern countries have converged with Western ones. Opinions on the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are generally favorable everywhere except Hungary and the U.K., which are both sour on the EU. In other areas, a gap remains. Roughly twice as many people in the East disapprove of ethnic and religious diversity as do their counterparts in France, Spain, Germany and the U.K. (Italy, where 84% have an unfavorable view of Gypsies, is a Western exception.) In the former Eastern bloc, the financial crisis has amplified disparities: The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, which have weathered the turbulence relatively well, are most welcoming of democracy and capitalism. However, battered Hungary, Ukraine and Lithuania are still trying to claw their way back. Hungary is a notable outlier. Support for capitalism was 80% in 1991; it is now 46%. Recession has worsened discontent with the government. "What people think of capitalism and democracy is very strongly linked to what people think of the government," says M?rk Szab? of the Perspective Institute in Budapest. His firm's polls show more than half of Hungarians don't believe the government can handle the crisis. Hungarians' dismay with the market economy has been mounting for years, Mr. Szab? says, as it becomes clearer that promised social benefits can't be sustained. [see BAR GRAPH] ?James Marson contributed to this article. Write to Charles Forelle at charles.forelle at wsj.com Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11 From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 13:11:20 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:20 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Interview with Malalai Joya Message-ID: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-04/afghans-bravest-wants-us-out/ The Daily Beast November 4, 2009 Women of Influence: Malalai Joya Michelle Goldberg Many Afghan women are against a U.S. pullout, but Malalai Joya, who?s been called ?the bravest woman in Afghanistan,? says the American occupation must end. She tells The Daily Beast?s Michelle Goldberg why. Malalai Joya, a 31-year-old activist and politician, was once called ?the bravest woman in Afghanistan? by the BBC. During the Taliban years, she defied her country?s rulers by running underground girls? schools. After the Taliban?s fall, she helped start an orphanage and a medical clinic, and eventually became the youngest member of Afghanistan?s legislature. She has been fearless in taking on the warlords who populate the government of Hamid Karzai?declared the presidential victor Monday after a runoff election was canceled?so much so that in 2007, her political opponents voted to suspend her from parliament on the grounds that she had ?insulted? the institution. Calling for her reinstatement, six female Nobel Peace Prize laureates compared her to Burma?s Aung San Suu Kyi, describing her as ?a model for women everywhere seeking to make the world more just.? The Afghan government is ?a group of warlords, criminals, who [waged the] civil war in Afghanistan from ?92 to ?96. They are photocopies of Taliban, but with suit and tie, talking about democracy.? So when Joya inveighs against the American occupation of her country, we should take her voice seriously. ?My message on behalf of my people to [the] great American people is that democracy never comes by barrel of gun, by cluster bomb, by war,? she told me during a recent interview in New York, her words rushing out in an impassioned torrent. ?They say war of Iraq is bad war, war of Afghanistan is good war, while both are war. You should raise your voice against the wrong policy of your government.? Joya is touring the United States to promote her new book, A Woman Among the Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice. The volume is both an autobiography and a damning indictment of the Karzai regime and its American backers. It offers a perspective that?s particularly salient right now, as the U.S. debates its future in Afghanistan. Many liberals are turning against the war, but worry that pulling out will abandon Afghans, particularly Afghan women, to the ravages of a Taliban takeover. They may be right?there are plenty of Afghan women speaking out strongly against a pullout. Still, Joya shows that the feminist case for staying in Afghanistan is far from clear-cut. Joya is barely 5 feet tall?she swims in her pantsuit?but her presence is arresting and authoritative. Educated largely in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, she never had the opportunity to go to college, but she?s a book-loving autodidact who quotes Bertholt Brecht as often as she cites Afghan proverbs. Her English is slightly broken but still impressive?she has a rich vocabulary of epithets to describe Afghanistan?s current government, which, she insists is no better than the Taliban regime it replaced. After Sept. 11, 2001, she says, when it was clear there would be war, liberal-minded Afghans harbored hopes that the United States and NATO would ?bring positive changes, especially [because] they came to Afghanistan under the banner of women?s rights, human rights, democracy.? Instead, she says, the U.S. and its allies ?replaced one fascist regime, Taliban, these misogynist terrorists, with another group of warlords, criminals, who [waged the] civil war in Afghanistan from ?92 to ?96. They are photocopies of Taliban, but with suit and tie, talking about democracy.? Joya rejects the argument that NATO troops are the only thing standing in the way of a Taliban takeover. In fact, she says, the widespread civilian deaths caused by American bombs are fueling the Taliban?s growing grassroots strength. Increasingly, she says, Afghans speculate that the United States is deliberately killing innocent civilians as revenge for the innocent American civilians killed on Sept. 11. ?We are between two powerful enemies,? she says. ?We are fighting against occupation, and also against Taliban and warlords who now negotiate with each other. So with the withdrawal of one enemy, these occupation forces whose government is giving more money and power to these terrorists? it?s much easier to fight against one enemy instead of two.? To be sure, Joya doesn?t speak for all Afghan women. Indeed, many Afghan women?s rights activists and their American supporters express terror at what would await them after an American withdrawal. The Afghan human-rights activist Wazhma Frogh recently wrote in The Washington Post, ?As an Afghan woman who for many years lived a life deprived of the most basic human rights, I find unbearable the thought of what will happen to the women of my country if it once again falls under the control of the insurgents and militants who now threaten it.? Women for Afghan Women, an NGO that runs counseling centers and domestic-violence shelters in Afghanistan, recently put out a statement saying, ?Women for Afghan Women deeply regrets having a position in favor of maintaining, even increasing troops? We predict that if Afghanistan falls again to the Taliban, we will once more see on our high-definition TV screens, in the comfort of our American homes, women and girls being hauled into the Kabul football stadium to be beaten and executed for having committed acts that would not be considered criminal by any international human-rights laws, including those signed by Afghanistan.? Sunita Viswanath, one of the board members of Women for Afghan Women, is immensely frustrated by those on the left who are calling for the occupation?s end. ?I want the answer to [this] question,? she says. ?What do they think will happen to women and girls?? Joya?s response is to argue that outside parts of Kabul, women?s situations are as bad as they ever were, and it?s getting worse. ?It is as catastrophic as it was under the domination of Taliban,? she says. ?Everyone, they are talking that when these troops leave Afghanistan, civil war will happen,? says Joya. ?Mainstream media especially try to put more dust in the eyes of the people around the world. But nobody wants to talk about today?s civil war.? The longer American troops stay, ?the worse civil war will be, because [the American] government [is] giving more money and more power to these warlords and also Taliban. That?s why, day by day, my people believe [that the U.S.] just waste their taxpayer money and the blood of their soldiers by supporting such a mafia corrupt system of Hamid Karzai.? Joya doesn?t want the world to forget about Afghanistan; she is desperate for more humanitarian and educational support. But she rejects entirely the notion that the American military can be a force for good, or a force for feminism. ?I believe that women?s rights is not a bunch of beautiful flowers that someone gives us,? she says. In her book, she writes, ?I feel confident that if foreign countries stop meddling in Afghanistan and if we are left free from occupation, then a strong progressive and democratic force will emerge.? That might seem terribly optimistic, even na?ve to most Americans. But if we think we?re fighting for women like her, we should at least listen when she begs us to stop. Plus: Check out more from Giving Beast, featuring news, video, and amazing photographs of people, places, and issues that need our support.. Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications. For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial at thedailybeast.com. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 14:00:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:00:46 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Noam Chomsky: No Change In US 'Mafia Principle' Message-ID: <<'It is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric'>> http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=35407 Middle-east-online.com 2009-11-01 Noam Chomsky: No Change In US 'Mafia Principle' Top American intellectual sees no significant change of US foreign policy under Obama. By Mamoon Alabbasi - LONDON As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama. During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II. "As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said Chomsky. "But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added. "There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky. Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle." "The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky. Because the US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will "spread contagion," he explained. Iran The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953. "The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky. However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)." "The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," said Chomsky. "The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed. Nuclear attack Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel. "The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth -- unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case. Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented. "The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But ...the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran -- that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky. Iraq Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran. "The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said Chomsky. This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington. "In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler," Chomsky added. Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions. Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a " major crime", many critics of the invasion - including Obama - viewed it as merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder". "It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," he said "There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it was a major crime," he added. Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection. The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure. But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country. The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky. Optimism Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western' governments. "There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky. "In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated... and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare - (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said. "And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step," he added. "It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn't deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon - officially at least - virtually all the war aims," said Chomsky. "As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors - well they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse," he said "So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Louse," he added. Turkey Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor" in the region, if it chooses to. "Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?," said Chomsky. The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained. But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq. Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion. But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations - which strongly objected to the Iraq war - and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky. So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US. Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises. Fear factor Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor". Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention". NATO Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush's war in Afghanistan, using NATO. NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies. But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control. "From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course," said Chomsky."NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat," he added. Middle East oil Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," the most "strategically important area in the world," in Eisenhower's words. Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with "substantial control of the world." This meant that the US "must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development" in the Middle East. Somalia Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue. "Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?" Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European counties and others are simply "destroying Somalia's territorial waters by dumping toxic waste - probably nuclear waste - and also by overfishing." "What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we're all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation," said Chomsky. Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia. "One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity - Barakat - which was identified as supporting terrorists. "A couple of months later... the (US) government quietly recognised that they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it - but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn't have much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on. "It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia...closing it down... was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society...and there are other examples." Darfur Chomsky also touched on Sudan's Darfur region. "There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region they don't amount to a lot unfortunately - like what's going on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur. "But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame it on an enemy - you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on 'Arabs', 'bad guys'," he explained. "What about saving eastern Cong where maybe 20 times as many people have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky ... for people who... are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals," he said. Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a US alley, he added. Goldstone's Gaza report Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel. The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel's right to self-defence, although it denounced the method this was conducted. Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to military force before "exhausting peaceful means", something Israel did not even contemplate doing. In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war. As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations. In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington. What can be done? Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and spreading knowledge. "There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic." Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel. "Public opinion is shifting substantially." And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the 'West'. "There is a lot to do in Western countries...primarily in the US." Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in 'Western' countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated. In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." Mamoon Alabbasi can be reached via: alabbasi at middle-east-online.com . From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 14:29:05 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:29:05 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] William Blum: Anti-Empire Report, November 4th 2009 Message-ID: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer75.html The Anti-Empire Report November 4th, 2009 by William Blum www.killinghope.org "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 80 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 2, 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 60s, 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 50 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 U.S. 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-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 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 U.S. 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), p.71 ? 4.New York Daily News, September 19, 2001 ? 5.Washington Post, July 20, 2004, p.15, citing the New Era (Lancaster, PA), 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), p.742 ? 10.Ibid., p.885 ? ? William Blum is the author of: ?Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 ?Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ?West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir ?Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 14:53:18 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:53:18 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Fisk: America is performing familiar role of propping up a dictator Message-ID: 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 4 15:09:08 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:09:08 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Harper government denies visas to activists Message-ID: http://latinascanada.blogspot.com/2009/11/canada-and-foreign-relations-how-many.html Wednesday, November 4, 2009 CANADA and Foreign Relations How many times must they spit at us before we fight back? This week a network of solidarity groups had been making arrangements for presentations by a compa?era, a human rights activist, from Colombia and who would be speaking about the miscarriage of justice towards and deplorable conditions of political prisoners in the jails Colombia. True to form the Harper a la MacArthur stepped right in and denied this woman a visitor?s visa. We are aware that she is not the only person who has been denied a visitor?s visa, other Colombians and many brothers and sisters from the Palestinian struggle. We have to start keeping an account ? a historical record - to confront this government head on ? this is an abuse of power and a denial of freedom of speech. Does this not make Canadians born in Canada angry? Or is it just us born in different lands who come to find out that our ties with our countries are sabotaged and latently severed by the overt actions of a neo conservative government. Its time to do something about this - it is not acceptable and should not be just taken with a sigh. nchamah miller National Council for Latin American and Caribbean Women of Canada ? LATIN at S. Posted by LATINAS CANADA at 10:34 AM From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 01:38:19 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:38:19 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] =?windows-1252?q?Former_UK_ambassador=3A_CIA_sent_peo?= =?windows-1252?q?ple_to_be_=91raped_with_broken_bottles=92?= Message-ID: http://rawstory.com/2009/11/ambassador-cia-people-tortured/ Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 Former UK ambassador: CIA sent people to be ?raped with broken bottles? By Daniel Tencer The CIA relied on intelligence based on torture in prisons in Uzbekistan, a place where widespread torture practices include raping suspects with broken bottles and boiling them alive, says a former British ambassador to the central Asian country. Craig Murray, the rector of the University of Dundee in Scotland and until 2004 the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the CIA not only relied on confessions gleaned through extreme torture, it sent terror war suspects to Uzbekistan as part of its extraordinary rendition program. "I'm talking of people being raped with broken bottles," he said at a lecture late last month that was re-broadcast by the Real News Network. "I'm talking of people having their children tortured in front of them until they sign a confession. I'm talking of people being boiled alive. And the intelligence from these torture sessions was being received by the CIA, and was being passed on." Human rights groups have long been raising the alarm about the legal system in Uzbekistan. In 2007, Human Rights Watch declared that torture is "endemic" to the country's justice system. Murray said he only realized after his stint as ambassador that the CIA was sending people to be tortured in Uzbekistan, country he describes as a "totalitarian" state that has never moved on from its communist era, when it was a part of the Soviet Union. Suspects in Uzbekistan's gulags "were being 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 -- it changed my whole world view in an instant -- to be told that London knew [the intelligence] coming from torture, that it was not illegal because our legal advisers had decided that under the United Nations convention against torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture as long as we didn't do the torture ourselves," Murray said. IT'S THE PIPELINE, STUPID Murray asserts that the primary motivation for US and British military involvement in central Asia has to do with large natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. As evidence, he points to the plans to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan that would allow Western oil companies to avoid Russia and Iran when transporting natural gas out of the region. Murray alleged that in the late 1990s the Uzbek ambassador to the US met with then-Texas Governor George W. Bush to discuss a pipeline for the region, and out of that meeting came agreements that would see Texas-based Enron gain the rights to Uzbekistan's natural gas deposits, while oil company Unocal worked on developing the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. "The consultant who was organizing this for Unocal was a certain Mr. Karzai, who is now president of Afghanistan," Murray noted. Murray said part of the motive in hyping up the threat of Islamic terrorism in Uzbekistan through forced confessions was to ensure the country remained on-side in the war on terror, so that the pipeline could be built. "There are designs of this pipeline, and 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, it's about oil, it's not about democracy." Murray was dismissed from his position as ambassador in 2004, following his first public allegations that the British government relied on torture in Uzbekistan for intelligence. The following videos were posted to YouTube by the Real News Network on Oct. 26 and Nov. 4, 2009. [see two videos] UK/USA made use of Uzbek torture Part 1: 13:53 Part 2: 10:53 From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 02:00:15 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:00:15 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] The Assassination of Fred Hampton Message-ID: http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1742/1/ The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther by Jeffrey Haas Published by Lawrence Hill Books 424 Pages. ISBN-10: 1556527659 ISBN-13: 978-1556527654 Amazon reviews: "A riveting account of the assassination, the plot behind it, the attempted cover-up, the denouement, and the lessons that we should draw from this shocking tale of government iniquity." ?Noam Chomsky, author and political activist "A remarkable work." ?Studs Terkel "People should not forget that State's Attorney Hanrahan, the Chicago Police, and the FBI murdered my son. This book tells the story, not only of Fred?s death, but also of his life. At twenty-one Fred was already a great leader. Who knows what he may have become, if they hadn?t killed him?" ?Iberia Hampton, mother of Fred Hampton "A true crime story and legal thriller, this powerful account puts together all the pieces, step by step, giving us the anatomy of a despicable episode in recent American history. The writing is clear and straightforward; the overall impact devastating." ?Phillip Lopate, author, Getting Personal ====================== http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1742/1/ Written by Hans Bennett Monday, 02 November 2009 On the morning of December 4, 1969, lawyer Jeffrey Haas received a call from his partner at the People?s Law Office, informing him that early that morning Chicago police had raided the apartment of Illinois Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton at 2337 West Monroe Street in Chicago. Tragically, Hampton and fellow Panther Mark Clark had both been shot dead, and four other Panthers in the apartment had critical gunshot wounds. Police were uninjured and had fired their guns 90-99 times. In sharp contrast, the Panthers had shot once, from the shotgun held by Mark Clark, which had most likely been fired after Clark had been fatally shot in the heart and was falling to the ground. Haas went straight to the police station to speak with Hampton?s fianc?e, Deborah Johnson, who was then eight months pregnant with Hampton?s son. She had been sleeping in bed next to Hampton when the police attacked and began shooting into the apartment and towards the bedroom where they were sleeping. Miraculously, Johnson had not been shot, but her account given to Haas was chilling. Throughout the assault Hampton had remained unconscious (strong evidence emerged later that a paid FBI informant had given Hampton a sedative that prevented him from waking up) and after police forced Johnson out of the bedroom, two officers entered the room where Hampton still lay unconscious. Johnson heard one officer ask, "Is he still alive?" After two gunshots were fired inside the room, the other officer said, "He?s good and dead now." Jeffrey Haas? account of this conversation with Johnson jumps right out from the inside cover of his new book entitled The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther, just released. In this excellent new book, Haas gives his personal account of defending the Panther survivors of the December 4 police assault against the criminal charges that were later dropped, and of filing a civil rights lawsuit, Hampton v. Hanrahan, on behalf of the survivors and the families of Mark Clark and Fred Hampton. The civil rights lawsuit lasted for almost 13 years, but ended with a $1.85 million settlement paid equally by the city, county, and federal governments. This battle in the courtroom is a long and complex story, but the 375-page book packs a punch and clearly presents the legal complexities without watering down Haas? outrage about Hampton?s assassination and the cover up that followed. The Assassination of Fred Hampton An autopsy conducted on Hampton by a doctor hired by Haas and the People?s Law Office (PLO) confirmed Deborah Johnson?s account about Hampton being shot twice after she was forced out of the bedroom. Haas reports that autopsy "found that both head wounds came from the top right side of the head in a downward direction...They were consistent with two shots to the head at point blank range?The downward angles of the bullets were inconsistent with the horizontal shots that came through the wall from the front." Other than these fatal bullet holes, the only physical marks on Fred were a bullet found embedded in the exterior of his shoulder and a graze wound in his leg. In two separate tests that were part of this same autopsy a high dosage of the barbiturate Seconal was found--enough to make Hampton unconscious or very drowsy. At 4am on December 4, Cook County prosecutor Edward Hanrahan and 14 Chicago police officers assigned to Hanrahan had been armed with shotguns, handguns, and a .45 caliber machine gun. The raiders were officially carrying out a search warrant, looking for weapons, but suspiciously did not arrive at 8pm the night before when they knew the apartment was empty. Following the attack, Hanrahan and police publicly claimed to have been under heavy fire from the Panthers, and that Panthers had first fired on them through the front door. The actual evidence at the crime scene proved otherwise, and Chicago Panthers and supporters immediately mobilized to expose the police lies. Hampton?s apartment had been left unguarded, so the Panthers went inside to examine the scene alongside videographers who later released their footage in the 1971 documentary film entitled The Murder of Fred Hampton. The apartment was opened to the public, and the media was urged to come and see for themselves that there was only one bullet in the wall (from Mark Clark?s shotgun) that could have been fired from the direction the Panthers were facing towards the front door. In contrast, there were 90-99 bullets in the walls that had been shot inward from the direction of the front door where police entered. A county grand jury indicted each of the seven Panther survivors for attempted murder, armed violence, and other weapons charges, but all these charges would later be dropped. Hanrahan and police were first exonerated from any misconduct by the police Internal Investigations Division. Next, a coroner?s inquest found Hampton and Clark?s deaths were "justifiable homicide." A federal grand jury, led by deputy attorney general Jerris Leonard investigated whether Hanrahan and police had violated the civil rights of the Panthers inside 2337 West Monroe Street. However, in May 1970, the federal grand jury issued a 132-page report, but no indictments. Furthermore, Haas writes that the report "never sought to determine who fired the fatal shots, where they were from, or whether they were fired deliberately to murder Fred." Following public pressure, in June 1970 a special prosecutor, Barnabas Sears, was appointed by Cook County?s Chief Criminal Court Judge Joseph Power. In July 1972, this criminal trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice began before Judge Philip Romiti. In November that year, all defendants were found not guilty. After the federal grand jury?s ruling in May 1970 that exonerated Hanrahan and others, they decided to file the civil rights lawsuit. At the meeting where the lawyers, December 4 survivors, and family members of Hampton and Clark made their decision, Clark?s mother Fannie expressed how they all were feeling, saying "We can?t just do nothing. Mark and Fred should still be alive. I want to bring their killers to trial." Reflecting back, Haas explains why the lawsuit was an important legal strategy as well. "In civil cases, extensive discovery is allowed. We could get to cross-examine all the defendants under oath at depositions, with court reporters recording what they said. The contradictions between Hanrahan?s and the raiders? account, and the physical evidence made the prospect of confronting the defendants a trial lawyer?s dream?we needed to write the complaint to combine the claims of the survivors and the deceased into one lawsuit against all the perpetrators?The legal construct we had found was to charge all the actors in a conspiracy to act together. That way we combined Hanrahan, [Hanrahan?s assistant, Richard] Jalovec, the fourteen raiders, the crime lab people, and those who falsified the investigation?In May of 1970 we filed our complaint. We had no idea we were embarking on a 13-year battle," writes Haas. The joint-civil suit was assigned to a right-wing judge named Joseph Sam Parry, who threw out their entire complaint on February 3, 1972. They appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court and on August 4, 1973, the Court overturned Parry, and sent it back for a new trial. Unfortunately, they were unable to get a new judge, and throughout the subsequent 18-month trial, Parry was extremely biased and blocked all kinds of testimony and evidence from being entered into the record. The jury was deadlocked, but instead of declaring a mistrial, Parry himself ruled to dismiss the case entirely. Haas and PLO?s subsequent appeal of Parry?s ruling to the Seventh Circuit was successful, and the case was sent back down to the district court for a new trial. Fortunately, this time they got a new judge, who urged the defendants to make a settlement before starting a new trial. Finally, on February 28, 1983, the settlement was made, and Hampton et al. received $1.85 million from the city, county, and federal governments. COINTELPRO and Fred Hampton The FBI?s top-secret and illegal counterintelligence program dubbed "COINTELPRO" became public after a 1971 break-in to the FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania by unknown antiwar activists. These activists discovered these explosive documents that revealed an FBI war on the civil rights and later Black liberation movements, and quickly made them public. Among these liberated files was a March 3, 1968 COINTELPRO memo discussing the urgent need to prevent "the beginning of a true black revolution." Among several of the program?s goals was to "prevent the rise of a ?messiah? who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement". This "Black Nationalist-Hate Groups" memo refers to Martin Luther King (long a target of the FBI) as a potential "messiah" of the supposedly hateful and "violent" Black liberation movement. This same document stated: "Through counterintelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them." Another stated goal was "to prevent the long-range growth of militant black nationalist organizations, especially among youth. Specific tactics to prevent these groups from converting young people must be developed." One specific tactical approach was expressed in an April 3, 1968 communique arguing that "The Negro youth and moderates must be made to understand that if they succumb to revolutionary teaching, they will be dead revolutionaries." In terms of scale, the FBI?s war of repression against the Black liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s was greatest against the Panthers. In addressing why the Panthers were targeted so intensely by COINTELPRO, Noam Chomsky wrote in 1973: "A top secret Special Report for the president in June 1970 gives some insight into the motivations for the actions undertaken by the government to destroy the Black Panther Party. The report describes the party as ?the most active and dangerous black extremist group in the United States.? Its ?hard core members? were estimated at 800, but ?a recent poll indicates that approximately 25 percent of the black population has a great respect for the BPP, including 43 percent of blacks under 21 years of age.? On the basis of such estimates of the potential of the party, the repressive apparatus of the state proceeded against it to ensure that it did not succeed in organizing as a substantial social or political force." When these liberated COINTELPRO files became public, Haas, PLO, and his Panther clients immediately suspected that the Dec. 4 police raid had been part of this program, and that the FBI had viewed Hampton as a potential "messiah," who needed to be "neutralized." As part of their civil rights lawsuit, they filed numerous motions requesting all FBI files relating to the Illinois Panthers and COINTELPRO. After repeated attempts by the defendants and Judge Parry to cover up the FBI role, eventually a few explosive documents were made available. One document showed a drawing made by the FBI?s paid informant, William O?Neal, which provided the floor plan of Hampton?s apartment. The FBI had supplied this diagram to prosecutor Edward Hanrahan before he led the raid several days later. Following the raid, the FBI paid O?Neal a special bonus to thank him for providing the diagram. Another document surfaced showing that the FBI had made a deal with deputy attorney general Jerris Leonard, who led the 1970 federal grand jury investigation. In an effort to conceal the FBI?s role and the still-secret COINTELPRO, they decided that the criminal charges would be dropped against the seven Panther survivors, and in exchange the federal grand jury would rule in favor of Hanrahan and the police raiders. A third explosive document showed a fake letter sent to Jeff Fort, the leader of the Blackstone Rangers, which accused the Panthers of planning a "hit" on Fort. The FBI hoped that the fake letter would incite Fort and the Rangers to "take retaliatory action" against Hampton and the Panthers. As this new documentation emerged, the FBI was added to the list of defendants for the civil rights lawsuit, and making the FBI pay 1/3 of the $1.85 million was a key part of the settlement. Defending the Carbondale Six and the Attica Brothers Haas was fresh out of law school when he first met Fred Hampton and was asked to work as a lawyer for the many Panther defendants that were victims of repression. Haas and several other young radical lawyers collectively opened the People?s Law Office (PLO) in Chicago and began defending Panthers, as well as Puerto Rican political prisoners, antiwar protesters, prisoner activists, and other revolutionary groups like Students for a Democratic Society, the Young Lords, and the Young Patriots. Alongside Haas? account of working specifically on the Hampton case, he also reflects on many of the other struggles from that era that he became involved with, illustrating how Hampton?s assassination did not happen in a vacuum. For example, on November 12, 1970, there was a shootout between police and Panthers in the southern Illinois town of Carbondale. In the middle of the night, police attacked a house being rented by Panthers, and as neighbors would testify at trial, police began to shoot into their house without any warning. In response, the Panthers inside the house shot back, and in the end, bullets had struck two Panthers and one police officer, but no one had been killed. One of the occupants of the Panther house, Milton Boyd, told Haas that "we were prepared to defend ourselves?We weren?t going to be ambushed and killed like our brothers in Chicago." The six Panther defendants were each charged with seven counts of attempted murder and became known as the "Carbondale Six." Haas and the PLO defended them by arguing first that it was impossible to identify who in the house was actually shooting, and second that since the police began shooting at them first, unannounced, in the middle of the night, the Panthers acted in legitimate self-defense by shooting back. In a stunning victory, an all-white jury found the defendants innocent of all charges. Haas writes that during the Carbondale Six trial, he and two other PLO lawyers drove to Mount Vernon, Illinios to attend the memorial service for the legendary Panther and prison author George Jackson, who two days earlier, had been shot and killed by San Quentin Prison guards, on August 21, 1971. Haas reflects on how at the service, they spoke with Jackson?s mother. Georgia, who "urged the three of us to continue fighting to keep black people, particularly Panthers, out of jail. I went back to the trial feeling blessed and inspired." Haas writes that "Jackson?s death resulted in work stoppages, memorial services, and teach-ins at prisons throughout the country. The men inside Attica Correctional Facility in New York declared a day of silence during which no one spoke. They also stepped up their demands for humane treatment and set a timetable for the administration to meet with them." These pleas were ignored, and on September 9, 1971, twelve hundred prisoners seized control over a quarter of Attica. Haas recounts that "the prisoners took thirty-nine guards hostage and demanded to meet with Commissioner Russell Oswald and that Warden Mancusi be fired?I watched the confrontation on television, moved by the bravery of the mostly Black and Latino prisoners and by the reasonableness of what they sought?While the prison administration said it would comply with some of the demands, they were adamant about no amnesty for the rebellious prisoners. The prisoners who led the takeover would be criminally prosecuted. A deadlocked loomed. Tensions grew." On September 13, Governor Nelson Rockefeller ordered the state police to go in with their guns firing, and ultimately twenty-nine prisoners and ten hostages were shot dead, with many more wounded. When the National Lawyers Guild put out a call for lawyers to visit Attica, Hass and others at PLO responded. The first prisoner they interviewed was Frank "Big Black" Smith, who recounted the horrors of the police massacre and torture of prisoners for days following the massacre. Smith was a key figure in the prisoners? revolt and had been appointed to head of security for the yard, which included protecting the hostages. Smith explained that "the hostages got the same food and water as everyone else, and we didn?t let anyone bother them. No one got near them without my permission. We even shared our blankets with them." When the state police attacked "the hostages were shot down like dogs, like the rest of us. The troopers had all the guns. It was a slaughter and they didn?t care who they hit," said Smith. The horror continued after the state police and prison authorities regained control. With tears in his eyes, Smith recounted how "the guards stripped us naked after the shooting. Then they made us crawl naked in the mud through a gauntlet where they beat us?They took me out of the line. They made me lie on a table naked on my back and put a football under my chin. They put their burning cigarettes out on me. Some dropped them from the catwalk above and were laughing. They told me if I moved and the football hit the ground I was dead. I tried not to move. I was sure they were going to kill me. They knew I was in charge of security and used me as an example to scare everyone else, because nobody else got this treatment." The accounts of other prisoners interviewed by Haas, PLO, and other lawyers reinforced Smith?s heart-wrenching story. After returning to Chicago, Haas worked to publicize these accounts, but soon returned to working mostly on the Hampton case while his PLO colleagues continued to work with other lawyers in defending the 60 indicted prisoners, who became known as the "Attica Brothers." They Got Away With Murder Certainly, the $1.85 million lawsuit was only a partial victory. No amount of money can replace the lives of Hampton and Clark, or heal the gunshot injuries that several of the Panther survivors still suffer from today. Furthermore, it is painful to accept that none of the conspirators were ever convicted of any criminal charges, nor were they forced to pay for the settlement out of their own pockets. However, the scale of victory should not be judged by the settlement money alone. On the last page of the book, Haas describes a 2008 visit with Iberia Hampton shortly after her husband Francis had passed away. He asked her "after all these years, what do you think our lawsuit proved?" Without hesitation Iberia replied, "They got away with murder." Indeed, they did get away with murder. In this context, the victorious civil rights lawsuit has been used to further expose and document this stark injustice. Many COINTELPRO files were made public because of the lawsuit, and the numerous conspirators were put under some scrutiny for the public to see. Today, if we learn anything from this story, it?s that we should have no illusions about how far the government is willing to go in repressing dissent and then covering it up. Also, the courtroom victory that was fought against all odds should inspire activists today who are working around issues of state repression and political prisoners. We can win, and we should never give up the fight. *** For more information, see this 1971 film "The Murder of Fred Hampton." Hans Bennett is an independent multi-media journalist and co-founder of Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal. He has written for numerous publications, including Alternet, ColorLines, Upside Down World, Z Magazine, Dissident Voice, and Toward Freedom. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 02:32:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:32:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Italian court convicts 23 Americans in CIA rendition case Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110400776.html?hpid=moreheadlines <> Italian court convicts 23 Americans in CIA rendition case; extradition undecided By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, November 4, 2009; 5:41 PM MILAN -- An Italian court convicted 22 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force colonel on kidnapping charges Wednesday in a stern rebuke to the U.S. government's long-standing practice of covertly seizing terrorism suspects abroad without a warrant. The guilty verdicts are the only instance in which CIA operatives have faced a criminal trial for the controversial tactic of extraordinary rendition, under which terrorism suspects are abducted in one country and forcibly transported to another. The CIA began carrying out renditions during the Clinton administration but intensified their frequency under orders from the Bush White House after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The Obama administration said in August that it would continue the practice, but pledged to take steps to ensure that rendition targets are not tortured, either by the CIA or by foreign spy agencies. In winning the guilty verdicts, Italian prosecutors took a contrary view, saying they were determined to enforce the law in spite of political pressure from Rome and Washington to drop the case. "This decision sends a clear message to all governments that even in the fight against terrorism you can't forsake the basic rights of our democracies," said Armando Spataro, the deputy Milan public prosecutor. The Americans were charged with snatching a Muslim cleric off the street here in 2003 and covertly flying him to Cairo, where he said he was subjected to electroshocks and other physical abuse. The victim, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a radical Egyptian imam also known as Abu Omar, had been under the surveillance of Italian anti-terrorism police. Italian criminal investigators said they were steamed to learn later that the CIA, secretly aided by Italian military intelligence agents, had intervened without their knowledge and thwarted their effort to bring Nasr to trial. Nasr was subsequently indicted in Milan. He was released from prison in Cairo in 2007 but has been forbidden from leaving Egypt. The Americans were all tried in absentia but were represented throughout the trial by defense attorneys, most of them court-appointed. The defendants each received a five-year prison sentence, with the exception of Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA's former chief in Milan, who was sentenced to eight years for leading the kidnapping operation. In rendering the verdict, the judge in the case, Oscar Magi, acquitted three other Americans, including the former Rome station chief for the CIA, saying they were covered by diplomatic immunity. Spataro said his office would seek to extradite the 23 Americans from the United States. But a formal decision rests with the Italian Justice Ministry, which so far has been reluctant to alienate Washington by asking for extradition. The U.S. State Department expressed disappointment over the ruling. The CIA had no reaction. "The CIA has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar," said George Little, a CIA spokesman. Although it is considered unlikely that any of the convicted Americans will spend time in an Italian prison cell, the trial has served as a public embarrassment for the CIA. According to Italian investigators, the CIA operatives failed miserably to hide their tracks as several of them gabbed on unsecured cell phones, showed their passports to hotel desk clerks and went on vacation in Italian resorts after the kidnapping. Lady, the CIA's chief in Milan, also left incriminating evidence on a computer seized by investigators from his Italian villa, including flight schedules to Egypt. He did not respond to a message seeking comment. According to prosecutors, the mastermind behind the abduction was Jeffrey Castelli, the CIA's Rome station chief at the time. Court documents show that he discussed several other possible renditions with Italian intelligence officials, though there is no evidence that they were carried out. Magi, the judge, acquitted Castelli and two other U.S. defendants, Betne Medero and Ralph Henry Russomando, the former first secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, saying they were covered by diplomatic immunity. Castelli, who has left the CIA and now works for the Washington office of a Los Angeles-based marketing analysis firm, declined to comment when reached by telephone Wednesday after the verdict. The Italian judge did not explain why three of the Americans were covered by diplomatic immunity, but not a handful of others who had held official U.S. government posts in Italy. Most of the defendants, operating under assumed names, arrived in Italy a few weeks before the kidnapping. One of those convicted, Sabrina De Sousa, formerly a second secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, has sued the State Department for failing to claim diplomatic immunity on her behalf. "I am saddened, dismayed and angered that the government I served abandoned me completely and I am being punished for conduct I did not do," she said in an e-mail after the verdict. The U.S. Defense Department unsuccessfully tried to protect the convicted Air Force officer, Col. Joseph L. Romano, III, by invoking his right to a U.S. military tribunal instead under NATO rules. Romano was posted at Aviano Air Base, a joint U.S.-Italian military installation. "We clearly are disappointed with the ruling," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters. The judge also convicted two Italian defendants, ruling they had acted as accomplices. Five other Italian defendants, including Nicolo Pollari, the former chief of SISMI, the Italian military intelligence service, were acquitted. Magi said they were protected by an earlier ruling by Italy's constitutional court that evidence collected against them was inadmissible under Italy's state secrets law. Staff writer Peter Finn in Washington contributed to this report. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 04:54:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:54:46 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Medical Papers by Ghostwriters Pushed Therapy Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/health/research/05ghost.html?_r=3&hp Medical Papers by Ghostwriters Pushed Therapy By NATASHA SINGER Published: August 4, 2009 Newly unveiled court documents show that ghostwriters paid by a pharmaceutical company played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known. The articles, published in medical journals between 1998 and 2005, emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks of taking hormones to protect against maladies like aging skin, heart disease and dementia. That supposed medical consensus benefited Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that paid a medical communications firm to draft the papers, as sales of its hormone drugs, called Premarin and Prempro, soared to nearly $2 billion in 2001. But the seeming consensus fell apart in 2002 when a huge federal study on hormone therapy was stopped after researchers found that menopausal women who took certain hormones had an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. A later study found that hormones increased the risk of dementia in older patients. The ghostwritten papers were typically review articles, in which an author weighs a large body of medical research and offers a bottom-line judgment about how to treat a particular ailment. The articles appeared in 18 medical journals, including The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and The International Journal of Cardiology. The articles did not disclose Wyeth?s role in initiating and paying for the work. Elsevier, the publisher of some of the journals, said it was disturbed by the allegations of ghostwriting and would investigate. The documents on ghostwriting were uncovered by lawyers suing Wyeth and were made public after a request in court from PLoS Medicine, a medical journal from the Public Library of Science, and The New York Times. A spokesman for Wyeth said that the articles were scientifically accurate and that pharmaceutical companies routinely hired medical writing companies to assist authors in drafting manuscripts. The court documents provide a detailed paper trail showing how Wyeth contracted with a medical communications company to outline articles, draft them and then solicit top physicians to sign their names, even though many of the doctors contributed little or no writing. The documents suggest the practice went well beyond the case of Wyeth and hormone therapy, involving numerous drugs from other pharmaceutical companies. ?It?s almost like steroids and baseball,? said Dr. Joseph S. Ross, an assistant professor of geriatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, who has conducted research on ghostwriting. ?You don?t know who was using and who wasn?t; you don?t know which articles are tainted and which aren?t.? Because physicians rely on medical literature, the concern about ghostwriting is that doctors might change their prescribing habits after reading certain articles, unaware they were commissioned by a drug company. ?The filter is missing when the reader does not know that the germ of an article came from the manufacturer,? said James Szaller, a lawyer in Cleveland who has spent four years going through the ghostwriting documents on behalf of hormone therapy plaintiffs. Wyeth faces about 8,400 lawsuits from women who claim that the company?s hormone drugs caused them to develop illnesses. Twenty-three of the 31 cases that had been set for trial were resolved in Wyeth?s favor; the company has also settled with five plaintiffs. Others cases are on appeal. Doug Petkus, a spokesman for Wyeth, said the articles on hormone therapy were scientifically sound and subjected to rigorous review by outside experts on behalf of the medical journals that published them. Although Wyeth continues to work with medical writing firms, the company adopted a policy in 2006 mandating that authors become involved early in the publication process and that any financial assistance by Wyeth or contributions by medical writers be acknowledged in the published text, said Stephen Urbanczyk, a lawyer representing Wyeth. Doctors have long debated the merits and risks of hormone therapy to treat the symptoms of menopause. Although studies have shown that hormones have benefits like reducing the incidence of hip fractures, they have also shown that the drugs can increase the risk of various cancers. At one time, the Premarin family of drugs, which dominated the market for hormone therapy, was among Wyeth?s best-selling brands. And the company worked with several ghostwriting companies to maintain that dominance. In 1997, for example, DesignWrite, a medical communications company in Princeton, N.J., proposed to Wyeth a two-year plan that would include the preparation of about 30 articles for publication in medical journals. The development of an article on the treatment of menopausal hot flashes and night sweats illustrates DesignWrite?s methodology. Sometime in 2003, a DesignWrite employee wrote a 14-page outline of the article; the author was listed as ?TBD? ? to be decided. In July 2003, DesignWrite sent the outline to Dr. Gloria Bachmann, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Bachmann responded in an e-mail message to DesignWrite: ?Outline is excellent as written.? In September 2003, DesignWrite e-mailed Dr. Bachmann the first draft of the article. She also pronounced that ?excellent? and added, ?I only had one correction which I highlighted in red.? The article, a nearly verbatim copy of the DesignWrite draft, appeared in 2005 in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, with Dr. Bachmann listed as the primary author. It described hormone drugs as the ?gold standard? for treating hot flashes and was less enthusiastic about other therapies. The acknowledgments thanked several medical writers for their ?editorial assistance,? not disclosing that those writers worked for DesignWrite, which charged Wyeth $25,000 to generate the article. Dr. Bachmann, who has 30 years of research and clinical experience in menopause, said she played a major role in the publication by lending her expertise. Her e-mail messages do not reflect contributions she may have made during phone calls and in-person meetings, she said. ?There was a need for a review article and I said ?Yes, I will review the draft and make sure it is accurate,? ? Dr. Bachmann said in an interview Tuesday. ?This is my work, this is what I believe, this is reflective of my view.? In response to a query from a reporter, Michael Platt, the president of DesignWrite, wrote that the company ?has not, and will not, participate in the publication of any material in which it does not have complete confidence in the scientific validity of the content, based upon the best available data.? As medical journals learn more about ghostwriting through documents released in lawsuits and in Congress, some editors have started asking authors harder questions. A few leading journals, like The Journal of the American Medical Association, have instituted authorship forms that require contributors to detail their role in an article and to disclose conflicts of interest. But many journals have yet to take such steps. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 05:01:33 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] A court decision that reflects what type of country the U.S. is Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: RICHARD MENEC Subject: A court decision that reflects what type of country the U.S. is Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:59:58 -0600 Size: 24476 URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 10:04:33 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:04:33 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Dennis Perrin on the latest Ayn Rand biography Message-ID: <> http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/atlas-insolvent.html Dennis Perrin Wednesday, November 4, 2009 Atlas Insolvent Ayn Rand was an atheist, but her ghost refuses to vanish. Another book about this mediocre romance novelist has been released, making one pine for publishing's final breath, which might be the only way to curb further Randian retrospectives. How much more do we need to know about this woman? What did she accomplish, apart from inspiring geeky white men to find virtue in selfishness? To identify with comic opera characters posing as philosophers? To pretend that capitalism is individualistic and benign? Despite cries from reactionaries that the culture is stacked against them, that they are political prisoners in their cherished land, American culture is, in reality, overly kind to right wingers, no matter how bizarrely they behave. So long as reactionaries wave the flag and speak of patriots weeping in the clouds, they will have platforms to push their manias, hatred, and self-pity. Not only is there a robust market for these clowns, those who run the Liberal Media share many rightist conceits, especially when the system needs reinforcement. Given this, Ayn Rand's zombie presence makes perfect sense. Indeed, her lit cred, thoroughly middlebrow and thus utterly American, lends her capitalist fantasies some theoretical weight. Rand fancied herself as high-minded, an intellectual counterbalance to Karl Marx. In truth, Rand was closer to Walt Disney, minus the Mouse King's showbiz flair. Each used cartoons to convey their message. Both were dedicated anti-communists, hostile to organized labor, friendly to the post-war Red Scare. Only Rand felt that the U.S. government wasn't going deep enough in uprooting commies, primarily those in Hollywood, hypnotizing Middle America with phony smiles and pretty songs while undermining free enterprise and its besieged supporters. The latest Rand revival comes courtesy of Anne Heller, whose "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" is receiving positive reviews. I have not nor intend to read Heller's book. Nothing personal, but I've read and watched too much about Rand already, including her Objectivist cult, personal romances and internecine battles. Unless there's fresh evidence exposing cannibalism, S&M parties, or a secret love for Stalin, I'll find other ways to waste my time. I did find Heller's comments on NPR about Rand rather interesting. Like most biographers (me included), Heller tries to predict how her subject would view contemporary figures and events. Since Rand hated FDR's New Deal, equating it with fascism (as did, for a time, the American Communist Party), Heller assumes that "Rand would have seen Obama's stimulus plan, bank bailout program and health care initiative as 'a gigantic power grab . . . She would have been horrified.'" Perhaps, though compared to FDR's grand scheme, Obama's "power grab" is pretty toothless. In fact, I can't think of a weaker dictator than Obama. Yet, Rand's acolytes and other rightist observers insist that we're suffering under a despotism unmatched in American history. This is what happens when the focus is on personalities rather than systemic functions. In the real world, Obama, like FDR before him, is attempting to save what is left of American state capitalism. That's his function, which is why he enjoyed such elite support. Obama's finding the task a bit tougher than he let on during the campaign, and he may not succeed. The signs so far are not good. But the idea that John McCain would be radically different is laughable, yet soothing to those prone to political hallucinations. Rand experienced her share of swirling visions, spilled across countless pages of her books. She loved writing long-winded speeches for her fantasy icons, telling the world how useless it was compared to a few self-centered men. In Rand's universe, history is achieved individually, unconnected to major power centers or collective labor. John Galt and Howard Roark just "happen," despite all mechanisms devoted to their demise. They thrive independently through the iron force of their will, and in the end, collectivized society is rhetorically exposed and trashed by their superior intellects. It's a charming fairy tale, perfectly suited to American illusions about individual power in a imperial state. Of course, no man can rise through the U.S. financial/political structure without assistance and intervention, just as no major industrialist can make his fortune apart from the state apparatus. Societies are controlled by those who own them. This naturally requires collective actions and overlapping agendas. Either Rand was unaware of this reality or simply ignored it for narrative purposes. She created a capitalist Oz, where generations of Dorothys skip merrily down gold-brick roads, seeking to build (without help) their Emerald Cities. No gray commie Kansas for Ayn. Heller also noted that Rand considered the dollar sign "a better symbol than the cross, because it didn't require the sacrifice of anybody." I trust that Heller doesn't share this ahistorical view. Not only have the cross and dollar enjoyed a lucrative, long-running alliance, the dollar requires massive sacrifice across the planet. Poverty, starvation, environmental damage and genocidal violence are some of the dollar's greatest hits. Use any calculator you like to tally the body count under state socialism, and it'll explode when computing the ongoing ravages of global capitalism. All this aside, I confess a peculiar fondness for the film version of "The Fountainhead." Patricia Neal's Dominique Francon is priceless, destroying art and personal love in a world that cannot appreciate her superior tastes. Gary Cooper's Howard Roark is a cartoonish stiff, hardly the type who'd turn architecture upside down (stealing from Frank Lloyd Wright in the process). There's a hidden lunacy to Roark that Cooper didn't explore; he was stuck mouthing Rand's wooden dialogue, limiting Roark's capitalistic vigor. But when it came to the hubba-hubba, Roark was an erect dollar sign. I think it's clear why Rand embraced that pecuniary symbol. From may at applebybooks.net Thu Nov 5 10:23:50 2009 From: may at applebybooks.net (May at Appleby Books) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:23:50 -0800 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Dennis Perrin on the latest Ayn Rand biography In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF2FC16.5030102@applebybooks.net> How about "With Charity Toward None: An Analysis of Ayn Rand's Philosophy" by William F. O'Neill. May RICHARD MENEC wrote: > <> > > http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/atlas-insolvent.html > From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 11:17:34 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:17:34 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Dennis Perrin on the latest Ayn Rand biography In-Reply-To: <4AF2FC16.5030102@applebybooks.net> References: <4AF2FC16.5030102@applebybooks.net> Message-ID: See also an article posted to FreshInk just over a year ago: Alan Shrugged: Greenspan, Ayn Rand and Their God That Failed In a historic moment, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan acknowledged he had been wrong for years to assume that government regulation was bad for markets. Whoops?there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain. by David Corn at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/25-6 > How about "With Charity Toward None: An Analysis of Ayn Rand's > Philosophy" by William F. O'Neill. > > May > RICHARD MENEC wrote: > > < What did she accomplish, apart from inspiring geeky white men to > find virtue in selfishness? To identify with comic opera > characters posing as philosophers? To pretend that capitalism is > individualistic and benign?>> > > > > http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/atlas-insolvent.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 14:10:36 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:10:36 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Amira Hass: Courage in Journalism Award Acceptance Speech Message-ID: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=9176&lg=en TLAXCALA - The Translators' Network for Linguistic Diversity "A remarkable failure for a journalist"-2009 Courage in Journalism Award Acceptance Speech AUTHOR: Amira Hass Allow me to start with a correction. How impolite, you?d rightly think, but anyway, we Israelis are being forgiven for much worse than impoliteness. What is so generously termed today by the International Women?s Media Foundation as my lifetime achievement needs to be corrected. Because it is Failure. Nothing more than a failure. A lifetime failure. Come to think of it, the lifetime part is just as questionable: after all, it is about a third of my life, not more, that I have been engaged in Journalism. Also, if the ?lifetime? part gives you the impression that I am soon going to retire - then this impression has to be corrected as well. I am not planning to end soon what I am doing. What am I doing? I am generally defined as a reporter on Palestinian issues. But, in fact, my reports are about the Israeli society and policies, about Domination and its intoxications. My sources are not secret documents and leaked out minutes which were taken at meetings of people with Power and in Power. My sources are the open ways by which the subjugated are being dispossessed of their equal rights as human beings. There is still so much more to learn about Israel, about my society, and about Israeli decision makers who invent restrictions such as: Gazan students are not to study in a Palestinian university in the West Bank, some 70 km?s away from their home. Another ban: Children (above the age of 18) are not to visit their parents in Gaza, if the parents are well and healthy. If they were dying, Israeli order-abiding officials would have allowed the visit. If the children are younger than 18 - the visit would have been allowed. But, on the other hand, second degree relatives are not allowed to visit dying or healthy siblings in Gaza. It is an intriguing philosophical question, not only journalistic. Think of it: what, for the Israeli System, is so disturbing, about reasonably healthy fathers or mothers? What is so disturbing about a kid choosing and getting a better education? And these are but two in a long, long list of Israeli prohibitions. Or when I write about the progressively decimated and fragmented Palestinian territory of the West Bank. It?s not just about people losing their family property and livelihood; it?s not only about the shrinking opportunities of people in disconnected, crowded enclaves. It is in fact a story about the skills of Israeli architects. It is a way to learn about how Israeli on the-ground planning contradicts official proclamations, a phenomenon which characterizes the acts of all Israeli governments, in the past as in the present. In short, there is so much to keep me busy for another lifetime, or at least for the rest of my lifetime. But, as I said, the real correction is elsewhere. It?s not about achievement that we should be talking here, but about a failure. It is the failure to make the Israeli and international public use and accept correct terms and words - which reflect the reality. Not the Orwelian Newspeak that has flourished since 1993 and has been cleverly dictated and disseminated by those with invested interests. The Peace Process terminology, which took reign, blurs the perception of real processes that are going on: a special blend of military occupation, colonialism, apartheid, Palestinian limited self-rule in enclaves and a democracy for Jews. It is not my role as a journalist to make my fellow Israelis and Jews agree that these processes are immoral and dangerously unwise. It is my role, though, to exercise the Right for freedom of the Press, in order to supply information and to make people know. But, as I have painfully discovered, the right to know does not mean a duty to know. Thousands of my articles and zillion of words have evaporated. They could not compete with the official language that has been happily adopted by the mass media, and is used in order to dis-portray the reality. Official language that encourages people not to know. Indeed, a remarkable failure for a journalist. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 14:20:08 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:20:08 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Cut Wall Street Out! Own Your Own Bank Message-ID: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15905 Cut Wall Street Out! Own Your Own Bank How States Can Finance Their Own Recovery By Ellen Brown Global Research, November 3, 2009 Web of Debt - 2009-11-01 Pouring money into the private banking system has only fixed the economy for bankers and the wealthy; it has not done much to address either the fundamental problem of unemployment or the debt trap so many Americans find themselves in. President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan has so far failed to halt the growth of unemployment: 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus plan began. California has lost 336,400 jobs. Arizona has lost 77,300. Michigan has lost 137,300. A total of 49 states and the District of Columbia have all reported net job losses. In this dark firmament, however, one bright star shines. The sole state to actually gain jobs is an unlikely candidate for the distinction: North Dakota. North Dakota is also one of only two states expected to meet their budgets in 2010. (The other is Montana.) North Dakota is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000 people, largely located in cold and isolated farming communities. Yet, since 2000, the state's GNP has grown 56 percent, personal income has grown 43 percent and wages have grown 34 percent. The state not only has no funding problems, but this year it has a budget surplus of $1.3 billion, the largest it has ever had. Why is North Dakota doing so well, when other states are suffering the ravages of a deepening credit crisis? Its secret may be that it has its own credit machine. North Dakota is the only state in the Union to own its own bank. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919, specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. The bank's stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. The Advantages of Owning Your Own Bank So, how does owning a bank solve the state's funding problems? Isn't the state still limited to the money it has? The answer is no. Chartered banks are allowed to do something nobody else can do: They can create credit on their books simply with accounting entries, using the magic of "fractional reserve" lending. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas explains on its web site: "Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here's how it works: Most of a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank ... holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times." How many times? President Obama puts this "multiplier effect" at eight to ten. In a speech on April 14, he said: "[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks - 'where's our bailout?,' they ask - the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth." It can, but it hasn't recently, because private banks are limited by bank capital requirements and by their for-profit business models. And that is where a state-owned bank has enormous advantages: States own huge amounts of capital, and they can think farther ahead that their quarterly profit statements, allowing them to take long-term risks. Their asset bases are not marred by oversized salaries and bonuses; they have no shareholders expecting a sizable cut, and they have not marred their books with bad derivatives bets, unmarketable collateralized debt obligations and mark-to-market accounting problems. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) is set up as a dba: "the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota." Technically, that makes the capital of the state the capital of the bank. Projecting the possibilities of this arrangement to California, the State of California owns about $200 billion in real estate, has $62 billion in various investments and has $128 billion in projected 2009 revenues. Leveraged by a factor of eight, that capital base could support nearly $4 trillion in loans. To get a bank charter, specific investments would probably need to be earmarked by the state as startup capital; but the startup capital required for a typical California bank is only about $20 million. This is small potatoes for the world's eighth largest economy, and the money would not actually be "spent." It would just become bank equity, transmuting from one form of investment into another - and a lucrative investment at that. In the case of the BND, the bank's return on equity is about 25 percent. It pays a hefty dividend to the state, which is expected to exceed $60 million this year. In the last decade, the BND has turned back a third of a billion dollars to the state's general fund, offsetting taxes. California could do substantially better than that. California pays $5 billion annually just in interest on its debt. If it had its own bank, the bank could refinance its debt and return that $5 billion to the state's coffers; and it would make substantially more on money lent out. Besides capital, a bank needs "reserves," which it gets from deposits. For the BND, this too is no problem, since it has a captive deposit base. By law, the state and all its agencies must deposit their funds in the bank, which pays a competitive interest rate to the state treasurer. The bank also accepts deposits from other entities. These copious deposits can then be plowed back into the state in the form of loans. Public Banking on the Central Bank Model The BND's populist organizers originally conceived of the bank as a credit union-like institution that would free farmers from predatory lenders, but conservative interests later took control and suppressed these commercial lending functions. The BND is now chiefly a "bankers' bank." It acts like a central bank, with functions similar to those of a branch of the Federal Reserve. It avoids rivalry with private banks by partnering with them. Most lending is originated by a local bank. The BND then comes in to participate in the loan, share risk and buy down the interest rate. One of the BND's functions is to provide a secondary market for real estate loans, which it buys from local banks. Its residential loan portfolio is now $500 billion to $600 billion. This function has helped the state to avoid the credit crisis that afflicted Wall Street when the secondary market for loans collapsed in late 2007. Before that, investors routinely bought securitized loans (CDOs) from the banks, making room on the banks' books for more loans. But these "shadow lenders" disappeared when they realized that the derivatives called "credit default swaps" supposedly protecting their CDOs were a highly unreliable form of insurance. In North Dakota, this secondary real estate market is provided by the BND, which has invested conservatively, avoiding the speculative derivatives debacle. Other services the BND provides include guarantees for entrepreneurial startups and student loans, the purchase of municipal bonds from public institutions and a well-funded disaster loan program. When the city of Fargo was struck by a massive flood recently, the disaster fund helped the city avoid the devastation suffered by New Orleans in similar circumstances; and when North Dakota failed to meet its state budget a few years ago, the BND met the shortfall. The BND has an account with the Federal Reserve Bank, but its deposits are not insured by the FDIC. Rather, they are guaranteed by the State of North Dakota itself - a prudent move today, when the FDIC is verging on bankruptcy. The Commercial Banking Model: The Commonwealth Bank of Australia The BND studiously avoids competition with private banks, but a publicly-owned bank could profitably engage in commercial lending. A successful model for that approach was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which served both central bank and commercial bank functions. For nearly a century, the publicly-owned Commonwealth Bank provided financing for housing, small business, and other enterprise, affording effective public competition that "kept the banks honest" and kept interest rates low. Commonwealth Bank put the needs of borrowers ahead of profits, ensuring that sound investment flows were maintained to farming and other essential areas; yet, the bank was always profitable, from 1911 until nearly the end of the century. Indeed, it seems to have been too profitable, making it a takeover target. It was simply "too good not to be privatized." The bank was sold in the 1990s for a good deal of money, but it's proponents consider it's loss as a social and economic institution to be incalculable. A State Bank of Florida? Could the sort of commercial model tested by Commonwealth Bank work today in the United States? Economist Farid Khavari thinks so. A Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, he proposes a Bank of the State of Florida (BSF) that would make loans to Floridians at much lower interest rates than they are getting now, using the magic of fractional reserve lending. He explains: "For $100 in deposits, a bank can create $900 in new money by making loans. So, the BSF can pay 6 percent for CDs, and make mortgage loans at 2 percent. For $6 per year in interest paid out, the BSF can earn $18 by lending $900 at 2 percent for mortgages." The state would earn $15,000 per $100,000 of mortgage, at a cost of about $1,700, while the homeowner would save $88,000 in interest and pay for the home 15 years sooner. "Our bank will save people about seven years of their pay over the course of 30 years, just on interest costs," says Dr. Khavari. He also proposes 6 percent credit cards and 6 percent certificates of deposit. The state could earn billions yearly on these loans, while saving hefty sums for consumers. It could also refinance its own debts and those of its municipal governments at very low interest rates. According to a German study, interest composes 30 percent to 50 percent of everything we buy. Slashing interest costs can make projects such as low-cost housing, alternative energy development, and infrastructure construction not only sustainable, but profitable for the state, while at the same time creating much-needed jobs. Written for Truthout. Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and ?the money trust.? She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from ?the money trust.? Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature's Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health: Non-toxic Dentistry (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 5 15:52:14 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:52:14 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] In Afghanistan, The Pentagon Digs In Message-ID: http://www.countercurrents.org/turse051109.htm In Afghanistan, The Pentagon Digs In By Nick Turse 05 November, 2009 Countercurrents.org In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan. While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country. In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation." Bogged Down at Bagram Nowhere has the building boom been more apparent than Bagram Air Base, a key military site used by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In its American incarnation, the base has significantly expanded from its old Soviet days and, in just the last two years, the population of the more than 5,000 acre compound has doubled to 20,000 troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. To keep up with its exponential growth rate, more than $200 million in construction projects are planned or in-progress at this moment on just the Air Force section of the base. "Seven days a week, concrete trucks rumble along the dusty perimeter road of this air base as bulldozers and backhoes reshape the rocky earth," Chuck Crumbo of The State reported recently. "Hundreds of laborers slap mortar onto bricks as they build barracks and offices. Four concrete plants on the base have operated around the clock for 18 months to keep up with the construction needs." The base already boasts fast food favorites Burger King, a combination Pizza Hut/Bojangles, and Popeyes as well as a day spa and shops selling jewelry, cell phones and, of course, Afghan rugs. In the near future, notes Pincus, "the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving on to other sites." In addition, according to the Associated Press, the base command is "acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand" even further. To handle the influx of troops already being dispatched by the Obama administration (with more expected once the president decides on his long-term war plans) "new dormitories" are going up at Bagram, according to David Axe of the Washington Times. The base's population will also increase in the near future, thanks to a project-in-progress recently profiled in The Freedom Builder, an Army Corps of Engineers publication: the MILCON Bagram Theatre Internment Facility (TIF) currently being built at a cost of $60 million by a team of more than 1,000 Filipinos, Indians, Sri Lankans, and Afghans. When completed, it will consist of 19 buildings and 16 guard towers designed to hold more than 1,000 detainees on the sprawling base which has long been notorious for the torture and even murder of prisoners within its confines. While the United States officially insists that it is not setting up permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale and permanency of the construction underway at Bagram seems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According to published reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for the complex aren't even slated to be operational until 2011. One of the private companies involved in hardening and building up Bagram's facilities is Contrack International, an international engineering and construction firm which, according to U.S. government records, received more than $120 million in contracts in 2009 for work in Afghanistan. According to Contrack's website, it is, among other things, currently designing and constructing a new "entry control point" -- a fortified entrance -- as well as a new "ammunition supply point" facility at the base. It is also responsible for "the design and construction of taxiways and aprons; airfield lighting and navigation aid improvements; and new apron construction" for the base's massive and expanding air operations infrastructure. The building boom at Bagram (which has received at least a modest amount of attention in the American mainstream press) is, however, just a fraction of the story of the way the U.S. military -- and Contrack International -- are digging in throughout Afghanistan. Rave Reviews for Kandahar In March, according to Pentagon documents, Contrack was awarded a $23 million contract for "the design and construction of [an] Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance ramp, Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan." Last year, in the Washington Post, Pincus reported that a planned expansion at the airfield, also once used by the Soviets and now a major U.S. and NATO base, was to accommodate aircraft working for a Task Force ODIN -- an Afghanistan-based version of the Army unit which used drones and helicopters to target insurgents planting IEDs in Iraq. Today, Task Force ODIN-Afghanistan -- the acronym stands for "observe, detect, identify and neutralize," with a nod to the chief Norse god -- is up and running, and still reportedly piloted out of "Bagram in one of two small, nondescript ground control stations." Whether ODIN aircraft are also operating out of Kandahar Airfield is -- like so much information about the U.S. military in Afghanistan -- unclear. Certainly, though, many more NATO and U.S. aircraft will be flying out of the base once Contrack, as it notes on its website, completes its "[d]esign and construction of replacement runways with asphalt and touch down areas with concrete pavement" and "rehabilitation of 6 existing taxiways," among other projects. Contrack's Kandahar contract is set to be fulfilled by late December, but like Bagram, the base already gives every appearance of permanence. "It's one of the busiest single runways in the world," Captain Max Hanlin from the 2nd U.S. Army Division's 5th Stryker Brigade told Agence France-Presse recently. Originally built to house 12,000 troops, Kandahar Air Base now supports 30,000 or more NATO and U.S. personnel. Some do battle in the inhospitable terrain of the surrounding region, while others have never been outside the wire and wile away their time in the base's cafes and small shops (where troops reportedly can buy, among other items, belly dancer costumes), party in the "Dutch corner," play roller hockey in the base's central square, or dance the night away at a Saturday rave. "They are shaking glowsticks as if they have no concept of the mines and the war outside," said one U.S. officer, watching troops on the dance floor. In recent days, U.S. forces announced a decrease in recreational perks and an imposition of more austere circumstances -- salsa and karaoke nights have already been cut at Kandahar -- prompting worries by NATO allies that their recreational facilities will be overrun by entertainment-starved U.S. troops. A Mob of FOBs It seems that no one outside the Pentagon knows just exactly how many U.S. camps, forward operating bases, combat outposts, patrol bases and other fortified sites the U.S. military is currently using or constructing in Afghanistan. And while the Americans have recently abandoned a few of their installations, effectively ceding the northeastern province of Nuristan to Taliban forces, elsewhere a base-building boom has been underway. In April, Contrack was awarded another $28 million contract for work on airfields -- to be performed at unspecified sites in Afghanistan. In June, Florida-based IAP Worldwide Services was awarded a $21 million contract to enhance electrical power distribution at the U.S. Marines' still-growing Forward Operating Base (FOB) Leatherneck in Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold. Scheduled for completion in June 2010, that project is only part of IAP's work, which has involved "almost two dozen power plants at U.S. Army bases in Afghanistan and Iraq" that, according to the company's promotional literature, its teams have "delivered, installed, operated and maintained." FOB Dwyer, also in Helmand Province, is fast becoming a "hub" for air support in southern Afghanistan, according to Captain Vincent Rea of the Air Force's 809th Expeditionary Red Horse Squadron. To that end, Marine Corps and Air Force personnel are building runways and helipads to accommodate ever more fixed-wing and rotary aircraft on the base. The two services collaborated on the construction of a 4,300-foot airstrip capable of accommodating giant C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that increase the U.S. capability to support more troops on more bases in more remote areas. "With the C-130s coming in more frequently, more Marines can travel at a given time and will definitely help Camp Dwyer and other FOBs and COPs (Combat Outposts) to build up," says Capt. Alexander Lugo-Velazquez of Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron 169. In September, the Air Force reported the completion of the first phase of a six-phase construction project at FOB Dwyer which will eventually include additional fuel pits and taxiways, increased tarmac space, and the lengthening of the runway to 6,000 feet. In October, according to government documents, the Army also began soliciting bids -- in the $10-$25 million range -- for construction of fuel storage and distribution facilities at FOB Dwyer. These, like the infrastructure upgrades at Bagram, are not scheduled to be completed until sometime in 2011. In Helmand, as well as Farah, Kandahar, and Nimruz provinces, between June and September the Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan alone established four new forward operating bases, "10 combat outposts, six patrol bases, and four ancillary operating positions, helicopter landing zones and an expeditionary airfield." In October, defense contractor AECOM Technology signed a $78 million, 6-month extension contract with the Army to "provide general-support maintenance as well as the operation of maintenance facilities, living quarters and offices at two U.S. military bases as well as forward operating bases and satellite locations" in Afghanistan. Defense contracting giant Fluor has also been hard at work landing lucrative deals in Afghanistan. In March, the Army reported that, in accordance with President Obama's spring surge of troops, Regional Command East in Afghanistan had tasked Fluor to expand four existing forward operating bases and, if need be, build another eight new ones. In Regional Command South, it was reported that "[e]mergency work to expand eight FOBs [wa]s underway after being competitively awarded to Fluor under LOGCAP IV." This is the current version of a military program first instituted by the Pentagon in 1985. It has been the key means by which military logistics and supply functions have been turned over to private contractors. (The previous version of the program, LOGCAP III, was awarded solely to Kellogg, Brown and Root Services or KBR, then a division of the oil services giant Halliburton, primarily in support of U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait and was plagued by scandals.) In Afghanistan, companies like Fluor are clearly digging in. Fluor, in fact, describes itself as "co-located with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, where the team coordinates, provides oversight, and implements Fluor's execution plan to provide the necessary resources and labor to accomplish this mission" of "providing multi-functional base life support and combat services support (CSS) to the U.S. and Coalition Forces in Afghanistan." The company is "simultaneously constructing and managing the expansion of eight Forward Operating Bases[...] in Southern Afghanistan. This includes the construction of an FOB to accommodate 17,000 to 20,000 U.S. Military personnel." Fluor, no doubt, expects to be "co-located with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan" for a long time. In July 2009, the defense giant was awarded a $1.5 billion contract for LOGCAP IV services in Afghanistan; in October, the Army reported that the LOGCAP program was responsible for erecting 6,020 units of containerized housing known as relocatable buildings or RLBs in Regional Command South. In July, under an existing LOGCAP IV contract, scandal-tainted defense contractor DynCorp International, along with partners CH2M Hill and Taos Industries, received a one year $643.5 million order to "provide existing bases within the Afghanistan South AOR [area of responsibility] with operations and maintenance support, including but not limited to: facilities management, electrical power, water, sewage and waste management, laundry operations, food services and transportation motor pool operations," as well as "construction services for additional sites." With an eye to the future, the Pentagon has included four one-year options in the contract which, if taken up, would be worth an estimated $5.8 billion. Just recently, the Australian military indicated it was also digging in for a long stay, announcing a $37 million upgrade of its main base near Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan province, to be completed by mid-2011. As at other NATO facilities, increasing numbers of U.S. troops have been operating out of Tarin Kowt recently and, in late September, the U.S.-based company Kandahar Constructors signed a $25 million deal with the Pentagon for runway upgrades there, also to be completed in 2011. Speaking the Language of Occupation In 2009 alone, after many billions of dollars had already gone into the construction, expansion, and maintenance of U.S. bases in Afghanistan, American taxpayers were called upon to pay for more than $1 billion in construction contracts -- and based on the evidence at hand, including those future options, this may prove just a drop in the proverbial bucket. All of this has been happening without a clear plan laid out in Washington for the future of U.S. military operations in that country, without a legitimate national government in Kabul, and of course with no shortage of infrastructural repairs needed at home. Americans curious to know much of anything about the Pentagon's Afghan building boom beyond Bagram would have found little on the nightly news or in major newspapers. It has essentially been carried out in the dark, far away, and with only the most modest reportorial interest. Forget for a moment the "debates" in Washington over Afghan War policy and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military's building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decide upon. Alternatively, it suggests that the Pentagon is willing to waste taxpayer money (which might have shored up sagging infrastructure in the U.S. and created a plethora of jobs) on what will sooner or later be abandoned runways, landing zones and forward operating bases. The building and fortifying of bases in Afghanistan isn't the only sign that the U.S. military is digging in for an even longer haul. Another key indicator can be found in a Pentagon contract awarded in late September to SOS International, Ltd., a privately owned "operations support company" that provides everything from "cultural advisory services" to "intelligence and counterintelligence analysis and training" to numerous federal agencies. That contract, primarily for linguistic services in support of military operations in Afghanistan, has an estimated completion date of September 2014. Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com and the winner of a 2009 Ridenhour Prize for Reportorial Distinction as well as a James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times, and regularly at TomDispatch. Turse is currently a fellow at New York University's Center for the United States and the Cold War. A paperback edition of his book The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books) was published earlier this year. His website is NickTurse.com. Copyright 2009 Nick Turse From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 03:05:51 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:05:51 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Stay Home if You Have Swine Flu, Unless You Work at Wal-Mart Message-ID: http://washingtonindependent.com/66492/stay-home-if-you-have-swine-flu-unless-you-work-at-wal-mart Stay Home if You Have Swine Flu, Unless You Work at Wal-Mart By Mary Kane 11/4/09 9:07 AM During the summer, when swine flu was not yet a widespread reality in the United States, giant retailer Wal-Mart made the news for being in talks with the government about possibly distributing the swine flu vaccine through its extensive network of stores. But now the swine flu has Wal-Mart under scrutiny for a very different reason: Accusations that the retailer is leaving employees infected with swine flu little choice but to come to work, due to its punitive sick leave policies. Citing a report by the National Labor Committee, the Institute for Southern Studies? argues on its blog Facing South that Wal-Mart is essentially contributing to the spread of swine flu by making it financially prohibitive for employees to miss work when they fall ill. Employees of the Arkansas-based retail giant ? even its food handlers ? feel they have no choice but to work when they?re sick. That?s because the company gives workers demerits and deducts pay for staying home when they?re sick or caring for sick children. It gets worse: The situation is particularly difficult for Wal-Mart workers who are single parents. The NLC reports on an instance in which an employee got a call from her four-year-old?s preschool telling her to pick up the child, who had a fever of 103 degrees F. Despite the fact that the employee had already worked for four hours that day, she got a demerit point for leaving and lost her wages for the rest of the day. The report says: ?Parents have no choice but to load their children up with Motrin and Dimetap to mask their symptoms so they can go to school.? Which, of course, leads to a vicious circle of other children at school becoming sick, and spreading it in their families. Not to mention the misery of a sick child facing a full day of school. What?s particularly interesting is that Wal-Mart includes on its Website some information about swine flu, including frequently asked questions. Here?s the answer to ?What should I do if I get sick?? Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick. Staying at home means that you should not leave your home except to seek medical care. This means avoiding normal activities, including work, school, travel, shopping, social events and public gatherings. Unless you work at Wal-Mart. Then, you?d better make it in for your shift if you don?t want your pay docked or possibly lose your job. From Facing South: Wal-Mart has a demerit system that punishes workers who cannot come to work due to illness. Employees who miss a day due to sickness receive a one-point demerit and lose eight hours of wages. Employees with more than three absences a six-month period face discipline, and a fifth absence ? even for a sick day ? will result in what the company calls ?active coaching? by management. A sixth absence leads to what Wal-Mart calls ?Decision Day,? when a worker can be either terminated or put on a year-long trial period during which time he or she can be fired for any infraction and cannot be promoted. The swine flu sometimes can cause people to miss an entire week or more of work. At Wal-Mart, that could get you fired. Somehow, I don?t think that?s what the Center for Disease Control was hoping for this flu season, as it tries to contain a life-threatening virus. Wal-Mart?s labor policies have long been contentious, but this one could actually create a public safety issue. If these allegations are true, it may be time for public health officials to step in somehow, perhaps with fines for the retailer for keeping flu-stricken employees on the job. And let?s not just pick on Wal-Mart; it?s very possible that other low-wage retailers and business are doing the same thing. Maybe the best option in the absence of any government action is for customers to walk away. Is a bargain really worth it if employees are forced to work while sick with the flu ? and potentially help to spread an unusually dangerous virus? From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 03:21:21 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:21:21 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] And the Winner in Honduras is ... the United States? Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/shansky11052009.html November 5, 2009 Saving Face, While Manipulating the Outcome And the Winner in Honduras is ... the United States? By JOSEPH SHANSKY Never underestimate the capabilities of the slightest American muscle-flexing. After deliberately failing to use its massive economic and diplomatic influence in the tiny Central American country, the US has reportedly given the international community reason to breathe a sigh of relief in what Hillary Clinton is calling an ?historic agreement?. According to the US, the Honduran governmental power struggle has been resolved, and an agreement for President Manuel Zelaya to be reinstated has been reached. All thanks to a breezy State Department intervention that could have come four months, twenty-six lives, hundreds of disappearances, and thousands of random detentions earlier for Honduran citizens. Instead they let it play out like an internal civil disagreement while watching from above until the time was politically opportune to step in. In other words, the two children who were bickering in what Henry Kissinger famously dubbed ?our backyard? have been rightfully scolded, and forced by Uncle Sam to make nice. As for President Zelaya, and his supporters both in the streets and at the Brazilian embassy, as well as the journalists who have been living in Tegucigalpa and around the country for much of the summer and fall? We can all go home; diplomatic dialogue has prevailed on both sides. Or so we?re told. The details of what is now being called the Guaymuras Accords are messy. They involve a series of conditions and fine print designed to continue the regime?s now-familiar tactic of delaying real progress through semantics and by creating more legal headaches. At the same time, any pressure on the US to fight for a constructive return of Zelaya?s presidential powers is now gone. Despite coup leader Roberto Micheletti?s claim that his de-facto government has made ?significant concessions? in the accords, the real concessions have come from the other side. All one needs to do is imagine how Zelaya?s supporters would have reacted soon after the coup to the type of ?power-sharing? agreement that is currently being celebrated. It would have been considered laughable. These are the basic terms both sides have agreed to: - Creation of a government of national reconciliation that includes cabinet members from both sides. - Suspension of any possible vote on holding a Constitutional Assembly until after Jan. 27, when Zelaya's term ends. - A general amnesty for political crimes was rejected by both sides - Command of the Armed Forces to be placed under the Electoral Tribunal during the month prior to the elections. - Restitution of Zelaya to the presidency following a non-binding opinion from the Supreme Court and approval of Congress - Creation of a Verification Commission to follow up on the accords, consisting of two members of the Organization of American States (OAS), and one member each from the constitutional government and the coup regime. - Creation of a Truth Commission to begin work in 2010. - Revocation of international sanctions against Honduras, following the accords. The accords give President Zelaya some of his original rights as the democratically-elected president of Honduras. But who knows when? As of October 31, there have already been several contradictory statements coming out from Micheletti?s team. One of his negotiators said that since Congress would not be in session before the elections, it is now unlikely that Zelaya would be returned to any kind of power before that date. If he is, it hinges on approval by the same Congress that approved his seizure and relinquishes his executive power over the armed forces. In the ?power-sharing? agreement, the coup government would retain control over the military, a critical advantage. It also dismisses amnesty for political crimes on both sides, but at the moment Zelaya is the one facing a mountain of trumped-up charges, thanks to a summer of legal proceedings which took place under an illegitimate government and a shady judicial system. Another obstacle to a rightful reinstatement may be the Honduran Supreme Court. For example, from Sept. 22 through Oct. 19, five constitutional rights were suspended under a decree by the coup government. These included personal liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, habeas corpus, and freedom of association. This was based on a clause in the 1982 Constitution which allowed for such restrictions in states of emergency, and is a perfect example of why Hondurans are demanding a new Constitution. The Honduran Supreme Court, which has been described by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs as ?one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America?,c can give a non-binding opinion regarding Zelaya?s return which Congress can then take or leave. However, this process takes time, again indicating stalling on the part of the coup regime. Perhaps most importantly, the push for a popular Constituent Assembly during his term has also been dropped by Zelaya and his negotiating team. This concession was what caused Juan Barahona, coordinator of the National Front Against the Coup and a key voice on Zelaya?s side, to drop out of negotiations a few weeks ago. The Constituent Assembly would have created a body to rewrite the 1982 Honduran Constitution in newly democratic terms. On June 28, the day that Zelaya was forcibly removed from power and ejected from the country, Hondurans were scheduled to vote on a non-binding referendum for a Constituent Assembly. The outcome was to determine whether or not to then have a vote to rewrite the outdated 1982 Constitution. Subsequent polls have indicated a majority of support in Honduras for this reform. In the big picture, this is the real change for the future which thousands of Hondurans have been fighting for in the streets. What the Guaymuras Accords do most is create a space for the United States to recognize the legitimacy of the upcoming presidential elections, scheduled for November 29. With National Party front-runner Pepe Lobo likely to win (thanks to a campaign season in which any independent voices were sharply silenced by media censorship), the US gets another puppet in the region to counter the influx of reform-minded leaders in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. It?s the political equivalent of more foreign aid debt. Furthermore, throughout the entirety of the coup neither Secretary of State Clinton nor President Obama (surely occupied with political concessions of his own at home) have acknowledged the repression and violence perpetrated by the Micheletti government and Honduran military in its wake. They still refuse to do so. So the actual power returned to Zelaya may be symbolic at best. But it?s extremely important for another group involved - the Resistance movement all around the country. Since the announcement on October 30 of Zelaya?s pending reinstatement, people here have triumphantly taken to the streets in a manner unseen since?actually, two weeks ago when Honduras qualified for the 2010 World Cup. The unity of the Resistance has put continual pressure on the coup government. Its mobilization constantly put Honduras into the world spotlight, and highlighted the violent reaction of a surprised regime. Undoubtedly the violence would have been far more severe without the involvement of the Resistance. The psychological effects of bringing their President back in any way after 125+ days in the streets mark a clear victory for the movement. And of course there are enormous differences between the (relatively) bloodless Honduran coup and the devastating Kissinger days of the 1970s, which led to tens of thousands of CIA-sponsored murders and disappearances in countries like Chile and Argentina. Still, the bottom line remains the same. Military coups in Latin America are not a thing of the past yet, and their outcome can be strongly influenced, in fact practically determined, by the US. Time will tell if the events in Honduras were an isolated affair, or if they indicate the type of reaction we will be seeing to the new age of leftist revolutions in Latin America. What is clear now is that after months of refusing to take real diplomatic action, the State Department has found a way to not only save face internationally, but to manipulate the outcome to make it appear to be a foreign policy win for the US. Though it?s still early in the proceedings, a clear victor has already emerged in the Honduran stand-off. Joseph Shansky works with Democracy Now! en Espa?ol, He can be reached at fallow3 at gmail.com. This report also appears in Upsidedown World. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 03:42:09 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:42:09 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Justice Goldstone and the Jews Message-ID: 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 04:05:14 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:05:14 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The Goldstone report: A Jewish view Message-ID: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/20091139240897444.html Tuesday, November 03, 2009 The Goldstone report: A Jewish view By Rachel Barenblat I recently spent an evening on a conference call with Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed up the United Nations fact finding mission on the Gaza conflict. His commission authored the Goldstone report, which has been received with controversy in some quarters of the Jewish community. On the call were 150 American rabbis and rabbinic students who wanted to hear directly from Goldstone about the process of creating the report and about its findings. There is an old saying that where there are two Jews, there will be three opinions. This is especially true on the subject of Israel and Palestine, where passions run high on all sides. Shamed and frustrated Many Jews objected to the Goldstone report from the moment it was released. They argued that the process through which it was created is biased against Israel, and that the report is therefore fatally flawed. But this is not the only opinion in the Jewish community. No one can speak for the entire Jewish community, but I can speak for myself and on behalf of those who share my views. I honor Goldstone's work toward ending apartheid and his investigations of human rights abuses in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia. I see his work with this UN fact finding mission as cut from that same cloth. And I am deeply saddened by the abuses of power revealed by the Goldstone report and by the unwillingness on the part of some within my community to accept the realities that the report makes plain. Like many Jews, I want to believe that the one nation which was founded by adherents to my religious tradition will naturally be just and righteous. When the state fails to live up to that ethical mandate, my heart is broken. That the government of Israel refused to cooperate with the UN fact finding mission frustrates me; that the Goldstone report reveals such abuses of power shames me. Spiral of hatred Goldstone spoke to us about his perception that the Israeli government chose to punish the Palestinian population of Gaza collectively in return for the rocket fire which has been raining down on Ashkelon and Sderot. He cited the destruction of flour factories and egg farms as evidence that the Israeli army acted unethically. He argued that the destruction of 5,000 homes and the attacks on schools and mosques cannot have been accidental. This is difficult for Jews to hear, but I think it is imperative that we listen and understand. At the end of the call, he expressed his strong hope that both the Israelis and the Palestinians will engage in a transparent process of criminal investigation to explore who is responsible for the decisions made on both sides. Israel must explore who made the decisions to enact collective punishment on the Palestinians; Hamas must explore who made the decisions to fire rockets at civilians in Ashkelon and Sderot, creating a climate of terror for those cities' inhabitants. I join my voice to his in calling for investigation. The spiral of bloodshed and hatred will only continue unless both sides take seriously the obligation of bringing those responsible to justice. Narrative of victimhood Though many of my coreligionists do not accept the validity of the report - indeed, there have been strong efforts to quash and discredit it in the Jewish community worldwide - many Jews agree with me. Some are the clergy who were on that conference call. Others joined me in attending the recent J Street conference in Washington, DC. We perceive that our holy texts speak with a clear voice on the question of human rights and human dignity. Torah teaches us that all of humanity is created in the divine image. When human rights abuses are perpetrated, our religious tradition demands that we speak out. This is true even when those abuses are perpetrated by others who share our faith. Both sides need to let go of our collective trauma-filled past in order to move forward with the work of creating change. Both Israelis and Palestinians will need to relinquish some of the narrative of victimhood in order to acknowledge that both sides have suffered and both sides are culpable. I believe that this acknowledgement is a necessary prerequisite for forward motion and for change. Transforming the status quo A few months ago I attended a retreat for emerging Jewish and Muslim religious leaders. Late in the retreat, once we had built relationships with one another, we entered into some challenging conversations about Israel and Palestine. I was amazed at the extent to which each of our communities feels that the "other side" has all of the power and also that the "other side" is uninterested in real dialogue or real change. I believe that both sides want - and need - to transform the broken and damaging status quo; but I also believe we are both going to have to do some stretching to get there. Part of the stretching I think the Jewish and Israeli communities need to do is coming to terms with the Goldstone report and its implications. Step toward peace That stretching is happening in some quarters. The report has been championed by Ta'anit Tzedek - Jewish Fast for Gaza and by The Shalom Center. Rabbis for Human Rights-North America has formally called upon Israel to investigate Operation Cast Lead, and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace) takes the report as a call to redouble their work toward peace in the region. These organisations are part of the coalition of Jewish voices calling for attention to the report and its findings, and calling for a real and meaningful investigation into both the rocket attacks on southern Israel and the Israeli army attacks on Gaza. I hope that more of the Jewish community will join us. I hope that leaders in the Palestinian community will call for the same kind of scrutiny. The Goldstone report, and its strong recommendation that both sides engage in an open and transparent review of the crimes committed by both sides over the course of this engagement, could be a step toward acknowledging the suffering of victims on both sides. This could in turn be the first step toward a lasting peace. May it happen speedily and in our days. Rachel Barenblat is a student in the ALEPH rabbinic programme and a student member of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America. She has blogged as The Velveteen Rabbi since 2003. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 06:32:51 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:32:51 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change Message-ID: 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 energy is 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 plants has 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-complexes with 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 Institute and 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 08:05:05 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:05:05 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] A Monetary Reformer's Interpretation of "The Lord of the Rings" Message-ID: (from Bill Totten) A Monetary Reformer's Interpretation 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 (older article from Heartlandusa but no longer available at the above URL) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 08:25:09 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:25:09 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The Iron Cheer of Empire Message-ID: http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/10/the-iron-cheer-of-empire.html JoeBageant.com October 28, 2009 The Iron Cheer of Empire No free tortillas in the Workhouse Republic by Joe Bageant 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. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 12:13:53 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:13:53 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Double standard on extradition: CIA agents vs. Roman Polanski Message-ID: http://wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pola-n06.shtml The US government?s double standard on extradition: CIA agents vs. Roman Polanski By David Walsh 6 November 2009 It is worth considering the contrast between the refusal of the US government to cooperate with the extradition to Italy of 23 convicted CIA and Air Force kidnappers, and its determined effort to see filmmaker Roman Polanski returned to Los Angeles so that ?justice can be served.? The CIA agents (and one Air Force colonel), in collaboration with the Italian intelligence services, organized the abduction of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric, on a Milan street in February 2003 and flew him to Egypt, where he was sadistically tortured over several years. Nasr was never charged with a crime or brought before any court of law. An accompanying article posted today on the World Socialist Web Site explains the horrific details of the case, but it should be noted that Abu Omar alleges he was beaten severely by his CIA captors, that he was subsequently held in an underground cell in Egypt ?where you cannot distinguish between night and day, and the cockroaches and rats and insects walk all over? one?s body, and that he was ?hung up like slaughtered cattle, head down, feet up, hands behind my back, feet also tied together, and I was exposed to electric shocks all over my body and especially the head area to weaken the brain ?? Milan prosecutors provided evidence indicating that US involvement did not end with turning Nasr over to Egyptian authorities. The prosecutors produced cell phone and hotel reservation records revealing that Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA?s chief in Milan and one of the defendants in the case (who received an 8-year sentence in absentia), traveled to Cairo four days after Abu Omar was deposited there and stayed in the city for two weeks?no doubt, to see if the torture was bearing fruit. Lady fled the villa in northern Italy to which he had retired when the investigation into the Abu Omar case became more serious. He is assumed to be living in the US. There is no clamor, however, in the American media that ?Lady must face justice? for his serious crimes. In February 2007, after a judge in Milan ordered the group of American agents to stand trial on kidnapping charges, the Bush administration announced its intention to protect the CIA personnel. State Department legal adviser John Bellinger told a news briefing, ?We?ve not got an extradition request from Italy? If we got an extradition request from Italy, we would not extradite US officials to Italy.? In any event, the Italian government has steadfastly refused the prosecutors? extradition request. Prosecutor Armando Spataro told the media he was now ?considering asking Rome to issue international arrest warrants for the fugitive Americans on the strength of the convictions.? The right-wing Berlusconi government is unlikely to take any such action. The Obama administration is continuing the Bush policy, expressing its ?disappointment? with the Italian verdict and promising not to hand over the CIA criminals. The US Justice Department?s Office of International Affairs (OIA), which would handle any Italian request for extradition of the CIA agents from the US, treated the Polanski matter in a quite different fashion. Its agents monitored the film director?s movements in Europe since at least last December, according to emails obtained by the Associated Press, rejecting Austria as a possible site for his arrest before settling on Switzerland, after a tip from authorities there in September. On September 25, OIA officials emailed the Los Angeles district attorney?s office, confidently predicting that the Swiss would hold onto Polanski. ?Generally, Switzerland does not release fugitives sought for extradition,? the email explained. ?The default in Switzerland is that a fugitive will be detained until s/he is either extradited or determined by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court to be non-extraditable.? The campaign against Polanski, who pled guilty to having sex with a teenage girl in 1977 and then fled the US after a judge threatened to renege on a plea bargain agreement, is entirely vindictive. It is a sop to the right-wing ?family values? crowd that now has such a significant influence on social policy in the US. On October 2, a team of Polanski?s lawyers met with Justice Department officials, including Clinton appointee Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, who oversees the OIA, in an effort to convince them to drop the extradition proceedings. The attorneys presented the Obama administration officials with arguments against returning Polanski to Los Angeles. They summarized allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the 1977 case, and contended that Polanski had little chance of receiving a fair hearing in California should he be extradited to the US. The Los Angeles County District Attorney?s Office said the ?lobbying? effort would have no impact on the process. Declared public information officer Sandi Gibbons, ?We will be following the procedure that we follow in all international extraditions. We send all the necessary materials to Washington and the request goes out from there.? And, indeed, the Swiss announced October 23 that the US government, through its embassy in Bern, had formally asked for Polanski?s extradition the evening before. When it comes to intelligence and military personnel guilty of major crimes, the Obama administration, like the Bush regime before it, flouts international law and protects the perpetrators. It proceeds with zeal when it comes to a film director wanted for a 30-year-old crime, whose prosecution is useful in whipping up social backwardness and strengthening the powers of the state. The double standard could hardly be clearer. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 12:21:16 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:21:16 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Honduras] Communique of the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup Message-ID: Communique No. 33 of the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup The National Front of Resistance Against the Coup wishes to inform the Honduran people and the international community of the following: Whereas, 1. During the 131 days of continuous struggle, we have pushed for a peaceful solution to the political crisis in our country as a result of the coup d'etat carried out by the Honduran oligarchy. In this period we have supported the efforts promoted by various national and international sectors, putting forward three key demands: (a) the return to constitutional order with the reinstatement of the legitimate president, Manuel Zelaya Rosales; (b) respect for the sovereign right to establish a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of refounding our nation; and (c) punishment for those who have violated human rights. 2. The Tegucigalpa-San Jose agreement underscores the priority of returning to constitutional order and affirms, literally, the need to "return the holder of executive power to its pre-June 28 state through to January 27, 2010, which marks the end of the term of the current government." 3. The National Congress, co-author of the break with the constitutional order on June 28, is using delaying tactics by refusing to convene the full assembly of the Congress to revoke the decree that set up the de-facto regime. 4. The OAS and the U.S. government, which we consider to be an accomplice in the military coup, do not show an interest in the definitive departure of the coup perpetrators from political power. Therefore We Resolve That, 1. If by 12 midnight today, Thursday, November 5 -- at the latest -- President Jos? Manuel Zelaya Rosales is not reinstated, the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup will refuse to recognize the electoral process and its results. 2. We warn all organizations of the national Resistance that if President Zelaya were not to be reinstated within this time frame, they should be ready to carry out the actions necessary to deny any legitimacy to the electoral farce. 3. We call upon the international community to maintain its position of refusing to legitimize the de-facto regime and the elections of November 29. "We Are Resisting and We Shall Win!" Tegucigalpa, M.D.C. November 5, 2009 (translated from the Spanish by Alan Benjamin/The Organizer) From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 03:17:41 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:17:41 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Honduras] Indigenous organization COPINH denounces Guaymuras Accords Message-ID: <<....the coup regime's . . . only purpose is to buy time to consolidate the objectives of the coup d'etat in looting the national treasury and imposing neoliberal projects of privatization of natural resources and state institutions.>> http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/2009/11/indigenous-organization-copinh.html Wednesday, November 4, 2009 Indigenous organization COPINH denounces Guaymuras Accords Civil Council of Popular and Inidigenous Organizations of Honduras - COPINH. THE TRAP OF THE ACCORDS OF THE GUAYMURAS-TEGUCIGALPA-SAN JOS? DIALOGUE" PRESS RELEASE. The Civil Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), in the face of the signing of the accords to seek a solution to the crisis generated by the military coup d'etat against the people of Honduras, emits the following communiqu?: 1. We have no trust in the negotiating commission of the coup regime given that they have never demonstrated a willingness to reinstate the constitutional president of the republic and its only purpose is to buy time to consolidate the objectives of the coup d'etat in looting the national treasury and imposing neoliberal projects of privatization of natural resources and state institutions. 2. We denounce the malicious and intentional attitude of the government of the United States of America, who take on ambiguous positions but behind the scenes have supported the coup-makers and if not how can they explain that in the kidnapping of President Manuel Zelaya Rosales they used the Palmerola base? If the yankees had so much will to contribute to the resolution of this crisis, why so much tolerance, patience and complacency with the coup-makers in lending themselves to a dialogue where they present deceiving agreements as a solution? 3. We call on our people not to rest until we achieve the convoking of a popular and democratic national constitutional assembly, which should be made up of the different social sectors of the country such as women, feminists, youth, indigenous and black peoples, workers, the LGTB community, community councils, representatives of marginalized neighborhoods, teachers, artists, peasants, honest business people, intellectuals, professionals, the informal economy sector, alternative media, among others. 4. We urge the National Front of Popular Resistance to raise an initiative of dialogue and negotiation towards more dignified agreements in which the mediation shouldn't be to the liking and oversight of the yankee government, which has helped drive the coup d'etat against our people, but instead by people like Rigoberta Menchu, Adolfo P?rez Esquivel, democratic countries that make up the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) and UNASUR, foundations like the Carter Foundation, social movements of hte countries of Latin America and the world like the Landless Peoples Movement of Brazil, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo of Argentina, the Scream of the Excluded, Jubilee South, the Convergence of Popular Movements of the Americas, the School of the Americas Watch, the platforms of solidarity with the Honduran people and others. For this the front should name a negotiating commission that understands that the coup-makers are perverse and that the State Department, the Pentagon and the U.S. government in general are driving the coup d'etat and proposing as key points the restitution of the President of the Republic Manuel Zelaya Rosales to govern for the time that the coup-makers robbed of his governing period, the installation of a national constitutional assembly and the dissolution of the coup congress, of the coup supreme court, of the coup public ministry, the reduction and purging of the armed forces, the definitive purging of the national police and the punishment of the people involved in the coup d'etat and the violation of human rights. 5. We urge once again to the candidates of the Democratic Unification Party, the Popular Independent Candidacy, the PINU party and the Liberals who are in resistance to be consistent and renounce once and for all the participation in the electoral farce set up by the coup-makers, to our people we urge you not to participate in the electoral circus and to boycott that act of the coup-makers. 6. To the international solidarity we invite you to strengthen the support to the Honduran people not just as a principle of solidarity but for reasons of self-defense since if the coup-makers consolidate in Honduras the democratic spring of the peoples of the world and particularly the peoples of our America will end. With the ancestral force of Lempira, Iselaca, Mota and Etempica we raise our voices filled with life, justice, dignity, freedom and peace. HERE NOBODY IS GIVING UP! Given in Intibuc? on the 4th of November, 2009 From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 03:53:31 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:53:31 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 1/3 of U.S. workforce will be un/underemployed in 2010 Message-ID: ================ See also: http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/11/06/us-jobless-rate-shocking-157-million-workers-unemployed/print/ <<.....the overall jobs situation isn't improving any time soon, according to Economic Policy Institute Director Larry Mishel, who predicts that one-third of the U.S. workforce will be unemployed or underemployed in 2010.>> ================ http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/fact_sheet_double-digit_unemployment/ http://www.epi.org/page/-/img/110609-factsheet.pdf EPI Fact Sheet Economic Policy institute November 6, 2009 Fact Sheet Double-Digit unemployment After rising for two-and-a-half years, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 10.2% in October, marking the first time in 26 years that it has been above 10%. The following data offer more historical context and demographic detail on the job market. Historical context Current unemployment rate (October 2009): 10.2% Current underemployment rate, including people who have been unable to find full-time work and are working either part time or not at all: 17.5% Number of consecutive months of job loss during this recession: 22 Last time the United States saw 10.2% unemployment: April 1983 Number of months double-digit unemployment lasted during the 1980s recession: 10 Peak rate of unemployment during the recession in 2001: 5.5% Number of months that passed after the 2001 recession had officially ended before unemployment peaked, at 6.3%: 19 Current Recession Ratio of job seekers to job openings when the current recession began: 1.7 to 1 Ratio of job seekers to job openings today: 6.3 to 1 Total number of jobs lost during the current recession: 8.1 million Number of people who have been unemployed for more than six months: 5.6 million Jobs needed to return to pre-recession employment levels when population growth is factored in: 10.9 million Demographic Data Current unemployment rate for black workers: 15.7% Current unemployment rate for Hispanic workers: 13.1% Current unemployment rate for white workers: 9.5% Current unemployment rate for men: 11.4% Current unemployment rate for women: 8.8% State with the highest unemployment: Michigan, 15.3% State with the lowest unemployment: North Dakota, 4.2% State showing the largest portion of job loss during this recession: Arizona, 10% Unemployment rate among black workers in Michigan: 23.9% Unemployment rate among white workers in Michigan: 13.7% Unemployment rate for college-educated workers: 4.7% Unemployment rate for workers who did not complete high school: 15.5% Related Economic Data Number of Americans with no health insurance in 2008: 46.3 million Number of Americans projected to have no health insurance by 2010: more than 50 million Percent of U.S. population living in poverty in 2008: 13.2% Percent of U.S. children living in poverty in 2008: 19% Percent of African American children living in poverty in 2008: 34.7% Portion of African American children expected to be living in poverty in the coming years, as a result of higher unemployment: more than half From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 11:02:07 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:02:07 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] =?windows-1252?q?Norman_Finkelstein=3A_Zionism=92s_Ve?= =?windows-1252?q?rsion_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 11:13:30 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:13:30 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 the Western perspective, the real war is being fought here. Compare the war that the UK fought and won in Malaya with Afghanistan; they slugged it out in the jungle for years, using techniques that were later used in Vietnam. That war was about suppressing the Communist guerillas, or more generically, destroying Communism wherever it appeared to be gaining ground. And because of the Cold War and anti-Communism and the threat of nuclear Armageddon, they were able to sell all their wars to their public. That was the pretext for ?being there? then but without the Commies what other reason could be invented for going there when the need arises? The problem with this course of action is that a new enemy had to be invented (at least the old enemy actually existed) in order to actually go there. Enter the ?War on Terror?, whose launch day, coincidentally, was September 11, 2001. It?s worth noting that nothing on the scale of 9/11 has happened in the intervening eight years. In fact in the US, aside from a lot of alleged plots to do this and that, absolutely nothing has happened. The only actual post-9/11 act that killed people, the Anthrax attack, was an ?inside job?. The ?War on Terror? is getting to look like the ?War on Drugs? (an abject failure if ever there was one) and difficult to sell to a public that gets up close and personal with every (Western) death via our ubiquitous media prison. It ain?t going well for the Empire, they?re kinda caught in a trap of their own making having sold us on the idea that we were going there for some noble ideal (oh those women-hating Taliban etc), an ideal that now visibly lies in tatters in Helmand Province and elsewhere no matter how the BBC spins it at us (Operation Panther?s Claw? Who comes up with these dumb names?). What is critical here and why the BBC makes a big thing of ?our boys over there? is that it?s gotten so bad ?over there? that it is no longer (was it ever?) about Western deaths. I mean G Brown?s pathetic bleating about defending the White Cliffs of Dover over there, went down like a lead balloon (and evidently he felt it necessary to repeat the lie yesterday, see below). So look, it now seems that the tactic du jour is just not to be there, well not be seen being there, that?s the objective. If by some miracle, they can get an ?Afghan? Army together enough and in one place at the same time (and pointing in the same direction, see ?Taliban link to shootings probed?), then all their problems are over, they hope. The Afghans can go on shooting each other with weapons supplied by the West and the West can get on with business, that?s the theory. But it costs money being there and you have to do it in style, not with a lot of old Land Rovers with bits of steel bolted to the sides. Afghanistan ain?t Malaya, Cyprus, Aden, or Kenya, nor is it done in a situation such as existed back then. This is the UK?s problem, in punching well above their weight it illustrates perhaps more than anything else why it?s not about ?winning? but simply being there that?s important. The Taliban might have initiated the war of national liberation but I think the situation has moved well beyond them with many more people joining the resistance not only because we are slaughtering them in their thousands, but none of the billions in ?aid? that was meant to ?win their hearts and minds? has ever reached them. The only cash crop the country has in abundance is the Poppy. A crop that?s worth (in Western countries anyway, who knows how much to those thousands of subsistance farmers who grow the stuff) $65 billion a year and it has to leave the country somehow. But one can guess at the numbers of Westerners in the so-called International Stabilization Force plus all the hangers-on, the ?civilian contractors? (what a euphemism for a hired gun), the innumerable NGOs, the UN and so forth, and of course let?s not leave out the CIA, who are hooked into the opium trade (just as they were in the ?Golden Triangle? with the CIA?s Air America doing the runs).[3] But obviously the occupiers are not there to clean up the opium trade except insofar as it serves as a piece of propaganda for domestic consumption. And bleating about the Taliban?s treatment of women rings hollow when the occupiers are backing a government that legalizes marital rape. The ?election? farce is a replay of the US experience in Vietnam when the CIA finally ?neutralized? the puppet Diem (their man in Saigon) and I wouldn?t mind betting that if things don?t work out with Karzai that he might get ?neutralized? as well.[4] The degree of desperation in the UK is evident from the following, ?The UK will not be ?deterred, dissuaded or diverted? from its Afghan mission, despite the risks posed to troops, Gordon Brown is expected to say. ?The comments come after five soldiers were killed in Helmand on Tuesday by a policeman being trained by UK forces. ?The prime minister will say in a speech the mentoring [sic] must continue ?because it is what distinguishes a liberating army from an army of occupation?.? ? ?Afghan mission will go on ? Brown?, BBC News, 6 November, 2009 Contrast this with what G Brown?s was telling us a couple of days ago, ?The British military blamed Tuesday?s attack in Helmand on a ?rogue? Afghan policeman, but the UK PM said possible Taliban involvement was being examined.? ? ?Taliban link to shootings probed?, BBC News, 6 November, 2009 These oafs can?t make their minds up about who exactly they are fighting. ??the government says the Afghan mission is vital to ensuring al-Qaeda does not increase its powers, and will therefore help improve the UK?s defences against terrorist attacks. /?/ ?He is expected to predict that the ?heroism? of personnel currently serving in Afghanistan will be taught to future generations ?just as in the past we learned of the bravery and sacrifice of British soldiers in the First and Second World Wars?.? ? ?Afghan mission will go on ? Brown?, BBC News, 6 November, 2009 This is the worst kind of jingoism that taps into every prejudice people in the West have and reinforced virtually every day with some reference to previous imperial wars ie, the endless re-running of war movies and documentaries on TV. So just who are we fighting in Afghanistan ?al-Qu?eda? or the Taliban? But what difference does it make who we fight as long as it serves the purpose of justifying why we are there. Just how slaughtering Afghans reduces the risks of terrorist attacks in the UK is explained as follows: ?Mr Brown reiterated his belief that the main terrorist threat to the UK continues to emanate from Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying anyone who questioned why UK troops were in Afghanistan should reflect on the terrorist atrocities since 2001.? ? ?Afghan mission will go on ? Brown?, BBC News, 6 November, 2009 Of course this is not the reason given when we invaded the country in 2001. ?To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.? ? Tony Blair, 17 July, 2002, ?This war on terrorism is bogus?, Michael Meacher, The Guardian, 6 September, 2003 ?CentGas can not begin construction [of an oil pipeline] until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.? ? ?U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics?, 12 February, 1998 ?A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week?s attacks [on the World Trade Center]. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place ? possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.? ? ?US ?planned attack on Taleban??, BBC News, 18 September 2001. References 1. Andrei KONUROV, US Objectives in Afghanistan ?The US has deployed 19 military bases in Afghanistan and Central Asian countries since the war began in October, 2001. These bases function autonomously from the surrounding space, are networked by airlifts, and get supplies from outside of Afghanistan, also mostly by air. The system of bases makes it possible for the US to exert military pressure on Russia, China, and Iran? 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?? Strategic Culture Foundation, 3 September, 2009 2. See ?US objectives? above. 3. CIA-assisted plot to overthrow Laos foiled Former Air America/CIA asset Vang Pao arrested, by Larry Chin, Global Research, 6 June, 2007. For Air America, you gotta go to the best source of information on the subject, the CIA itself. Reams of FOIA docs on Air America down the decades. 4. See ?JFK and the Diem Coup?, By John Prados, November 5, 2003 Article URL: http://www.creative-i.info/?p=11828 From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 11:40:14 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:40:14 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 16:20:42 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:20:42 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 8 11:25:19 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:25:19 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] US Workers Starved Into Service Message-ID: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/23-6 CommonDreams.org October 23, 2009 US Workers Starved Into Service by Sandy LeonVest It was only a matter of time before the nation?s skyrocketing unemployment translated into new recruits for the most powerful military force in the world. With the official US unemployment rate at 10 percent and climbing (that?s more than 15 million people struggling to put food on the table) and nearly double that number if you include part-time wage-earners who need full-time jobs, never mind all of those ?discouraged workers,? it?s little wonder that so many of the nation?s jobless are flocking into its military recruitment offices. After all, what better way for an unemployed American worker to survive the Great Recession of 2009 than in the ?service? of his or her country? Americans have a long history of consuming and/or killing their way out of crisis. And it isn?t looking as if that model will be up for reassessment anytime soon. The parameters of what we like to call the ?national conversation? are as narrow as ever, and they are not widening under the current leadership. So far at least, even Obama?s ?Clean Energy Economy? has failed to deliver enough ?green jobs? (or any other color jobs for that matter) to begin the process of meaningful transition. With the season of consuming just around the corner, many Americans ? especially those in blue collar jobs like construction, manufacturing and retail service ? are staring into the economic abyss. It is hardly surprising in such an environment that a young person with dismal employment prospects and plummeting self esteem would be easily seduced by an ad that promises ?more than $49,000 in GI Bill Benefits? as does the US military?s current promo. The same ad promises that young recruits can ?connect with military and veteran-friendly schools that offer VA approved education programs,? or ?get information? about high-paying degrees like Criminal Justice, IT and Legal Studies. So, when the Pentagon announced on October 13, 2009 that the military had met all of its recruitment goals for the first time since 1973, and that this just happened to coincide with the highest national unemployment rate since the government started keeping track in 1976, it wasn?t surprising that the news was met with a Big National Yawn. The Few, the Proud, the Desperate It?s hard not to wonder what would happen if, instead of dutifully reading from the Pentagon?s script on October 13, the media had done their job and informed the public about the real nature of the ?service? that potential enlistees were signing up for. Maybe if they had, those recruitment officers would not have been quite so busy recruiting ? and stealing the lives of ? unsuspecting young people in desperate need of employment. Maybe those eager masses of young men and women wouldn?t have been so hot to sign up if, for instance, they understood that anyone enlisting in the military right now ? whatever branch ? is required to sign a document that states: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay allowances, benefits and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/re-enlistment document.? (DD Form4/1, 1998, Sec.9.5b). In their book Army of None, published in 2007, Aimee Allison and David Solnit advise those who expect the military to pay for their college to ?read the fine print.? The authors point out that only a fraction of recruits who signed up for the Montgomery GI Bill received a dime, and that 65 percent ?received no money at all for college.? If you receive a less than honorable discharge (as one in four do), leave the military early (as one in three do), or later decide not to go to college, ?the military will keep your deposit and give you nothing.? And when it comes to those signing bonuses, maybe if potential recruits understood that they will be forced to repay the money if he or she leaves the military before the agreed term of service (that?s eight years for first time enlistees), perhaps they would reconsider signing away life and limb to get it. If those same applicants understood the army data from 2007 revealing that the top bonus of $20,000 was given to only 6 percent of enlistees who signed up for active duty, they might have figured out another way to survive the recession. They might be further divested of their illusions if they knew that military statistics show that 48 percent of enlistees report having ?financial difficulty? and that some 33 percent of homeless men in the US are veterans, with nearly 200,000 veterans homeless on any given night. And another thing: The military does not have to place recruits in their chosen career field or give them the specific training requested. Even if enlistees do receive training, it is often to develop skills that will not transfer to the civilian job market ? like firing an M 240 machine gun. By the way: Military recruiters are notorious liars. Back in 2004, the New York Times reported that nearly one in five US Army recruiters was investigated for offenses ranging from "threats and coercion to false promises that applicants would not be sent to Iraq." It?s doubtful that has changed just because the focus is now on Afghanistan. One veteran recruiter told a reporter for the Albany Times Union that, after recruiting for years, he couldn?t think of one recruiter who wasn't dishonest about it, admitting that, ?I did it myself." Military Service is Not the Only Option Just because the Obama administration lacks the political courage to challenge the status quo doesn?t mean there are no other options. But Americans will need to ?unlearn? a lot of what we?ve been taught if there is to be a meaningful transition to a peacetime economy. We will need, for instance, to unlearn that the military is the only legitimate form of national service. We will need also to be willing to challenge those who tell us that being an artist, a pre-school teacher or (god-forbid) an activist, is not a respectable way to earn a living ? or to serve one?s country. And while we?re un-learning things, maybe we should reconsider the US military budget. By most estimates, maintaining the warfare state now consumes 54% of every federal tax dollar. Without first challenging that, we might as well kiss off any chances of ever seeing a ?Clean Energy Economy? or, for that matter, anything resembling a future worth living. But first we?ll have to rid ourselves and our children of the idea that a culture rooted in killing and consuming can also be ?sustainable.? Maybe then we?d have a real war tax revolution. Since the turn of the century, a growing number of high-ranking military officers are questioning the wisdom of ? and the motivation behind ? the US warfare state. In an open letter dated July 8, 2004, Special Forces Vet Stan Goff wrote to US military troops in Iraq: ?The big bosses are trying to gain control of the world's energy supplies to twist the arms of future economic competitors. That's what's going on, and you need to understand it, then do what you need to do to hold on to your humanity ? Your so-called civilian leadership sees you as an expendable commodity. They don't care about your nightmares, about the DU that you are breathing, about the loneliness, the doubts, the pain, or about how your humanity is stripped away a piece at a time. They will cut your benefits, deny your illnesses, and hide your wounded and dead from the public. They already are. They don't care. So you have to. And to preserve your own humanity, you must recognize the humanity of the people whose nation you now occupy and know that both you and they are victims of the filthy rich bastards who are calling the shots." Humanity has passed the tipping point ? economically, culturally and environmentally. The ?consuming and killing? model embraced by Americans as cultural norm is, in reality, a cultural aberration. It is destroying everything and everyone in its wake ? including those who are fighting and dying to preserve it. In accepting such a model ? often without question ? Americans have become victims of their own complacency. The price of such acquiescence may be our humanity. Sandy LeonVest is a radio and print journalist and the editor-publisher of SolarTimes, an independent quarterly energy newspaper with a progressive slant. SolarTimes is available online at www.solartimes.org, and distributed in hardcopy throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. Sandy LeonVest's work has been published locally, as well as internationally, and includes 15 years at KPFA Radio in Berkeley, CA. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 8 12:06:52 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:06:52 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] House Resolution Designates Venezuela a State Sponsor of Terrorism Message-ID: (just how deluded can they get?) 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 8 14:01:57 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:01:57 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Basra's oil dividend Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/middleeast/08basra.html Marooned on Sea of Iraqi Oil, but Unable to Tap Its Wealth By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS Published: November 7, 2009 BASRA, Iraq ? The orange glow of the giant natural gas flares in the oil fields around Basra represents this bustling city?s wealth of natural resources. But for the impoverished people who live near them, the flames only serve as a reminder of their inability to share in the riches that lie beneath their feet. The area around Basra, Iraq?s second largest city and main port, accounts for as much as 80 percent of the country?s oil production. It has emerged as Iraq?s best hope for stability and prosperity as it prepares to sell off its top undeveloped oil fields to foreign companies at an auction next month. Of the five largest fields that will be bid on, four are in or around Basra. Despite the riches trapped below its oil fields, though, this city of three million is among Iraq?s poorest places. People in neighborhoods within a few miles of fields with so much oil that it floats atop the surface in huge black pools live amid mud and feces. Carts pulled by overworked donkeys compete with cars for space on streets. Childhood cancer rates are the highest in the country. The city?s salty tap water makes people ill. And there is more garbage on the streets than municipal collectors can make a dent in. The hundreds of thousands who live in the villages around the fields all dream of finding oil work, but that is unlikely. Those who apply are almost always told they lack the education or experience for oil work. But they believe that their only real deficiency is a lack of connections and money for bribes. ?People sit here in the evenings and they watch the flames and wonder how rich they would be if they had only one hour of those oil exports,? said Naeem al-Moussuawi, who lives in one of the poorer villages in the Basra area. Last month, after Iraq?s Oil Ministry announced that it planned to hire workers for its Basra-based South Oil Company, thousands of people waited in line for applications ? some for days. Among them were men in tattered clothing with bare, muddy feet. When the line got unruly, the police were called. Some applicants were beaten. More than 27,000 applications were filled out for 1,600 jobs ? most of which require a college education or experience, and most Basrans have neither. In the village of Asdika, oil pipelines run along the perimeter, and several thousand people live in ramshackle houses of gray cinder blocks and plastic sheeting for roofs. There is no garbage collection, and household trash is thrown outside to rot in the sun. There is no sewer system, so wastewater from houses is dumped outside, attracting thousands of flies to the lakes of raw sewage that have formed outside most homes. Almost everyone is unemployed. The village is on government property ? an oil field ? and its existence is illegal. Residents say the police show up occasionally and threaten to bulldoze the houses. Hussein Flaeh, 29, an unemployed father of two, has lived in Asdika since 2003. Fifteen members of his family live in a concrete-block house with three small rooms. One recent morning, Mr. Flaeh?s youngest child, Essam, born two weeks ago, was placed outside to get some fresh air. The baby?s face was almost immediately covered by hungry flies. Asked whether he had ever applied for a job at the oil refinery, Mr. Flaeh appeared perplexed and did not answer. Pressed, his gentle face turned hard. ?You can?t even reach it,? he said. ?Don?t even talk about it.? Government officials in Basra have called for a fee of $1 on each barrel of oil produced in the province, which would then be used for local projects instead of going to the central government. But even if Basra suddenly became awash in oil money, the construction of new housing, offices and even farmland would be prohibited because almost everything is situated atop untapped reserves of crude oil. ?Ninety percent of Basra is an oil field,? said Ahmed al-Sulati, a member of the local provincial council. ?We can?t build anything here. We need to have more housing in some neighborhoods, but we can?t because we are surrounded by oil.? In the meantime, Mr. Sulati said, ?We are getting sick from breathing gas, and the streets are getting destroyed by the oil trucks.? During a recent speech, Ali Ghalib Baban, Iraq?s minister of planning, said Basra was on the cusp of being ?one of the world?s most important economic centers.? But in the village of Shuiba, so close to the city?s refinery and major fields that the air is heavy with the smell of petroleum, farmers have stopped growing tomatoes and now rent their fields to truck drivers who park their tankers there for about 80 cents a night. It is the village?s single school, however, that is the source of most of Shuiba?s concerns. Some classes have more than 55 students packed inside, and boys and girls must be taught together, which has led some parents to keep their daughters at home. There are no bathrooms, and some classrooms have no electricity. The school grounds are littered with piles of garbage. Oil workers live on the opposite side of the village. In the poorer half of Shuiba, the workers are regarded with envy and loathing. Not a single resident from the poor side has been hired for an oil job. ?Everyone would like to work for the oil company,? Mr. Moussuawi said. ?We know we are poor and many of us are not well educated. The problem is they see the trucks full of oil and they wonder where the money is going.? But even in Shuiba?s better-off half, adjacent to Basra?s sprawling refinery, residents say they have unmet needs. The housing is neat, there is no trash and the streets are paved, but there is crowding and rising unemployment even among the college-educated sons and daughters of oil company managers, they say. ?You need to know somebody or pay a bribe to work there,? said Najim Khadim, 26, the son of Shuiba?s unofficial mayor, Mohammed Khadim, who has worked for 38 years at the refinery, where he is a supervisor. The son, who has a college degree in chemistry, said not even his father had been able to help with a job. The going rate for bribes for a job, he said, is $2,000 to $5,000, which he said he refused to pay. A visitor is brought a glass of tap water. It tastes as salty as the water in the rest of town. Duraid Adnan and Iraqi employees of The New York Times contributed reporting. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 8 14:11:34 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:11:34 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] =?windows-1252?q?Honduras=3A_A_Victory_for_=93Smart_P?= =?windows-1252?q?ower=94?= Message-ID: 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 06:21:42 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:21:42 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 06:23:44 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:23:44 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 06:23:56 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:23:56 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] William Pfaff: America Owned by Its Army Message-ID: http://www.williampfaff.com/article.php?storyid=440 williampfaff.com November 06, 2009 America Owned by Its Army by William Pfaff 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 06:41:05 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:41:05 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 Rio to Copenhagen The Rio Earth Summit in June 1992 produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with the aim of stabilising greenhouse gas levels at a level that would prevent dangerous climate change. In contained no mandatory targets or enforcement provisions, but provided for updates ("protocols"). The intent of the Convention was for industrialised nations to stabilise their emissions at the 1990 level by 2000 (which they failed to do). The UNFCCC has three categories of signatories: Annex 1 comprises 37 industrialised countries (essentially the OECD and Eastern Europe); Annex 2 is a subset of 23 Annex 1 countries, which agreed to help pay for costs of developing nations; and developing nations. The Convention adopted the principle of ?common but differentiated responsibilities?, which recognised that the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries. It also noted per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low, and the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs. This principle is now under sustained challenge from the Annex 1 bloc, including Australia. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and came into force in February 2005. It obligates the Annex 1 nations to cut emissions of six kinds of greenhouse gases by 2012 to 5.2% below the 1990 level (but Australia was allowed an 8% increase by threatening not to sign). Failure to meet protocol obligations seems cost-free. Canada's obligation in the first commitment period (2005-2012) was to reduce emissions to 6% below the 1990 level. They are now 30% above the 1990 level, but there are no enforceable penalties. Based on the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the European Union proposed at the Bali climate talks in 2007 a framework that included global emissions peaking in 10?15 years and for developed countries to achieve emissions levels 20?40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The US (supported by Australia and others) strongly opposed this. In a flood of tears and acrimony, the final Bali session sat through the night to produce a compromise that mandated "deep cuts in global emissions", but no specific figures. The seeds of the current impasse were planted in Bali and nourished in subsequent negotiations. Global targets For two decades climate policy has been focused on policy targets aimed at preventing global warming exceeding 2?C, which is said to be a level of greenhouse gases not exceeding 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e). This is also the case for Copenhagen, but two degrees is a politically-determined goal at odds with the science. The research tells us that a two-degree warming will initiate large climate feedbacks on land and in the oceans, on sea-ice and mountain glaciers and on the tundra, taking the Earth well past significant tipping points. Likely impacts include large-scale disintegration of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets; sea-level rises; the extinction of an estimated 15?40% of plant and animal species; dangerous ocean acidi?cation and widespread drought, deserti?cation and malnutrition in Africa, Australia, Mediterranean Europe, and the western USA. As Schellnhuber pointed out in the British Guardian in September, on sea levels alone, two degrees is catastrophic: ?Two degrees ? means sea level rise of 30-40 meters ? over maybe a thousand years. Draw a line around your coast ? probably not a lot would be left.? It?s a grand illusion that 2 degrees and 450ppm is a reasonable target ? an illusion Copenhagen will not dispel. Yet an agreement with teeth that would actually limit warming to even two degrees seems most unlikely at Copenhagen. A new report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found the world will warm by 3.5 degrees by century?s end ? even if every country enacts all the climate legislation it has promised to enact to date. Nothing on the negotiating table gets remotely near the figure suggested by Martin Parry of Imperial College London and co-chair of the IPCC?s impacts working group. He told the Independent in January that a two-degree target ?would require cuts of 6% per year starting in 2010.? National responsibilities A big question is how emissions cuts will be shared between nations. The Bali discussion focused on a 450ppm CO2e target, for which the Annex 1 countries would need to cut emissions by 25?40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and industrialising nations would need to cut their emissions growth below ?business-as-usual?. But the 40% (which Schellnhuber says is a minimum) has been dropped by most developed economies (including the US, the EU and Australia). The European Union is pushing 30% and Japan 25%, but the US won?t go near either. A second issue is that the Annex 1 countries now demand the large industrialising economies (such as China, Brazil and India) take on obligatory targets. They say these nations represent the fast-growing emissions sector and no longer fit under the Kyoto Protocol?s structure of underdeveloped nations. China?s actual emissions are now roughly the same as those in the US, but per capita only one-quarter. India?s per capita emissions are less than one-tenth of those in Australia. These demands have gone down like a lead balloon, especially when those making the demands have themselves failed to put commitments on the table that will go anywhere near two degrees. Some of the most vulnerable nations, grouped as the Alliance of Small Island States, want global targets for 2020, aimed at ?well below 1.5?C? because they understand their countries will simply be submerged or unliveable with the two-degree target. The 43 island states ? about 20% of the UN General Assembly ? have advocated stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations ?well below 350ppm CO2e?. The least developed countries bloc, which are particularly vulnerable to global warming because they lack capacity to adapt, now also support this demand. Most of these groups are not keen on carbon offsetting schemes that transfer pollution reduction responsibilities from the high per-capita emitters to underdeveloped nations, because they rightly judge such schemes become a substitute for hard-core cuts in domestic emissions by the Annex 1 nations. The carbon trading and financial transfers systems ? established at Kyoto at the insistence of the US delegation led by Al Gore ? and including the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) ? worry many people because they act like the sale of indulgences by the medieval church, absolving the buyers for their immoral actions. But the Europe/US bloc has put carbon trading at the core of its emissions reduction strategy, while the two largest emitters of carbon outside the developed world, China and India, are the main beneficiaries of CDM financing. Yet in November 2008, the US Government Accounting Office (GAO) found that emissions trading had failed to accomplish its basic objective. It said, ?the use of carbon offsets in a cap-and-trade system can undermine the system's integrity, given that it is not possible to ensure that every credit represents a real, measurable, and long-term reduction in emissions? It also said, ?while proposed reforms may significantly improve the CDM's effectiveness, carbon offsets involve fundamental trade-offs and may not be a reliable long-term approach to climate change mitigation.? In other words, there are a lot of snouts in the trough that cannot be budged. The GAO report goes to the heart of the matter: carbon offsets and long-term emission reduction strategies may simply be incompatible. If further evidence is required, consider that Australia is pushing to redefine the CDM to include so-called ?clean coal? carbon storage and sequestration and ?efficient? coal-fired power stations. Other nations like Japan have tried to promote nuclear power as a ?clean? technology as a way of diverting funds to prop up their failing nuclear industry. Where?s the money? A key component of any deal is money and technology sharing and transfer. Any agreement will depend on how much will be paid to help those without the material capacity to both adapt to global warming and mitigate by building new, low-emissions economies. Here the negotiations are also bogged down, about the mechanisms, and how much should be on the table. The Kyoto signatories agreed developed countries would provide "new and additional" funds to help "developing countries ? particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting the costs of adaptation to those adverse effects?, but little has materialised. Australia is yet to commit to funding clean technology to help the poorer countries adapt to climate change, and has joined other developed nations in demanding that developing nations itemise their proposed adaptation actions before discussing what level of climate-aid will be given. Developing countries have refused, and can rightly point to recent practices such as Australia?s $150 million International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative. Much of the money was never seen by the intended recipient nations, but flowed to the World Bank and other NGOs, leadership programs and research, or was spent domestically in Australia. Observing the journey to Copenhagen, it?s easy to understand the view of the US?s leading climate scientist, James Hansen. He told an audience at Stanford University in November last year: ?We've reached a point where we have a crisis, an emergency, but people don't know that ? There's a big gap between what's understood about global warming by the scientific community and what is known by the public and policymakers.? In a December interview with Saarbruecker Zeitung Schellnhuber agreed that ?we are on our way to a destabilisation of the world climate that has advanced much further than most people or their governments realise?. What would dispel this doubt would be a clear indication by the major participants that they would negotiate based on what the science tells us we must do, accepting that even those who have conquered the political game in their own nation do not have the capacity to negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry. Copenhagen, or more likely a clean-up summit next year, can succeed if the scientific imperatives take centre stage. We face a climate emergency that requires emergency action. Pretending that the current approach to international negotiations can solve the issue is part of the denial about the climate catastrophe that awaits if the game isn?t played very differently, very, very soon by politicians and people who have the capacity to exhibit truly transformative leadership. [David Spratt is a co-author of Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action A shorter version of this article first appeared on Newmatilda.com From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #817 11 November 2009. From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 10:16:54 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:16:54 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] For the gardeners on the list! Message-ID: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/home-garden/nodig-garden-bed-planting.html?campaign=daylife-article Make a No-Dig, Little-Effort Garden Bed Now, Plant Easily in the Spring More garden slacking for great soil and easy planting. By Colleen Vanderlinden Harper Woods, MI, USA | Oct 13, 2009 I can't wait for the leaves to start falling from the trees in my yard. I like the exercise I get from raking, and they make awesome mulch. I add them to my compost pile. But besides all of those reasons, I want them because I have a few garden beds to make. If you've been following my posts here at Planet Green, you may have gotten the sense that not only am I an organic gardener, but I'm also a rather lazy gardener. If I can avoid work, I do it. And that's why I love fall, leaves, and making no-dig garden beds. How to Make a No-Dig Garden Bed I hate digging out sod. Literally hate the entire process. And I have sticky clay soil that is about as easy to dig as concrete. So this method works great for me. It starts with a big stack of newspaper or corrugated cardboard. Decide where you want your garden bed. Lay the newspaper or cardboard right on top of the grass. One layer of cardboard or five to ten sheets of newspaper is perfect. Overlap the edges by a few inches to ensure that you have all of the grass well covered. Wet down the paper or cardboard layer. Now it's time to start layering your organic matter. Anything will work for this, but some of my favorite materials are fall leaves, grass clippings, finished or nearly-finished compost, and straw. I also end up throwing in the potting soil from my container gardens as well. Add the organic matter, in three to four inch layers. At least four layers is best; your finished height will be around one foot tall. Don't worry. The organic matter in the bed will decompose over the winter, and the pile will shrink by more than half. Water the whole thing once you're done layering. Spend the winter planning what you're going to put in your new bed. In spring, most of the organic matter will be broken down, and you can go ahead and plant. You'll be amazed by how perfect your soil is, and how many earthworms you'll find in it. If you have less-than-perfect soil, a lot of lawn to remove, or just plain can't stand the thought of digging a bunch of sod out, but want to expand your gardening space, this method is ideal. You can also do this in spring to plant right away, but you'll need to add a lot more compost to the contents to give your plants' roots a little something to dig into. Either way, this is my favorite way to make a garden bed. From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 11:25:12 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:25:12 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 11:42:56 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:42:56 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 14:14:51 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:14:51 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Rising Military Expenditure: The Coming U.S. Budget Attack Message-ID: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15964 November 9, 2009 Rising Military Expenditure: The Coming U.S. Budget Attack by Shamus Cooke 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 Shamus Cooke is a frequent contributor to Global Research. From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 04:50:53 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:50:53 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 11:16:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:16:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Monbiot: We Cannot Fight Climate With Consumerism Message-ID: [I don't often take issue with anything Monbiot writes, but his comment below that . . . "You can give up your car for a bicycle - and fair play to you - but unless the government is simultaneously reducing the available road space, the place you've vacated will just be taken by someone who drives a less efficient car than you would have driven (traffic expands to fill the available road-space)." This is nonsense. Generally, more bicycles on the roads is a result of not just a suddenly enlightened populace doing its part to reduce their carbon print, but a switch in transport mode is also often for other reasons, like hikes in the price of gasoline, for instance. Higher gasoline prices translate into FEWER old clunkers on the road, not more. Bicycles that free up road space have nothing to do with the number of fuel-inefficient vehicles on the road....not to mention that using bicycles as a transportation method means consuming a lot less of a whole lot of other things having to do with car culture.....rm] ============== <> http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4038 We Cannot Fight Climate With Consumerism Nov 09, 2009 By George Monbiot The 'licensing effect': Researchers have found that buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour. How many times have you heard the argument that small green actions lead to bigger ones? I've heard it hundreds of times: habits that might scarcely register in their own right are still useful because they encourage people to think of themselves as green, and therefore to move on to tougher actions. A green energy expert once tried to convince me that even though rooftop micro wind turbines are useless or worse than useless in most situations, they're still worth promoting because they encourage people to think about their emissions. It's a bit like the argument used by anti-drugs campaigners: the soft stuff leads to the hard stuff. I've never been convinced by this argument. In my experience, people use the soft stuff to justify their failure to engage with the hard stuff. Challenge someone about taking holiday flights six times a year and there's a pretty good chance that they'll say something along these lines: I recycle everything and I re-use my plastic bags, so I'm really quite green. A couple of years ago a friend showed me a cutting from a local newspaper: it reported that a couple had earned so many vouchers from recycling at Tesco that they were able to fly to the Caribbean for a holiday. The greenhouse gases caused by these flights outweigh any likely savings from recycling hundreds or thousands of times over, but the small actions allow people to overlook the big ones and still believe that they are environmentally responsible. Being a cynical old git, I have always been deeply suspicious of the grand claims made for consumer democracy: that we can change the world by changing our buying habits. There are several problems with this approach: ? In a consumer democracy, some people have more votes than others, and those with the most votes are the least inclined to change a system that has served them so well. ? A change in consumption habits is seldom effective unless it is backed up by government action. You can give up your car for a bicycle - and fair play to you - but unless the government is simultaneously reducing the available road space, the place you've vacated will just be taken by someone who drives a less efficient car than you would have driven (traffic expands to fill the available road-space). Our power comes from acting as citizens - demanding political change - not acting as consumers. ? We are very good at deceiving ourselves about our impacts. We remember the good things we do and forget the bad ones. I'm not saying that you shouldn't always try to purchase the product with the smallest impact: you should. Nor am I suggesting that all ethical consumption is useless. Fairtrade products make a real difference to the lives of the producers who sell them; properly verified goods - like wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or fish approved by the Marine Stewardship Council - are likely to cause much less damage than the alternatives. But these small decisions allow us to believe that our overall performance is better than it really is. So I wasn't surprised to see a report in Nature this week suggesting that buying green products can make you behave more selfishly than you would otherwise have done. Psychologists at the University of Toronto subjected students to a series of cunning experiments (pdf). First they were asked to buy a basket of products; selecting either green or conventional ones. Then they played a game in which they were asked to allocate money between themselves and someone else. The students who had bought green products shared less money than those who had bought only conventional goods. The researchers call this the "licensing effect". Buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour: the rosier your view of yourself, the more likely you are to hoard your money and do down other people. Then they took another bunch of students, gave them the same purchasing choices, then introduced them to a game in which they made money by describing a pattern of dots on a computer screen. If there were more dots on the right than the left they made more money. Afterwards they were asked to count the money they had earned out of an envelope. The researchers found that buying green had such a strong licensing effect that people were likely to lie, cheat and steal: they had established such strong moral credentials in their own minds that these appeared to exonerate them from what they did next. Nature uses the term "moral offset", which I think is a useful one. So perhaps guilt is good after all. Campaigners are constantly told that guilt-tripping people is counterproductive: we have to make people feel better about themselves instead. These results suggest that this isn't very likely to be true. They also offer some fascinating insights into the human condition. Maybe the cruel old Christian notion of original sin wasn't such a bad idea after all. From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 12:29:02 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:29:02 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Orthodoxy of war needs challenging Message-ID: 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 02:30:49 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:30:49 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Paul Craig Roberts: Republic of Fools Message-ID: 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 15:03:11 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:03:11 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Media and the American Left Message-ID: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/101409.html Obama and the Left's Old Schism By Robert Parry October 14, 2009 Changing Places Through those years ? especially after the Vietnam War ended in the 1970s ? the American Left shut down or sold off many promising media entities, making it harder and harder to make counter-arguments against Reagan?s international and domestic strategies. In the 1970s, the Left had held the upper hand over the Right on media, with a vibrant underground press appealing to the Vietnam War generation. Outlets, like Ramparts magazine and Dispatch News, broke important national security stories. Radio stations, like WBCN in Boston, broadcast news on anti-war demonstrations. The so-called ?alternative press? was alive and well. However, with the Vietnam War over and the mainstream press undergoing a brief awakening in exposing serious wrongdoing like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, principal funders on the Left decided that media was no longer a priority. Many key outlets, like Ramparts and Dispatch News, were shuttered. Others, like WBCN, were sold off to mainstream corporations. Some key left-of-center opinion magazines fell into the hands of neocons or conservatives. For instance, The New Republic was purchased by neocon Martin Peretz, who staffed it with neocon and right-wing writers such as Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes. In the 1980s, when I was covering Reagan?s wars in Central America for The Associated Press, The New Republic defended the slaughters that took the lives of tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans. Because of its history as a venerable leftist publication, The New Republic was valuable to Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams because he could argue that ?even the liberal New Republic? agreed with Reagan?s policies. The Right also began investing millions -- and then billions -- of dollars to create its own media institutions. The strategy was pushed by Nixon?s former Treasury Secretary William Simon, who used his perch as head of the Olin Foundation to pull together likeminded foundation executives to direct money into media outlets and anti-journalism attack groups. In 1982, South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon, who was eager to buy influence in the U.S. capital, began pouring his mysterious fortune into a new Washington-based newspaper, The Washington Times, which was praised by President Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush as an important voice supporting their policies. [See Consortiumnews.com?s ?WTimes? Hypocritical Obama-Nazi Slur.?] Also in the 1980s, Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch expanded his news empire into the United States. Media Arsenal Right-wing money went into attack groups, too, targeting mainstream journalists who refused to toe the Reagan propaganda lines. One National Security Council memo dated May 20, 1983, described U.S. Information Agency director Charles Wick bringing private donors to the White House Situation Room for a fund-raiser which collected $400,000 for Accuracy in Media and other pro-Reagan propaganda fronts. Yet as the Right waged what it called ?information warfare? or ?the war of ideas,? well-to-do progressives shunned media and redirected their money toward charities that scrambled to fill the widening gaps in the social safety net. The Left?s favorite slogan of the time was, ?think globally, act locally.? Besides avoiding the controversies that sometimes sprang from backing media, wealthy liberals found they could reap positive public relations from contributing to worthy causes. They might even collect a ?humanitarian-of-the-year? award at a black-tie banquet. By the end of the 12-year Reagan-Bush-41 reign, the Right had assembled an impressive media arsenal ? and the Left continued its unilateral disarmament. When I approached a number of liberal foundations in the early 1990s about this worsening media imbalance, I was told by one smug foundation bureaucrat, ?Oh, we don?t do media.? (clip) From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 15:23:15 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:23:15 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Whistleblower: IEA Lied About How Much Oil is Left Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency guardian.co.uk 9 November 2009 Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk Oil Production forecast ***[see graph]*** The world is much closer to running out of oil than 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 oil production 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 02:08:08 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:08:08 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] A real green deal Message-ID: (posted here with permission from the good folks at red pepper) http://www.redpepper.org.uk/A-real-green-deal red pepper 7 October, 2009 A real green deal 35 years ago, workers at the Lucas Aerospace company formulated an ?alternative corporate plan? to convert military production to socially useful and environmentally desirable purposes. Hilary Wainwright and Andy Bowman consider what lessons it holds for the greening of the world economy today There are moments when a radical idea quickly goes mainstream. A cause for optimism but also caution; an opportunity for a practical challenge. The ?green new deal?, a proposal for a green way out of recession, is such an idea (see interview with Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, Red Pepper, June/July 2009). It has now been adopted in some form, in theory if not in corresponding action, by governments across the world. In Britain, the workers? occupation of the Vestas wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight ? supported by green, trade union and socialist campaigners across the country ? has provided a practical challenge to the government. The Vestas workers? argument, committed as ministers say they are to green investment, is that here is an exemplary case: so intervene and save green jobs, creating a base and a beacon for further action in the same direction. Before the Vestas occupation, Ed Miliband, the minister responsible for action on climate change, made a welcome call for public pressure to achieve tougher action. But when faced with a request from the Vestas workers to talk, the government showed no interest in practical collaboration with real-life pressure ? particular and complex as it invariably is. Why didn?t the government pick up on this opportunity to support a strategically-placed group of citizens who were responding to the need for everyone to take responsibility for climate change? Strategic choices Was it just political caution, a wariness of giving legitimacy to a campaigning alliance that includes political forces New Labour considers beyond the pale? Or is there a deeper divide at stake? A divide between those who believe that reversing the destructive momentum of the present economy is mainly a matter of appealing to the interests of private business, cajoling them to invest in green technologies as new profit opportunities; and, on the other hand, those who believe that a green transition will at times conflict with the priority of profits and require a strong alliance with workers and citizens with the technical and social know-how and potential power to rebalance the economy with the needs of the public and the planet to the fore. Vestas symbolises how we can?t rely on the motor forces of the capitalist market. Here were green products but low profits; hence, in a capitalist market, the result is closure and ?rationalisation?. How can the passions and reflections stimulated by the Vestas campaign be turned into the strategy we need for an effective and socially just green transition? There are serious gaps in our knowledge as to how, practically speaking, a socialised green energy industry might be achieved. Vestas remains a special case ? what about the polluting industries that the majority of workers are engaged in? There?s a need for some quick thinking, and the excavation of relevant lessons from the past. The words on many people?s lips are ?Lucas Aerospace?. They are remembering the plan for socially useful and environmentally desirable products drawn up in 1975/76 by workers facing the threat of closure in a company involved in military production. They were supported by the industry minister of the time, Tony Benn. Meet the shop stewards combine committee Flashback to January 1975 and a meeting of the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards combine committee. The management of Lucas Aerospace was reacting to economic crisis by cutting jobs. Listen in as 60 delegates from 13 factories discuss what is to be done at a specially-convened meeting at a stately home turned trade union education centre just outside Sheffield. The differences between their situation and that of the Vestas workers will be obvious. They include the existence of a strong trade union organisation and some initial encouragement from a government minister ? but on the other hand a green movement that was only embryonic. Similarities emerge, however, and new insights can be gained as to how today?s green movement can make common cause with workers to redirect the economy towards sustainability without loss of livelihoods. By the end of that January weekend, the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards ? a powerful mix of some of the best aerospace designers in the country, highly skilled shop floor engineers and so-called ?unskilled? workers with a strong class and community consciousness ? had taken a pioneering decision. They decided to go back to their workplaces and involve their members in drawing up and campaigning for ?an alternative corporate plan for socially useful and environmentally desirable production?. ?Let?s draw up a plan without management,? said Mike Reynolds, a shop steward from Liverpool, at this historic meeting. ?Lets start here from this combine committee. It has grown and grown. It has ability not only in industrial disputes but also to tackle wider problems. Let?s get down to working on how we?d draw up a plan, on our terms, to meet the needs of our community.? The theme of using their skills to meet social needs ? and demonstrating that their skills (used mainly to make components for military aircraft) were not redundant ? was fundamental to their initiative. ?There?s talk of crisis wherever you turn,? said Mike Cooley, an inspirational designer then working at the Willesden factory (and later sacked by the company for his involvement in the combine committee), describing an aspect of the context familiar to us now. ?We have to stand back ? for it is the present economy that has a crisis. We don?t. We are just as skilled as we were, we can still design and produce things.? Judging by the way that Lucas workers responded to the proposal to draw up an alternative corporate plan, Mike Cooley was voicing a widely shared ethos. The combine committee sent round a detailed questionnaire to every factory to draw up an inventory of skills and machinery and to ask fellow trade union members what they should be making. ?Ideas poured in within three or four weeks,? remembers Cooley, as we talk to him about the experience nearly 35 years on. ?In a short time we had 150 ideas for products which we could make with the existing machine tools and skills we had in Lucas Aerospace.? Demonstrating alternatives in practice The specific ideas are worth returning to; they illustrate in a very vivid way the principles guiding the methodology of the shop stewards ? principles that continue to have relevance today. The ideas were presented as drawings and models more often than written proposals. ?Can do? rather than ?can analyse? was the emphasis of the combine committee. They insisted, against the conventional emphasis (including by much of the left) on linguistic skills and propositional and codified scientific knowledge, on the importance of tacit knowledge, of ?things we know but cannot tell?. This approach also illustrates the strong sense that the Lucas Aerospace workers had of the choices to be made in both the development and the application of technology. Technology is not value-neutral; it involves choices and alternative directions. ?There is no single best way,? as the introduction to the plan put it. Guided by these kinds of principles, some product ideas addressed medical needs: kidney machines for the thousands who die through lack of available equipment; a light, portable life-support system for ambulances; a simple heat exchanger and pumping system for maintaining the blood at a constant optimum temperature and flow during critical operations. Another range of proposals concerned alternative energy sources, including proposals for storing energy produced during periods when it is not required for times when it is; solar collecting equipment for low-energy housing; a range of wind generators drawing on the workers? know-how of aerodynamics. Others addressed the transport system and destructive nature of the automotive industry. One proposal that was developed into a working ?prototype?, which they used as a form of technological agitprop, was a ?road-rail? vehicle capable of driving through the city on roads and then running on the national rail network, with a capability of going up much steeper inclines than normal rolling stock. Another idea involved a power pack with a small combustion engine that would enhance the efficacy of battery-driven cars, improve fuel consumption and radically reduce toxic emissions. A final set of proposals were for tele-archic devices, which mimic the motions of a human being, in real time but at a distance. They enable workers to use and develop their skill by working with the challenges of the physical world in a way that no simple robot would be capable of ? as miners, oil drillers and so on ? but in a safe and secure environment. Significantly, the plan put forward democratic alternatives in relation to the organisation of production process, as well as the end products. In emphasising the social usefulness and environmental beneficence of these products, it also challenged the imperative to accumulate and maximise profits. Some of the products would make a profit within a capitalist market economy ? some have indeed been taken up by profit-maximising companies in Japan and Germany, for example ? while others would not. Implicit was the possibility of a different notion of growth, not driven by the logic of what has been called ?the bicycle economy? with its driving necessity to accumulate simply to keep going. Management?s refusal to negotiate It was a radical initiative, then, but pragmatic too, drawn up to be part of the collective bargaining process with management and government. The Lucas Aerospace management danced around it but refused to negotiate seriously ? because the alternative plan would have taken collective bargaining onto a level that challenged management?s sole prerogative to manage. The combine committee initially hoped the government would engage. Talk of public ownership was in the air. In November 1974, a combine committee delegation crowded into Tony Benn?s office when he was minister for industry to discuss the future of the industry. He said he didn?t have the power to nationalise but stressed the importance of diversification and ?producing our way through the slump?. It was Benn who planted the seed of the idea of an alternative corporate plan. He offered the possibility of a meeting between government, the company and the combine to discuss it (is there a lesson here for our current minister for climate change?) By the time the plan was ready in January 1976, Harold Wilson had sacked Tony Benn from the sensitive post of industry minister in response to pressure from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). The doors of the ministry were all but closed to the workplace trade union reps ? the people who knew what could be done to produce a way out of an economic crisis and had a vested interest in seeing such plans develop. In a sense, the alternative plan and the combine committee were a classic product of the co-operative, egalitarian creativity of the late 1960s and 1970s: challenging authority and seeking individual realisation, but through a social movement ? in this instance the labour movement ? and all the more potent as a result. It came up against trade union, government and management institutions stuck in the command and control mentalities of the 1950s, and the power of the movement was destroyed by Thatcher?s onslaught against the unions and radical local government in the 1980s. It could be said that the creative spirit of the 1970s got separated from the social critique and organised movements in which it was initially embedded and was appropriated by the more sophisticated sections of corporate management. What relevance for today? With the challenge of diverse social forces now coming together in search of an alternative red-green economic strategy, is this a moment when that spirit of creativity and autonomy can be recombined with the organised power of the workers and citizens struggling for democratic control over the future? What new forms could this recombination take in the 21st century, when trade unions are generally weak and the left fragmented? What new alliances could be created as consciousness of the need for a socially and environmentally responsible alternative grows? The Lucas shop stewards showed that the most effective challenges to the dominance of the capitalist market were not abstract principles but concrete actions, the most important of which being the formulation of alternative ways of doing things. The Green New Deal comes from the same realisation, but as a response to different circumstances. Nonetheless, with the urgency provided by climate change, the growing influence of green movements and a labour movement in need of invigoration, maybe the Lucas plan?s time really has come? Mike Cooley points out that the subtitle of the Lucas plan was ?A positive alternative to recession and redundancy?. ?The underlying ideas are even more relevant now than they were 35 years ago,? he argues. ?Once again we are told that for many there is no work. Are our hospitals so well staffed and equipped, our public transport services so frequent, safe and environmentally desirable, our housing stock so adequate and well maintained that there is no work to be done? Just look around. There is work to be done on all sides. What is lacking is the imagination and courage to creatively address it.? A renewed Green New Deal that involved such painstaking attention to grass-roots participation would be a worthy successor indeed. And, with the speed at which things are changing in environmental politics at the moment, who knows how far such radicalism might go in a few years time? The Lucas Plan; a new trade unionism in the making? by Hilary Wainwright and Dave Elliott, first published by Allison & Busby in 1981, is available second hand from amazon.co.uk, abebooks.co.uk and other bookshops From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 02:44:59 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:44:59 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Milan Rai: Disarming the arms makers Message-ID: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Disarming-the-arms-makers red pepper 5 October 2009 Disarming the arms makers Milan Rai looks at the growth of local campaigns against arms manufacturers Campaigns against arms production, and for the conversion of military industry to socially-useful purposes, go back a long way. But recently a range of local campaigns have sprung up, including Smash EDO in Brighton, Shut Down Heckler & Koch in Nottingham, Smash Raytheon in Bristol and now Target Brimar, a new campaign due to launch in Manchester on 17 October. Smash EDO began with a blockade of the EDO MBM arms factory in Moulsecoomb, Brighton, in August 2004. One of the motivations behind the new campaign was what those involved saw as the failure of the anti-war movement to effectively challenge the British state?s drive to war with Iraq. As the campaign?s press spokesperson, Chloe Marsh, puts it: ?If, when millions of people were mobilised against the war across the UK, we had looked at who the companies were who were set to make a profit from the war and targeted them, our resistance could have been far more effective.? The group?s key message is: ?Every bomb that is dropped, every bullet that is fired in the name of this war of terror has to be made somewhere, and wherever it is, it can be resisted.? Since 2004, Smash EDO has carried out a range of protests in Brighton, several on a large scale, in addition to a weekly noise protest. There have been blockades, rooftop occupations and mass street protests, as well as the production of a feature-length film (screenings of which have been subject to widespread police harassment). The group has been highly successful in the courts, with around 30 failed prosecutions by Sussex police and a failed injunction by EDO MBM (which collapsed in February 2006). Smash EDO has also managed to embarrass the weapons company in court over its links to Israel. During one of the failed prosecutions in December 2005 it forced managing director David Jones to admit that he had ordered references to the ?active manufacturing? by EDO MBM of a component to be removed from the company website. The ?zero retention force arming unit? is used by Israeli F-16s as part of its bomb release mechanism. These successes, and the militancy of the Smash EDO street protests ? which have sometimes become street battles ? have inspired other (largely anarchist) local groups to form. Another undoubted inspiration was the acquittal of the Raytheon 9 anti-war protesters who focused their rage at the 2006 invasion of Lebanon onto computers worth an estimated ?350,000 at the Derry headquarters of the US arms company. In June 2008, all of the activists were acquitted of charges of criminal damage. While these new groups may sometimes refer to the idea of converting factories to civilian use, the main emphasis is on shutting them down. The campaign against the international customer sales office of the small-arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch uses the slogan: ?Let?s make Nottingham an unwelcoming place for arms dealers!? The strategic thinking at work in Smash EDO, and perhaps in the other groups, owes something to the long-term, sophisticated and confrontational approach of militant animal rights activism. As with the animal rights movement, the question is whether the tactics that can win particular battles contribute to larger successes, or whether they may be undermining the building of the mass base of opposition that is essential to overall victory. Take the case of Smash EDO?s May Day protests in Brighton. After a good deal of police aggression, it descended into a day of random skirmishes, instead of being a street party in the park as planned by the organisers. No doubt the cost of policing such protests adds to the pressure on the government and on the company itself, as well as enthusing the rather narrow social base of Smash EDO. However, it is hard to see how this outweighs the political costs of the day. One Brighton resident reported in an online comment that few people they spoke to on the day understood the reasons for the protest, though: ?I found that once told, 100 per cent of shopkeepers expressed support, although few thought it would change anything.? This observation sums up the challenge, the predicament and the potential of these new local campaigns. In 2002, a poll by the UK Working Group on Arms 2002 found that 85 per cent of people in Britain disapproved of ?the government selling arms to governments which abuse human rights? and 74 per cent disapproved strongly. Milan Rai is co-editor of Peace News - http://www.peacenews.info/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 09:49:27 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:49:27 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 16:00:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:00:43 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 16:12:31 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:12:31 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Malalai Joya: U.S. is doing no good in Afghanistan Message-ID: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13755903?nclick_check=1 Mercury News 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 16:20:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:20:46 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009 5:26PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009 2:25AM EST The United Nations Climate Change Treaty, signed in 1992, committed the world to ?avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.? Yet, since that time, greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The United States has proved to be the biggest laggard, refusing to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol or to adopt any effective domestic emissions controls. As we head into the global summit in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. is once again the focus of concern. Even now, American politics remain strongly divided over climate change ? though President Barack Obama has new opportunities to break the logjam. A year after the 1992 treaty, Bill Clinton tried to pass an energy tax that would have helped the U.S. to begin reducing its dependence on fossil fuels. The proposal not only failed, but triggered a political backlash. When the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, Mr. Clinton did not even send it to the Senate for ratification, knowing that it would be rejected. President George W. Bush repudiated Kyoto in 2001 and did essentially nothing on climate change during his presidency. There are several reasons for U.S. inaction ? including ideology and scientific ignorance ? but a lot comes down to one word: coal. No fewer than 25 states produce coal, which not only generates income, jobs and tax revenue, but provides a disproportionately large share of their energy. Per capita carbon emissions in U.S. coal states tend to be much higher than the national average. Since addressing climate change is first and foremost directed at reduced emissions from coal ? the most carbon-intensive of all fuels ? America's coal states are especially fearful about the economic implications of any controls (though the oil and automobile industries are not far behind). The U.S. political system poses special problems as well. To ratify a treaty requires the support of 67 of the Senate's 100 members, a nearly impossible hurdle. The Republican Party, with its 40 Senate seats, is simply filled with too many ideologues ? and, indeed, too many senators intent on derailing any Obama initiative ? to offer enough votes to reach the 67-vote threshold. Moreover, the Democratic Party includes senators from coal and oil states who are unlikely to support decisive action. The idea this time around is to avoid the need for 67 votes, at least at the start, by focusing on domestic legislation rather than a treaty. Under the U.S. Constitution, domestic legislation (as opposed to international treaties) requires a simple majority in Congress and the Senate to be sent to the President for signature. Getting 50 votes for a climate-change bill (with a tie vote broken by the vice-president) is almost certain. But opponents of legislation can threaten to filibuster (speak for an indefinite period and thereby paralyze Senate business), which can be ended only if 60 senators support bringing the legislation to a vote. Otherwise, proposed legislation can be killed, even if it has the support of a simple majority. That will certainly be true of domestic climate-change legislation. Securing 60 votes is a steep hill to climb. Political analysts know that the votes will depend on individual senators' ideologies, states' voting patterns and states' dependence on coal relative to other energy sources. Based on these factors, one analysis counts 50 likely Democratic ?Yes? votes and 34 Republican ?No? votes, leaving 16 votes still in play. Ten of the swing votes are Democrats, mainly from coal states; the other six are Republicans who conceivably could vote with the President and the Democratic majority. Until recently, many believed that China and India would be the real holdouts in the global climate-change negotiations. Yet, China has announced a set of major initiatives ? in solar, wind, nuclear and carbon-capture technologies ? to reduce its economy's greenhouse-gas intensity. India, long feared to be a spoiler, has said that it is ready to adopt a significant national action plan to move toward a trajectory of sustainable energy. These actions put the U.S. under growing pressure to act. With developing countries displaying their readiness to reach a global deal, could the U.S. Senate really prove to be the world's last great holdout? Mr. Obama has tools at his command to bring the U.S. into the global mainstream on climate change. First, he is negotiating side deals with holdout senators to cushion the economic impact on coal states and to increase U.S. investments in the research and development, and eventually adoption, of clean-coal technologies. Second, he can command the Environmental Protection Agency to impose administrative controls on coal plants and automobile producers, even if the Congress does not pass new legislation. The administrative route might turn out to be even more important than the legislative route. The politics of the U.S. Senate should not obscure the larger point: America has acted irresponsibly since signing the climate treaty in 1992. It is the world's largest and most powerful country, and the one most responsible for climate change to this point; it has behaved without any sense of duty ? to its own citizens, to the world and to future generations. Even coal-state senators should be ashamed. Sure, their states need some extra help, but narrow interests should not be permitted to endanger our planet's future. It is time for the U.S. to rejoin the global family. Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 16:33:15 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:33:15 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 02:19:00 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:19:00 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] November 16: Malalai Joya in Winnipeg Message-ID: (thanks to Darrell Rankin for the calendar) Calendar - Winnipeg events Fri, Nov 13 - Mining Justice in Honduras, free public lecture with Francisco Machado, a Mennonite pastor from Honduras, who has worked to reform mining practices and to bring about greater accountability for mining companies. 8:00 PM, Canadian Mennonite University (South Campus - 600 Shaftesbury Blvd) Info: 925-1918 Mon, Nov 16 - Malalai Joya speaks, Afghanistan's youngest Member of Parliament, 7:00 pm, Convocation hall, University of Winnipeg. Info: Peace Alliance Winnipeg. Wed, Nov 18 - Does Judaism equal Israel? A Jewish Theologian Speaks Out with speaker Dr. Mark Ellis, Director of the Center for Jewish Studies, Baylor University. Two engagements: 2:30 p.m., 306 Tier Building, University of Manitoba. Co-sponsored by Global Political Economy, Institute for the Humanities, and Department of Sociology; Contact person: Howard Davidson, 204-783-3707 7:30 p.m., Knox United Church, 400 Edmonton St., Winnipeg Co-sponsored by Independent Jewish Voices, Knox United Church, and United Jewish Peoples Order; Contact person: Mark Etkin, 204-955-1929 1. Malalai Joya in Winnipeg Nov. 16 Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 From: peacenews Subject: [Communications] Peace Alliance Winnipeg News and Action AlertSunday, Nov. 8, 2009 Malalai Joya in Winnipeg Nov. 16 Malalai Joya has been called the bravest woman in Afghanistan. She has risked her life to speak out about the violence and poverty brought on by years of occupation and corruption. In November, she will speak to audiences across Canada about why we must end the war and let the Afghan people decide their own future. Peace Alliance Winnipeg is pleased to host Ms. Joya?s visit to Winnipeg: Date: Monday, November 16, 2009 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Convocation Hall (located in Wesley Hall, see map ), University of Winnipeg Malalai Joya, 31, is Afghanistan?s youngest member of parliament. She is internationally respected for openly challenging the US/NATO occupation, warlords, and the Taliban. She spent her childhood in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, and returned to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in the late 1990s, where she worked for underground organizations helping women. At a constitutional assembly in Kabul in 2003, she stood up and denounced her country?s powerful NATO-backed warlords. She was twenty-five years old. She was elected to parliament in 2005 but was suspended in 2007 for criticizing government corruption. Despite numerous threats and four assassination attempts, Joya actively campaigns at home and abroad for human rights and an end to the war. Her new book, A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Speak Out, is an inspiring account of her fight to liberate the people of Afghanistan after 30 years of war. Local Sponsors: ? The Uniter (Mouseland Press) ? Public Service Alliance of Canada (Prairie Region) ? University of Manitoba Students Union ? Project Peacemakers ? Peace Alliance Winnipeg ? Global College Student Advisory Council ? Institute for Womens and Gender Studies, University of Winnipeg ? Winnipeg Haiti Solidarity Group ? Winnipeg Labour Council ? CUPE Manitoba - Global Justice Committee From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 03:09:52 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:09:52 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 05:52:45 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:52:45 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Dmitry Orlov: Anthopoclastic Climate Change Message-ID: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/11/anthropoclastic-climate-change.html Anthopoclastic Climate Change 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. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 06:26:39 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:26:39 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 08:29:34 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:29:34 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 10:54:25 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:54:25 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 11:16:33 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:16:33 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 14:11:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:11:43 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 14:15:11 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:15:11 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Canada] Sign the Declaration of Voters' Rights Message-ID: About Fair Voting About Us Campaigns Get involved Contact Dear T.: On Monday afternoon, we sent the email below to Fair Vote Canada supporters. We?re delighted that more than 1,000 people signed in just the first 24 hours. We hope you will sign too. Let?s make sure our voices are heard! This is Not Democracy ? Silence is Not an Option! Sign the Declaration of Voters? Rights Are you fed up with voting in federal elections where seven million of us cast ballots that elect no one? Are you tired of Parliaments that don?t represent the people of Canada? Are you angry that a party can win a majority of seats even when 60% of us vote against them? You?re not alone. Several weeks ago, Fair Vote Canada held a press conference at Parliament to launch the Declaration of Voters? Rights (see the article, photos and video on our website). This document is not a petition. It?s not a request. It?s a people?s declaration. Canadian voters have a fundamental right to equal votes, fair election results and legitimate majority rule. Between now and the next election, we intend to circulate the Declaration as widely as possible. How many signers can we get? How loud will our voices be? That depends on you and other citizens. If you sign today, and pass it along to just five friends, we can jumpstart this campaign and build real momentum. At our press conference, the first three signers were Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader; and Dr. John Trent, former secretary-general of the International Political Science Association. Many others have since joined them. And now we need you. Please sign the Declaration of Voters? Rights today and forward it to your friends. Yours for a democratic Canada, Bronwen Bruch President Fair Vote Canada Fair Vote Canada 26 Maryland Blvd. Toronto, ON M4C 5C9 Canada Unsubscribe to the Fair Vote Canada email list by clicking here About Fair Voting About Us Campaigns Get involved Contact -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 13 11:57:11 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:57:11 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] The Gramscian Moment, by Peter D. Thomas Message-ID: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=29354 The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism Peter D. Thomas Publication year: 2009 Series: Historical Materialism Book Series, 24 ISBN-13 (i)The ISBN (International Standard Book Number) has been changed from 10 to 13 digits on 1 January 2007: 978 90 04 16771 1 ISBN-10: 90 04 16771 4 Cover: Hardback Number of pages: 435 pp. List price: ? 115.00 / US$ 170.00 ============= http://rikowski.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/ Antonio Gramsci?s Prison Notebooks are today acknowledged as a classic of the human and social sciences in the twentieth century. The influence of his thought in numerous fields of scholarship is only exceeded by the diverse interpretations and readings to which it has been subjected, resulting in often contradictory ?images of Gramsci?. This book draws on the rich recent season of Gramscian philological studies in order to argue that the true significance of Gramsci?s thought consists in its distinctive position in the development of the Marxist tradition. Providing a detailed reconsideration of Gramsci?s theory of the state and concept of philosophy, The Gramscian Moment argues for the urgent necessity of taking up the challenge of developing a ?philosophy of praxis? as a vital element in the contemporary revitalisation of Marxism. Peter D. Thomas (Ph.D, 2008) studied at the University of Queensland, Freie Universit?t Berlin, L?Universit? ?Federico II?, Naples, and the Universiteit van Amsterdam. He has published widely on Marxist political theory and philosophy. He is a member of the editorial board of the journal Historical Materialism: research in critical Marxist theory. REVIEWS Peter Thomas? book should become the standard text in English on Gramsci?s thought. Acquainted as he is with the latest wrinkle in the Italian debate on Gramsci, Thomas combines an unmatched philological research into the sources and a mastery of the ongoing debates about the sense we should make of key ideas like hegemony. He deftly overturns the received orthodoxy and the various abuses of the ideas of the Marxist militant by theorists of cultural studies, both restoring Gramsci?s work to its true status and opening up fruitful possibilities for understanding his contribution to political theory more generally. The best book on Gramsci?s political theory for three decades ? Alastair Davidson, Author of Antonio Gramsci: the Man, his Ideas, and Antonio Gramsci: Towards an Intellectual Biography Peter Thomas?s Gramsci is the one we need in an era of economic and geopolitical crises that bears some resemblances to Gramsci?s own time. This Gramsci is no embarrassed culturalist, confused strategist, or incipient post-Marxist. Thomas?s Gramsci, developed from rigorous critical study of the Prison Notebooks and of the now extensive scholarly literature, is a deeply consequent thinker intent on reconstructing revolutionary Marxism in opposition to the most advanced bourgeois thought of his day. This is also a Gramsci for whom political economy is of central methodological and substantive significance. Not content with scholarly interpretation, Thomas draws his Gramsci into dialogue with contemporary radical thought, illuminating both sides of the conversation. This is a book that will recast the understanding of Gramsci, especially but not exclusively in the Anglophone world ? Alex Callinicos, Professor of European Studies, Social Theory and International Political Economy, King?s College, London What superlatives can I use to describe this book? Terms like ?outstanding,? ?superb? and ?tour-de-force? suggest themselves, but even these do not fully capture the extraordinary power of The Gramscian Moment. Peter Thomas?s erudite, wide-ranging, and staggeringly sophisticated reading of Gramsci?s Prison Notebooks completely overturns the dominant interpretations including those of Louis Althusser and Perry Anderson. Never again will we be able to read Gramsci solely through their lenses. Henceforth, Thomas?s magisterial exploration of Gramsci?s thought will become the critical point of reference for all serious work in the field. But Thomas does more than meticulous exegesis. He also insists on the actuality of Gramsci?s work, urging that we approach it in the spirit of ?both continuation and transformation, fidelity and renewal.? He succeeds brilliantly on all counts ? David McNally, Professor of Political Science, York University, Toronto Peter Thomas?s The Gramscian Moment demonstrates the extent to which Gramsci?s thought represents a singular synthesis of virtually the entire tradition of Western political thought. The richness of his interpretative frameworks allows him both to integrate partial approaches and contributions and to throw new light on the central questions inherited by this tradition. This work succeeds in presenting Gramsci as a ?living classic?, an author absolutely central to our understanding of modernity. Given its scope, richness and originality, I have no doubt that this work will represent a milestone in Gramscian scholarship and an important contribution to contemporary debates in political theory and philosophy ? Stathis Kouvelakis, Author of Philosophy and Revolution and Co-editor of a Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism The Gramscian Moment is the most thorough and illuminating philosophical study of Gramsci yet to appear in English. It sets a new standard for work not only on Gramsci himself but on the whole complex of issues associated with his legacy ? on the mechanics and dimensions of hegemony, on the role and nature of the subject of political action, on the relation between theory and practice, and between civil society and the state. Thomas does more than any previous reader of Gramsci to demonstrate how his philosophy can fairly claim to meet Marx?s famous prescription ? not merely ?to interpret the world but to change it? ? Peter Hallward, Professor of Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University, London From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 13 12:44:32 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:44:32 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] John Bellamy Foster: A Failed System Message-ID: http://www.amandlapublishers.co.za/special-features/global-financial-crisis/73-a-failed-system A Failed System The World Crisis of Capitalist Globalization and its Impact on China John Bellamy Foster In referring in my title here to ?A Failed System? I do not of course mean that capitalism as a system is in any sense at an end. Rather I mean by ?failed system? a global economic and social order that increasingly exhibits a fatal contradiction between reality and reason?to the point, in our time, where it threatens not only human welfare but also the continuation of most sentient forms of life on the planet. Three critical contradictions make up the contemporary world crisis emanating from capitalist development: (1) the current Great Financial Crisis and stagnation/depression; (2) the growing threat of planetary ecological collapse; and (3) the emergence of global imperial instability associated with shifting world hegemony and the struggle for resources. Such structural weaknesses of the system, as Joseph Schumpeter might have said, are the product of capitalism?s past successes, but they raise catastrophic problems and failures in the present nonetheless.1 How we choose to act today in response to this failed system is therefore the most critical question that humanity has ever faced. The Great Financial Crisis and Stagnation/Depression The world economy centered in the advanced capitalist states is experiencing by far its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. A Great Financial Crisis on a scale not seen in the United States and the other advanced capitalist states since the 1930s is leading to a major decline in world economic growth, and is pointing to a possible world depression.2 So severe is the current situation that even U.S. President George W. Bush, in prepared remarks for a November 2008 summit of the central bank governors and finance ministers of the G-20 economies, stated that what threatened, if decisive governmental action were not taken, could be a ?depression greater than the Great Depression?s.?3 One way to understand the enormity of the world financial and economic crisis is in terms of what has been called The Return of Depression Economics. This was the title of a book that Paul Krugman, the most recent winner of the Bank of Sweden?s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, first wrote in response to the Asian crisis of 1997?98. That book has now been released in a new edition, entitled The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008.4 What Krugman means by this phrase is of course the return of the economics of John Maynard Keynes?s The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936 in the midst of the Great Depression. Everyone would agree that Keynes and his ?depression economics? are in some sense back. But which Keynes? And if we take Keynes seriously as a critic of capitalism (although a limited one), is it not necessary to go back even further to the greatest critic of all: Karl Marx? In The General Theory Keynes famously pointed to what he called the ?outstanding faults? of the capitalist economy: its enormously unequal division of income and its inability to maintain a full-employment equilibrium.5 These outstanding faults produced instability in the investment process of capitalism, the engine of accumulation. Capitalism, according to Keynes, was a system characterized by uncertainty. Investment lost its dynamism when expected profits on new investment were depressed, due primarily to present and anticipated demand constraints. As investment outlets vanished, capital turned to speculation, giving rise to asset bubbles that generated financial instability and the prospect of more serious crises in the future. The principal doctrine that Keynes challenged was Say?s Law that supply creates its own demand. Orthodox economics, he argued, had never freed itself from this error and implicitly assumed in its basic analyses that ?the economic system was always operating up to its full capacity.? This meant that the orthodox view was ?incompetent to tackle the problems of unemployment and of the trade cycle.?6 The dominant tendency in modern capitalism, he believed, was the veering toward unemployment equilibrium and substantial excess capacity. Keynes, who was a defender of the system, but who advocated policies that went beyond what the capitalist class itself was willing to accept, proposed as solutions to these problems: the ?euthanasia of the rentier,? a substantial decrease in capital?s share of income, and ?a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment.?7 He also pointed to the need for enhanced civilian government spending to fill the gap in effective demand and move the economy toward a full-employment equilibrium. And he argued for limited controls on international movements of capital. In referring to his analysis as ?the general theory? Keynes distinguished this from orthodox neoclassical theory, which he referred to as a ?special case,? the characteristics of which ?happen not to be those of the economic society in which we actually live,? and which therefore led to results which were ?misleading and disastrous.?8 The reality of the Great Depression convinced many economists and business observers in the late 1930s that Keynes was right, and led to widespread references to the ?Keynesian revolution.? Keynes?s proposals related to stimulating effective demand through civilian government spending were not directly applied in the 1930s, however, and it was the Second World War that lifted the United States and other advanced capitalist economies out of the Great Depression. After the war, Keynes?s analysis was debased by such figures as Paul Samuelson at MIT, leading to what was sometimes called the ?neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis,? or more frequently the ?neoclassical synthesis.? In what Keynes?s younger colleague, Joan Robinson, famously dubbed ?bastard Keynesianism,? Keynes?s more revolutionary insights were all excluded and his analysis was reincorporated with the neoclassical theory in a subordinate form.9 Mainstream economists came to the conclusion that the capitalist economy could be effectively managed by monetary and fiscal policy fine tuning, with an emphasis on the former. This was because the economy was once again implicitly assumed to act in accordance with Say?s Law, moving naturally toward a full-employment equilibrium, now redefined as a ?natural rate of unemployment.? Neoliberal globalization, deregulation, the removal of all restrictions on the movement of capital, the creation of sophisticated new financial architectures, were seen as constituting the essence of all economic logic on a world scale. Hence, by the 1970s (and even more so after the stagflation crisis of that decade) Keynes had been relegated to a ?special case theory of Depression economics,? applicable only when monetary policy could no longer be effectively used to boost the economy.10 But such a condition was no longer believed to be relevant, since, as University of Chicago economist Robert Lucas declared in 2003 in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, the problem of depression and even of the business cycle had essentially been solved. This view was reiterated in 2004 by Ben Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve Board governor, now chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. For Bernanke the Great Depression was no longer of theoretical interest; rather the problem to solve was the ?Great Moderation,? i.e., the reduced volatility of the capitalist economy in the 1980s and ?90s. What needed investigating, he argued, were the reasons for the effective end of the business cycle, which he attributed to more sophisticated monetary policy, arising initially out of the insights of Milton Friedman?s monetarism.11 Today figures like Krugman are seen as partly challenging these conclusions, and as representing the return of Keynesian economics. But this is not a return to Keynes in the sense of his general theoretical critique of capitalism?s fundamental flaws. Rather it is a return to Keynesianism as a ?special case? of ?depression economics,? where monetary policy is ineffective and expansive fiscal policy needs to be given priority.12 The ascendancy of neoclassical economics, which bastardized and subordinated Keynes?s mildly critical view of capitalism, is not itself challenged. Nor is capitalism questioned. Rather it is assumed that mistakes were made in monetary policy and in regulatory systems that have pulled the economy back down into the ?special case? of Keynesian ?depression economics.? Hence, what Keynes called the ?outstanding faults? of the capitalist economy are hardly addressed as such. Keynes, is presented, by his most publicized (and reactionary) biographer, as the great ?remedist? and little else.13 The resulting policy emphasis is on fiscal stimulus, a mild redistribution of income, renewed financial regulations, and international reforms in currency trading. The crisis is treated as a kind of external shock (or, as Krugman says, the spread of an unknown virus).14 The severity of the downturn would suggest that long-term forces (more than the normal business cycle factors) are concerned. Yet, the fact that capitalism is an inherently contradictory historical system, which displays increasing irrationality in its later stages is off limits within the economics mainstream, even among its supposedly left of center theorists, such as Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. Part of the problem is that although Keynes?s thinking was too radical for the system he was trying to defend, it was at the same time not radical enough. It did not fully explain the core contradictions of capitalism. For a truly general theory of accumulation and crisis under capitalism Marx together with later Marxian political economy remain critical. For Marx the essence of capitalism lay, according to his famous shorthand, in the relation M-C-M?. Capitalism was a system in which money capital (M) was exchanged for commodities (C) that were transformed into new commodities through production, which were then sold again for more money M? (or M + ?m, i.e., surplus value). The nature of this process was such that it was unending. The M? was then reinvested in the next period of production, with the object of getting M?? at the end, and so on, ad infinitum.15 Any interruption in the unending accumulation of capital in this sense pointed to a crisis. Moreover, the very existence of a system organized in this way made it possible for a crisis to occur through a shortage of effective demand. For Marx, there was never any doubt about the root cause of capitalist economic crises. ?The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.?16 With respect to financial expansion and crisis, Marx wrote in volume 3 of Capital that the whole ?sphere of production may be saturated with capital,? with the result that profits increasingly enter into the sphere of speculation. ?If...new accumulation,? he wrote, meets with difficulties in its employment, through a lack of spheres for investment, i.e., due to a surplus in the branches of production and an over-supply of loan capital, this plethora of loanable money-capital merely shows the limitations of capitalist production. The subsequent credit swindle proves that no real obstacle stands in the way of the employment of this surplus-capital. However, an obstacle is indeed immanent in its laws of expansion, i.e., in the limits in which capital can realise itself as capital.17 The ?credit swindle,? arising with the turn to money capital (represented by Marx as M to M?) as the basis of the amassing of wealth, inevitably precedes a bust. ?Business always appears excessively sound right on the eve of a crash.? For Marx nothing was more natural than a liquidity crisis in an economic slowdown, where capital hungered insatiably for cash. Mimicking the 42nd Psalm, he wrote that the capitalist desires and hordes money in every form: ?As the hart pants after fresh water, so pants his soul after money, the only wealth.?18 Yet, if Marx constitutes the starting point for a general theory of capitalism and crises, his analysis doesn?t encompass many of the specific problems of today, given the historical evolution of the system since his time. For Marxists, beginning with Hilferding, Lenin, and Luxemburg, the historical evolution of the system in the early twentieth century was understood primarily in terms of the development of a new stage of capitalism, often referred to as monopoly capitalism. This reflected the fact that the most significant change in the structure of capitalism in the twentieth century arose out of what Marx called the concentration and centralization of production, resulting in the rise of the giant firm and the modern credit system. The most ambitious and sustained attempt to develop an analysis of how capital accumulation was altered in the economy of the giant firm was developed by Michael Kalecki, Josef Steindl, Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, and Harry Magdoff. Kalecki was a Polish Marxist economist who also played a major role in the Keynesian Revolution, having introduced most of the fundamental innovations associated with Keynes?s general theory before Keynes himself. Steindl was an Austrian economist who worked with Kalecki at the Oxford Institute of Statistics during the Second World War.19 Their work was extended into an analysis of the role of the state and popularized in Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy?s Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic Order (1966).20 This theoretical perspective was later applied to the world economy and the creeping stagnation of the 1970s, ?80s and ?90s, in a series of works by Sweezy and Magdoff. These thinkers argued that the capitalist economy did not naturally tend toward rapid growth.21 Rather specific historical ?developmental factors? were necessary for strong growth to appear for any length of time.22 This was particularly the case for a system dominated by monopoly capital, in which monopolistic price formation and profits were associated with certain restraints on accumulation. The main problem of accumulation for monopolistic corporations was to find sufficient investment outlets for the enormous and rising surplus at their disposal. Short of new historical factors that increased investment outlets, absorbing surplus capital, the accumulation system tended to sputter out. Hence, ?the normal state of the monopoly capitalist economy,? Baran and Sweezy argued, was ?stagnation.?23 In the decades immediately after the Second World War the United States and the other advanced capitalist economies experienced a period of prosperity, subsequently described as the ?Golden Age.? This was based on the stimulus from special historical factors such as (1) a high level of consumer liquidity immediately after the war; (2) the rebuilding of the war-devastated European and Japanese economies; (3) a second great wave of automobilization (which included the impetus to the rubber, steel, and glass industries, the building of the interstate highway system, and the suburbanization of the country); (4) the growth of the sales effort in the form of the expansion of advertising and other forms of sales-related waste; and (5) high military spending associated with two regional wars in Asia. But by the 1970s these countervailing factors to the tendency to stagnation were mostly on the wane. The result was a rapid slowing down of the economy. Net investment in the United States declined, with the investment that was taking place being fed largely out of corporate depreciation funds. In this situation, a new outlet for the surplus (profits) of corporations was needed. This arose in the 1970s, and even more in the 1980s and ?90s primarily through the development of the financial system, on a scale and with a duration that had no historical precedent. Capital, lacking investment outlets, increasingly flowed into financial speculation, while the financial services industry, so-called, was able to come up with more and more new instruments to absorb this capital. Hyman Minsky, a socialist-oriented economist inspired by Keynes, and influenced by Kalecki and Hansen, observing the new developments, formulated his now famous thesis that financial instability is an ?inescapable part? of developed capitalism. Minsky?s analysis was based on Keynes?s notion that there was a flaw in the accumulation process of capitalism associated with speculative bubbles in asset price increases on top of a sluggish ?real economy.?24 For Keynes and Minsky, however, this was understood as a phenomenon that largely occurred at the peak of a boom. In contrast, Magdoff and Sweezy argued, as early as 1970, that there was a ?long-run decline in liquidity? arising from the putative ??success? in controlling the business cycle.? The result was that the U.S. economy was faced with the growing problem of a major ?debt-squeeze out,? requiring that real and paper values be brought back into accord, sometime in the future. The longer that debt ballooned without a major contraction the bigger the problem would become.25 Incredibly, this process of financial expansion continued over the decades, with only relatively minor credit adjustments or ?credit crunches,? until the Great Financial Crisis of 2007?09. Magdoff and Sweezy labeled this long-term contradiction (in the title of one of their books) Stagnation and the Financial Explosion, arguing that there was a kind of ?symbiotic embrace? between the two.26 Eventually, this long-run process of financial explosion was to be characterized as the ?financialization? of the capitalist economy, and monopoly capital was seen as having transformed into ?monopoly-finance capital.? The economy became increasingly dependent on the inflation of one financial bubble after another. Total debt in relation to GDP in the U.S. economy rose from 151 percent in 1959 to 373 percent in 2007, with the quality of debt decreasing as its quantity expanded. But the real economy showed an increasing addictive toleration?the need for more to get even a decreasing effect?to the expansion of debt. In the 1970s the increase in U.S. GDP was about sixty cents for ever dollar of new debt, by the early 2000s this had decreased to around twenty cents for every dollar of new debt.27 A critical element in the development of the United States as the center of what became a worldwide financialization of capitalism was the role of the dollar as the hegemonic world currency, allowing the U.S. economy essentially to print dollars as needed and to borrow on an unprecedented scale from the rest of the world. This turned the U.S. economy into both the consumer of last resort and the center of debt buildup for the world economy as a whole. The vast and growing U.S. current account deficit has meant that the United States has had to impose (or ?attract?) hundreds of billions of dollars a year in investments in paper?and increasingly fictitious?dollar assets on its trading partners. The process is coming to an end with the previously unimaginable extent of the new debt that must issue from the U.S. government in the coming year, as all previous bubbles are folded into a ?Treasury bubble.? Jim Reid, a perceptive analyst at Deutsche Bank, wrote in mid-December 2008 that ?if 2009 goes horribly wrong it?s probably because there?s a run on a major currency or a Government bond market? and suggests that ?the UK remains the lowest hanging developed market fruit.? Given the weakened role of the pound such a prospect can still be imagined as a normal economic event. Yet, although the U.S. dollar is subject to identical strains on an even greater scale, its role as the global settlement and reserve currency means that a run on it cannot be imagined as a normal economic event, but only as a sea change in the global political economy.28 In 1997, Paul Sweezy declared that globalization was a very long-term trend of capitalism, traceable to its very origins in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This globalizing trend had major effects in some periods such as the rise of China as a major force in the world economy. Nevertheless, the dominant phenomena governing world accumulation at the end of the twentieth century, he argued, were the trio of ?(1) the slowing down of the overall rate of growth, (2) the worldwide proliferation of monopolistic (or oligopolistic) multinational corporations, and (3) what may be called the financialization of the capital accumulation process.?29 It was clearly financialization that was the most startling and unstable development. If the financialization process were to go into reverse or even to slow, Sweezy suggested, the result would be a deep stagnation. There was no telling when this would happen. Financialization, Magdoff and Sweezy argued, could continue for some time. Still, at some point the rising mountain of debt would grow beyond the capacity of capitalist governments to intervene effectively as the lender of last resort, and a financial avalanche would result in an unprecedented crisis. Such a major, historic crisis of capitalism, arising out of conditions that were equally unprecedented, would pose not merely the ?return of depression economics? as this was understood, in a very limited fashion, by orthodox economists, but would mean the collapse of an entire financialized regime of accumulation with lasting real world repercussions. The most likely long-term result was a deep slowdown in the trend-rate of growth. With the Great Financial Crisis of 2007?09 and the advent of the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression these expectations based on an understanding of the historical development of the system have come true. In terms of the conditions that are to be experienced by working populations around the globe as a result of this unprecedented downturn (comparable only to the 1930s) the worst is clearly still to come. Already, emerging economies, where the crisis may turn out to be most wrenching, are finding their export markets drying up. For China, with exports in 2001?06 amounting to over 30 percent of GDP, and net exports close to 4 percent of GDP, the shrinking of markets in the United States, Europe, and Japan constitutes a serious threat. China currently is experiencing the sharpest deceleration in economic growth in thirty years. Chinese exports have dropped, auto sales have plummeted, and jobs are shrinking in the cities. House prices are now falling in major urban areas and there is a drastic decline in real estate investment, which spells a much bigger financial crisis. Millions of China?s ?floating population? of migrant workers who fueled industrialization are unemployed and are returning to rural areas. The sharp drop in economic growth and looming signs of deflation in China, it is feared, will pull world economic growth down to close to zero.30 To the not inconsiderable extent that the U.S. generated global financial explosion has contributed to the growth in the Chinese real economy the U.S. generated global financial implosion shall contribute to its contraction. Economic crises are endemic to capitalism, but the level of economic disaster affecting the system, as shown by conditions in the United States, on the one hand, and China, on the other, is now without precedent in the post-Second World War period, and the end is not yet in sight. The Growing Threat of Planetary Ecological Collapse In addressing capitalism as a failed system I have focused first on the deepening economic crisis. But this is not the worst of the world?s problems. The greatest peril is the growing threat of planetary ecological collapse. Here the danger is much greater than in the case of the world economy but the sense of alarm and the call for immediate and massive action is less widespread. As the Swedish T?llberg Foundation stated in its 2008 report, Grasping the Climate Crisis: A Provocation, The world [at present] faces a breakdown of the global financial system. The consequences are staggering, with ripple effects the world over that deliver the severest blows to the poor. Fear is rising. One would have expected somewhat of the same level of anxiety with regard to the looming breakdown of major parts of the Earth system?rapid deforestation, overfishing, freshwater scarcity and the disappearing Arctic sea ice. Reports of such events and processes are abundant, but the level of concern is still conspicuously low.31 The most serious ecological threat is of course global warming, which is inducing widespread, multi-faceted climate change, with disastrous implications for life on earth. But in a wider sense, the global environmental crisis involves manifold problems and cannot be reduced to global warming alone. These multiple hazards have a common source in the world economy, including: the extinction of species, loss of tropical forests (as well as forest ecosystems generally), contamination of and destruction of ocean ecology, loss of coral reefs, overfishing, disappearing supplies of fresh water resources, the despoliation of lakes and rivers, desertification, toxic wastes, pollution, acid rain, the approaching exhaustion of easily available crude oil resources, urban congestion, the detrimental effects of large dams, world hunger, overpopulation, etc. Together these threats constitute the greatest challenge to the survival of humanity since its prehistory. The global warming threat is rapidly closing in. The melting of sea ice in the Arctic, which some scientists believe could be ice free in the summer in less than a decade, is seen as threatening an ?albedo flip,? a drastic reduction in the reflectivity of solar radiation and an acceleration of climate change. Meanwhile, the melting of the ice sheets in West Antarctica and Greenland points to an irreversible ?tipping point? within a decade that portends rising world sea levels that will eventually engulf major population centers in low-lying areas. The combination of momentous environmental tipping points and positive feedback mechanisms accelerating climate change have convinced a growing number of climatologists that irrevocable and catastrophic climate change is inevitable unless actions are taken in the next decade or so drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.32 The atmosphere is near the ceiling of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that will produce the 2?C increase in average global temperatures that the United Nations? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has sought to avoid. Moreover, the world is on a course under business as usual that could well lead to average global temperature increases two or even three times as high during this century, spelling an inferno for life on the planet.33 Indeed, new scientific data suggests that a 2?C increase would itself be disastrous, in terms of rising sea levels and the setting off of various self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms that could accelerate climate change throughout the earth system. This means that allowing for a stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million (ppm), as envisioned in the Stern Review?characterized by most mainstream economists as a ?radical? response to controlling carbon emissions?or even a buildup of carbon to 450 ppm (seen as consistent with a 2?C ceiling in average global temperature rise) are now viewed by many leading scientists as running the risk of catastrophic change. James Hansen, director of NASA?s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and other climatologists, now claim that the goal must be to reduce the atmospheric carbon level below the present 387 ppm, to 350 ppm or less. This means that net CO2 emissions must ?approach zero.? It also necessitates major changes in energy and land use, requiring massive social reorganization. According to Hansen and his colleagues, ?if the present overshoot of this [350 ppm] target CO2 is not brief, there is the possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.? Indeed, ?continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.? The world is now facing the prospect of irrevocably leaving the mild, protective climate of the Holocene, which has defined the environmental conditions for the entire duration of human civilization. These new dire warnings by leading climatologists are based on a perception of the weaknesses of most earlier computer climate models, which do not account fully for ?slow? climate feedback processes, such as ?ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and GHG [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra or ocean sediments.? Hence, it is now recognized that climate change can accelerate out of control at lower levels of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere than previously supposed. In arriving at such conclusions Hansen and his colleagues themselves ?do not rely on climate models, but rather...on empirical evidence from past and ongoing climate change,? utilizing paleoclimatic data.34 If scientists are telling us that ecological time is running out if we wish to avoid catastrophic global effects, mainstream economists addressing the climate issue claim that we still have plenty of room in which to maneuver. William Nordhaus, the leading orthodox economic analyst of global warming in the United States, argues for a ?climate-policy ramp,? in which modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the near-term would be followed by more ambitious reductions in the long term. Yet, Nordhaus envisions that under ?optimal? conditions atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase to about 480 ppm in 2050, 586 ppm in 2100, peaking at 700 ppm in 2175. Indeed, Nordhaus and other orthodox economists claim that the risks to the world of an average temperature of 5?C or more warmer than preindustrial times, which such atmospheric CO2 concentrations would induce, can be offset by investments in other welfare-enhancing areas of the economy. But in reality, as opposed to bourgeois economics, this flies in the face of all scientific-ecological assessments, threatening absolute catastrophe to human civilization and the planet as we know it.35 Indeed, there is only one way of accounting for the fact that orthodox economists constitute the leading ideological opponents of aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, even at the risk of a planetary inferno?and that is their primary role as ideological defenders of the capitalist system and promoters of its drive for profits and accumulation at any cost. Nothing so clearly demonstrates what John Kenneth Galbraith characterized (in the title to his last book) as The Economics of Innocent Fraud. ?Capitalism, as we know it today,? James Gustave Speth, former head of the United Nations Development Programme, has written, ?is incapable of sustaining the environment.?36 To turn to mainstream economics for answers is therefore a serious, perhaps fatal, error of current policy. The fundamental ecological flaws of the capitalist system have been emphasized primarily by critical political-economic thinkers coming out of or deeply influenced by the Marxist tradition. In the United States environmental sociology has been deeply affected by two critical concepts arising out of Marx, the ?treadmill of production,? and the ?metabolic rift.? The treadmill of production concept is the notion that capitalism is geared above all to exponential growth, as suggested by Marx?s M-C-M? shorthand. The level of economic activity in each period starts with the end point of the previous period, leading to a doubling of economic output in, say, a quarter-century at a 3 percent annual rate of growth?a process which is interrupted, but not brought to an end, by business cycle downturns. The driving force of this expansion is capital accumulation and the search for ever expanding profits. The country that has experienced the fastest rate of growth over a sustained period of time is of course China where the economy, according to the rather fantastic (and somewhat suspect) claim by Bloomberg.com, ?has increased by 69-fold? since 1978.37 But exponential growth, if at lower levels than in China, is characteristic of capitalism in general, even where the economy, is experiencing only slow growth or stagnation, as has typified the advanced capitalist economies in recent decades. Under capitalism, Marx argued, We see how...the mode of production and the means of production are continually transformed, revolutionised, how the division of labour is necessarily followed by greater division of labor, the application of machinery by still greater application of machinery, work on a large scale by work on a still larger scale. That is the law which again and again throws bourgeois production out of its old course and which compels capital to intensify the productive forces of labour, because it has intensified them, it, the law which gives capital no rest and continually whispers in its ear: ?Go on! Go on!? For Marx workers too were chained to the treadmill of production since their conditions were made tolerable for short periods only by rapid economic growth?even though this reduced their relative condition within the system, and hence made them ever more dependent on their capitalist overlords.38 >From an ecological perspective, of course, this system of growth at any cost, synonymous with capitalism, places the world economy in direct conflict with environmental sustainability. China?s rapid growth in recent decades has also led to record rates of environmental degradation on its part. China is now close to the United States in annual carbon dioxide emissions, though far below the latter in emissions per capita. Yet, despite the seriousness of this contradiction between the capitalist economy and the planet, establishment economists generally argue against any major attempt to avert climate change, i.e., to bailout nature. At the same time they do not hesitate to advocate spending trillions of dollars to bailout banks. President-elect Obama?s chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, is notorious for his anti-environmental diatribes. He has said, on more than one occasion, that it makes as much economic sense in terms of future welfare to spend on various non-environmental factors?for example, to rebuild infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)?as to seek to preserve the environment, say, tropical forests. In addressing the global warming problem, Summers naively stated in 1992, that under ?the most pessimistic estimates yet prepared...global warming reduces growth over the next two centuries by less than 0.1 percent a year.?39 Yet, under the most pessimistic estimates of climatologists at that time?now proving accurate?global warming under business as usual threatened both life on the planet and human civilization itself. Indeed, nothing is more deranged than the notion of Summers and other orthodox economists that the planet as we know it can be destroyed, while the capitalist economy can continue as before. Ironically, the current slowdown of the capitalist economy may help temporarily to check some of the increasing burden on the biosphere, by reducing the rate of growth of the overall consumption of energy and materials. However, the usual response to economic crisis within capitalism is to remove protections previously applied to workers and the environment. Hence, the economic decline is likely to result in more intensive forms of ecological exploitation. The growing scale of the capitalist economy and the weight that it is imposing on a limited biosphere are not everything. More important, ultimately, is the actual integrity of ecosystems and the basic biogeochemical processes of the earth system. Here Marx?s theory of the metabolic rift helps us understand capitalism?s intensive, not merely extensive, destruction of the environment. Marx?s vision had included an ecological element from the beginning. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 he wrote of the environmental damage wrought by industrial capitalism, in the form of the ?universal pollution to be found in large towns.? For Marx, ?Man lives from nature, i.e. nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die.?40 But Marx?s ecological critique of capitalism crystallized only with the publication of Capital, volume 1 in 1867. He was influenced by the critique of British industrial agriculture developed by Justus von Liebig, the leading German chemist of the day. Building on Liebig, Marx pointed to the fact that by shipping food and fiber hundreds and even thousands of miles to new urban centers (a reflection of the growing division between town and country) industrialized capitalist agriculture was in fact depleting the soil of basic nutrients (such as nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus), which were no longer recirculated to the earth. This created a major crisis of the soil in Europe and the United States in the nineteenth century. Marx described this as an ?irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself.? He argued that society demanded the ?restoration? of a sustainable human metabolism with nature, which however could only be accomplished under a society of associated producers.41 In the most radical conception of sustainability ever developed, Marx wrote: >From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias [good heads of the household].42 During the present decade there has been a great deal of research applying Marx?s overall concept of the metabolic rift to explain different disjunctures in the global ecology related to capitalism?s exploitation of soils, forests, oceans, and the carbon cycle.43 This has led to the conclusion, in the words of environmental sociologists Brett Clark and Richard York, that ?Capitalism is incapable of regulating its social metabolism with nature in an environmentally sustainable manner. Its very operations violate the laws of restitution and metabolic restoration. The constant drive to renew the capital accumulation process intensifies its destructive social metabolism, imposing the needs of capital on nature, regardless of the consequences to natural systems.?44 Confronted with ecological crises, no attempt is made by the system to go to the root of the problem in the social relations that are undermining what Marx called ?the vital conditions of existence.? Rather the problem is shifted around, with capitalism continuing ?to play out the same failed strategy again and again.?45 The result is a compounding of ecological disaster. The solution that capitalism provided to the nineteenth century soil crisis that Liebig and Marx addressed was not to restore the human metabolism with the soil, but rather to develop synthetic, particularly nitrogen-based, fertilizers, which marked the beginning of modern agribusiness, and which (because of the high petroleum use) is a major source of global warming, as well as contributing to ocean dead zones. Capitalism?s solution to world agricultural production in the form of modern agribusiness has resulted in a further polarization of wealth and hunger. Of the more than six billion people in the world today, the United Nation indicates that around one billion are hungry, and their numbers (both relative and absolute) are growing. In the United States itself over 36 million people, about 12 percent of the population, were ?food insecure? in 2007.46 Capitalism?s ultimate solution to ecological problems?since fundamental changes in the system itself are off limits?is technological. But any technological gains in efficiency in the use of natural resources are overwhelmed by the extensive and ecologically disruptive pattern of growth that characterizes this rapacious system. Hence, capitalism is a failed system where ecological sustainability is concerned. Global Imperial Instability All of the foregoing has to be seen in terms of capitalism as a world system. Capitalism came into being in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, spreading out from a little corner of Europe, and was from its inception a globalizing economy. But its globalization took the form of a division, from the start, between center and periphery, and thus was imperial in nature. The system was geared from the first to the needs of accumulation in the center, or the top of the world-hierarchy. As time has gone by more and more external areas have been incorporated into the world-capitalist economy so that globalization, in the sense of the global ascendancy of capital, is now more or less complete. The most dramatic case in recent decades has been China?s rapid integration into the world economy (and the breakdown of the Soviet bloc and subsequent integration of most of these states as dependent satellites of Western capitalism). Yet, globalization taken in itself is not a very useful way of understanding the accumulation dynamic of the system at this specific stage of its development, which is better characterized, as Sweezy argued, in terms of the three elements of slow growth (in the center and in the world economy as a whole), monopolization via multinational corporations, and financialization. Continuing globalization, coupled with financialization, has created the illusion, propagated by some ideologues of the system, that ?the world is flat.?47 Yet, capitalism remains a world economic system divided into separate nation states with differing power resources?a contradiction that is impossible to transcend within the system. Meanwhile, the growth of multinational corporations based in the center countries has served historically to channel global surpluses away from the peripheries toward the centers. The concentration of power (economic, military, financial, communications) at the center is intrinsic to capitalism as a world system, although the specific nations that constitute the center and periphery (and semi-periphery) may change. The world economy is therefore disproportionately focused on the needs of accumulation at the core. The capitalist world system is most stable when governed by a single hegemonic power, such as Britain for most of the nineteenth century, and the United States for most of the twentieth. In periods of hegemonic instability and world economic crisis the system approaches conditions of total crisis, as witnessed by the First and Second World Wars. The worldwide economic and planetary ecological disasters, already discussed, are occurring at a time when there is a tectonic geopolitical shift occurring within capitalism. The United States is continuing to decline in relative power, while no single power or group of powers can directly challenge it at present, particularly with the downfall of the Soviet Union. Under these circumstances, the U.S. state has sought to gain control of those strategic resources and geopolitical positioning that will generate a ?new American century? in what is clearly an era of ?naked imperialism.?48 This has resulted in a new official doctrine of preemptive war, and the launching of such wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, Washington has been the leading force in promoting neoliberal policies, imposing a Hayekian capitalism on the world?not in order to create a flatter world, but in order to consolidate the power of those states already at the top. Such global ambitions of a single state, however, inevitably transmute from a source of hegemonic stability into a source of hegemonic instability for the world system. Despite its globalizing tendencies capitalism is unable to integrate politically to form a truly global governance. Instead the attempts of Washington to restore and expand its global hegemony, using its military power to enhance its economic position, are creating what is potentially the deadliest period in the history of imperialism. The United States has recently expanded its bases around the world to as many as seventy countries and territories, while U.S. troops are operating on an even wider field. U.S. military spending in 2007, according to acknowledged figures, is $552 billion, approximately equal to the estimated military spending of all the other nations in the world put together, while actual U.S. military spending in 2007 was $1 trillion.49 Amiya Kumar Bagchi, one of India?s most distinguished economists, has called this a ?third axial age,? in which ?the United States has emerged as the superimperialist, and its government has claimed that no international law or organization can deter it from any material action it considers to be in the national interest (meaning, of course, the interest of big U.S. capital). At the same time that big capital, backed by the military might of the superimperialist, pursues its murderous course, the bargaining power of workers all over the world is pushed down to low levels through a combination of measures?totally deregulating finance, enfeebling the state, and depriving workers of all rights vis-?-vis capital through legislation.50 There is no doubt that the national security apparatus in the United States, in this period, sees China, as the great Marxist philosopher Istv?n M?sz?ros has said, as its ?ultimate target.?51 This has been most evident in the last few years in: (1) report after report by the U.S. national security establishment warning of China?s growing influence in Africa and access to African petroleum reserves, control of which are seen as vital to U.S. ?national security?; (2) continual fears within the U.S. intelligence community of a Chinese-Iranian or Chinese-Russian-Iranian alliance; (3) U.S. efforts to form a military pact with India; (4) concerns raised about Chinese advances in space; and (5) conflict regarding Tibet, Taiwan, North Korea, and the China Sea. Although the United States is economically bound to China at present through the production of multinational corporations and intensive trade and currency exchanges?so much so that the two economies appear to be in a kind of symbiotic embrace?increased geopolitical rivalry associated with declining U.S. hegemony and the rise of China as a world power create the possibility of a more explosive relationship arising. At present there are very palpable fears in Washington?s higher circles regarding the continuing?and from their perspective necessary and non-negotiable?role of the dollar as trade settlement and reserve currency, even in the face of current Chinese support for the dollar system. Washington understands that China?s blind support for the dollar is problematic, especially in the event of a rapid devaluation of all existing dollar obligations resulting from Federal Reserve policy. China holds $652 billion in U.S. Treasury debt (an increase from $459 billion at the end of 2007). Altogether it owns 10 percent of the U.S. public debt. A rapid devaluation of the dollar would only be seen in China as an expropriation. An ensuing movement of China away from the dollar, however limited?and none but limited moves are immediately possible?could drastically destabilize the entire U.S. dominated world economic order.52 At the same time as Washington is concerned about the increased potential threat to its hegemony posed by the rise of China, it is also striving to contain or weaken other states as well, such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. There is no doubt that the economic and ecological crises, to the extent that they worsen, will tend to destabilize the system, intensifying these and other imperial tensions. Classic geopolitical theory suggests that only by containing the rimlands of Eurasia can a single power control the globe. U.S. strategy at present centers on the Middle East, as the strategic petroleum underbelly of Eurasia. But its primary goal is to defend and even expand its own weakening global ascendancy vis-?-vis potential economic and military rivals. With the spread of weapons of mass destruction?which U.S. attempts at consolidating global military and economic dominance actually encourage?it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which matters will get out of control. The terror of a global holocaust emerging from such economic, ecological, and geopolitical instability?threatened in the first instance by the refusal of the United States and its Israeli ally to accept the failure of their policies in the Middle East and the related mismanagement of world energy resources?is a danger that cannot be ignored. This grim reality marks the failed peace?Pox Americana rather than Pax Americana?of a failed system.53 Beyond a Failed System As the foregoing indicates, the world is currently facing the threat of a new world deflation-depression, worse than anything seen since the 1930s. The ecological problem has reached a level that the entire planet as we know it is now threatened. Neoliberal capitalism appears to be at an end, along with what some have called ?neoliberalism ?with Chinese characteristics.??54 Declining U.S. hegemony, coupled with current U.S. attempts militarily to restore its global hegemony through the so-called War on Terror, threaten wider wars and nuclear holocausts. The one common denominator accounting for all of these crises is the current phase of global monopoly-finance capital. The fault lines are most obvious in terms of the peril to the planet. As Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, has recently stated: ?Under capitalism we are not human beings but consumers. Under capitalism mother earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials.? In reality, ?the earth is much more important than [the] stock exchanges of Wall Street and the world. [Yet,] while the United States and the European Union allocate 4,100 billion dollars to save the bankers from a financial crisis that they themselves have caused, programs on climate change get 313 times less, that is to say, only 13 billion dollars.?55 The world economic crisis is now so severe that a figure like Martin Wolf, chief economic commentator for the Financial Times and longtime ?Atlanticist? and apologist for U.S. policies, warns that the entire system of world trade could break down as in the 1930s. It comes as no surprise that Wolf lays the blame on ?mercantilist countries? with large external surpluses and insufficient internal demand, such as China, Germany, and Japan. He singles out China as the main culprit. The so-called ?mercantilist? countries are accused of carrying out beggar-thy-neighbor policies at the expense of the deficit countries (that is, above all, the United States) and the entire world.56 We have now reached the point where it is possible to ask what the consequences would be of the collapse of the dollar as unilateral global trade settlement and reserve currency, and this has thrown Wolf and the other Atlanticists into something approaching hysteria. It is just these same ?mercantilist? states that are the plausible core of a new global multilateral currency, a prospect of unspeakable fear and horror to the Atlanticists, raising geopolitical tensions that obstruct any such project. It is clear that neoliberal globalization has come to an end, and that capitalism is in a long-term crisis. We are now faced with ?depression economics,? not as a special case, but as a general one. As world-system theorist, Immanuel Wallerstein, has suggested for some time, what was called ?globalization? in the last couple of decades was really at the global level an ?age of transition? away from the current capitalist world-system towards something else.57 What exactly this something else is we do not know, and cannot know at this point: because it depends on the responses not just of states and corporations, but more importantly the response of the world?s populations. On top of the intense class alienation, exploitation, and inequality endemic to capitalism at every level, we are now faced with widening global fractures. So far, on a continental level, leadership in recognizing that the only answer is the revolutionary one?a new socialism for the twenty-first century?has been taken by the peoples of Latin America, in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and is also manifest in struggles taking place in Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.58 Latin America, which was the first continent to feel the full brunt of neoliberal globalization, the hardest hit region outside of the Middle East in terms military interventions in the last quarter-century, and the region that was the initial basis of U.S. international hegemony, is now showing the way to the world?not only in relation to the struggle for substantive equality, which is essential, but also in relation to saving the planet from capitalism. As Morales has stated, ?Humankind is capable of saving the earth if we recover the principles of solidarity, complementarity, and harmony with nature, in contraposition to the reign of competition, profits, and rampant consumption of natural resources? that distinguishes the failed system of capitalism.59 Notes 1. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1947), 61.Go Back 2. John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, The Great Financial Crisis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009).Go Back 3. George W. Bush, Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy, Washington, D.C., November 15, 2008.Go Back 4. Paul Krugman, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009).Go Back 5. John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Mac-millan, 1973), 372.Go Back 6. Keynes, The General Theory, xxxv.Go Back 7. Keynes, The General Theory, 376?78.Go Back 8. Keynes, The General Theory, 3.Go Back 9. Joan Robinson, ?Review of Money, Trade and Economic Growth by J. G. Johnson, Economic Journal 72, no. 287 (September 1962): 690?92; Lynn Turgeon, Bastard Keynesianism (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996).Go Back 10. Dimitri B. Papadimitriou and L. Randall Wray, ?Introduction,? in Hyman P. Minsky, John Maynard Keynes (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008), xii. This view of Keynes?s general theory as in reality a ?special case? was initially and influentially propounded by Leijonhufvud, who argued that a compromise had emerged within majority economics, which assumed: ?(1) the model which Keynes called his ?general theory? is but a special case of the classical theory, obtained by imposing certain restrictive assumptions on the latter; and (2) the Keynesian special case is nonetheless important because, as it happens, it is more relevant to the real world than the general (equilibrium) theory.? Axel Leijonhufvud, ?Keynes and the Keynesians,? American Economic Review 57, no. 2 (May 1967): 401?02. Eventually, however, due to the rise of monetarism and other conservative doctrines, Keynes?s analysis came to be treated as less relevant to the real world than the general theory, and his ?depression economics? was reduced to a ?special case? both theoretically and historically. See Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883?1946 (London: Penguin, 2003), 846?51.Go Back 11. Robert E. Lucas, ?Macroeconomic Priorities,? American Economic Review 93, no. 1 (March 2003): 1; Ben S. Bernanke, ?The Great Moderation,? Eastern Economic Association, Washington, D.C., February 20, 2004, http://www.federalreserve.gov.Go Back 12. Krugman, The Return of Depression Economics, 181?84; see also Paul Krugman, The Return of Depression Economics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2000), viii, xiii.Go Back 13. Robert Skidelsky, ?The Remedist,? New York Times, December 14, 2008. Skidelsky proudly joined the British Conservative (?Tory?) Party in 1992, at the darkest depths of the Thatcherite neoliberal ?revolution.? A Keynes biography far superior to Skidelsky?s effort is D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist?s Biography (London: Routledge, 1992).Go Back 14. Krugman, The Return of Depression Economics, 5. Krugman wrote an article in 1998 strongly attacking ?vulgar Keynesians? of the ?early Keynesian? type (and William Greider today) for their notions of ?the paradox of thrift,? maldistribution of income, and advocacy of increasing real wages. Such ?vulgar Keynesians,? he suggested, were not taken seriously by economists of today for reasons that could be summarized in ?two words: Alan Greenspan.? Greenspan, Krugman argued, had shown that the economy and unemployment could be managed. ?It is obvious (to me),? he wrote, ?that the average unemployment rate over the next ten years will be what the Fed wants it to be.? Paul Krugman, The Accidental Economist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), 28?33.Go Back 15. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York: International Publishers), chapter 4; Paul M. Sweezy, Four Lectures on Marxism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981), 26?45,Go Back 16. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), 484 (chapter 30).Go Back 17. Marx, Capital, vol. 3, 507 (chapter 32, section 2).Go Back 18. Marx, Capital, vol. 3, 484, 507 (chapters 30 and 32); Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 138 (chapter 3, section 3b). The 42nd Psalm (King James version) reads ?As the hart panteth after water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.?Go Back 19. See Michal Kalecki, Theory of Economic Dynamics (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1965); Josef Steindl, Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976).Go Back 20. Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966).Go Back 21. Paul M. Sweezy and Harry M. Magdoff, The Dynamics of U.S. Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), The End of Prosperity (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977), Stagnation and the Financial Explosion (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1987), and The Irreversible Crisis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1988).Go Back 22. Kalecki, Theory of Economic Dynamics, 161.Go Back 23. Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, 108.Go Back 24. See Hyman Minsky, Can ?It? Happen Again? (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1982).Go Back 25. Magdoff and Sweezy, The Dynamics of U.S. Capitalism, 180?96.Go Back 26. Magdoff and Sweezy, Stagnation and the Financial Explosion, 22.Go Back 27. Foster and Magdoff, The Great Financial Crisis, 49, 63?76, 121.Go Back 28. Jim Reid quoted at the Financial Times blog, Alphaville, December 15, 2008. See also John Bellamy Foster, Harry Magdoff, and Robert W. McChesney, ?What Recovery?? Monthly Review 54, no. 11 (April 2003): 8?13.Go Back 29. Paul M. Sweezy, ?More (or Less) on Globalization,? Monthly Review 49, no. 4 (September 1997): 3?4.Go Back 30. Minqi Li, ?An Age of Transition: The United States, China, Peak Oil, and the Demise of Neoliberalism,? Monthly Review 59, no. 11 (April 2008): 28; Kevin Hamlin, ?China Property Slump Threatens Global Economy as Growth Slows,? Bloomberg.com, December 7, 2008; ?China Fears Restive Migrants as Jobs Disappear in Cities,? Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2008; ?Slowdown in China Gets Worse, Increasing Global Woes,? Wall Street Journal, December 11, 2008.Go Back 31. Bo Ekman, Johan Rockstr?m, and Anders Wijkman, Grasping the Climate Crisis (Stockholm: The T?llberg Foundation, 2008), 8, http://www.tallbergfoundation.org.Go Back 32. John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, ?Ecology: The Moment of Truth?An Introduction,? Monthly Review 60, no. 3 (July-August 2008), 1?11.Go Back 33. Ekman, et. al., Grasping the Climate Crisis, 18; Mark Lynas, Six Degrees (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2008).Go Back 34. James Hansen, et. al., ?Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?? The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2 (2008), 217, 221, 228?29, supplemental: xix.Go Back 35. Simon Dietez and Nicolas Stern, ?On the Timing of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: A Final Rejoinder to the Symposium on ?The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review and its Critics,? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, posted online December 4, 2008; William Nordhaus, A Question of Balance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).Go Back 36. John Kenneth Galbraith, The Economics of Innocent Fraud (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004); James Gustave Speth, The Bridge at the End of the World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 63.Go Back 37. Bloomberg.com, ?China Property Slump Threatens Global Economy.? Bloomberg.com?s growth claims for China are in monetary terms, and is considerably accounted for by the monetizing of pre-existing socialist public goods, previously valued for their utility rather than the amount of money for which they could be exchanged. Examples are urban land and housing, medical care, education, and to an increasing degree agricultural land.Go Back 38. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in One Volume (New York: International Publishers, 1984), 88, 90. Marx here appears to be playing on a famous passage from the Talmud, popularly rendered: ?Every blade of grass has its angel that bends over it and whispers ?Grow, grow.?? Midrash Rabba, Bereshit 10:6 (Talmudic commentary on Genesis).Go Back 39. Lawrence H. Summers, ?Summers on Sustainable Growth,? The Economist, May 30, 1992; see also John Bellamy Foster, Ecology Against Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2002), 60?68.Go Back 40. Karl Marx, Early Writings (London: Penguin, 1974), 302, 328.Go Back 41. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (London: Penguin, 1976), 636?38 (chapter 15, section 10); Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (London: Penguin, 1981), 911, 948?50; John Bellamy Foster, Marx?s Ecology (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), 141?77.Go Back 42. Marx, Capital, vol. 3, 911 (chapter 46).Go Back 43. See, for example, Brett Clark and Richard York, ?Carbon Metabolism,? Theory & Society 34, no. 4 (2005), 391?428; Rebecca Clausen and Brett Clark, ?The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology,? Organization & Environment 18, no. 4 (2005), 422?44; Philip Mancus, ?Nitrogen Fertilizer Dependency and Its Contradictions: A Theoretical Explanation of Socio-Ecological Metabolism,? Rural Sociology 72, no 2 (2007), 269?88.Go Back 44. Brett Clark and Richard York, ?Rifts and Shifts: Getting to the Root of Environmental Crisis,? Monthly Review 60, no. 6 (November 2008): 22?23.Go Back 45. Ibid., 23; Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971), 301?10.Go Back 46. Fred Magdoff, ?The World Food Crisis,? Monthly Review 60, no. 1 (May 2008): 1; ?New USDA Statistics Highlight Growing Hunger Crisis in the U.S.,? Reuters, November 17, 2008.Go Back 47. Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2005).Go Back 48. See John Bellamy Foster, Naked Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006).Go Back 49. John Bellamy Foster, Hannah Holleman, and Robert W. McChesney, ?The U.S. Imperial Triangle and Military Spending,? Monthly Review 60, no. 5 (October 2008): 1?19; Foster, Naked Imperialism, 55?66; Chalmers A. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004); Istv?n M?sz?ros, The Challenge and Burden of Historical Time (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2008), 105?07.Go Back 50. Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), xvii.Go Back 51. M?sz?ros, The Challenge and Burden of Historical Time, 124?26.Go Back 52. ?Dollar Shift: Chinese Pockets Filled as Americans? Emptied,? New York Times, December 26, 2008.Go Back 53. See John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, eds., Pox Americana (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004); John Bellamy Foster, ?The New Geopolitics of Empire,? Monthly Review 57, no. 8 (January 2006): 4?6.Go Back 54. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 120?51.Go Back 55. Evo Morales, ?Save the Planet from Capitalism,? November 28, 2008, http://links.org.au/node/769.Go Back 56. Martin Wolf, ?Global Imbalances Threaten the Survival of Liberal Trade,? Financial Times blog, Economists? Forum, December 2, 2008.Go Back 57. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Decline of American Power (New York: The New Press, 2003), 45?68.Go Back 58. If Latin America is playing the leading revolutionary role at a continental level, this is not to deny the importance of developments occurring elsewhere, such as in the rema http://webmessenger.yahoo.com/ rkable revolution in Nepal.Go Back 59. Morales, ?Save the Planet from Capitalism.? Join our alternative news service "Fresh Ink", and with previous postings at: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 13 12:46:56 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:46:56 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Israeli Rabbi's Guide to Killing Causes Firestorm Message-ID: 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 Sat Nov 14 05:47:22 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:47:22 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The End of Electricity Message-ID: http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild261009.htm Countercurrents.org October 26, 2009 The End of Electricity by Peter Goodchild There seems to be a consensus that the depletion of fossil fuels will follow a fairly impressive slope. What may need to be looked at more closely, however, is not the "when" but the "what". Looking at the temporary shortages of the 1970s may give us the impression that the most serious consequence will be lineups at the pump. Fossil-fuel decline, however, will also mean the end of electricity, a far more serious matter. It is easy to assume that the main issue with fossil-fuel depletion is the problem of what to put in our automobiles. For some, the problem may seem hardly big enough to worry about. The average motorist will have to accept paying far more for gasoline than in earlier times. "So what?" the driver may ask. "The Japanese [or whoever] have been paying far more for decades". And driving is not only a matter of transportation, it is one of our great passions. The mileage we rack up on our vehicles is breathtaking, and for many the motto is, "I'd rather drive than eat". We can always assume - with only the slightest of guilt feelings - that ecological matters are somebody else's problem. We are tacitly confident, in other words, that our own problem of fossil fuels can be solved by a job promotion and a raise. But that view may be totally wrong. A far greater consequence of fossil-fuel depletion could be the effect on the production of electricity. As time goes by, the biggest question of all may be, "Can we even keep the electricity going?" If we end up facing unavoidable world-wide blackouts and brownouts, then the result will be a sudden and catastrophic chain reaction. Fossil fuels and electricity are tightly integrated. We cannot have one without the other. Without fossil fuels, we can produce no (or not much) electricity. Conversely, without electricity, we lack the "nervous system" (a good analogy, since nerves work by ion transfer) to control any equipment that uses fossil fuels. If all the above is true, then what we should be thinking of is not the familiar slope of fossil-fuel depletion depicted in twenty or thirty major studies, but a figure consisting of a gentle slope that continues for a very few more years and then becomes a steeper curve downward. When fossil fuels are inadequate for maintaining electricity, the further results will be manifold. Fossil-fuel production itself will cease, and so will a great deal else. For that matter, it is not only fossil fuels and electricity that form a tightly integrated group, but a triad: fuels, electricity, and metals. Without fossil fuels and electricity, we cannot produce metals. For now, let us focus on the first two of the three, but there are other issues will also need attention one day. Is there tangible evidence for such a rapidly plunging slope? Let us look at energy in general, not just fossil fuels. In several versions of his "Olduvai" essay, Richard C Duncan gives various dates for a "brink" and a "cliff," even if I cannot always follow his reasoning in arriving at these dates. What is most important among the data that Duncan uses is the fact that world energy production per capita peaked and reached what he calls a "rough plateau" in 1979 (the same year in which global oil per capita reached a peak). If world energy per capita has already reached a peak, then electricity is in danger. It is very unlikely that demand for electricity will decline. There have been various studies of this plateau, but they all give approximately the following results. For each of the following years, (A) is global energy generation in terawatts, (B) is global population in billions, and (C) is global energy generation per billion persons (the ratio of A over B). 1965 (A) 5.0 (B) 3.2 (C) 1.6 1979 (A) 8.9 (B) 4.2 (C) 2.1 2005 (A) 13.4 (B) 6.3 (C) 2.1 The danger is when "global energy available for production of electricity" in a particular year no longer matches "global energy required for electricity". In other words, when we no longer have enough energy to channel into necessary electricity production, the game is over. Yes, we can divert some energy sources away from their present uses towards the production of electricity, but such a diversion causes its own problems. For better or worse, the sources of electricity are mainly fossil fuels, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, so as these reach the down-slopes of their bell curves, electricity will follow a fairly similar curve. When will all this happen? It already has, beginning with that "rough plateau". The only remaining question is how quickly the various events will unfold. That in turn must be subdivided into questions on such matters as the supplies of the sources (oil, natural gas, coal, hydroelectricity, nuclear power, et cetera); on global GDP; on global population; on the amount of electricity generation; and on the chances of voluntarily conserving electrical power. (The chances of voluntary reduction are obviously slim, however. According to BP's Review of World Energy, from 1990 to 2008 global electricity use actually rose by seventy percent, which means an increase per capita of 41%.) We must not forget the above-mentioned chain reaction - the feedback mechanism. As less fuel (or any other source of energy) is available to produce electricity, there is less electricity to produce fuel. As less electricity is available to produce fuel, there is less fuel to produce electricity. The end is swift. The answers are also complicated, of course, by the fact that the global data are not reflected in more-localized data. For some countries, blackouts and brownouts have been a way of life for years. But no country should assume that it is safe. In the US, the main energy source for electricity is coal, and there have been several recent reports that coal in the US is not as abundant as once assumed. The remaining coal is of poor quality and difficult to extract. For years I have lived with Richard Duncan's several versions of his "Olduvai" essay, reading them many times, often puzzled. Yet his writing continues to haunt me, because there is obviously something important staring out. In particular, I am struck by his emphasis on electricity. An important addition to his 2006 version is his emphasis on "proximate" versus "ultimate" causes of systemic collapse. "... Permanent blackouts ... will be the proximate (direct, immediate) cause of the collapse of industrial civilization. In contrast, [there will be] many ultimate (indirect, delayed) causes ..." Duncan also points out that the importance of electricity is overlooked because it is not the underlying giant problem of "the limits to growth". As any science-minded person knows, electricity is not even a source of energy, it is merely a carrier of energy. Fossil fuels are the primary sources of energy in our industrial civilization. Yet electricity is subtle, and its importance is easily underestimated. It is "end use" that is significant. In his 2006 version, Duncan says that "electricity wins hands down as our most important end-use energy. To wit: I estimate that seven percent of the world's oil is consumed by the electric power sector, twenty percent of the world's natural gas, 88% of the coal, and 100% each for nuclear and hydroelectric power. The result is that electric power accounts for 43% of the world's end-use energy compared to oil's 35%". There are always many problems with the use of electricity. It is certainly costly. Duncan notes that, according to the International Energy Agency, the worldwide investment funds required for electricity from 2003 to 2030 will be about $9.66 trillion. That sort of money is simply not available. In the 2000 version of his essay, Duncan adds that electric power systems are "complex, voracious of fuel, polluting, and require 24 hour, 7 day, 52 week maintenance and operations". Personally, I think of the great blackout of August 14 2003, when a large part of northeastern North America came to a halt. But that was only one day, with a few serious problems on following days. Independent generators kept hospitals and restaurants going. Water trucks solved a problem for cities that did not have gravity-fed reservoirs. But what if the problems had continued for a much longer time - perhaps forever - so that those clumsy attempts at rectification were no longer operating? When the lights go out, so does everything else. Sources: BP Global Statistical Review of World Energy. Annual. http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview Duncan, Richard C. "The Olduvai Theory: Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization". The Social Contract, Winter 2005-2006. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf Duncan, Richard C. "The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge". Geological Society of America, Summit 2000. Reno, Nevada, 13 November 13 2000. http://www.dieoff.org/page224.htm Harrabin, Roger. "UK 'Could Face Blackouts by 2016'". BBC News. 11 September 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8249540.stm. Leopold, Jason. "Dark Days Ahead". Truth Out. 17 October 2006. http://www.truthout.org/docs2006/101706J.shtml# North American Electric Reliability Council. Long-Term Reliability Assessment. Annual. http://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_wpdl/docs/pubs/LTRA2008.pdf Smith, Rebecca. "US Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal". Wall Street Journal. 8 June 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124414770220386457.html _____ Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American Indians (Chicago Review Press, 1999). His email address is odonatus at live.com. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 14 15:01:36 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:01:36 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Cynthia McKinney: Open Letter to Obama Regarding Afghan War Message-ID: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16001 Global Research November 13, 2009 Open Letter From the Peace Movement to President Obama on His Upcoming Decision Regarding the Afghan War by Cynthia McKinney Dear Mr. President: According to press reports, you intend to decide between November 7 and November 11 whether or not to send tens of thousands of American soldiers to Afghanistan. We are writing in advance of that decision to add our voice to those of Sen. Feingold, many House Democrats, and of a clear majority of Americans in urging you not to escalate this war, but rather to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces. We urge you to end the policy of using Predator drones to assassinate Pakistani civilians on the territory of their own country, in defiance of all concepts of international law. We also call upon you to cease all covert CIA and Pentagon operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. No vital American interest is at stake in Afghanistan. Former Marine and State Department official Matthew Hoh is right: the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan have come to be viewed as invaders and occupiers, and the resistance they encounter has nothing to do with international terrorism. This war is futile, and now doomed to failure. There is no military solution to the problems that beset Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the rest of this tragically war-torn region need a Marshall Plan of peaceful economic development, through which some of the 15 million unemployed workers in our own country could find productive jobs. We have no confidence in the advice being given to you by military leaders like Gen. McChrystal, who has been implicated in torture in Iraq. We supported your candidacy because we viewed you as the best chance for ending the wars of the Bush era. We applauded your rejection of the rhetoric of fear and division that was the stock in trade of Bush and Cheney. We are alarmed by the way that rhetoric has crept into your public pronouncements since your August address in Phoenix. Your decision on Afghanistan will represent the decisive turning point of your presidency. If you turn away from war, you will provide a profile in courage that will solidify your support and open up a new perspective for progressive reforms in our country. You will honor the spirit of John F. Kennedy, who was searching for an exit strategy from the Vietnam war. If you opt for a wider war, the resulting heavy casualties will destroy confidence in your leadership among your own most devoted advocates. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured down a rat hole, and will no longer be available for any reform and renovation of American society, which will increasingly fall behind the economic strength of other countries. Your domestic agenda will be halted, in the same way your predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson was crippled by the Vietnam war. Escalation of the Afghan war, in short, would be an act of political suicide for you, and of national suicide for our country. We are keenly aware of the difficulties and animosities you face, and we have long done everything possible to give your administration the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of repeated disappointments. But we now approach the moment of truth: will you be a great progressive president, or will you prove too weak to turn away from the bankrupt policies institutionalized and entrenched under Bush and Cheney. Therefore, we want you to know our attitude before you decide on the proposed Afghan escalation. If you choose to escalate, we will oppose this policy with all the energy we possess. We will act to mobilize the largest possible anti-war demonstration in Washington DC and other cities before the end of 2009, and continuously thereafter. We will support anti-war candidates of any party in the 2010 elections. If you are still waging the Afghan war in 2011, we will be forced to seriously consider backing an explicitly anti-war primary candidate to challenge you during the Democratic primaries. We therefore respectfully urge you to act in the spirit of your 2008 campaign ? the spirit of hope and change, neither of which can survive the continuation or expansion of the hopeless Afghan war. Cynthia McKinney, DIGNITY Cynthia McKinney is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Cynthia McKinney From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 04:43:26 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:43:26 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Fidel Castro: A Science Fiction Story Message-ID: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/23126 A Science Fiction Story November 14, 2009 By Fidel Castro I very much regret to have to criticize Obama knowing that there are in that country other could-be presidents worse than him. I am aware that that position in the United States is today a major headache. The best example of this is the report in yesterday's edition of Granma that 237 US members of Congress, or 44%, are millionaires. This does not mean that every one of them is an incorrigible reactionary but it is extremely difficult that they feel like the many million Americans who do not have access to medical care, who are unemployed or who need to work very hard to earn their living. Of course, Obama himself is no beggar; he owns millions of dollars. He excelled as a professional and his command of language, his eloquence and intellect are unquestionable. Also, he was elected president despite his being an African American, a first time occurrence in the history of his country's racist society, which is enduring a profound international economic crisis of its own making. This is not about being an anti-American as the system and its huge media intend to label its adversaries. The American people are not the culprits but rather the victims of a system that is not only unsustainable but worse still: it is incompatible with the life of humanity. The smart and rebellious Obama who suffered humiliation and racism in his childhood and youth understands this, but the Obama educated by the system and committed to it and to the methods that took him to the US presidency cannot resist the temptation to pressure, to threaten and even to deceive others. He is a workaholic. Perhaps no other American president would dare to engage in such an intense program as he intends to carry out in the next eight days. According to plan, he will take an extensive tour of Alaska where he intends to address the troops stationed there. He will be visiting Japan, Singapore, the People's Republic of China and South Korea. He will attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) and that of the Association of East Asian Nations (ASEAN). He will hold talks with the Prime Minister of Japan and His Majesty Emperor Akihito in the land of the Rising Sun as well as with the prime ministers of Singapore and South Korea and the presidents of Indonesia Susilo Bambang, of Russia Dimitri Medvedev and of the People's Republic of China Hu Jintao. He will be making speeches and giving press conferences. He will be carrying with him his nuclear briefcase, which we hope he will have no need to use during his hasty tour. His Security advisor has said that Obama will discuss with the president of Russia the continuance of the START-1 Treaty set to expire on December 5, 2009. There is no doubt that some reductions of the enormous nuclear arsenal will be agreed upon, albeit this will be of no consequence to world peace and economy. What is our distinguished friend planning to discuss during his intense journey? The White House has made its solemn announcement: climate change and economic recovery; nuclear disarmament and the Afghan war; and, the risks of war in Iran and in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea. There is plenty of material to produce a science fiction book. But, how can Obama unravel the problems of climate change when the position of his representatives during the preparatory meetings of the Copenhagen Summit on the greenhouse effect gas emissions was the worst among those of the industrialized and rich nations, both in Bangkok and Barcelona, because the United States chose not to sign the Kyoto Protocol and the oligarchy of that country is not willing to really cooperate. How can he contribute to the solution of the grave economic problems afflicting a large part of humanity when at the end of 2008 the total debt of the United States --including that of the federal, state and local administrations, the businesses and families?amounted to 57 trillion dollars, that is, over 400% of its GDP, and that country's budget deficit reached almost 13% of its GDP in fiscal year 2009, an information that Obama is certainly aware of. What can he offer Hu Jintao when his openly protectionist policies have been aimed against the Chinese exports and he is demanding at all costs that the Chinese government revaluates the Yuan, an action that would adversely impact on the growing Third World imports from China? The Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, who is not a disciple of Karl Marx but an honest catholic among others who are not willing to cooperate with the imperialism in Latin America, has recently said that "....we are risking our destruction and the devastation of life's diversity." "[...] almost half of humanity is living today under the poverty line. The wealthiest 20% are consuming 82.49% of all of the riches on Earth while the poorest 20% are living on a tiny 1.6%." He also quotes the FAO as he warns that "...there will be in the upcoming years from 150 to 200 million climate refugees." And then he adds that "humanity is consuming today a 30% above the regenerating capacity...the planet is giving unmistakable signs that it can stand it no more." What he says is true, but Obama and the US Congress have yet to find out. What is he leaving to us in the hemisphere? The shameful problem in Honduras and the annexation of Colombia where the United States will set up seven military bases. They also established a military base in Cuba more than one-hundred years ago and remain there by force. It was in that base where they installed the horrible torture center widely known around the world; the same that Obama has been unable to close, yet. I hold the view that before Obama completes his term there will be from six to eight right-wing governments in Latin America that will be allies of the empire. Likewise, the US extreme right will try to limit his administration to one term. Once again there will be a Nixon, a Bush or the like of a Cheney in the White House. Then, the meaning will be clear of those absolutely unjustifiable bases threatening today the South American peoples with the pretext of fighting drug-trafficking, a problem created by the tens of billions of dollars that organized crime and the production of drugs in Latin America receive from the United States. Cuba has shown it only takes justice and social development to fight drugs. In our country, the crime rate per 100,000 people is one of the lowest in the world. No other country in the hemisphere can exhibit such low rates of violence. It is known that, despite the blockade, no other country can boast our high education levels. The Latin American peoples will resist the onslaught of the empire! Obama's trip seems a science fiction story. Fidel Castro Ruz From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 09:43:07 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:43:07 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] When children are sold in the Iraqi markets Message-ID: http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-articles/7291-when-children-are-sold-iraqi-markets When children are sold in the Iraqi markets Posted November 10th, 2009 Several popular Swedish newspapers published about two weeks ago what they called an investigative report by Tracey Christensen and her colleague Thor Bjorn Andersen. Rashid Shaheen The report, clearly highly credible as it was reported from the center of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, caused a stir probably unprecedented in Iraq. According to the media, the investigation has been translated into more than 12 languages. An article on the Arab News website on Oct. 24 about the report aired on Swedish television said that the journalist and her colleague hid inside an old car recording sounds and images from what they described as a large market where Iraqi children and adolescents are sold. Journalist Andersen noted during the report that an an Iraqi girl no older than four was for sale for not more than $ 400, an amount that did not equal the value of the flowers on the desk of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. This is not the first report which specifically addresses the sale of children in Iraq. This phenomenon never existed in Iraq before the occupation. Several reports addressed this subject years ago and concerns were voiced about the phenomenon worsening, especially in the bad political, economic and social conditions following the U.S. occupation. Anybody who has benefited and still benefits from the U.S. occupation in Iraq has tried to discredit the reports as lacking documentation, as in the case of the Christensen-Andersen report, or because they relied debatable numbers, according to those who deny the existence of such a phenomenon. The occupation of Iraq not only resulted in Iraqi children for sale. About two years ago, there was another scandal in which Iraqi children with heart diseases were being sent to Israel for treatment, as if the hospitals of the racist state were the only ones in the world that could cure them. Many have denied these stories and called them rumors. They have repeated the same excuses throughout the U.S. occupation to evade their responsibilities and deflect the load of all that has happened and is still happening in Iraq onto the previous regime. I had the opportunity over two years ago to see a report on an orphanage said to be in Baghdad on an Iraqi television channel, in which we could see the links these children had with their families, and how their health was pitiful to the extent that they resembled skeletons. The images were the same as those of starving children in Africa?s poor countries. The report noted that those responsible for the orphanage were stealing food and meals that should have been given to these children. They also denied them heating and washing, and everything else that would have made their lives easier. The focus on children here does not mean that other age groups in Iraq are better off. Much evidence points to Iraq on many levels heading a list of countries in bad shape, with growing vice, prostitution, poverty and malnutrition. Begging, rape, robbery and all forms of crime are on the rise, as is the presence of drugs, something that never existed before the invasion. The ill-effects of the occupation do not end here. All studies and reports indicate that Iraq has become one the most corrupt countries in the world, in addition to other phenomena previously unknown to the people of Iraq, such as the spread of illiteracy. We have to understand opposition to a regime, but in the Iraqi case those groups pretending to be against to the regime of Saddam Hussein, after obtaining power with foreign assistance, did not provide anything for this country other than destruction and devastation. They brought death to the Iraqi people, claiming that they came to save Iraqis from the clutches of "the dictator and the overthrown regime" and help them recover from disasters and injustices. What did this class actually achieve when it was able to govern the country, apart from commit all kinds of sins in a worse and bloodier manner than any previous regime in Iraq? They are pursuing the opposition in a manner unlike that of any previous regime, and since they have controlled the Green Zone, they have killed or assisted in killing and displacing millions of Iraqis. The number of Iraqis killed during the seven years of occupation is twice that of those killed over the 35 years of Baathist rule. As for the degrading and inhuman sale of children in Iraq under the eyes of those responsible in the Green Zone -Americans and others who raise the slogans of freedom, democracy and human rights, it is a natural consequence of the absence of the rule of law and the predominance of gangs who claim to be political parties. The trade would not have spread if it had not been facilitated by influential leaders benefiting from it, because it would not be possible to sell children publicly without influential parties helping or even encouraging it. In light of this growing phenomenon, all organizations concerned with human rights and children (in particular UNICEF who does not deny the existence of such an issue), people of conscience and all others who can help must demand that those involved be held accountable in order to put an end to this tragedy. Sweden opened its doors to the children of Iraq after the report?s publication, a humiliation for Arab people for, why could Arab countries not provide a safe haven for them? Last but not least, we ask ourselves whether this tragedy really originated with the U.S. occupation in Iraq or whether it it was already there but hidden in the past, and has now emerged to blame the Americans. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 09:59:01 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:59:01 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Why the Afghan Surge Will Fail Message-ID: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6571 Foreign Policy in Focus November 13, 2009 Why the Afghan Surge Will Fail By Conn Hallinan Before the Obama administration buys into General Stanley McChrystal's escalation strategy, it might spend some time examining the August 12 battle of Dananeh, a scruffy little town of 2,000 perched at the entrance to the Naw Zad Valley in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province. Dananeh is a textbook example of why counterinsurgency won't work in that country, as well as a case study in military thinking straight out of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Strategic Towns According to the United States, the purpose of the attack was to seize a "strategic" town, cut "Taliban supply lines," and secure the area for the presidential elections. Taking Dananeh would also "outflank the insurgents," "isolating" them in the surrounding mountains and forests. What is wrong with this scenario? One, the concept of a "strategic" town of 2,000 people in a vast country filled with tens of thousands of villages like Dananeh is bizarre. Two, the Taliban don't have "flanks." They are a fluid, irregular force, not an infantry company dug into a set position. "Flanking" an enemy is what you did to the Wehrmacht in World War II. Three, "Taliban supply lines" are not highways and rail intersections. They're goat trails. Four, "isolate" the Taliban in the surrounding mountains and forests? Obviously, no one in the Pentagon has ever read the story of Brer Rabbit, who taunted his adversary with the famous words, "Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Fox." Mountains and forests are where the Taliban move freely. The Taliban were also not the slightest bit surprised when the United States showed up. When the Marines helicoptered in at night, all was quiet. At dawn - the Taliban have no night-fighting equipment - the insurgents opened up with rockets, mortars, and machine guns. "I am pretty sure they knew of it [the attack] in advance," Golf Company commander Captain Zachary Martin told the Associated Press. Pinned down, the Marines brought in air power and artillery and, after four days of fierce fighting, took the town. But the Taliban had decamped on the third night. The outcome? A chewed-up town and 12 dead insurgents - that is, if you don't see a difference between an "insurgent" and a villager who didn't get out in time, so that all the dead are automatically members of the Taliban. "I'd say we've gained a foothold for now, and it's a substantial one that we're not going to let go," says Martin. "I think this has the potential to be a watershed." Only if hallucinations become the order of the day. Irregular Warfare The battle of Dananeh was a classic example of irregular warfare. The locals tip off the guerrillas that the army is coming. The Taliban set up an ambush, fight until the heavy firepower comes in, then slip away. "Taliban fighters and their commanders have escaped the Marines' big offensive into Afghanistan's Helmand province and moved into areas to the west and north, prompting fears that the U.S. effort has just moved the Taliban problem elsewhere," writes Nancy Youssef of the McClatchy newspapers. When the Taliban went north they attacked German and Italian troops. In short, the insurgency is adjusting. "To many of the Americans, it appeared as if the insurgents had attended something akin to the U.S. Army's Ranger school, which teaches soldiers how to fight in small groups in austere environments," writes Karen DeYoung in The Washington Post. Actually, the Afghans have been doing that for some time, as Greeks, Mongols, British, and Russians discovered. One Pentagon officer told the Post that the Taliban has been using the Korengal Valley that borders Pakistan as a training ground. It's "a perfect lab to vet fighters and study U.S. tactics," he said, and to learn how to gauge the response time for U.S. artillery, air strikes, and helicopter assaults. "They know exactly how long it takes before...they have to break contact and pull back." Just like they did at Dananeh. McChrystal's Plan General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 new troops in order to hold the "major" cities and secure the population from the Taliban. But even by its own standards, the plan is deeply flawed. The military's Counterinsurgency Field Manual recommends a ratio of 20 soldiers for every 1,000 residents. Since Afghanistan has a population of slightly over 32 million, that would require a force of 660,000 soldiers. The United States will shortly have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, plus a stealth surge of 13,000 support troops. If the Pentagon sends 40,000 additional troops, U.S. forces will rise to 121,000. Added to that are 35,000 NATO troops, though most alliance members are under increasing domestic pressure to withdraw their soldiers. McChrystal wants to expand the Afghan army to 240,000, and there is talk of trying to reach 340,000. Even with the larger Afghan army, the counterinsurgency plan is 150,000 soldiers short. An Afghan Army? And can you really count on the Afghan army? It doesn't have the officers and sergeants to command 340,000 troops. And the counterinsurgency formula calls for "trained" troops, not just armed boots on the ground. According to a recent review, up to 25% of recruits quit each year, and the number of trained units has actually declined over the past six months. On top of this, Afghanistan doesn't really have a national army. If Pashtun soldiers are deployed in the Tajik-speaking north, they will be seen as occupiers, and vice-versa for Tajiks in Pashtun areas. If both groups are deployed in their home territories, the pressures of kinship will almost certainly overwhelm any allegiance to a national government, particularly one as corrupt and unpopular as the current Karzai regime. And by defending the cities, exactly whom will U.S. troops be protecting? When it comes to Afghanistan, "major" population centers are almost a contradiction in terms. There are essentially five cities in the country, Kabul (2.5 million), Kandahar (331,000), Mazar-e-Sharif (200,000), Herat (272,000), and Jalalabad (20,000). Those five cities make up a little more than 10% of the population, over half of which is centered in Kabul. The rest of the population is rural, living in towns of 1,500 or fewer, smaller even than Dananeh. But spreading the troops into small firebases makes them extremely vulnerable, as the United States found out in early September, when eight soldiers were killed in an attack on a small unit in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan province. The base was abandoned a week later and, according to the Asia Times, is now controlled by the Taliban. MRAP Attack While McChrystal says he wants to get the troops out of "armored vehicles" and into the streets with the people, the United States will have to use patrols to maintain a presence outside of the cities. On occasion, that can get almost comedic. Take the convoy of Stryker light tanks that set out on October 12 from "Forward Operating Base Spin Boldak" in Khandar province for what was described as a "high-risk mission into uncharted territory." The convoy was led by the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles designed to resist the insurgent's weapon-of-choice in Afghanistan, roadside bombs. But the MRAP was designed for Iraq, which has lots of good roads. Since Afghanistan has virtually no roads, the MRAPs broke down. Without the MRAPs the Strykers could not move. The "high-risk" mission ended up hunkering down in the desert for the night and slogging home in the morning. They never saw an insurgent. Afterwards, Sergeant John Belajac remarked, "I can't imagine what it is going to be like when it starts raining." If you are looking for an Afghanistan War metaphor, the Spin Boldak convoy may be it. Dangerous Illusions McChrystal argues that the current situation is "critical," and that an escalation "will be decisive." But as former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst A.J. Rossmiller says, the war is a stalemate. "The insurgency does not have the capability to defeat U.S. forces or depose Afghanistan's central government, and...U.S. forces do not the ability to vanquish the insurgency." While the purported goal of the war is denying al-Qaeda a sanctuary, according to U.S. intelligence the organization has fewer than 100 fighters in the country. And further, the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, pledges that his organization will not interfere with Afghanistan's neighbors or the West, which suggests that the insurgents have been learning about diplomacy as well. The Afghanistan War can only be solved by sitting all the parties down and working out a political settlement. Since the Taliban have already made a seven-point peace proposal, that hardly seems an insurmountable task. Anything else is a dangerous illusion. ? 2009 Foreign Policy in Focus Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 10:08:07 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:08:07 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Too fearful to publicise peak oil reality Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/10/peak-oil-fear-economic-establishment guardian.co.uk 10 November, 2009 Too fearful to publicise peak oil reality The economic establishment accepts the world soon won't be able to meet energy demands, but wants to keep quiet about it Madeleine Bunting It is very hard for the average person in the street to come to a sensible conclusion on peak oil. It's a subject that prompts a passionate polarisation of views. The peak oilists sometimes sound like those extraordinary Christians with sandwich boards proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh. In contrast, the the international economic establishment ? including the International Energy Agency (IEA) ? has one very clear purpose in mind at all times: don't panic. Their mission seems to be focused on keeping jittery markets calm. Faced with these options the majority of people shrug their shoulders in confusion and ignore the trickle of whistleblowers, industry insiders and careful analysts who have been warning of the imminent decline in oil for over a decade now. Remember the Queen's question ? that uncannily accurate and strikingly obvious question she put to economists at the London School of Economics a year ago after the financial crisis: did no one see it coming? Apply that question to peak oil and the answer is that many people did see it coming but they were marginalised, bullied into silence and the evidence was buried in the small print. Take the 2008 edition of World Energy Outlook, the annual report on which the entire energy industry and governments depend. It included the table also published by the Guardian today, and the version I saw had shorter intervals on the horizontal axis. What it made blindingly clear was that peak oil was somewhere in 2008/9 and that production from currently producing fields was about to drop off a cliff. Fields yet to be developed and yet to be found enabled a plateau of production and it was only "non-conventional oil" which enabled a small rise. Think tar sands of Canada, think some of the most climate polluting oil extraction methods available. Think catastrophe. What made this little graph so devastating was that it estimated energy resources by 2030 that were woefully inadequate for the energy-hungry economies of India and China. Business as usual in oil production threatens massive conflict over sharing it. Now, this all seemed pretty gigantic news to me but guess where the World Energy Outlook chose to put this graph? Was it in the front, was it prominently discussed in the foreword? Did it cause headlines around the world. No, no, no. It was buried deep into the report and no reference was made to it in the press conference a year ago. The fear is that panicky markets can cause enormous damage ? panic-buying that prompts fights over resources, which in turn could lead to power cuts in some places and other such mayhem. But so far in facing this huge challenge, our political/economic system seems unable to cope with reality. We are forced to carry on living in an illusion that we have so much time to adapt to post-oil that we don't even need to be talking or thinking much about what a world without plentiful oil would look like. Reality has become too dangerous. So in reply to the Queen's question of a few years hence, we did see it coming but we chose to ignore it. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 12:46:23 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:46:23 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] =?windows-1252?q?John_Pilger=3A_Power=2C_Illusion=2C_?= =?windows-1252?q?and_America=92s_Last_Taboo?= Message-ID: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/power-illusion-and-america%E2%80%99s-last-taboo/ Power, Illusion, and America?s Last Taboo by John Pilger / September 2nd, 2009 The following article is the text from John Pilger?s address to Socialism 2009 in San Francisco, California on 4 July. Two years ago, at Socialism 2007 in Chicago, I spoke about an ?invisible government,? a term used by Edward Bernays, one of the founders of modern propaganda. It was Bernays who, in the 1920s, invented ?public relations? as a euphemism for propaganda. Deploying the ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry for American women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation; he called cigarettes ?torches of freedom.? The invisible government that Bernays had in mind brought together the power of all media ? PR, the press, broadcasting, advertising. It was the power of form: of branding and image-making over substance and truth ? and I would like to talk today about this invisible government?s most recent achievement: the rise of Barack Obama and the silencing of the left. First, I would like to go back some 40 years to a sultry day in Vietnam. I was a young war correspondent who had just arrived in a village called Tuylon. My assignment was to write about a company of US Marines who had been sent to this village to win hearts and minds. ?My orders?, said the Marine sergeant, ?are to sell the American Way of Liberty as stated in the Pacification Handbook. This is designed to win the hearts and minds of folks as stated on page 86.? Page 86 was headed WHAM: Winning Hearts and Minds. The marine unit was a Combined Action Company which, explained the sergeant, ?means that we attack these folks on Mondays and win their hearts and minds on Tuesdays?. He was joking, though not quite. The sergeant, who didn?t speak Vietnamese, had arrived in the village, stood up in a jeep and said through a bullhorn: ?Come on out everybody, we got rice and candy and toothbrushes to give you!?? There was silence. ?Now listen, either you gooks come on out, or we?re going to come right in there and get you!? The people of Tuylon finally came out, and stood in line to receive packets of Uncle Ben?s Miracle Rice, Hershey bars, party balloons and several thousand toothbrushes. Three portable, battery-operated, yellow flush lavatories were held back for the arrival of the colonel. And when the colonel arrived that evening, the district chief was summoned, and the yellow flush lavatories were unveiled. The colonel cleared his throat and produced a handwritten speech. ?Mr. District Chief and all you nice people,? he said, ?what these gifts represent is more than the sum of their parts. They carry the spirit of America. Ladies and gentlemen, there?s no place on earth like America. It?s the land where miracles happen. It?s a guiding light for me, and for you. In America, you see, we count ourselves as real lucky having the greatest democracy the world has ever known, and we want you nice people to share in our good fortune.? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, even John Winthrop?s ?city upon a hill? got a mention. All that was missing was the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background. Of course, the villagers had no idea what the colonel was talking about. When the Marines clapped, they clapped. When the colonel waved, the children waved. As he departed, the colonel shook the sergeant?s hand and said: ?You?ve got plenty of hearts and minds here. Carry on, Sergeant?? ?Yessir.? In Vietnam, I witnessed many spectacles like that. I had grown up in faraway Australia on a steady cinematic diet of John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Walt Disney, the Three Stooges and Ronald Reagan. The American Way of Liberty they portrayed might well have been lifted from the WHAM handbook. I learned that the United States had won World War Two on its own and now led the ?free world? as the ?chosen? society. It was only much later when I read Walter Lippmann?s Public Opinion that I understood something of the power of emotions attached to false ideas and bad history. Historians call this ?exceptionalism? ? the notion that the United States has a divine right to bring what it calls liberty to the rest of humanity. Of course, this is a very old refrain; the French and British created and celebrated their own ?civilizing mission? while imposing colonial regimes that denied basic civil liberties. However, the power of the American message is different. Whereas the Europeans were proud imperialists, Americans are trained to deny their imperialism. As Mexico was conquered and the Marines sent to rule Nicaragua, American textbooks referred to an ?age of innocence.? American motives were well meaning, moral, exceptional, as the colonel said. There was no ideology, they said; and this is still the received wisdom. Indeed, Americanism is an ideology that is unique because its main element is its denial that it is an ideology. It is both conservative and liberal, both right and left. All else is heresy. Barack Obama is the embodiment of this ?ism?. Since Obama was elected, leading liberals have talked about America returning to its true status as a ?nation of moral ideals? ? the words of Paul Krugman in the New York Times. In the San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote that, ?spiritually advanced people regard the new president as ?a Lightworker? . . . who can help usher in a new way of being on the planet.? Tell that to an Afghan child whose family has been blown away by Obama?s bombs, or a Pakistani child whose family are among the 700 civilians killed by Obama?s drones. Or Tell it to a child in the carnage of Gaza caused by American smart weapons which, disclosed Seymour Hersh, were resupplied to Israel for use in the slaughter ?only after the Obama team let it be known it would not object.? The man who stayed silent on Gaza is the man who now condemns Iran. Obama?s is the myth that is America?s last taboo. His most consistent theme was never change; it was power. The United States, he said, ?leads the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good . . . We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people.? And there is this remarkable statement: ?At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that a we stood and fought for the freedom sought by billions of people beyond their borders.? At the National Archives on May 21, he said: ?From Europe to the Pacific, we?ve been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law.? Since 1945, ?by deed and by example,? the United States has overthrown fifty governments, including democracies, and crushed some 30 liberation movements, and supported tyrannies and set up torture chambers from Egypt to Guatemala. Countless men, women and children have been bombed to death. Bombing is apple pie. And yet, here is the 44th President of the United States, having stacked his government with warmongers and corporate fraudsters and polluters from the Bush and Clinton eras, teasing us while promising more of the same. Here is the House of Representatives, controlled by Obama?s Democrats, voting to approve $16 billion for three wars and a coming presidential military budget which, in 2009, will exceed any year since the end of World War Two, including the spending peaks of the Korean and Vietnam wars. And here is a peace movement, not all of it but much of it, prepared to look the other way and believe or hope that Obama will restore, as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, the ?nation of moral ideals.? Not long ago, I visited the American Museum of History in the celebrated Smithsonian Institute in Washington. One of the most popular exhibitions was called The Price of Freedom: Americans at War. It was holiday time and lines of happy people, including many children, shuffled through a Santa?s grotto of war and conquest, where messages about their nation?s ?great mission? were lit up. These included tributes to the quote ?exceptional Americans [who] saved a million lives? in Vietnam where they were quote ?determined to stop communist expansion.? In Iraq, other brave Americans quote ?employed air strikes of unprecedented precision.? What was shocking was not so much the revisionism of two of the epic crimes of modern times but the sheer routine scale of omission. Like all US presidents, Bush and Obama have much in common. The wars of both presidents, and the wars of Clinton and Reagan, Carter and Ford, Nixon and Kennedy, are justified by the enduring myth of exceptional America ? a myth the late Harold Pinter described as ?a brilliant, witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.? The clever young man who recently made it to the White House is a very fine hypnotist, partly because it is so extraordinary to see an African-American at the pinnacle of power in the land of slavery. However, this is the 21st century, and race ? together with gender and even class ? can be very seductive tools of propaganda. For what matters, above race and gender, is the class one serves. George Bush?s inner circle ? from the State Department to the Supreme Court ? was perhaps the most multi racial in presidential history. It was PC par excellence. Think Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. It was also the most reactionary. To many, Obama?s very presence in the White House reaffirms the moral nation. He is a marketing dream. Like Calvin Klein or Benetton, he is a brand that promises something special ? something exciting, almost risqu?, as if he might be a radical, as if he might enact change. He makes people feel good. He?s postmodern man with no political baggage. In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama refers to the job he took after he graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as ?a consulting house to multinational corporations.? For some reason, he does not say who his employer was or what he did there. The employer was Business International Corporation, which has a long history of providing cover for the CIA with covert action, and infiltrating unions and the left. I know this because it was especially active in my own country, Australia. Obama does not say what he did at Business International; and there may be nothing sinister, but it seems worthy of enquiry, and debate, surely, as a clue to whom the man is. During his brief period in the Senate, Obama voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for the Patriot Act. He refused to support a bill for single-payer health care. He supported the death penalty. As a presidential candidate, he received more corporate backing than John McCain. He promised to close Guantanamo as a priority and has not. Instead, he has excused the perpetrators of torture, reinstated the infamous military commissions, kept the Bush gulag intact and opposed habeus corpus. Daniel Ellsberg was right when he said that, under Bush, a military coup had taken place in the United States, giving the Pentagon unprecedented powers. These powers have been reinforced by the presence of Robert Gates, a Bush family crony and George W. Bush?s secretary of defense, and by all the Bush Pentagon officials and generals who have kept their jobs under Obama. In Colombia, Obama is planning to spend $46 million on a new military base that will support a regime backed by death squads and further the tragic history of Washington?s intervention in Latin America. In a pseudo event staged in Prague, Obama promised a world without nuclear weapons to a global audience mostly unaware that America is building new tactical nuclear weapons designed to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war. Like George Bush, he used the absurdity of Europe threatened by Iran to justify building a missile system aimed at Russia and China. In a pseudo event at the Annapolis Naval Academy, decked with flags and uniforms, Obama lied that the troops were coming home. The head of the army, General George Casey, says America will be in Iraq for up to a decade; other generals say fifteen years. Units will be relabeled as trainers; mercenaries will take their place. That is how the Vietnam War endured past the American ?withdrawal?. Chris Hedges, author of Empire of Illusion puts it well. ?President Obama,? he wrote, ?does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.? And so you are kept in ?a perpetual state of childishness.? He calls this ?junk politics.? The tragedy is that Brand Obama appears to have crippled or absorbed the antiwar movement, the peace movement. Out of 256 Democrats in Congress, thirty are willing to stand against Obama?s and Nancy Pelosi?s war party. On June 16, they voted for $106 billion for more war. In Washington, the Out of Iraq Caucus is out of action. Its members can?t even come up with a form of words of why they are silent. On March 21, a demonstration at the Pentagon by the once mighty United for Peace and Justice drew only a few thousand. The outgoing president of UPJ, Leslie Cagan, says her people aren?t turning up because, ?it?s enough for many of them that Obama has a plan to end the war and that things are moving in the right direction.? And where is the mighty MoveOn these days? Where is its campaign against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And what exactly was said when, in February, MoveOn?s executive director, Jason Ruben, met President Obama? Yes, a lot of good people mobilized for Obama. But what did they demand of him ? apart from the amorphous ?change?? That isn?t activism. Activism doesn?t give up. Activism is not about identity politics. Activism doesn?t wait to be told. Activism doesn?t rely on the opiate of hope. Woody Allen once said, ?I felt a lot better when I gave up hope.? Real activism has little time for identity politics, a distraction that confuses and suckers good people everywhere. I write for the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto, or rather I used to write for it. In February, I sent the foreign editor an article that raised questions about Obama as a progressive force. The article was rejected. Why? I asked. ?For the moment,? wrote the editor, ?we prefer to maintain a more ?positive? approach to the novelty presented by Obama . . . we will take on specific issues . . . but we would not like to say that he will make no difference.? In other words, an American president drafted to promote the most rapacious system in history is ordained and depoliticized by the left. What is remarkable about this state of affairs is that the so-called radical left has never been more aware, more conscious, of the iniquities of power. The Green Movement, for example, has raised the consciousness of millions of people, so that almost every child knows something about global warming; and yet there is a resistance within the green movement to the notion of power as a military project. Similar observations can be made of the gay and feminist movements; as for the labor movement, is it still breathing? One of my favorite quotations is from Milan Kundera: ?The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.? We should never forget that the primary goal of great power is to distract and limit our natural desire for social justice and equity and real democracy. Long ago, Bernays?s invisible government of propaganda elevated big business from its unpopular status as a kind of mafia to that of a patriotic driving force. The American Way of Life began as an advertising slogan. The modern image of Santa Claus was an invention of Coca Cola. Today, we are presented with an extraordinary opportunity, thanks to the crash of Wall Street and the revelation, for ordinary people, that the free market has nothing to do with freedom. The opportunity is to recognize a stirring in America that is unfamiliar to many on the left, but is related to a great popular movement growing all over the world. In Latin America, less than 20 years ago, there was the usual despair, the usual divisions of poverty and freedom, the usual thugs in uniforms running unspeakable regimes. There is now a people?s movement based on the revival of indigenous cultures and languages, and a history of popular and revolutionary struggle less affected by ideological distortions than anywhere else. The recent, amazing achievements in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay represent a struggle for community and political rights that is truly historic, with implications for all of us. These successes are expressed perversely in the overthrow of the government of Honduras, for the smaller the country the greater the threat that the contagion of emancipation will follow. Across the world, social movements and grassroots organizations have emerged to fight free market dogma. They have educated governments in the south that food for export is a problem rather than a solution to global poverty. They have politicized ordinary people to stand up for their rights, as in the Philippines and South Africa. An authentic globalization is growing as never before, and this is exciting. Consider the remarkable boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign ? BDS for short ? aimed at Israel, that is sweeping the world. Israeli ships have been turned away from South Africa and western Australia. A French company has been forced to abandon plans to built a railway connecting Jerusalem with illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli sporting bodies find themselves isolated. Universities have begun to sever ties with Israel, and students are active for the first time in a generation. Thanks to them, Israel?s South Africa moment is approaching, for this is, partly, how apartheid was defeated. In the 1950s, we never expected the great wind of the 1960s to blow. Feel the breeze today. In the last eight months millions of angry emails, sent by ordinary Americans, have flooded Washington. This has not happened before. People are outraged as their lives are attacked; they bear no resemblance to the massive mass presented by the media. Look at the polls that are seldom reported. More than two thirds of Americans say the government should care for those who cannot care for themselves; 64 percent would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone; 59 percent are favorable towards unions; 70 percent want nuclear disarmament; 72 percent want the US completely out of Iraq; and so on. For too long, ordinary Americans have been cast in stereotypes that are contemptuous. That is why the progressive attitudes of ordinary people are seldom reported in the media. They are not ignorant. They are subversive. They are informed. And they are ?anti-American?. I once asked a friend, the great American war correspondent and humanitarian Martha Gellhorn, to explain ?anti-American? to me. ?I?ll tell you what ?anti-American? is,? she said. ?It?s what governments and their vested interested call those who honor America by objecting to war and the theft of resources and believing in all of humanity. There are millions of these anti-Americans in the United States. They are ordinary people who belong to no elite and who judge their government in moral terms, though they would call it common decency. They are not vain. They are the people with a wakeful conscience, the best of America?s citizens. They can be counted on. They were in the south with the Civil Rights movement, ending slavery. They were in the streets, demanding an end to the wars in Asia. Sure, they disappear from view now and then, but they are like seeds beneath the snow. I would say they are truly exceptional.? A certain populism is once again growing in America and which has a proud, if forgotten past. In the nineteenth century, an authentic grassroots Americanism was expressed in populism?s achievements: women?s suffrage, the campaign for an eight-hour day, graduated income tax and public ownership of railways and communications, and breaking the power of corporate lobbyists. The American populists were far from perfect; at times they would keep bad company, but they spoke from the ground up, not from the top down. They were betrayed by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge with the Democratic Party. Does that sound familiar? What Obama and the bankers and the generals, and the IMF and the CIA and CNN fear is ordinary people coming together and acting together. It is a fear as old as democracy: a fear that suddenly people convert their anger to action and are guided by the truth. ?At a time of universal deceit,? wrote George Orwell, ?telling the truth a revolutionary act.? * Watch a video of Pilger?s address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time (Bantam/Random House, 2006). Read other articles by John, or visit John's website - http://www.johnpilger.com/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 12:51:31 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:51:31 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] US bases must go, Japanese protesters demand Message-ID: US bases must go, Japanese protesters demand: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/83202 From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 15 14:02:40 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:02:40 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] Gilbert Achcar's "Les Arabes et la Shoah" Message-ID: Paperback: 525 pages Publisher: ACTES SUD (Dec 25 2009) Language: French ISBN-10: 2742782427 ISBN-13: 978-2742782420 Purchase: http://www.amazon.ca/ARABES-SHOAH-GILBERT-ACHCAR/dp/2742782427 ====================== Review in French: http://www.alternatives-internationales.fr/les-arabes-et-la-shoah-par-gilbert-achcar_fr_art_862_43972.html ====================== Why Holocaust Denial Is on the Rise in the Arab World Monday 09 November 2009 by Pierre Puchot | Mediapart What pushes Arabs to deny the existence of the Holocaust? How and why does Israel continue to instrumentalize the memory of the destruction of European Jewry? What was the attitude of Arab intellectuals during the Second World War? Why does Ahmadinejad incessantly brandish the denial weapon while Hamas and Hezbollah turn away from it? Mediapart published an exclusive extract from the book, "Les Arabes et la Shoah" [Arabs and the Holocaust] (?ditions Actes Sud/Sindbad, 2009), that came out Wednesday, October 14 and will be published in English by Metropolitan in April of 2010. The result of an unprecedented labor, the work of political scientist Gilbert Achcar - professor at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - reviews over a century of history from the birth of Zionism to last winter's Israeli offensive against Gaza. Although he gives prominence to the political impasse constituted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he indicates "new links" that today exist between Jews and Arabs. An Interview. Gilbert Achcar, your book's subtitle is: "The Israeli-Arab War of Narratives." What do you mean? Gilbert Achcar: It's about the war that opposes two entirely symmetrical visions of the origins of the conflict. Specifically, I refer here to the notion of "narrative" as the recitation of history as developed by post-modernism. The Israeli narrative describes an Israel that emerges as a reaction to anti-Semitism, beside the "Biblical rights" invoked by religious Zionists. And its justification by European anti-Semitism is extended to Arabs, who are presented as accomplices to this paroxysm of anti-Semitism that was Nazism - which would legitimate the birth of the State of Israel on lands conquered from the population of Arab descent. That's why the Israeli narrative insists to such a degree on this character, Amin al-Husseini, blown up out of all proportion, who became the ex-grand mufti of Jerusalem. On the Arab side, the most rational narrative - later we'll mention the denialist escalations that are on the rise at present - may perhaps be summarized in these terms, "We had nothing to do with the Shoah. Anti-Semitism is not an established tradition for us, but a European phenomenon. Zionism is a colonial movement that really took off in Palestine under the British colonial mandate, even though there were earlier instances. In consequence, it's a colonial implantation in the Arab world, on the model of what was seen in South Africa and elsewhere." It's the war between these two narratives that I explore in this book. Is there a dominant Arab reading of the Shoah? In what respects is it specific and how does it differ from those in Europe or the United States? There's not a single Arab interpretation of the Shoah, just as there isn't a single European reading either, even though there's certainly more homogeneity in the perception of the Holocaust in Europe. However, even that is recent, since, as you know, the Shoah was not a very current theme in European news and education during the two decades that followed the end of the Second World War. In the Arab world, the situation is far more diversified. That is chiefly the result of the existence of a great variety of political regimes in the Arab countries, with very different ideological legitimatizations. Similarly, very diverse - and even broadly antithetical - ideological currents traverse Arab public opinion. In these last few years, there has been an escalation in the brutality of Israeli military operations - which have gone from being wars that Israel could present as defensive to wars that could no longer be presented that way at all - beginning with the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That has been accompanied by an intensification of hatred in the Israeli-Arab conflict, notably because of the fate reserved for the Palestinians of the territories occupied since 1967. In the face of growing criticism of Israel, including in the West, since 1982 especially, we have seen that state systematically resort to instrumentalization of the memory of the Shoah, beginning no later than the Eichmann trial in the 1960s. And that instrumentalization arouses, on the "opposing side," a knee-jerk reaction that sometimes goes so far as to deny the Holocaust. The best indicator of this reactive quality is the fact that the Arab population which has received the widest education on the memory of the Shoah, the population of Arab citizens of Israel, has been prone to an absolutely striking explosion of denial these last few years. To my mind, that very clearly illustrates the fact that denial in these cases corresponds more to a "gut reaction" out of political rancor, than to a true denial of the Shoah as is seen in Europe or the United States, where the deniers spend their time devising historical theories that don't stand up to refute the existence of the gas chambers, etc. Another indication of this difference is that within the Arab world where denial is riding high, there's not a single author who has produced anything original on that theme. All the Arab deniers do is pick up theories produced in the West. The political instrumentalization of denial as formulated by Ahmadinejad today was not used before in the Arab world, in the time of Nasser, for example. What does this development tell us? The Islamic fundamentalism that has developed over the most recent decades, from the perspective of the Israeli-Arab conflict, carries an essentialist vision, even though it is not anti-Semitic in the strict racial sense of the term. It's a vision that picks up the anti-Judaism that may be found in the Abrahamic religions that followed Judaism, such as Christianity and Islam. Those elements present in Islam are going to be pointed out to facilitate a convergence between this ideologically extreme current and Western denial. What elements of Islam allow the realization of this anti-Judaism? There are criticisms of Judaism within Islam and echoes of the conflict that arose between the Prophet of Islam and the Jewish tribes on the Arab peninsula. But it's a contradictory background: we find anti-Christian and anti-Jewish statements in Islamic scripture. But at the same time, Christians and Jews are considered "people of the book" and may in consequence enjoy privileged treatment compared to other populations in the countries Islam conquered, populations which were forced to convert. The people of the book were not forced to convert and their religions were considered legitimate. Consequently, there is tension between these two contradictory dispositions. I show in my book how the man who may be considered the main founder of modern Islamic fundamentalism, Rachid Rida, switched from a pro-Jewish attitude due to anti-Christianity - especially during the Dreyfus Affair, when he denounced anti-Judaism in Europe - to an attitude that, towards the end of the 1920's, began to repeat an anti-Semitic discourse of Western inspiration, including the big Nazi anti-Semitic narrative attributing all kinds of things to the Jews in continuity with the fake Russian "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," including responsibility for the First World War. Then we see a graft occur between certain Western anti-Semitic discourse and Islamic fundamentalism which veers in that direction on this question because of what was happening in Palestine. Before the conflict turned ugly in Palestine, this same Rachid Rida tried to dialogue with representatives of the Zionist movement to convince them to form an alliance between Jews and Muslims to confront the Christian West as a colonial power. From that anti-colonialism that determines anti-Westernism, they were to move on to anti-Zionism, which, in the case of a fundamentalist religious mentality, combined very easily with anti-Semitism. With that said, the signs of anti-Judaism that one finds in Islam, one finds a hundredfold in Christianity, and in Catholicism in particular, with the idea of the Jews as deicides, the Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, the son of God. This anti-Jewish charge contained in Christianity has, moreover, resulted in a persecution of the Jews in the history of the West incomparably worse than was the case in Islamic countries. We have seen, for example, how Jews of the Iberian Peninsula, fleeing the Christian Reconquista and the Inquisition, found refuge in the Muslim world, in North Africa, Turkey and elsewhere. Full: http://www.truthout.org/1112096 From lasert at mts.net Sun Nov 15 19:13:32 2009 From: lasert at mts.net (Sig Laser) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:13:32 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Pilger - Free the bird of paradise / Features / Home - Morning Star Message-ID: <002501ca665a$03bcb8f0$6400a8c0@laser1> http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/83262 This article appeared in the New Statesman. On December 1, which West Papuans call their independence day, those exiled in Britain and their allies will assemble outside the Indonesian embassy in London to break the silence. The Free West Papua Campaign website is freewestpapua.org. To help, email office at freewestpapua.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 16 02:12:33 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:12:33 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Bolivia re-invents democratic socialism with Indigenous people in lead Message-ID: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2009/11/bolivia-re-invents-democratic-socialism-indigenous-people-lead?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rabble-news+%28rabble.ca+-+News+for+the+rest+of+us%29 Bolivia re-invents democratic socialism with Indigenous people in the lead By Judy Rebick | November 14, 2009 On December 6, Bolivia will hold a general election where Evo Morales, the first Indigenous President in South America will no doubt be re-elected. His party, the MAS, has recently released an election programme that Susan Harvie has kindly summarized and translated. Bolivia is reinventing democractic socialism. They are in the process of creating a plurinational state with equal rights for all nations and people, redistributing land, providing free health and education for everyone, creating what they call a pluri-economy that includes public, private, co-operative and communitarian. In four years of power they have eliminated illiteracy, reduced extreme poverty by 6%, insituted a senior's pension for the first time, nationalized hydrocarbons and achieved a 6.5% economic growth. They are showing that a government that acts in the interests of the majority really can succeed and that an alternative is truly possible. The full list of achievements and election platform for the next four years is below: Among the highlights: In almost 4 years of government, el MAS has accomplished: -Nationalized hydrocarbons -Gave title to 26 million hectares which benefited 98,454 families -Nationalized the National Telephone Company (ENTEL) -Reduced the infant mortality rate from 54 per 1,000 live births to 50 -Performed free vision operations for 425,000 people -Eradicated Illiteracy -Increased teachers? salaries by 30% -Reduced extreme poverty by 6% -Constructed 269 school buildings and installed 356 telecentres in the education units Full at: http://alturl.com/uitu From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 16 02:36:39 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:36:39 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Thomas Friedman Fantasizes about Green Capitalism Message-ID: http://www.maxajl.com/?p=2469 Friedman Fantasizes about Green Capitalism Climate change is class war, extended to future generations. Capitalist economic production says, our accrual of wealth is more important than your desire to live a free life, or to live free of exploitation. Climate change is the historical output of capitalist economic relations, except, people will pay for it in perpetuity if it is not stopped short--if we don't stop it short. Chomsky puts it beautifully, characterizing the main current of capitalist ideology as "the insistence of the managers of the state-corporate sector on privileging short-term gain for the few over the hope that their grandchildren will have a decent future." Others demur: capitalism can be "greened," they maintain. I don't think so. I think the mentality that "natural capitalism" can save the world will lead to the "Fortress World" scenario, the rich, anxiously walled off in enclaves, periodically breached by the world's poor, battering at the gates as they die from plague and famine. That top-level technocrats are talking about "natural capitalism" is a step forward, but the arguments are ultimately non-sense. Consider Thomas Friedman's most recent bit of punditry splattered in the NYT about "natural capitalism." Thomas first talks about how the US "is going to assume the primary burden of fixing Central Asia." With non-sense stipulated as common-sense, Thomas then goes on to discuss who should be responsible for fixing other parts of the world. The Amazon? China. China is responsible for 1/4 as many CO2 emissions per/capita as the US. Since 1990, it has emitted 1/7th of the CO2 that the US has. Don't even bother with the calculation from 1750, the right place to start. Meanwhile China has embarked on a green-stimulus program far more ambitious than the one the US has put in place, and as Greenpeace notes, China has set national goals for renewable energy (15% by 2020) but the US has not set renewable energy targets at Federal level. Instead, 28 states have set renewable portfolio standards with variable levels and target years. Chinese fuel economy standards are significantly stricter than those of the US. Chinese cars have already reached the level of efficiency the US aims to achieve by 2016, under President Obama's newly established fuel economy standards. No go for Tom. As far as he's concerned, "How about it, Beijing? Why don?t you step up and provide some public goods for the world for once ? not because you get a direct benefit, but just because it would make the world a better place for everyone?" He's referring to the 30 billion dollars annually that would be required to reduce deforestation by 25 percent. Carbon markets will take care of much of the rest. Righto. "China?s days as a global free-rider should be over. China should pay its fair share ? and more ? since it will benefit every bit as much as the U.S., Europe and Japan." Tom is pissed that China has 2.2 trillion dollars of reserves. I know international political economy is a bit wonky, but it is what Friedman holds himself out as an expert on. A huge chunk of those 2.2 trillion dollars are held in dollar-denominated bonds and treasury notes. They fund American debt-driven consumption. So China loans us money so we can buy a bunch of stuff, thereby off-loading CO2 into the atmosphere, and then berate China as a "free-rider" for enabling US free-riding on the global economic system. This is as criminally brain-dead as Friedman's suggestion that we're saving Afghanistan by cluster-bombing Afghani wedding parties, but it wouldn't be a good Friedman piece if he weren't able to cram one more clotted chunk of stupidity into it: I was struck by how many of the building blocks for ?natural capitalism? that Gov. Waldez G?es ? whose state sits at the mouth of the Amazon ? is putting in place, so that he can have an economy based on preserving the rainforest rather than stripping it. He?s building on the three P?s ? creating protected forest areas, improving productivity on lands that have already been cleared so farmers there will not need more, and establishing property rights for Amazonian lands, which are a legal mess, inviting Wild West land grabs and scaring off investors in sustainable agriculture. For Friedman, we can protect the earth by turning everything into property and putting a "value" on it. Protected forest areas are only protected when the state says so and uses violence to enforce its directives. But the Brazilian state is partially controlled by rural landlords that benefit from flouting the law, and benefit from deforestation. The lack of "property rights" isn't the issue. The creation of "property rights" is the issue, not remediable by "natural capitalism" but by "natural socialism," wisps of which are unlikely to ever appear in Friedman's columns, until a typhoon hits his McMansion and sweeps it out to the Maldives, at which point maybe ignoring the world in favor of fantastical reconstructions of it will be a tad harder. Technorati Tags: climate change, Fortress world, global warming, natural capitalism, political ecology, Thomas Friedman Related posts: Green Keynesianism, Green Dreams In the United States, the phrase ?National Security? is pure... Thomas Friedman: Dumber than Dumb So Thomas Friedman has pumped out another piece on the... Fatah Collaborators and Why we Gotta Chide Thomas Friedman (even though it?s 2x in a week) Criticizing Thomas Friedman is alternately sickening and silly. In the... Thomas Friedman says, Good Muslims Condemn Terror! Islam(ism), the Mumbai attacks, and India are somewhat outside of... Um otro mundo e possivel! (fall back, Thomas Friedman). Reading the American press, you would have to be extremely... From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 16 12:54:37 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:54:37 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers Message-ID: http://www.alternet.org/environment/143764/why_we_need_bees_and_more_people_becoming_organic_beekeepers Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers By Makenna Goodman, Chelsea Green Publishing. Posted November 6, 2009. Bees teach us how to live our life in a way that by taking what we need from the world around us, we leave the world better than we found it. Beekeeping is rising in popularity -- from urban rooftops to backyard hives, the world is abuzz with interest in homemade honey. And who better to comment on the nature of bees than the former president of the Vermont Beekeepers Association, Ross Conrad. He's led bee-related presentations and taught organic beekeeping workshops and classes throughout North America for many years, and Conrad's small beekeeping business supplies friends, neighbors, and local stores with honey and candles among other bee related products, not to mention provides bees for Vermont apple pollination in spring. I talked to Conrad about organic beekeeping, the state of pollination, and tips for aspiring bee farmers. Makenna Goodman: Your book, Natural Beekeeping: Organic Approaches to Modern Apiculture, offers up a program of natural beehive management, and an alternative to conventional chemical-based approaches. So -- why organic beekeeping? Ross Conrad: History has shown us that the industrialized "economy of scale" approach does not work when applied to agriculture because we are dealing with living biological systems, not an inert assembly line food production system where the economy of scale approach can be applied across the board. One of the biggest issues is the large number of chemical contaminants that are being found in beeswax and pollen, often at very high concentrations. Toxic chemical contamination has been implicated in Colony Collapse and the reality is that there is no effective regulation of chemicals in Western society. Let me tell you why: When the EPA was created in 1970 and sanctioned with the task of regulating chemicals, all the chemicals that were already used in commerce up to that time were grandfathered in. Additionally, since the EPA is given very limited personnel and financial resources, the agency ends up relying on the chemical manufacturers for the majority of the scientific data that is used to evaluate the safety of the regulated toxins?a serious conflict of interest. When chemicals are evaluated for toxicity, they are studied in isolation. Little thought is given to the chemical's break down products which can prove to be more toxic and longer lasting than the original chemical itself, such as in the case of Imidacloprid Olefin, which is produced as the neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid degrades. Once in use and released into the environment, chemicals, and their breakdown products, will combine with other chemicals already in the environment to form new compounds. The synergistic effects of some of these combinations have proven themselves to be hundreds of times more toxic than either compound on its own. Recent research into endocrine-disrupting chemicals (the kind often used as pesticides), reveals that the timing of exposure combines with the amount of exposure to produce a chemical's effect. Thus, a certain dose might be very toxic to an organism in its developmental stage, while not having any obvious detrimental affects on the organism once it has matures, or vice-verse. To make matters worse, in some cases low doses of a chemical can be more damaging than higher doses. These new understandings of chemical toxicity have proven wrong Paracelsus's 450-year-old maxim, "The dose makes the poison." Today we know that often the timing can make the poison and that sometimes less is actually worse. Add to this the many studies that now show that a cocktail of "insignificant" doses of several chemicals each acting on their own can combine to have significant results. In other words, exposure to very low concentrations of several chemicals at the same time can cause biological effects that none of the chemicals would have on their own. Thus when an living organism is exposed to a mixture of chemicals, every component contributes to the overall effect, no matter how minute their concentration. The only sane answer to our ignorance in the use of these toxic compounds is to stop using these chemicals, not only in our hives, but in our everyday lives. Thus, organic beekeeping came into being in just the last 20 years as a response to the fact that chemical use in bee hives has became the common way to try to control Varroa mites. Organic beekeeping is not only possible, but necessary. MG: What are the biggest obstacles faced by organic beekeepers today? RC: The biggest challenge beekeepers face today is the same challenge facing all of Western industrial civilization? In his 1980 book, Overshoot, William Catton, Jr. states, "Infinitesimal actions, if they are numerous and cumulative, can become enormously consequential." This statement refers to the problem of cumulative impacts where actions that are harmless or tolerable at the individual level can degrade the planets life support systems if thousands or millions of people do them. One person fertilizing their lawn near Chesapeake Bay for example makes no significant impact, but when thousands do it the bay becomes degraded and Blue Crab populations decline precipitously. When it comes to chemicals the current regulatory approach to controlling pollution does not deal with global pollution. The main focus has instead been on the maximally exposed individual. In the United States, we conduct risk assessments (used when conducting "cost-benefit" analyses) to evaluate the risk to a hypothetical "maximally exposed" individual. If the threat to that individual (or honey bee) is found to fall within acceptable limits, then regulation does not occur and these so-called acceptable amounts of contamination are allowed to be released forever after. Then another risk assessment and cost benefit analysis gives the go-ahead to another acceptable release or use of a different toxic substance or harmful activity. Then another and another. What we have not started to look at until recently is the total impact of all these acceptable risks. Our society has assumed that it could tolerate unlimited small amounts of harm as a byproduct of economic growth. It is only when a particular activity is demonstrated to fail to provide a net benefit to society that most of our property and environmental laws are permitted to interfere with economic activity. Biochemist and lawyer, Joseph H. Guth, legal director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, has analyzed this situation and offered solutions in several scholarly papers one of which was published in the Barry Law Review, titled "Cumulative Impacts: Death-Knell for Cost-Benefit Analysis In Environmental Decisions." In this paper Guth points out that our laws only forbid damage when the perceived benefits are not considered to outweigh the cost or destruction to the environment or human health. The law also puts the burden of proof that an activity is creating more harm than good on the injured party, or the government. If the victim (or the government) can not meet the burden of proof, then the damaging action is allowed to continue by default. This burden of proof transforms doubt, and missing scientific information into a barrier to legal protection for the environment (and honey bees). The default presumption is that the benefits of economic activity always outweigh the costs unless a specific cost-benefit analysis (often based upon incomplete or faulty research conducted by those that stand to profit) can show otherwise. According to Joe Guth, "These laws do not permit regulators broadly to take account of what is happening to the world around them. They embed regulators in a decision-making structure that may seem scientific but in fact is profoundly unscientific because it prevents them from responding to the ever more detailed findings by the world scientific community that we are overshooting the Earth's ecological capacities. Rooted in the assumption that ecological overshoot does not occur, our current statutes are incapable of containing the cumulative scale of ecological damage? It is an approach that has become outdated because it is based on assumptions that are no longer valid." Guth sums up by stating, "To maintain a functioning biosphere in which humans can prosper, the law must turn its attention to the problem of cumulative impacts. The law will have to abandon its use of cost-benefit analysis to justify individual environmental impacts and instead adopt the goal of maintaining the functioning ecological systems that we are so dependent upon." In Section II of his "Cumulative Impacts" paper, Joe Guth states that "Our legal system already harbors examples of decision-making structures that establish a principle of standard of environmental quality or human health and do not rely on cost-benefit balancing." and that these examples "show that such legal principles or standards can enable the legal system to contain the growth of cumulative impacts." The cumulative impacts of our culture are destroying the life support systems of the planet and the bees are simply acting as the proverbial "canary in the coal mine." As a result we don't have an environmental problem that we can "solve" we have a situation we must learn to adjust to. The actions that needed to be taken to rectify our predicament should have been taken years ago. At this point the damage is done. The only real question left is whether our actions today are going to result in our great grandchildren living a difficult life in a crippled world that is a shadow of the world we live in today, or are we going to inflict damage that is so devastating that we will have created a total catastrophe for future generations? MG: Describe briefly beekeeping as a business. How much energy do you focus on honey production? RC: Honey production is not the focus of my beekeeping business at all. The focus is on caring for the honey bees and keeping the colonies as healthy and vibrant as possible. This means primarily reducing stress on the bees. In fact the only consistent observation that has been made of hives suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is that the bees in infected colonies are always suffering from stress that has caused the bee's immune systems to collapse. While there are numerous stresses that the bees must deal with that we cannot directly control (see below), there are numerous other stresses on the hive that we do have control over. Such stressors include reducing chemical contaminants in the hive, eliminating the presence of antibiotics in the hive, making sure that the bees are fed a healthy diet of honey and pollen from a wide variety of plants and that the hives have access to clean uncontaminated water. When the bees health needs are taken care of, a honey harvest tends to be the natural result. MG: Let's say I'm an aspiring small-scale farmer, or beginning life on a homestead, or merely thinking of expanding my urban garden. Why should I keep bees, in terms of honey production, and their pollination benefits, etc? RC: The biggest benefit honey bees provide is pollination. Pollination fees are what is keeping the beekeeping industry alive today. Honey is really a byproduct of pollination. Why should anybody keep bees? As suggested above, the life support systems of our planet are collapsing. The forests are disappearing, desert regions are growing, the climate is shifting so that some areas are getting dryer, other areas are getting wetter, some areas are getting colder, other areas are getting warmer, and our oceans are collapsing with large dead zones, acidification, giant "islands" of floating plastic debris, collapsing fisheries, and ocean animals that are dying in greater numbers every day from cancer. My observation is that it is our industrial civilization that is, if not the actual cause of all this destruction, it is certainly contributing to the devastation. As a member of this society then, I am partly responsible and part of the problem. This is a wonderful thing, for if I am part of the problem, then I have the responsibility and am empowered to be part of the solution. One of the greatest lessons we learn from the honey bee is in observing how they go about making their "living" here on earth. As they go about their business collecting pollen, nectar, propolis and water (everything they need to survive) they do not harm or kill anything in the process. Unless they feel threatened and are forced to defend themselves, not so much as a leaf on a plant is harmed. In the process of taking what they need to survive they in turn give back more than they take and make the world a better place through the pollination the plants. This gift of pollination ensures that the plants can thrive and reproduce in vast numbers which produces a large variety of seeds, nuts, berries, fruits and vegetable in all shapes and sizes, which in turn ensures an abundance of food for all the rest of the insects, animals and people on the planet. This is the ultimate lesson that the bees teach us and challenge us to accomplish: How to live our life in a way that by taking what we need from the world around us we leave the world better than we found it. Each one of us who takes care of the honey bees and makes sure that there is adequate habitat and flowering plants for the native pollinators in our regions, is indirectly through the good work of these pollinators, making the world a better place for all of creation. This is the kind of healing our beautiful blue-green planet needs desperately at this time in history. Makenna Goodman is the Community Outreach Coordinator at Chelsea Green Publishing. You might also like: ?Life Without Bumblebees? It's Not Just Honeybees That Are Mysteriously Dying, at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/142616/life_without_bumblebees_it%27s_not_just_honeybees_that_are_mysteriously_dying?obref=obinsite From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 16 13:06:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:06:43 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Naomi Klein: Climate Rage Message-ID: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30841581/climate_rage Climate Rage The only way to stop global warming is for rich nations to pay for the damage they've done - or face the consequences NAOMI KLEIN Posted Nov 11, 2009 8:29 AM One last chance to save the world ? for months, that's how the United Nations summit on climate change in Copenhagen, which starts in early December, was being hyped. Officials from 192 countries were finally going to make a deal to keep global temperatures below catastrophic levels. The summit called for "that old comic-book sensibility of uniting in the face of a common danger threatening the Earth," said Todd Stern, President Obama's chief envoy on climate issues. "It's not a meteor or a space invader, but the damage to our planet, to our community, to our children and their children will be just as great." That was back in March. Since then, the endless battle over health care reform has robbed much of the president's momentum on climate change. With Copenhagen now likely to begin before Congress has passed even a weak-ass climate bill co-authored by the coal lobby, U.S. politicians have dropped the superhero metaphors and are scrambling to lower expectations for achieving a serious deal at the climate summit. It's just one meeting, says U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, not "the be-all and end-all." As faith in government action dwindles, however, climate activists are treating Copenhagen as an opportunity of a different kind. On track to be the largest environmental gathering in history, the summit represents a chance to seize the political terrain back from business-friendly half-measures, such as carbon offsets and emissions trading, and introduce some effective, common-sense proposals ? ideas that have less to do with creating complex new markets for pollution and more to do with keeping coal and oil in the ground. Among the smartest and most promising ? not to mention controversial ? proposals is "climate debt," the idea that rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis. In the world of climate-change activism, this marks a dramatic shift in both tone and content. American environmentalism tends to treat global warming as a force that transcends difference: We all share this fragile blue planet, so we all need to work together to save it. But the coalition of Latin American and African governments making the case for climate debt actually stresses difference, zeroing in on the cruel contrast between those who caused the climate crisis (the developed world) and those who are suffering its worst effects (the developing world). Justin Lin, chief economist at the World Bank, puts the equation bluntly: "About 75 to 80 percent" of the damages caused by global warming "will be suffered by developing countries, although they only contribute about one-third of greenhouse gases." Climate debt is about who will pick up the bill. The grass-roots movement behind the proposal argues that all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology ? everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies ? are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis. "What we need is not something we should be begging for but something that is owed to us, because we are dealing with a crisis not of our making," says Lidy Nacpil, one of the coordinators of Jubilee South, an international organization that has staged demonstrations to promote climate reparations. "Climate debt is not a matter of charity." Sharon Looremeta, an advocate for Maasai tribespeople in Kenya who have lost at least 5 million cattle to drought in recent years, puts it in even sharper terms. "The Maasai community does not drive 4x4s or fly off on holidays in airplanes," she says. "We have not caused climate change, yet we are the ones suffering. This is an injustice and should be stopped right now." The case for climate debt begins like most discussions of climate change: with the science. Before the Industrial Revolution, the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ? the key cause of global warming ? was about 280 parts per million. Today, it has reached 387 ppm ? far above safe limits ? and it's still rising. Developed countries, which represent less than 20 percent of the world's population, have emitted almost 75 percent of all greenhouse-gas pollution that is now destabilizing the climate. (The U.S. alone, which comprises barely five percent of the global population, contributes 25 percent of all carbon emissions.) And while developing countries like China and India have also begun to spew large amounts of carbon dioxide, the reasoning goes, they are not equally responsible for the cost of the cleanup, because they have contributed only a small fraction of the 200 years of cumulative pollution that has caused the crisis. In Latin America, left-wing economists have long argued that Western powers owe a vaguely defined "ecological debt" to the continent for centuries of colonial land-grabs and resource extraction. But the emerging argument for climate debt is far more concrete, thanks to a relatively new body of research putting precise figures on who emitted what and when. "What is exciting," says Antonio Hill, senior climate adviser at Oxfam, "is you can really put numbers on it. We can measure it in tons of CO2 and come up with a cost." Equally important, the idea is supported by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ? ratified by 192 countries, including the United States. The framework not only asserts that "the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries," it clearly states that actions taken to fix the problem should be made "on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities." The reparations movement has brought together a diverse coalition of big international organizations, from Friends of the Earth to the World Council of Churches, that have joined up with climate scientists and political economists, many of them linked to the influential Third World Network, which has been leading the call. Until recently, however, there was no government pushing for climate debt to be included in the Copenhagen agreement. That changed in June, when Angelica Navarro, the chief climate negotiator for Bolivia, took the podium at a U.N. climate negotiation in Bonn, Germany. Only 36 and dressed casually in a black sweater, Navarro looked more like the hippies outside than the bureaucrats and civil servants inside the session. Mixing the latest emissions science with accounts of how melting glaciers were threatening the water supply in two major Bolivian cities, Navarro made the case for why developing countries are owed massive compensation for the climate crisis. "Millions of people ? in small islands, least-developed countries, landlocked countries as well as vulnerable communities in Brazil, India and China, and all around the world ? are suffering from the effects of a problem to which they did not contribute," Navarro told the packed room. In addition to facing an increasingly hostile climate, she added, countries like Bolivia cannot fuel economic growth with cheap and dirty energy, as the rich countries did, since that would only add to the climate crisis ? yet they cannot afford the heavy upfront costs of switching to renewable energies like wind and solar. The solution, Navarro argued, is three-fold. Rich countries need to pay the costs associated with adapting to a changing climate, make deep cuts to their own emission levels "to make atmospheric space available" for the developing world, and pay Third World countries to leapfrog over fossil fuels and go straight to cleaner alternatives. "We cannot and will not give up our rightful claim to a fair share of atmospheric space on the promise that, at some future stage, technology will be provided to us," she said. The speech galvanized activists across the world. In recent months, the governments of Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Paraguay and Malaysia have endorsed the concept of climate debt. More than 240 environmental and development organizations have signed a statement calling for wealthy nations to pay their climate debt, and 49 of the world's least-developed countries will take the demand to Copenhagen as a negotiating bloc. "If we are to curb emissions in the next decade, we need a massive mobilization larger than any in history," Navarro declared at the end of her talk. "We need a Marshall Plan for the Earth. This plan must mobilize financing and technology transfer on scales never seen before. It must get technology onto the ground in every country to ensure we reduce emissions while raising people's quality of life. We have only a decade." A very expensive decade. The World Bank puts the cost that developing countries face from climate change ? everything from crops destroyed by drought and floods to malaria spread by mosquito-infested waters ? as high as $100 billion a year. And shifting to renewable energy, according to a team of United Nations researchers, will raise the cost far more: to as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade. Unlike the recent bank bailouts, however, which simply transferred public wealth to the world's richest financial institutions, the money spent on climate debt would fuel a global environmental transformation essential to saving the entire planet. The most exciting example of what could be accomplished is the ongoing effort to protect Ecuador's Yasun? National Park. This extraordinary swath of Amazonian rainforest, which is home to several indigenous tribes and a surreal number of rare and exotic animals, contains nearly as many species of trees in 2.5 acres as exist in all of North America. The catch is that underneath that riot of life sits an estimated 850 million barrels of crude oil, worth about $7 billion. Burning that oil ? and logging the rainforest to get it ? would add another 547 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Two years ago, Ecuador's center-left president, Rafael Correa, said something very rare for the leader of an oil-exporting nation: He wanted to leave the oil in the ground. But, he argued, wealthy countries should pay Ecuador ? where half the population lives in poverty ? not to release that carbon into the atmosphere, as "compensation for the damages caused by the out-of-proportion amount of historical and current emissions of greenhouse gases." He didn't ask for the entire amount; just half. And he committed to spending much of the money to move Ecuador to alternative energy sources like solar and geothermal. Largely because of the beauty of the Yasun?, the plan has generated widespread international support. Germany has already offered $70 million a year for 13 years, and several other European governments have expressed interest in participating. If Yasun? is saved, it will demonstrate that climate debt isn't just a disguised ploy for more aid ? it's a far more credible solution to the climate crisis than the ones we have now. "This initiative needs to succeed," says Atossa Soltani, executive director of Amazon Watch. "I think we can set a model for other countries." Activists point to a huge range of other green initiatives that would become possible if wealthy countries paid their climate debts. In India, mini power plants that run on biomass and solar power could bring low-carbon electricity to many of the 400 million Indians currently living without a light bulb. In cities from Cairo to Manila, financial support could be given to the armies of impoverished "trash pickers" who save as much as 80 percent of municipal waste in some areas from winding up in garbage dumps and trash incinerators that release planet-warming pollution. And on a much larger scale, coal-fired power plants across the developing world could be converted into more efficient facilities using existing technology, cutting their emissions by more than a third. But to ensure that climate reparations are real, advocates insist, they must be independent of the current system of international aid. Climate money cannot simply be diverted from existing aid programs, such as primary education or HIV prevention. What's more, the funds must be provided as grants, not loans, since the last thing developing countries need is more debt. Furthermore, the money should not be administered by the usual suspects like the World Bank and USAID, which too often push pet projects based on Western agendas, but must be controlled by the United Nations climate convention, where developing countries would have a direct say in how the money is spent. Without such guarantees, reparations will be meaningless ? and without reparations, the climate talks in Copenhagen will likely collapse. As it stands, the U.S. and other Western nations are engaged in a lose-lose game of chicken with developing nations like India and China: We refuse to lower our emissions unless they cut theirs and submit to international monitoring, and they refuse to budge unless wealthy nations cut first and cough up serious funding to help them adapt to climate change and switch to clean energy. "No money, no deal," is how one of South Africa's top environmental officials put it. "If need be," says Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, speaking on behalf of the African Union, "we are prepared to walk out." In the past, President Obama has recognized the principle on which climate debt rests. "Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead," he acknowledged in his September speech at the United Nations. "We have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these [developing] nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development." Yet as Copenhagen draws near, the U.S. negotiating position appears to be to pretend that 200 years of over-emissions never happened. Todd Stern, the chief U.S. climate negotiator, has scoffed at a Chinese and African proposal that developed countries pay as much as $400 billion a year in climate financing as "wildly unrealistic" and "untethered to reality." Yet he put no alternative number on the table ? unlike the European Union, which has offered to kick in up to $22 billion. U.S. negotiators have even suggested that countries could fund climate debt by holding periodic "pledge parties," making it clear that they see covering the costs of climate change as a matter of whimsy, not duty. But shunning the high price of climate change carries a cost of its own. U.S. military and intelligence agencies now consider global warming a leading threat to national security. As sea levels rise and droughts spread, competition for food and water will only increase in many of the world's poorest nations. These regions will become "breeding grounds for instability, for insurgencies, for warlords," according to a 2007 study for the Center for Naval Analyses led by Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former Centcom commander. To keep out millions of climate refugees fleeing hunger and conflict, a report commissioned by the Pentagon in 2003 predicted that the U.S. and other rich nations would likely decide to "build defensive fortresses around their countries." Setting aside the morality of building high-tech fortresses to protect ourselves from a crisis we inflicted on the world, those enclaves and resource wars won't come cheap. And unless we pay our climate debt, and quickly, we may well find ourselves living in a world of climate rage. "Privately, we already hear the simmering resentment of diplomats whose countries bear the costs of our emissions," Sen. John Kerry observed recently. "I can tell you from my own experience: It is real, and it is prevalent. It's not hard to see how this could crystallize into a virulent, dangerous, public anti-Americanism. That's a threat too. Remember: The very places least responsible for climate change ? and least equipped to deal with its impacts ? will be among the very worst affected." That, in a nutshell, is the argument for climate debt. The developing world has always had plenty of reasons to be pissed off with their northern neighbors, with our tendency to overthrow their governments, invade their countries and pillage their natural resources. But never before has there been an issue so politically inflammatory as the refusal of people living in the rich world to make even small sacrifices to avert a potential climate catastrophe. In Bangladesh, the Maldives, Bolivia, the Arctic, our climate pollution is directly responsible for destroying entire ways of life ? yet we keep doing it. >From outside our borders, the climate crisis doesn't look anything like the meteors or space invaders that Todd Stern imagined hurtling toward Earth. It looks, instead, like a long and silent war waged by the rich against the poor. And for that, regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, the poor will continue to demand their rightful reparations. "This is about the rich world taking responsibility for the damage done," says Ilana Solomon, policy analyst for ActionAid USA, one of the groups recently converted to the cause. "This money belongs to poor communities affected by climate change. It is their compensation." [From Issue 1091 ? November 12, 2009] From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 07:07:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:07:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] It's Official Message-ID: ....The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964 November 17, 2009 by Richard C. Cook Global Research, June 14, 2007 It?s official. Mark your calendars. The crash of the U.S. economy has begun. It was announced the morning of Wednesday, June 13, 2007, by economic writers Steven Pearlstein and Robert Samuelson in the pages of the Washington Post, one of the foremost house organs of the U.S. monetary elite. Pearlstein?s column was titled, ?The Takeover Boom, About to Go Bust? and concerned the extraordinary amount of debt vs. operating profits of companies currently subject to leveraged buyouts. In language remarkably alarmist for the usually ultra-bland pages of the Post, Pearlstein wrote, ?It is impossible to predict when the magic moment will be reached and everyone finally realizes that the prices being paid for these companies, and the debt taken on to support the acquisitions, are unsustainable. When that happens, it won't be pretty. Across the board, stock prices and company valuations will fall. Banks will announce painful write-offs, some hedge funds will close their doors, and private-equity funds will report disappointing returns. Some companies will be forced into bankruptcy or restructuring.? Further, ?Falling stock prices will cause companies to reduce their hiring and capital spending while governments will be forced to raise taxes or reduce services, as revenue from capital gains taxes declines. And the combination of reduced wealth and higher interest rates will finally cause consumers to pull back on their debt-financed consumption. It happened after the junk-bond and savings-and-loan collapses of the late 1980s. It happened after the tech and telecom bust of the late '90s. And it will happen this time.? Samuelson?s column, ?The End of Cheap Credit,? left the door slightly ajar in case the collapse is not quite so severe. He wrote of rising interest rates, ?As the price of money increases, borrowing and the economy might weaken. The deep slump in housing could worsen. We could also discover that the long period of cheap credit has left a nasty residue.? Other writers with less prestigious platforms than the Post have been talking about an approaching financial bust for a couple of years. Among them has been economist Michael Hudson, author of an article on the housing bubble titled, ?The New Road to Serfdom? in the May 2006 issue of Harper?s. Hudson has been speaking in interviews of a ?break in the chain? of debt payments leading to a ?long, slow economic crash,? with ?asset deflation,? ?mass defaults on mortgages,? and a ?huge asset grab? by the rich who are able to protect their cash through money laundering and hedging with foreign currency bonds. Among those poised to profit from the crash is the Carlyle Group, the equity fund that includes the Bush family and other high-profile investors with insider government connections. A January 2007 memorandum to company managers from founding partner William E. Conway, Jr., recently appeared which stated that, when the current ?liquidity environment??i.e., cheap credit?ends, ?the buying opportunity will be a once in a lifetime chance.? The fact that the crash is now being announced by the Post shows that it is a done deal. The Bilderbergers, or whomever it is that the Post reports to, have decided. It lets everyone know loud and clear that it?s time to batten down the hatches, run for cover, lay in two years of canned food, shield your assets, whatever. Those left holding the bag will be the ordinary people whose assets are loaded with debt, such as tens of millions of mortgagees, millions of young people with student loans that can never be written off due to the ?reformed? 2005 bankruptcy law, or vast numbers of workers with 401(k)s or other pension plans that are locked into the stock market. In other words, it sounds eerily like 2000-2002 except maybe on a much larger scale. Then it was ?only? the tenth worse bear market in history, but over a trillion dollars in wealth simply vanished. What makes today?s instance seem particularly unfair is that the preceding recovery that is now ending?the ?jobless? one?was so anemic. Neither Perlstein nor Samuelson gets to the bottom of the crisis, though they, like Conway of the Carlyle Group, point to the end of cheap credit. But interest rates are set by people who run central banks and financial institutions. They may be influenced by ?the market,? but the market is controlled by people with money who want to maximize their profits. Key to what is going on is that the Federal Reserve is refusing to follow the pattern set during the long reign of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in responding to shaky economic trends with lengthy infusions of credit as he did during the dot.com bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of 2001-2005. This time around, Greenspan?s successor, Ben Bernanke, is sitting tight. With the economy teetering on the brink, the Fed is allowing rates to remain steady. The Fed claims their policy is due to the danger of rising ?core inflation.? But this cannot be true. The biggest consumer item, houses and real estate, is tanking. Officially, unemployment is low, but mainly due to low-paying service jobs. Commodities have edged up, including food and gasoline, but that?s no reason to allow the entire national economy to be submerged. So what is really happening? Actually, it?s simple. The difference today is that China and other large investors from abroad, including Middle Eastern oil magnates, are telling the U.S. that if interest rates come down, thereby devaluing their already-sliding dollar portfolios further, they will no longer support with their investments the bloated U.S. trade and fiscal deficits. Of course we got ourselves into this quandary by shipping our manufacturing to China and other cheap-labor markets over the last generation. ?Dollar hegemony? is backfiring. In fact China is using its American dollars to replace the International Monetary Fund as a lender to developing nations in Africa and elsewhere. As an additional insult, China now may be dictating a new generation of economic decline for the American people who are forced to buy their products at Wal-Mart by maxing out what is left of our available credit card debt. About a year ago, a former Reagan Treasury official, now a well-known cable TV commentator, said that China had become ?America?s bank? and commented approvingly that ?it?s cheaper to print money than make cars anymore.? Ha ha. It is truly staggering that none of the ?mainstream? political candidates from either party has attacked this subject on the campaign trail. All are heavily funded by the financier elite who will profit no matter how bad the U.S. economy suffers. Every candidate except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich treats the Federal Reserve like the fifth graven image on Mount Rushmore. And even the so-called progressives are silent. The weekend before the Perlstein/ Samuelson articles came out, there was a huge progressive conference in Washington, D.C., called ?Taming the Corporate Giant.? Not a single session was devoted to financial issues. What is likely to happen? I?d suggest four possible scenarios: 1. Acceptance by the U.S. population of diminished prosperity and a declining role in the world. Grin and bear it. Live with your parents into your 40s instead of your 30s. Work two or three part-time jobs on the side, if you can find them. Die young if you lose your health care. Declare bankruptcy if you can, or just walk away from your debts until they bring back debtor?s prison like they?ve done in Dubai. Meanwhile, China buys more and more U.S. properties, homes, and businesses, as economists close to the Federal Reserve have suggested. If you?re an enterprising illegal immigrant, have fun continuing to jack up the underground economy, avoid business licenses and taxes, and rent out group houses to your friends. 2. Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don?t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes? 3. Maybe we?ll finally have a revolution either from the right or the center involving martial law, suspension of the Bill of Rights, etc., combined with some kind of military or forced-labor dictatorship. We?re halfway there anyway. Forget about a revolution from the left. They wouldn?t want to make anyone mad at them for being too radical. 4. Could there ever be a real try at reform, maybe even an attempt just to get back to the New Deal? Since the causes of the crisis are monetary, so would be the solutions. The first step would be for the Federal Reserve System to be abolished as a bank of issue and a transformation of the nation?s credit system into a genuine public utility by the federal government. This way we could rebuild our manufacturing and public infrastructure and develop an income assurance policy that would benefit everyone. The latter is the only sensible solution. There are monetary reformers who know how to do it if anyone gave them half a chance. Richard C. Cook is the author of ?Challenger Revealed: An Insider?s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age.? A retired federal analyst, his career included work with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department. He is now a Washington, D.C.-based writer and consultant. His book ?We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,? will be published later this year. His website is at www.richardccook.com. Richard C. Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research. From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 07:30:57 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:30:57 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] William Bowles: About Patria, Pageants and Poppies Message-ID: http://www.creative-i.info/?p=12228 About Patria, Pageants and Poppies By William Bowles ?Britain?s last surviving World War I veteran shunned Remembrance Day commemorations Wednesday because he was against the glorification of war? ? ?Britain?s last WWI veteran shuns Remembrance Day? After eight years and tens of thousands of Afghan casualties, the occupiers are settling down to a war of unknown duration. And contrary to Brown?s earlier declarations that ?al-Qu?eda? was operating out of Afghanistan, Brown, all-dressed up for the Lord Mayor?s banquet told the assorted ?dignitaries?, ?Mr Brown has acknowledged that al-Qaeda is not operating in Afghanistan but cautioned that it continued to recruit and train. ?Al-Qaeda rely on a permissive environment in the tribal areas of Pakistan and ? if they can re-establish one ? in Afghanistan,? Mr Brown warned. ?He said there were ?several hundred? foreign fighters still based in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, attending training camps to learn bomb-making and weapons skills.?? ? (?Brown plans Afghan handover talks?, BBC News Website, 17 December, 2009) But the real thrust of Brown?s attempt to resuscitate the British Empire is revealed by the following. ?At every point in our history where we have looked outwards, we have become stronger. ?And now, more than ever, there is no future in what was once called ?splendid isolation?.? And just in case we don?t get the message, the BBC?s diplomatic correspondent James Robbins is more than willing to do the Empire?s dirty work telling us, ?But the prime minister also made clear that he regards Britain?s military presence as vital to protect ordinary people at home from plots hatched in Pakistan by al-Qaeda extremists, who would spread back into Afghanistan if allowed the opportunity to do so.? And very conveniently, the self-same Mr Robbins adds this final para, ?The prime minister said the security services in Britain were reporting to him that there was now an opportunity to inflict significant and long-lasting damage on al-Qaeda.? Well, that?s that isn?t it? Slaughtering Afghans is about protecting the ?homeland? from ?plots? devised by those dastardly ?al-Qu?eda? who by his own admission are not even in Afghanistan! But these are desperate times for the Empire as opposition to Brown?s barbarian occupation grows even within his own ranks. These gangsters are so incompetent that they make stuff up as they go along! Not so the ?loyal opposition? with both Tory and Lib-Dem continuing to support the UK?s colonial war of conquest. Of course the song and dance about ?our boys over there? is nothing new especially when from the UK?s perspective, the entire enterprise is going pear-shaped in the public?s mind. I?m also sure that there is a direct correlation between the number of poppies on display and the increasing desperation of our barbarian political elite as they seek to patriotize the illegal and murderous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, it is disgusting that working class British boys and girls are sacrificing their lives for the Empire. On the other hand they belong to a professional army, paid to kill and be killed, so as regrettable as it is that some are dying (in minute numbers compared to the slaughter they have rained down on Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan), they knew the deal when they signed up. I mean come on, look at all these MoD adverts extolling the virtues of shooting people in far-off places, like this MoD promo advertizing the excitement of being a sniper. [see Video] It?s interesting conundrum for the political elite whose ?peace-keeping? enterprises always end in horrific bloodshed. Luckily there?s five hundred year?s worth of imperial wars to draw on when it comes to pushing the Patria button. It?s a button that G. Brown has been pushing a lot recently, defending the white cliffs against the heathen hordes, blah-blah, and the media have been only too happy push out the patria to the populace. Yet in spite of the poppy onslaught on the public, ?Only 12 percent of Europeans claim to trust the media, compared to 15 percent of North Americans, 29 percent of Pacific Asians and 48 percent of Africans, the BBC has found.? ? ?Does Biased News Have a ?Time Bomb? Effect?? And the percentage of those who favour a complete pullout of Afghanistan immediately, is steadily rising with around 75% saying we should get out (sometime soon? who knows with these surveys?). Something else is going on here, some kind of synergy is at work, beset as we are by endless wars, economic collapse and climate catastrophe and all at once. Perhaps it?s a step too far? Clearly the poppy ain?t working the way it should, not even the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall has made much difference, if anything it has had the opposite effect. The promise of a world freed from the grip of the ?Evil Empire?, a world of peace and plenty blah-blah, is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we have gone backwards at an increasing rate of knots, towards the world of ?(helicopter) gunboat diplomacy?. A world where mind-numbing violence and threats of violence dominate the foreign and domestic policies of the so-called civilized world. This is a world my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents would be quite familiar with, a world where might is right and the Anglo-Saxon ?race? ruled supreme. The point is, Capitalism needs an enemy, real or invented and the demise of communism deprived them of a handy hook onto which they could hang the planet. All the ?war on terror? has done is terrorize everybody and drag us deeper and deeper into the quagmire of the ?new world order?. Many of us may distrust our respective governments, they lie to us, steal from the public purse, spy on us, lock us up for thinking, start wars in our name but the idea that they are insane enough to launch a global conflagration is perhaps a step too far for most of us to swallow. Yet twice in the past century, the capitalists and their servants have started world wars in which hundreds of millions have been slaughtered and with a posse of psychopathic fingers on the trigger right now, it looks like we may be in for the next one. But surely they can?t be that mad what with the world awash with nuclear weapons? Yet from the former Yugoslavia to Somalia the Anglo-Saxon Empire is busy turning the planet into a graveyard, polluting the air, water and earth as it goes. Mad you say? Just look at what the ?masters of the universe? say concerning their objectives and the lengths they will go to preserve their rule. US Space Command Dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US national interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict. ?National interests and investment? says it all for this is what it?s really all about. The US Space Command?s ?Vision 20-20? document goes on to say that, ?Just as land dominance, sea control, and air superiority have become critical elements of current military strategy, space superiority is emerging as an essential element of battlefield success and future warfare.The challenge extends to space.? It?s this context that makes the UK government?s role in this sordid and murderous enterprise so really depraved and criminal. A government that has become nothing more than a hitman for the Empire and a pretty incompetent one at that. Oh how the mighty have fallen! From may at applebybooks.net Tue Nov 17 07:40:11 2009 From: may at applebybooks.net (May at Appleby Books) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:40:11 -0800 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Resistance is Not Terrorism Message-ID: <4B02A7BB.1030909@applebybooks.net> Found on the web: "48 Activists with quote from Wim Wenders" http://artnews.org/artist.php?i=4818 The words the activists are holding up spell out: "The most political decision you make is where you direct people's eyes. What you show people day in and day out is political and the most politically indoctrinating thing you can do to a human being is to show us every day that there can be no change." From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 07:52:29 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:52:29 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Kunstler: The Fate of the Yeast People Message-ID: (while I cannot agree even remotely with Kunstler's assessment that "of course" overpopulation is a problem [with one-tenth of the present population the world would still have starving masses; the problem is with distribution -- with production for profit or capitalism -- rather than overpopulation], this is nevertheless a very entertaining read! - rm) http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/the-fate-of-the-yeast-people.html Clusterfuck Nation The Fate of the Yeast People by James Howard Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (November 16 2009) Every time I do a Q and A after a college lecture, somebody says (with a fanfare of indignation) - so as to reveal their own brilliance in contrast to my foolishness - "You haven't said anything about overpopulation!" Right. I usually don't bother. Their complaint, of course, implies that we would do something about overpopulation if only we would recognize it. Which is absurd. What might we do about overpopulation here in the USA? Legislate a one-child policy? Set up an onerous set of bureaucratic protocols forcing citizens to apply for permission to reproduce? Direct the police to shoot all female babies? Use stimulus money to build crematoria outside of Nashville? It's certainly true that the planet is suffering from human population overshoot. We're way beyond "carrying capacity". Only the remaining supplies of fossil fuels allow us to continue this process, and not for long, anyway. In the meantime, human reproduction rates are also greatly increasing the supply of idiots relative to resources, and that is especially problematic in the USA, where idiots rule the culture and polity. The cocoon of normality prevents us from appreciating how peculiar and special recent times have been in this country. We suppose, tautologically, that because things have always seemed the way they are, that they always have been the way they seem. The collective human imagination is a treacherous place. I'm fascinated by the dominion of moron culture in the USA, in everything from the way we inhabit the landscape - the fiasco of suburbia - to the way we feed ourselves - an endless megatonnage of microwaved Velveeta and corn byproducts - along with the popular entertainment offerings of Reality TV, the Nascar ovals, and the gigantic evangelical church shows beloved in the Heartland. To evangelize a bit myself, if such a concept as "an offense in the sight of God" has any meaning, then the way we conduct ourselves in this land is surely the epitome of it - though this is hardly an advertisement for competing religions, who are well-supplied with morons, too. Moron culture in the USA really got full traction after the Second World War. Our victory over the other industrial powers in that struggle was so total and stupendous that the laboring orders here were raised up to economic levels unknown by any peasantry in human history. People who had been virtual serfs trailing cotton sacks in the sunstroke belt a generation back were suddenly living better than Renaissance dukes, laved in air-conditioning, banqueting on "TV dinners", motoring on a whim to places that would have taken a three-day mule trek in their grandaddy's day. Soon, they were buying Buick dealerships and fried chicken franchises and opening banks and building leisure kingdoms of thrill rides and football. It's hard to overstate the fantastic wealth that a not-very-bright cohort of human beings was able to accumulate in post-war America. And they were able to express themselves - as the great chronicler of these things, Tom Wolfe, has described so often and well - in exuberant "taste cultures" of material life, of which Las Vegas is probably the final summing-up, and every highway strip, of twenty-thousand strips from Maine to Oregon, is the democratic example. These days, I travel the road up the west shore of Lake George, in Warren County, New York, and see the sad, decomposing relics of that culture and that time in all the "playful" motels and leisure-time attractions, with their cracked plastic signs advertising the very things that they exterminated in the quest for adequate parking - the woodand vistas, the paddling Mohicans, the wolf, the moose, the catamount - and I take a certain serene comfort in the knowledge that it is all over now for this stuff and the class of morons that produced it. A very close friend of mine calls them "the yeast people". They were the democratic masses who thrived in the great fermentation vat of the post World War Two economy. They are now meeting the fate that any yeast population faces when the fermentation process is complete. For the moment, they are only ceasing to thrive. They are suffering and worrying horribly from the threat that there might be no further fermentation. The brewers running the vat try to assure them that there's more sugar left in the mix, and more beer can be made from it, and more yeasts can be brought into this world to enjoy the life of the sweet, moist mash. In fact, one of the brewers did happen to dump about a trillion-and-a-half teaspoons of sugar into the vat during 2009, and that has produced an illusion of further fermentation. But we know all too well that this artificial stimulus has limits. What will happen to the yeast people of the USA? You can be sure that the outcome will not yield to "policies" and "protocols". The economy that produced all that amazing wealth is contracting, and pretty rapidly, too, and the numbers among the yeast will naturally follow the downward arc of the story. Entropy is a harsh mistress. In the immediate offing: a contest for the table scraps of the twentieth century. We've barely seen the beginning of this, just a little peevishness embodied by yeast shaman figures such as Sarah Palin and Glen Beck. As hardships mount and hardened emotions rise, we'll see "the usual suspects" come into play: starvation, disease, violence. We may still be driving around in Ford F-150s, but the Pale Rider is just over the horizon beating a path to our parking-lot-of-the-soul. It's a sad and tragic process and, all lame metaphors aside, there are real human feelings at stake in our prospects for loss of every kind, but especially in the fate of people we love. The human race has known catastrophe before and come through it. There's some credible opinion that "this time it's different" but who really knows? We have our 2012 apocalypse movies. The people of the fourteenth century, savaged by the Black Death, had their woodcuts of dancing skeletons. Feudalism was wiped out in that earlier calamity but, whaddaya know, less than a century after that the Renaissance emerged in a wholly new culture of cities. Maybe we will emerge from our culture of free parking to a new society of living, by necessity, much more lightly on the planet and for a long time, perhaps long enough to allow the terrain to recover from all the free parking. _____ My 2008 novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available in paperback at all booksellers. (c) 2009 All Rights Reserved. From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 08:30:09 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:30:09 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Fwd: Bush Family Fortunes - Download the BBC Film Today! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Greg Palast Subject: Bush Family Fortunes - Download the BBC Film Today! Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:22:32 -0500 Size: 5445 URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 09:35:40 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:35:40 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [IUF News] Iran sugar union leaders imprisoned.... Message-ID: Independent Sugar Union Leaders in Iran Now Behind Bars - Act Now! The leaders of Iran's independent sugarworkers union are now in prison in the city of Dezful, serving sentences for their trade union activity. Send a message to the Iranian state and judicial authorities, calling on them to immediately and unconditionally release the jailed unionists: http://www.iuf.org/den6318 As UN World Summit on Food Security Meets, IUF Asks What about the Workers? http://www.iuf.org/den6317 Unite Demands Kraft Divulge Employment Implications of Potential Cadbury Takeover As the battle for the financial spoils from a potential hostile takeover of UK-based Cadbury by Kraft Foods heats up, the IUF's UK affiliate Unite has called on Kraft to lay its plans on the table, and to offer clear guarantees on jobs and pensions. http://www.iuf.org/den6320 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 10:08:01 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:08:01 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Cow Dung Project To Heat 1,100 Dutch Homes Message-ID: To view the 'Fresh Ink' archive, or to subscribe, see: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink =================== http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/cow-dung-heating-dutch-homes.php "Experimental" Cow Dung Project To Heat 1,100 Dutch Homes by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada Science & Technology (alternative energy) >From chickens to cows to algae, energy generated from biomass is making a big impact worldwide. With last year's launch of the world's largest biomass plant in the Netherlands - running on chicken manure - another Dutch biomass energy project has now launched to provide 1,100 homes with heat converted from cow dung. Located in the northern rural region of De Zuidlanden (Leeuwarden), the plant will use dung from a local dairy farm that will be fermented anaerobically with grass and discarded food to produce biogas. Touted as an "experimental dairy farm", the manure will also power the plant's wind turbines. In addition, a special 5.5 kilometer-long biogas pipeline will be used to bring power to the local thermal plant's wind turbines. Sponsored by Dutch energy company Essent, the Nij Bosma Zathe dairy farm is also the training and research center run by Wageningen University. The farm has already built two co-fermentation silos and there are plans to build a third one. Delta, the same company that constructed the world's largest biomass plant that now provides 90,000 homes with chicken-poop-fuelled power, plans to purchase biogas from Nij Bosma Zathe for a local gas station that is already providing companies and individuals with bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas. The experiment could open new possibilities for farmers who are interested in the profits of converting agricultural residues into energy. Currently, in addition to the differing composition of the biogas being produced, the wider Dutch gas network is not equipped to accept gas from the fermentation plant. Popular perceptions about renewable energy from biomass sources needs to be transformed as well. "The citizens need to see where their electricity comes from. If they can't imagine, it is difficult to spread the message," says Dutch minister of agriculture Gerda Verburg. "Residents of the new district were the [1,100] houses will be built should be driving around and then say to each other: 'Look, that cow gives us warmth'". CleanTechnica -- http://cleantechnica.com/2009/11/14/netherlands-opens-cow-dung-powered-plant/ press release (PDF) -- http://www.asg.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/6E4F8AAE-2E7F-4580-A91E-E987B2208587/61875/ManureForGas.pdf From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 17 10:34:02 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:34:02 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] A favour to ask of you Message-ID: This is NOT a request for money to run the Fresh Ink list-serv (yes, there are costs involved, but they are minimal), but rather a simple request to provide other support by sending one or more of the Fresh Ink articles to a friend of yours in the next week or so, and asking them to consider subscribing at the same time. You may have noticed the header of the last article sent to the list, which went: "To view the 'Fresh Ink' archive, or to subscribe, see: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink " Please let your friends know about Fresh Ink by providing them with the subscribe URL above. If the good folks at Radtimes, Dissident Voice, International Clearing House, Alternet, CommonDreams, CounterCurrents, Antiwar and AshevilleGlobalReport could also give FreshInk a plug (or link!) on their links page, then that would of course be wonderful! And with that, I leave you with this sad report: USDA: 49 Million Americans Going Hungry http://wcco.com/national/usda.hunger.high.2.1315674.html thanks, and all the very best! richard menec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 06:29:44 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:29:44 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] If Nothing Else, Save Farming Message-ID: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/16/if-nothing-else-save-farming/ Monbiot.com November 16 2009 If Nothing Else, Save Farming It's probably too late to prepare for peak oil, but we can at least try to salvage food production. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (November 16 2009) I don't know when global oil supplies will start to decline. I do know that another resource has already peaked and gone into freefall: the credibility of the body that's meant to assess them. Last week two whistleblowers from the International Energy Agency alleged that it has deliberately upgraded its estimate of the world's oil supplies in order not to frighten the markets {1}. Three days later, a paper published by researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden showed that the IEA's forecasts must be wrong, because it assumes a rate of extraction that appears to be impossible {2}. The agency's assessment of the state of global oil supplies is beginning to look as reliable as Mr Greenspan's blandishments about the health of the financial markets. If the whistleblowers are right, we should be stockpiling ammunition. If we are taken by surprise; if we have failed to replace oil before the supply peaks then crashes, the global economy is stuffed. But nothing the whistleblowers said has scared me as much as the conversation I had last week with a Pembrokeshire farmer. Wyn Evans, who runs a mixed farm of 170 acres, has been trying to reduce his dependency on fossil fuels since 1977. He has installed an anaerobic digester, a wind turbine, solar panels and a ground-sourced heat pump. He has sought wherever possible to replace diesel with his own electricity. Instead of using his tractor to spread slurry, he pumps it from the digester onto nearby fields. He's replaced his tractor-driven irrigation system with an electric one, and set up a new system for drying hay indoors, which means he has to turn it in the field only once. Whatever else he does is likely to produce smaller savings. But these innovations have reduced his use of diesel by only around 25%. According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires forty litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel {3}. The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil. Unless farmers can change the way it's grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world's people. Any responsible government would be asking urgent questions about how long we have got. Instead, most of them delegate this job to the International Energy Agency. I've been bellyaching about the British government's refusal to make contingency plans for the possibility that oil might peak by 2020 for the past two years {4, 5}, and I'm beginning to feel like a madman with a sandwich board. Perhaps I am, but how lucky do you feel? The new World Energy Outlook published by the IEA last week expects the global demand for oil to rise from 85 million barrels a day in 2008 to 105 million in 2030 {6}. Oil production will rise to 103 million barrels, it says, and biofuels will make up the shortfall {7}. If we want the oil, it will materialise. The agency does caution that conventional oil is likely to "approach a plateau" towards the end of this period {8}, but there's no hint of the graver warning that the IEA's chief economist issued when I interviewed him last year: "we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau ... I think time is not on our side here". {9} Almost every year the agency has been forced to downgrade its forecast for the daily supply of oil in 2030: from 123 million barrels in 2004, to 120 million in 2005, 116 million in 2007, 106 million in 2008 and 103 million this year. But according to one of the whistleblowers, "even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this". {10} The Uppsala report, published in the journal Energy Policy, anticipates that maximum global production of all kinds of oil in 2030 will be 76 million barrels per day. Analysing the IEA's figures, it finds that to meet its forecasts for supply, the world's new and undiscovered oil fields would have to be developed at a rate "never before seen in history". {11} As many of them are in politically or physically difficult places, and as capital is short, this looks impossible. Assessing existing fields, the likely rate of discovery and the use of new techniques for extraction, the researchers find that "the peak of world oil production is probably occurring now". Are they right? Who knows? Last month the UK Energy Research Centre published a massive review of all the available evidence on global oil supplies {12}. It found that the date of peak oil will be determined not by the total size of the global resource but by the rate at which it can be exploited. New discoveries would have to be implausibly large to make a significant difference: even if a field the size of all the oil reserves ever struck in the USA were miraculously discovered, it would delay the date of peaking by only four years {13}. As global discoveries peaked in the 1960s {14}, a find like this doesn't seem very likely. Regional oil supplies have peaked when about one third of the total resource has been extracted {15}: this is because the rate of production falls as the remaining oil becomes harder to shift. So the assumption in the IEA's new report, that oil production will hold steady when the global resource has fallen "to around one-half by 2030" {16} looks unsafe. The UKERC review finds that just to keep oil supply at present levels, "more than two thirds of current crude oil production capacity may need to be replaced by 2030 ... At best, this is likely to prove extremely challenging". {17} There is, it says "a significant risk of a peak in conventional oil production before 2020". {18} Unconventional oil won't save us: even a crash programme to develop the Canadian tar sands could deliver only five million barrels a day by 2030. {19} As a report commissioned by the US Department of Energy shows, an emergency programme to replace current energy supplies or equipment to anticipate peak oil would need about twenty years to take effect {20}. It seems unlikely that we have it. The world economy is probably knackered, whatever we might do now. But at least we could save farming. There are two possible options: either the mass replacement of farm machinery or the development of new farming systems, which don't need much labour or energy. There are no obvious barriers to the mass production of electric tractors and combine harvesters: the weight of the batteries and an electric vehicle's low-end torque are both advantages for tractors. A switch to forest gardening and other forms of permaculture is trickier, especially for producing grain; but such is the scale of the creeping emergency that we can't afford to rule anything out. The challenge of feeding seven or eight billion people while oil supplies are falling is stupefying. It'll be even greater if governments keep pretending that it isn't going to happen. www.monbiot.com References: 1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency 2. Kjell Aleklett et al, 2009. The Peak of the Oil Age - analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008. Energy Policy. http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf 3. David Pimentel, Marcia Pimentel and Marianne Karpenstein-Machan, 1999. Energy Use In Agriculture: An Overview. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR EJournal, Volume I. http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/viewFile/1044/1037 4. I first began pestering the government about this in May 2007, as you can see here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/29/what-if-the-oil-runs-out/ After that, I lodged an FoI request, and returned to the theme in these articles: 5. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/majesty-we-have-gone-mad/ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/15/at-last-a-date/ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/04/14/cross-your-fingers-and-carry-on/ 6. International Energy Agency, 2009. World Energy Outlook 2009. Page 73. 7. Figure 1.5, page 82. 8. page 87 9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/15/fatih-birol-george-monbiot 10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency 11. Kjell Aleklett et al, 2009. The Peak of the Oil Age - analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008. Energy Policy. http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf 12. Steve Sorrell et al, 2009. Global Oil Depletion: An assessment of the evidence for a near-term peak in global oil production. UK Energy Research Centre. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20Depletion 13. page 134 14. See Figure 2.8. page 24 15. page 7 16. International Energy Agency, 2009, ibid, page 80. 17. Steve Sorrell et al, 2009, page 169. 18. page 164. 19. page 18. 20. Robert L Hirsch, Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, February 2005. Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management. US Department of Energy. Available at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/us/NETL/OilPeaking.pdf Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 07:02:20 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:02:20 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Canada spending millions on private security in Afghanistan Message-ID: <> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-spending-millions-on-private-security-in-afghanistan/article1367323/ Canada spending millions on private security in Afghanistan Gloria Galloway Ottawa ? From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009 Last updated on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 3:46AM EST Canadian military officers in Afghanistan approve millions of dollars each year for private firms that guard military bases and development projects in the increasingly dangerous Kandahar province. Defence Department documents obtained under federal Access to Information legislation show that at least $7.78-million was authorized for private security between April, 2008, and June, 2009, by the four senior military officers in Afghanistan who can approve contracts of up to $1-million. Most countries that are part of the NATO-led coalition against the Taliban employ private firms and militias for routine but dangerous security jobs. In Kandahar, the Canadians have hired private guards to defend key installations such as the headquarters of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar City, and other development efforts. But they are not without controversy. A recent report by the Center on International Co-operation in New York, which specifically cites the Canadian military's use of private security, said the absence of effective oversight of the hired guards undermines the credibility and effectiveness of both the Afghan government and the international troops. In June, 41 Afghan members of a private militia employed by the United States killed the Kandahar police chief and five officers during a gun battle inside a government compound. And in Iraq in 2007, private security guards employed by the U.S. security firm Blackwater Worldwide shot and killed at least 14 civilians in a crowded Baghdad square. The company, now called Xe, is operating in Afghanistan, but it is unknown if it is employed by the Canadian military. The Defence Department will not divulge the names of the firms under contract for reasons of operational security. The report by the Centre on International Co-operation said the Canadian Forces have hired defence services from Gul Agha Sherzai, the governor of Nangarhar province, who was once governor of Kandahar, as well as the militia of Colonel Haji Toorjan, a Sherzai ally. Jeremy Sales, a Defence Department spokesman, said Tuesday that none of the firms employed by the Canadian military in Kandahar are used in an offensive capacity. ?They are integral to the security of Canadian personnel and enable the Canadian forces to focus their efforts on those duties where they provide the greatest value to the mission,? Mr. Sales said. ?All private security contractors employed by Canada are certified and registered by the Afghan government and are subject to the Afghan law.? Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, said Canada must occasionally hire private guards because the number of Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan is limited. ?But I am worried that when you have security being outsourced by the military, it can lead to the Blackwater problems. There is a concern of accountability,? Mr. Dosanjh said. ?Canadians want to know that whatever is being done in their name, particularly in Afghanistan, is being done appropriately. Canadians can have ? and do have ? trust in their armed forces. But I don't believe many Canadians would have trust in private security firms.? Defence Minister Peter MacKay, in 2007, gave authority to four officers in Afghanistan to approve contracts of up to $1-million, including private security. ?There is no question that sometimes matters are urgent when you are in the battlefield and you need to get things done quickly and you can't go through the rigmarole of the regular oversight,? Mr. Dosanjh said. But ?the Department of National Defence must assure Canadians that there is some oversight with respect to these contracts.? The documents on the military spending, obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin, show only those contracts worth more than $500,000. Many more payments of less than a half million dollars could have been made that were not included in the itemization. Defence officials said it will be several days before they can respond to questions about the kinds of controls that are exerted over spending approved by officers in Afghanistan. But giving senior military leaders signing authority for the goods and services they need in theatre is a long-standing practice, Mr. Sales said. U.S. officers in Afghanistan have similar spending capabilities. As for the $1-million limit, he said, ?I think there was a recognition in theatre that they needed higher authorities to do what they needed to do because this is a big operation.? From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 07:25:48 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:25:48 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Hungering for a True Thanksgiving Message-ID: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hungering_for_a_true_thanksgiving_20091117/ Hungering for a True Thanksgiving Posted on Nov 17, 2009 By Amy Goodman ?In the next 60 seconds, 10 children will die of hunger,? says a United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) online video. It continues, ?For the first time in humanity, over 1 billion people are chronically hungry.? The WFP launched the Billion for a Billion campaign this week, urging the 1 billion people who use the Internet to help the billion who are hungry. But if you think that hunger is far from our shores, here is some food for thought ... and action: The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report Monday stating that in 2008 one in six households in the U.S. was ?food insecure,? the highest number since the figures were first gathered in 1995. Economist Raj Patel, author of ?Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World?s Food System,? told me he was ?gobsmacked? by the U.S. hunger numbers, which he finds appalling: ?The reason that we have this huge increase in hunger in the United States, as around the world, isn?t because there isn?t enough food around. Actually, we produced a pretty reliable solid crop last year. ... The reason people go hungry is because of poverty.? In addition to the online campaign, the United Nations is hosting the World Summit on Food Security in Rome this week, hoping to unite world leaders on the cause of eliminating hunger. Patel remarked on the U.N. summit, ?They?re making all the right sounds about hunger around the world, but as some of the activists outside that summit are saying, poor people can?t eat promises.? Almost 700 people from 93 countries, many of whom are small-scale food producers, have gathered outside the U.N. summit. They are there in behalf of the People?s Food Sovereignty Forum, and they are pushing for small-scale, organic, sustainable food-sovereignty and food-security programs, as opposed to large-scale agribusiness with its dependence on genetically modified organisms and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Michelle Obama said last March when planting the White House?s organic kitchen garden, ?It is so important for them [children] to get regular fruits and vegetables in their diets, because it does have nutrients, it does make you strong, it is all brain food.? The first lady of the U.S. made the point that a homegrown, organic garden is a sustainable and affordable way to strengthen family food security. This has led some to wonder, then, why her husband has appointed Islam Siddiqui to be the U.S. chief agricultural negotiator. Siddiqui is currently vice president for science and regulatory affairs for CropLife America, the main pesticide industry trade association. According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America, ?This position will enable him to keep pushing chemical pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies, and unfair trade arrangements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.? It was CropLife?s mid-America division that circulated an e-mail to industry members after Michelle Obama?s garden announcement, saying, ?While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador Coordinator, and I shudder.? Jacques Diouf, director-general of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, engaged in a 24-hour hunger strike over the weekend, before the food security summit kicked off. He said in a statement, ?We have the technical means and the resources to eradicate hunger from the world so it is now a matter of political will, and political will is influenced by public opinion.? Diouf has estimated that it would take $44 billion per year to end hunger globally, compared with the less than $8 billion pledged recently to that goal. Juxtapose those numbers with the amount being spent by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the U.S. has spent on average about $265 million per day in Afghanistan since the invasion of that country in 2001 (which is a much lower estimate than that provided by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others). Even at that rate, five months of military spending by the U.S. would meet Diouf?s goal, and that would be if the U.S. were the sole contributor. Consider pausing this Thanksgiving, which for many in the U.S. is a major feast, to reflect on the 10 children who die of hunger every minute, and how your elected officials are spending hundreds of billions in public funds on war. Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column. Amy Goodman is the host of ?Democracy Now!,? a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 800 stations in North America. She is the author of ?Breaking the Sound Barrier,? recently released in paperback. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 07:36:24 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:36:24 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Salvadoran Army Regrets Jesuit Massacre Message-ID: (hat tip to James Daly at A-List; gleaned from Walter Lippmann's Cuba list - sorry, no URL for this one) Salvadoran Army Regrets Jesuit Massacre San Salvador, Nov 17 (Prensa Latina) National Defense Minister David Murgu?a said on Tuesday that the Salvadoran Army is sorry for the killing of six Jesuit priests during the civil war in this Central American country. Twenty years after an elite Army commando perpetrated the massacre, Mungu?a told TV Channel 21 that the Armed Forces are ready to help build a better future for the nation. In the early hours of November 16, 1989, as part of a counter-guerrilla offensive, a commando entered the Central American Jesuit University (UCA) and killed Rector Ignacio Ellacuria. The troops also riddled with bullets priests Joaquin Lopez, Ignacio Martin Baro, Juan Ramon Moreno, Segundo Montes and Armando Lopez, as well as two of their aides, Julia Elba and Celina Ramos. Yesterday, on occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the killing, President Mauricio Funes decorated the victims posthumously. In 1992, a court held Col. Guillermo Benavides and Col. Yusshy Mendoza responsible for the massacre, but a year later they were set free after an amnesty law was passed and their crimes remain unpunished. The US State Department and the CIA knew in advance of the Salvadoran Army plans to kill the priests, as was revealed yesterday in San Salvador. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 07:47:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:47:46 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Salvadoran Army Regrets Jesuit Massacre Message-ID: (hat tip to James Daly at A-List; gleaned from Walter Lippmann's Cuba list - sorry, no URL for this one) Salvadoran Army Regrets Jesuit Massacre San Salvador, Nov 17 (Prensa Latina) National Defense Minister David Murgu?a said on Tuesday that the Salvadoran Army is sorry for the killing of six Jesuit priests during the civil war in this Central American country. Twenty years after an elite Army commando perpetrated the massacre, Mungu?a told TV Channel 21 that the Armed Forces are ready to help build a better future for the nation. In the early hours of November 16, 1989, as part of a counter-guerrilla offensive, a commando entered the Central American Jesuit University (UCA) and killed Rector Ignacio Ellacuria. The troops also riddled with bullets priests Joaquin Lopez, Ignacio Martin Baro, Juan Ramon Moreno, Segundo Montes and Armando Lopez, as well as two of their aides, Julia Elba and Celina Ramos. Yesterday, on occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the killing, President Mauricio Funes decorated the victims posthumously. In 1992, a court held Col. Guillermo Benavides and Col. Yusshy Mendoza responsible for the massacre, but a year later they were set free after an amnesty law was passed and their crimes remain unpunished. The US State Department and the CIA knew in advance of the Salvadoran Army plans to kill the priests, as was revealed yesterday in San Salvador. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 07:55:53 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:55:53 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] Akerloff and Shiller's "Animal Spirits...." Message-ID: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n22/john-gray/we-simply-do-not-know? We simply do not know! John Gray Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism by George Akerlof and Robert Shiller Princeton, 230 pp ?16.95, February 2009 ISBN 978 0 691 14233 3 The last two years, in which capitalism has suffered one of its periodic shocks, have given John Maynard Keynes a new lease of life. Events have demonstrated the limits of the theory that economies can be relied on to be stable if they are lightly regulated and otherwise left to themselves. There is now much talk of the paradox of thrift, whereby the rational choices of individuals can prove collectively ruinous, and of the need for government to counteract the inherently anarchic tendencies of markets. Keynes has been revived because he understood that markets are very often irrational. Unfortunately, few of those who urge that we go back to him seem to have understood why he believed this. Apart from a brief postscript to one of the chapters and a few remarks in the preface, George Akerlof and Robert Shiller?s Animal Spirits was written before the current crisis. Yet, based on research undertaken over many years, it can be read as prefiguring the current disillusionment with economics. The trouble with prevailing theories, in Akerlof and Shiller?s view, is that they assume human beings are more rational than they actually are. ?This book, which draws on an emerging field called behavioural economics, describes how the economy really works,? they claim. ?It accounts for how it works when people really are human, that is, possessed of all-too-human animal spirits.? They point to five different ways in which these ?animal spirits? can affect economic behaviour. First, the state of the economy depends on the level of confidence we feel about the future, but confidence ?is not just a rational prediction. It is the first and most crucial of our animal spirits.? Second, a concern for fairness ?can trump economic motivations?: elementary economics teaches that a rise in demand for shovels after a snowstorm should result in higher prices for shovels; but most people ? 82 per cent of correspondents in a survey conducted by two behavioural economists ? believe that raising the price would be unfair. Third, the actions of predatory corporations can have an impact on the entire economy: the belief that Enron had acted in bad faith led to people being ?fed up with financial markets in general?, a shift of a kind that is ?clearly within the realm of pure animal spirits?. Fourth, people make many of their economic decisions without taking account of inflation: instead of acting to maximise their real (inflation-adjusted) income, they succumb to ?money illusion?. Finally, human behaviour is heavily influenced by stories, narratives with a dramatic logic that drives people to action. The internet boom at the start of the millennium was not just a response to the development of a new technology; it expressed a view of the world, including the belief that a new era had arrived in which the economic cycles of the past had ceased to operate. As Akerlof and Shiller represent them, each of these manifestations of animal spirits shows behaviour being driven by forces other than reason. None of them offers rational grounds for action in any sense that most economists would recognise. Even so, the authors insist, these responses must enter into any account of how economies actually work. If economists have failed to explain repeated crises, it is because they have interpreted economic activity through an unreal model of rational decision-making. Thinking of human behaviour in this way allows them to claim a high degree of precision for their discipline, which is presented as a kind of applied mathematics. But they have left psychology out of their equations. A cogent critique of the theoretical excesses of mainstream economics, Animal Spirits is well argued and also ? no small virtue among economists ? pleasingly written. At the same time, it is hardly the revolution in thinking that its authors claim. The observation that markets are prone to violent swings of emotion, recurrent illusions and powerful stories is a piece of perennial wisdom that was summarised in Charles Mackay?s Memories of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1841. More recently, George Soros has insisted that market behaviour is a reflexive process intrinsically liable to lead to cycles of boom and bust, as the beliefs and decisions of participants are reinforced by a desire to go with the trend until the market becomes unsustainable. The fact that markets are flawed seems novel only in the context of the economic orthodoxy that prevailed between the wars, and in the run-up to the recent crisis. It is wrong to imply, as Akerlof and Shiller do, that the classical economists believed otherwise. ?Just as Adam Smith?s invisible hand is the keynote of classical economics,? they write, ?Keynes?s animal spirits are the keynote to a different view of the economy ? a view that explains the underlying instabilities of capitalism.? Here they are endorsing the caricature of Smith propagated by neoliberal ideologues anxious to confer a distinguished patrimony on an illegitimate intellectual offspring. Certainly, the ?invisible hand? is one of Smith?s central ideas, but he never saw it as working in a mechanical fashion. A network of hidden adjustments whereby conflicting interests could be reconciled, in a complex process that always involved human emotions, the invisible hand was neither all-powerful nor uniformly benign. It could be thwarted by collusion among businessmen, and when given free rein its social effects could be seriously harmful. Like other thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith understood the imperfectability of human institutions. He was concerned about the ways in which free markets detached people from communities, and some of these worries fed into the theory of alienation developed by that other celebrated classical economist, Karl Marx. If Akerlof and Shiller?s grip on the history of economic thought is shaky, they also fail to grasp why Keynes rejected the idea that markets are self-stabilising. Throughout Animal Spirits they portray him as reintegrating psychology with economic theory. No doubt this was one of Keynes?s goals, but it is not his most fundamental revision of economic orthodoxy. Among his other accomplishments he was the author of A Treatise on Probability (1921), in which he tried to develop a theory of ?rational degrees of belief?. By his own account he failed, and in his canonical General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) he concluded that there was no way anyone could make forecasts. Future interest rates and prices, new inventions and the likelihood of a European war cannot be predicted: there is no ?basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know!? For Keynes, markets are unstable less because they are driven by emotion than because the future is unknowable. To suggest that the source of market volatility is unreason is to imply that if people were fully rational markets could be stable. But even if people were affectless calculating machines they would still be ignorant of the future, and markets would still be volatile. The root cause of market instability is the insuperable limitation of human knowledge. Later economists have made much of a distinction between risk, which can be assessed in terms of quantifiable likelihood, and uncertainty, where probabilities cannot be attached to possible outcomes. The trouble is that when attempting to forecast the course of the economy we often cannot confidently distinguish between the two. Even our list of possible outcomes may turn out to have omitted the ones that are most important in shaping events. Such an omission was one of the factors that led Long-Term Capital Management, a highly leveraged hedge fund set up by two Nobel Prize winning economists, to fail in 1998-2000. The information used in applying the formula did not include the possibility of such events as the Asian financial crisis and Russia?s default on its sovereign debt, which destabilised global financial markets and helped destroy the fund. The orthodoxy that came unstuck with the collapse of LTCM was not faulty because it neglected the vagaries of human moods; its mistake was to think that the unknown future could be turned into a set of calculable risks and, in effect, conjured out of existence, which was impossible. Several centuries earlier, Pascal ? one of the founders of probability theory ? had come to the same conclusion, when in the Pens?es he asks ironically: ?Is it probable that probability brings certainty?? The central flaw of the economic orthodoxy against which Keynes fought in the 1930s was to imagine that an insoluble problem ? human ignorance of the future ? had been solved. The error was repeated in the 1990s, when economists came to believe that complex mathematical formulae could tame uncertainty in the murky world of derivatives. Steeped in history as they were, this was a delusion that none of the classical economists entertained. It began to shape economics only towards the end of the 19th century, with the rise of Positivism, according to which the natural sciences are the only legitimate repository of human knowledge. It was the formative influence of this philosophy on the Chicago School that enabled the orthodoxy of the 1930s to re-emerge triumphant, and the result was an immense boost to the prestige of economics as a discipline. Economists could claim to be scientists, who with the aid of their mathematical magic could pierce the veil that conceals the future. The hegemony of Positivism in economics obscured Keynes?s scepticism about probabilistic knowledge, his most important contribution to the discipline. G.L.S. Shackle set Keynes?s argument out systematically in his neglected masterpiece Epistemics and Economics: A Critique of Economic Doctrines (1972). Shackle is probably the only significant economist to have been influenced both by Keynes and by his arch-rival, F.A. Hayek. He knew both of them well, but argued that neither had digested the full implications for economics of our ignorance of the future. Hayek said that governments could never know enough to plan the economy successfully ? a claim vindicated by the miserable record of central planning in Communist countries. At the same time, he attributed near omniscience to markets, and never doubted that if left to its own devices the economy would liquidate mistaken investments and return to equilibrium. Against this, Keynes had shown that there is no market mechanism that ensures revival; economic contraction can be self-reinforcing, and only government action can then create a way out. Shackle took Keynes?s argument a step further, and showed that no economic policy can ensure economic stability indefinitely. ?Keynesian? policies are no exception to this rule. Deficit financing and monetary expansion may have worked well in the conditions that existed after the Second World War. It is not clear that they will be so effective today, when globalisation has brought a freedom of capital movements that did not exist then. The lesson of Shackle is that we must be resourceful in devising new remedies, while not losing sight of the fact that none of them works for long. Akerlof and Shiller claim that their account of the role of psychology helps to explain the financial crisis. ?Our theory of animal spirits,? they say, ?provides an answer to a conundrum: why did most of us utterly fail to foresee the current economic crisis? How can we understand this crisis when it seems to have come out of the blue with no cause?? They are right that part of the answer lies in an intellectual default within economics, but they seem oblivious of the role of ideology in producing this default. The deformation of economics was not the result only of factors internal to the discipline, it was also part of the short-lived Western triumphalism that followed the end of the Cold War. Those were the years when slackers throughout the world were enjoined to submit themselves to the rigours of ?the Washington consensus? ? a mix of dogmatic policy prescriptions and hypocritical rhetoric that enjoyed the support of the great majority of economists. According to that consensus, the market regime that was installed in Britain, the US and a few other countries from the 1980s onwards could not only ensure stability and promote steady growth there but was a model ? the only possible model ? for countries everywhere. The one truly rational economic regime, free market capitalism, was also the most productive. As such it was bound to drive every other system out of existence, and would eventually be adopted worldwide. This faith in the universal spread of free markets animated much of the thinking of the American-led institutions overseeing the world economy, such as the IMF. Along with economists in university departments in much of the world, these institutions succumbed to a quasi-religious belief that the free market was the germ of a single, universal economic system. Not everyone swallowed this creed. It was not accepted in China, which then as now displayed a well-founded contempt for Western advice ? an attitude that has much to do with its astonishing economic success. Whether in the face of global recession China can continue to grow at the same rate is unclear ? as Keynes would have put it, we simply don?t know. Nonetheless, its emergence as an economic superpower poses questions for economics that are harder to answer than is generally recognised. Economists do not always take the neoliberal party line, according to which growth can be sustained only in a regime of deregulated capitalism; the evidence of history precludes any such simple-minded view. Liberal capitalism has achieved striking results (though in the US, often against the background of trade protection), but so have many varieties of dirigisme, from rapid growth in late tsarist Russia to Asian market economies in the decades after 1945. Economic historians whose minds are not befogged by ideology accept that there are many routes to growth. At the same time, nearly all Western-trained economists insist that sustained growth is impossible in the absence of a legal system that allows the independent rule of law and secure rights to private property. Without this framework, they believe, there will not be the incentives required for long-term saving and investment. But China has achieved the largest and fastest industrialisation in history without having such a legal system. Until recently, Western economists, along with other Western observers, were adamant that China would continue to be successful only to the extent that it mimicked Western practice. Now that Western economies are in trouble this confidence has been shaken, and China is once again being perceived as alien and dangerous. There is no real attempt to try to understand the sources of its success. Like other branches of the study of society, economics remains culturally parochial, and its underlying concepts based on a few centuries of Western experience. To their credit, Akerlof and Shiller do discuss how motives not normally regarded as economic have contributed to China?s growth. An appeal to patriotism helped persuade villagers to contribute to the regime?s plans for economic growth in the 1970s, so that ?a national story began to grip the imagination of the people of China, a story of individual effort and sacrifice.? One may doubt whether this is the whole story, but it is suggestive, because it illustrates the unreality of the notion that the behaviour of markets is governed by strictly ?economic? motivations. Much of Akerlof and Shiller?s analysis is an implicit criticism of this notion, and yet ? in conformity with the narrow explanatory model of market behaviour they aim to criticise ? they invoke it whenever they suggest that deviations from economic rationality account for instability in markets. They don?t appear to realise that the assumption of a categorical distinction between ?economic? and ?non-economic? motives is one of the chief reasons recent economic theory has been so consistently remote from reality. Keynes and the classical economists before him knew that there is no realm of market exchange that obeys laws of the kind that can be formulated in the natural sciences. Economics and politics are not separate branches of human activity, and economic life cannot be studied independently of social divisions and political conflicts among populations, along with their cultures and religions. Familiar to Keynes and most of the economists of his generation, these truisms have been forgotten, or rejected, by many economists today. The result is an economic imperialism that tries to explain every human activity in terms of a conception of rational action that does not work even when applied to the behaviour of markets. Of course, there is a standard response to these observations, which is that unrealism in economic theories doesn?t matter. As developed by Milton Friedman, among others, this is in effect a version of instrumentalism, a tenable position in the philosophy of science. For instrumentalists, the goal of science is not a true representation of the world; it is to organise our observations into a theoretical framework that serves practical goals, such as prediction and control. But what practical goals have been served by the type of economics dominant over the past two decades? It has been useful neither in making predictions nor in responding to unforeseen developments. Akerlof and Shiller intend their analysis to contribute to an intellectual reformation in economics, as a consequence of which the discipline will become more useful to policy-makers. It must be doubted, though, that the authors will succeed in persuading economists of the inadequacy of the conception of rational action. The profession is one of the few areas of human activity in which that conception is applicable. In its intra-academic varieties, at any rate, economics is insulated from the world not only by its narrow explanatory methodology but also because it rewards the mathematical modelling that resulted in nearly all of its members failing to anticipate the financial crisis. As institutionalised in universities, the notion of rational decision-making is self-perpetuating. Economics as currently practised may have only a slight grip on market behaviour, but it seems to be powerfully predictive of the behaviour of economists. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 11:11:19 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:11:19 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Food insecurity in America skyrockets Message-ID: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/food-insecurity-in-america-skyrockets.html Tuesday, November 17, 2009 Food insecurity in America skyrockets By Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns The US Department of Agriculture highlights how the United States in the last decade, despite increased aggregate wealth, slid back significantly in terms of food insecurity as measure of poverty. With everyone now focused on the unemployment situation, it bears noting that even before the downturn in the economy there had been a large surge in food insecurity nationwide. The Guardian says: Food insecurity ? defined by the USDA as when "food intake ? was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food" ? afflicted 14.6% of Americans in 2008. ie, some 50 million people were too poor to guarantee being able to put food on the table. The table below, also from the Guardian, shows where food insecurity is highest. While much of the distress is concentrated in the South, there are plenty of states in the Southwest and West as well. Maine has the highest food insecurity in the Northeast. [see Table] My interpretation of the data goes to income inequality. I see this as evidence that the last decade of growth in the U.S. has not been beneficial for poorer Americans. However, I would go further in saying that the downturn in the U.S. and rising unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure in the middle class has made plain that the middle class has also been left behind. While distress amongst poorer Americans is plain from these numbers, the diminished position in the middle class was masked by a surge in debt. This was made plain only as a result of a drop in asset prices. At present, U.S. policy makers are trying to make this problem go away by reflating an asset bubble, but continued high unemployment is the elephant in the room which higher asset prices can not make disappear. As for the poor, a related Guardian article gets to the heart of things: The report said 6.7 million people were defined as having "very low food security" because they regularly lacked sufficient to eat. Among them, 96% reported that the food they bought did not last until they had money to buy more. Nearly all said they could not afford to eat balanced meals. Although few reported that this was a permanent situation throughout the year, 88% said it had occurred in three or more months. Nearly half reported losing weight because they did not have enough money to buy food. The number of children living in households where there were shortages of food at times rose by nearly one-third to 17 million. The report says that most parents who did not get enough to eat ensured their offspring received sufficient food but that more than 1 million children still suffered outright hunger. The worst affected states are in the south with Mississippi having the largest proportion of its population enduring shortages of food followed by Texas and Arkansas. More than half of those affected are minorities, principally black people and Hispanics. Millions more Americans do not go hungry only because they are so poor they receive government food stamps or rely on handouts from food banks such as Feeding America. In some states, such as West Virginia, one in six of the population is on food stamps. This is certainly the stuff of depressions more than V-shaped recoveries. The first Guardian article has links to the data for downloading. Source Hungry America: food insecurity, state by state ? Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/17/food-insecurity-us-state-data Record numbers go hungry in the US ? Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 11:25:11 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:25:11 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Hungry America: food insecurity, state by state Message-ID: Hungry America: food insecurity, state by state http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/17/food-insecurity-us-state-data From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 11:38:51 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:38:51 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Easy Solar Power with Thin-Film Photovoltaic laminates Message-ID: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/2006-10-01/Easy-Solar-Power.aspx Easy Solar Power With superefficient peel-and-stick PV sheets, solar power is better than ever! October/November 2006 By Cheryl Long Installing clean, reliable, inflation-proof solar power is easier than ever, thanks to the invention of thin-film photovoltaic (PV) laminates that can be bonded directly onto metal roofing panels. Unlike crystalline PV material, there's no need for obtrusive racks and heavy, expensive glass. Instead, unbreakable thin-film PV is produced using amorphous silicon, encapsulated in Teflon and other polymers. Thanks to pioneering work by Steve Heckeroth, a Mother Earth News contributing editor and the director of building-integrated photovoltaics for Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics, this thin-film PV is now available in easily shippable, 16-inch-wide rolls. It's a peel-and-stick laminate. You just unroll the sheet, lay it faceup on a flat metal roofing panel and press it onto the panel while your assistant pulls the protective sheet off the sticky backing. Invented by ECD Ovonics co-founder Stan Ovshinsky, thin-film laminates offer several advantages over crystalline PV panels. (See Meet Stan Ovshinsky, the Energy Genius for a profile of Ovshinsky and his remarkable renewable energy inventions.) Thin-film sheets perform better in high temperatures and in partly shaded conditions, and they require 100 times less silicon, which means thin-film PV is expected to become less expensive than crystalline as production capacity expands over the next few years. We had a chance to get a firsthand look at this exciting new PV option after Heckeroth offered to install it on the new metal roof I was putting on my small barn last summer. We invited the public, and Heckeroth led a workshop about solar power. Nearly 50 folks spent an unusually hot, 100 degree May day watching and helping as Heckeroth showed volunteers how to bond the thin-film PV laminates to the metal roof panels. Then local architect and builder Kenton Knowles and his Global Homes crew installed the panels on the barn. As the sequence of photos shows, it's hard to imagine a simpler way to install grid-tied, solar-electric power on a new or replacement metal roof. It took only five to 10 minutes to apply each PV sheet to a roof panel. Our new metal roof was 24-gauge Galvalume steel from Englert, Inc. It should last at least 50 years, and the steel can be recycled, making it an excellent sustainable choice for any building. After the roofing panels were installed, Heckeroth danced briefly along the ridge to snap the connecting wires together, and then our electrician, Robert Gore, wired the direct-current output from the thin-film PV into a Fronius inverter. The inverter converts the direct-current power generated by the solar panels to standard 110-volt alternating current. Then the power flows through the new meters installed by the utility company (at no charge!) and into my home. The sun was blazing, and the roofers were really sweaty, but as soon as Gore flipped the switch, everyone smiled as the inverter kicked on and the digital readout quickly climbed to "1,530 watts," showing exactly how much electricity the new system was delivering to the house. Anytime the house needs more power than the PV is producing, the system draws from the utility grid. What's It Gonna Cost? The only hard thing about grid-tied solar power is paying for it, but it makes more economic sense every time the rising cost of oil pushes up energy prices. Now, ECD Ovonics' thin-film PV costs about the same as crystalline PV with glass covers and frames, $4 to $5 per watt, but it requires less labor to install. In addition to the PV, you'll need an inverter (ours cost about $2,500), cables and switches, plus the services of an electrician and roofers. Then you subtract all tax credits, rebates and other incentives available in your state. The final cost will vary greatly depending upon where you live. Two major variables will determine the long-term value of your PV system: 1) Your utility's electric rates and how much they increase over the 25-year life of your system and 2) State and federal incentive programs to promote renewable energy. Here in Kansas, a small system such as our grid-tied 1.8 kW setup would cost about $7,200 for the PV, plus $2,500 for the inverter and switches, plus labor. We can reduce this amount by claiming a federal income tax credit of about $2,000. Kansas unfortunately has no state incentives to encourage solar power development, nor has it passed a net-metering law that would require our utility company to pay us a retail rate for any electricity our system sends back to its grid. Kansas is lagging behind the rest of the country ? 40 states have now passed net-metering laws and most have enacted incentives to support further development of solar, wind and other renewable energy options. In nearby Colorado, for example, some utilities are paying rebates of up to $6 per watt to homeowners who install PV systems, thanks to a state law requiring utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2015. So in Colorado and dozens of other states that offer generous rebates and credits, solar power has become a very attractive option. It's hard to predict exactly how fast a PV system will pay for itself, since nobody really knows how high the cost of grid electricity will climb as oil and gas prices rise (along with growing concerns about global warming) and how much the prices for PV will shift as demand and production capacity increase. But in the dozens of states that have decided it's wise to offer generous renewable energy incentives, investing in solar power already makes great sense. To find out what incentives are available in your state, visit the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. For more about how to calculate the payback period, see You Can Afford Solar Power. A straight cost/benefit analysis is not the only factor to consider. If you choose to go solar, you will be supporting an industry that is poised to make a major contribution to the looming energy crisis and our global warming predicament. Buying a solar-electric system is one of the best things you can do to help protect our environment and to give your family some protection from skyrocketing energy prices and the uncertainties caused by climate change. Every homeowner who opts for clean, renewable solar power is taking us one more step toward a wiser, more sustainable human presence on Earth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Long is the editor in chief of Mother Earth News. She lives south of Topeka, Kan., on an eight-acre homestead and loves hearing her PV inverter hum every time she walks into her barn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the Related Content box to watch a video of solar expert Steve Heckeroth explaining how building-integrated thin-film solar power works. Heckeroth is a MOTHER EARTH NEWS contributing editor and the former director of building-integrated photovoltaics for ECD Ovonics. Learn More about Easy Solar Power Recommended Websites www.dcpower-systems.com This leading wholesale distributor will answer questions about Uni Solar thin film PV and assist you in locating the nearest dealer. www.dsireusa.org Spells out the state rebates, loans and other incentives available for all renewable energy categories and for energy conservation. www.homepower.com Home Power magazine is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to learn more about solar or other renewable energy options. The Web site includes a directory of renewable energy dealers and installers. www.nabcep.org Find certified solar installers listed with the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners. www.pvwatts.org Determines how much power a PV system will produce at your location and lists local utility electric rates. www.uni-solar.com Through this site you can locate a solar installer who can give you a price quote on a building-integrated ECD Ovonics solar project. Recommended Reading Got Sun? Go Solar by Rex A. Ewing and Doug Pratt This new book by two veteran solar experts provides a clear discussion of all the basic information homeowners need in order to choose a simple, grid-tied solar or wind system. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 18 13:57:12 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:57:12 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Cyber Cuba Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/valdes11182009.html November 18, 2009 The Internet, Broadband and Foreign Policy Cyber Cuba By NELSON P. VALD?S I'm singing When the cat's away The mice will play Political violence fill ya city Yeah-ah Don't involve rasta in your say-say Rasta don't work for no CIA Bob Marley + Wailers On October 29, the Cuban magazine Temas held its monthly meeting/debate, which has come to be known as "Last Thursday [of the month]." The discussion was to be about the Internet and Cuban culture. This in itself is an enormously complex topic in today's world, and still more complicated in Cuba's case since all access to and use of the Internet has been politicized by those in opposition to the island's government. The Internet, at the same time, has become just one more instrument used by the United States government to project its foreign policy and influence internal processes in the rest of the world. [1] During the discussion on Internet and culture held by Temas, Yoani S?nchez asked for and received the opportunity to speak. Her first question was in regard to whether broadband has anything to do with not allowing the majority of Cubans to have access to the Internet. I've dealt with the subject of Internet and Cuba before. [2] In that essay I presented the thesis that the bandwidth is an essential element in shaping the topology and architecture a country's connectivity will have and that in itself affects the number of users and the speed of data transmission. This is now well known by the general public, but it was not as known years ago. The thesis, of course, is based on the cost of connectivity (digital lines, servers, routers, etc.) and furthermore, the consideration as to whether the access is obtained by satellite or another medium. In highly industrialized countries, the per person user cost would be much lower, since the necessary infrastructure would be within reach for people with sufficient resources - in other words, economies of scale would reduce the per user cost. For a smaller population with lesser income, the cost of connectivity tends to increase drastically. These economic factors are usually not considered in the debate over Cuban connectivity. However, there is a "digital divide" on a global level. This same inequality is also found within societies. The inequality in high-speed Internet access can be found even in the most developed societies. The user model of the capitalist world that is based on individual usage, through a household or handheld computer - that the majority of the world's poor does not possess - must also be taken into consideration. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Internet, by its nature, breaks with an entire series of old parameters. First, it breaks with logical and sequential thought and argumentation. Hyper-connection destroys historical sensibility. There's no beginning, middle or end. Now the jump is made from one side to another without rhyme or reason - connectivity provides no real judgment of sources. It's not easy to determine whether or not an information source is reliable. Most all of the information is commercial. Someone has to pay to post, send or receive it. There's nothing surprising in thinking that this technology would be liberating. Technological determinism is nothing new. The same was thought of the radio, the television, the telephone, the telegraph, and now it's said of the PC, Twitter, Bluetooth, etc.; that they will contribute to the democratization of societies. Such projections conquer the logic of the naive, politicians and opportunists alike. The inherent implications of the Internet are not as clear-cut as with political, social or economic systems, but they do affect our own epistemology and cultural values. The social and personal relations between people occupying a common geographical space and the already famous "social networks" in virtual space are not the same. Calling someone by telephone is not the same as reaching out and "touching someone" no matter what the ads try to sell us. It's clear however, that the debate over the Internet inside and throughout Cuba assumes premises inherent to highly developed countries. The question about broadband should be answered by Cuban authorities charged with such matters. However, it's worth mentioning that the Obama administration has decided to spend no less than $6.3 billion dollars toward improving the broadband penetration. Although the US has the largest broadband market in the OECD countries, about 70 million subscribers, but as a proportion of its total population with broadband it ranks 15th.[3] A single person using YouTube, HDTV, and others require bandwidth of 8 megabits per second in both directions to be functional. All of Cuba, using its present infrastructure, can download 65 megabits and upload 124. The virtual dissidents, therefore, can only be sending their images using a connectivity that is not depending on the Cuban state resources; otherwise, all of Cuba would have to stop to allow them to upload their materials in YouTube and the like. There are some pertinent questions that we ought to ask of the virtual Yoanis found in Cuba, and who evidently have been able to access the Internet even though the entire country's broadband access is insufficient. Their experiences might have a positive impact on those with lesser resources. What is broadband? What is its importance? And how much does it cost? [33% of U.S. Internet users do NOT have broadband. However, in the US high speed cable modem is available to 96% of end-users and 79% of them have DSL. In the majority of poor countries neither of the three is widely available. Steve Song, a specialist on the subject of broadband from the International development Research Center noted in 2008 that "the average university in Africa has the same aggregate bandwidth as a single home user in North America or Europe." He also noted that the typical university in Africa "pays more than 50 times for this bandwidth than their counterparts in Europe or North America do for much more capacity." [4] What is the relationship between broadband, its use, and cost? This is a cost that Cuba might not be able to provide to everyone as an entitlement or as Cubans say "me toca". Finland, this past October, made 1 megabit broadband a legal right to begin July 2010. France, on the other hand, has established that Internet access is a "basic" human right [speed does not count]. But you have to pay for it. As the Mexican comedian Cantinflas used to say: "En el detalle est? la diferencia" - It is the little detail that makes the difference. The French initiative says nothing about affordability; the private person has to pay. The Helsinki Times reports that the meaning of a "legal right" is that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." Thus, the superhighway will be nearby, it is up to you, nonetheless, to pay for the connection.[5] On November 6th, Business Week, approvingly, noted that the European Parliament has "abandoned a bid to declare Internet access a fundamental right." Five months earlier, Cuban dissident bloggers issued a statement proclaiming the right of access to Internet.[6] The foreign press stationed in Cuba claims that a dissident in Havana has a blog that is translated into 16 or more languages and has from 1 to 14 million visits a month. That is impressive for anyone worldwide. For someone in Cuba it borders on a Fatima-like miracle.[7] >From a logistical standpoint, this is an unusual accomplishment. Is it possible for such traffic to be handled by Cuba today? Who is/are the administrator[s] of the web pages in all these languages? Translation is complicated, time-consuming, and a worldwide translation team is costly. How is this work done? How is it paid for? And what is the mechanism for transferring this payment? In Cuba, it's not possible for a person to earn enough to maintain these costly services and systems. Yet, the blogs exist. Someone or some institution has to incur costs to access the Internet, Twitter, etc. Perhaps there are good Samaritans. Perhaps.. We do know that the USAID Cuba Program financially supports "independent journalists" within the island.[8] Is this also the case with the "independent bloggers"? In fact, United States foreign policy has as one of its foundations the premise that the Internet could elicit regime change. That is why the US Treasury Department has informed Google and Microsoft to allow chat services into Cuba. [9] The U.S. Department of Defense provides some indication that the Internet should be utilized to fulfill United States government objectives - i.e. targeting "regime change". This includes, "develop[ing] a global web site supporting U.S. strategic communications objectives" where "contents should be primarily from third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than U.S. officials." Moreover, the same report notes that the Pentagon should "identify and disseminate the views of third party advocates that support U.S. positions. These sources may not articulate the U.S. position the way that the USG would, but they may nonetheless have a positive influence." [10] There are numerous US private contractors and universities around that are more than willing to serve the interests of empire although claiming "complete independence" from Washington's foreign policy. [11] Which Internet, then? Is Internet the technology with the capacity to enhance and liberate human potential, knowledge, understanding and cooperation among nations? Or, is it one more instrument to be used, as in the past, to maintain and extend the unequal exchanges and power relations that have existed between the nations of the world? That is a struggle that is presently fought throughout the world. Is Internet a public forum or is it a commercial enterprise? That is the debate going on in the United States and other capitalist societies.[12] It is a struggle within Cuba itself, where national self determination and American hegemony confront each other in numerous and not so obvious ways. I would like to thank Machetera, Rafael Hernandez, Saul Landau, Robert Sandels and Louis Head for their assistance with translation, editing and offering numerous comments. Nelson P. Vald?s is the Director of the Cuba-L Project. This commentary was written for Cuba-L Analysis and CounterPunch. BIBLIOGRAPHY: [1] New Inequality Frontiers: Broadband Internet Access by Economic Policy Institute, 2006]. [2] 03/09/08 - Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) - Cuba and Information Technology - 2001[Part 1] http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45032&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h= 03/10/08 - Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) - Cuba and Information Technology - 2001 [Part 2] http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45055&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h= 03/09/08 - Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) - Cuba and Information Technology - 2001[Part 3] http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45100&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h= 03/12/08 - Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) - Cuba and Information Technology [Final] http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45151&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h= [3] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, broadband Growth and Policies in OECD Countries, Seoul, Korea, 17-18 June 2008. OECD Ministerial Meeting. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/57/40629067.pdf and Bill Schrier, Third World Broadband - In the United States. See: http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/CCIO/2009/03/third-world-broadband-in-the-u.php [4] IDRC, Acacia news, february 2008. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-122116-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html and Indrajt Basu, "Not All Americans View Broadband as Necessity, But Finland's Another Story," [October 26, 2009. See: http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/international_beat/ [5] http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/domestic-news/politics/3179.html [6] http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb2009116_710422.htm and the bloggers statement: http://bottup.com/200906014676/Internet/comunicado-para-defender-los-derechos-en-cuba.html [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoani_S%C3%A1nchez [8] http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/cuba/photogallery/cu01.html [9]"US Wants Microsoft to End Message Ban in Iran,Cuba" Bloomberg, October 29, 2009. http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091029/pl_bloomberg/afpeerwgcyla_1 [10] U. S. Department of Defense, Information Operations Roadmap, 30 October 2003, p. 27. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/info_ops_roadmap.pdf [11] A case in point is the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and its Internet and Democracy Project which has a 2 year grant of $1.5 million from the US Department of State's Middle East Partnership Initiative. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/the-internet-and-democracy-project/ [12] "FCC Set To Take On Aggressive Role As Internet Traffic Cop," SlicomValley.com, October 20, 2009. See: http://www.siliconvalley.com/sectors/ci_13603357 From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 02:21:49 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:21:49 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Global Warfare USA Message-ID: URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16111 Global Research November 16, 2009 Global Warfare USA: The World is the Pentagon's Oyster US military operations in all major regions of the World By Rick Rozoff "Not only does one country account for the overwhelming plurality of world military expenditures, but that nation also has troops and bases on all six habitable continents (as well as a 54-year military mission in Antarctica, Operation Deep Freeze) and eleven aircraft carrier strike groups and six navy fleets that roam the world's oceans and seas at will. It is also expanding a global interceptor missile system on land, on sea, in the air and into space that will leave it invulnerable to retaliation." On January 20, a changing of the guard occurred in the United States White House with two-term president George W. Bush being replaced by former freshman senator Barack Obama. Bush had continued the policies of his predecessor Bill Clinton in relation to the Balkans, Iraq and Latin America - with troops and a massive military base in Kosovo, regular bombings of Iraq and a monumental expansion of military aid to Colombia - and in addition launched two wars of his own, those against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq two years later. Obama, so thoroughly does U.S. polity predetermine individual administrations' policies, entered office by intensifying the deadly drone missile attacks in Pakistan begun by Bush in late 2008 and announced that he was doubling the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Already presiding over the world's largest military budget, officially 41.5% of world expenditures in 2008 and far larger with non-Defense Department spending factored in, in April the new president requested from Congress an additional $85 billion in supplemental funding for the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq. U.S. lawmakers were more than accommodating and on July 24 Obama signed Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations amounting to $106 billion. On October 28, he signed the $680 billion 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which includes another $130 billion to fund what his administration now calls overseas contingency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the authorization of $106 billion in July, the last official supplemental appropriation for the wars, and $130 billion last month for Afghanistan and Iraq the combined official spending for both wars will exceed $1 trillion. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) 2009 Year Book, total international military spending for 2008 was not much more than that: $1.464 trillion. Eight days after the authorization of the $680 billion Pentagon budget for next year, the New York Times reported that the top American military commander, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, said "he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," with the newspaper estimating the size of the demand to be $50 billion. [1] Despite the Obama administration's pledge to the contrary, July's war supplement may not be the last one. It will simply be renamed an emergency appropriation. The first of many more to come. Not only does one country account for the overwhelming plurality of world military expenditures, but that nation also has troops and bases on all six habitable continents (as well as a 54-year military mission in Antarctica, Operation Deep Freeze) and eleven aircraft carrier strike groups and six navy fleets that roam the world's oceans and seas at will. It is also expanding a global interceptor missile system on land, on sea, in the air and into space that will leave it invulnerable to retaliation. Reports from the first twelve days of November indicate the global scope of the first attempt in history by one nation to achieve uncontested worldwide military power. A survey of that period will trace recent trends across the globe with the alphabet as a compass. Afghanistan Any day now Washington may announce plans to add 40,000 or more troops to the 68,000 already there. [2] Plans are underway to accommodate that influx. The American military compound at and fanning out from the Bagram Air Field has been expanded from 3,993 to 5,198 acres since 2001 and is in the process of further enlargement. It already hosts some 25,000 U.S. troops and contractors and "a new parking ramp supporting the world's largest aircraft is to be completed this spring....[I]t is continuing to grow to keep up with the requirements of an escalating war and troop increases." [3] Regarding non-military personnel at Bagram and elsewhere in the nation, "Contractors in Afghanistan outnumber U.S. troops there" [4] as they do in Iraq. The Army Times recently reported on the main purpose of the airbase at Bagram. Last month the number of U.S. and NATO air strikes in Afghanistan was the highest since July of 2008, with 647 bombs dropped in October compared to 752 a year ago July. "The airstrike numbers don't include strafing runs, attacks by special operations AC-130 gunships, launches of small missiles or helicopter attacks." [5] Africa A U.S. Defense Department news source reported on November 5 that Air Forces Africa commanders visited Mali and Senegal in West Africa. Vice commander Michael Callan "visited Mali's 33d Parachute Regiment, a unit that carries out operations using tactical vehicles and communication equipment provided by the U.S. Defense and State Departments." The Malian military is involved in a counterinsurgency war in the nation's north aided by Washington. A commander of Mali's armed forces said, "Ninety-five percent of our soldiers were trained by the U.S, and we've engaged with you in exercises like Flintlock, Joint Planning and Assessment Teams and special bilateral training." [6] Flintlock military exercises have been held in different locations on the African continent for years, this year's being conducted by the new Africa Command (AFRICOM) for the first time. The U.S. also recently led multinational military exercises in Gabon and Uganda on both ends of the continent. [7] The USS San Juan, "a fast-attack submarine," arrived in South Africa on November 4, "setting the stage for a series of first-ever, at-sea engagements with the South African Navy submarine force." [8] Armenia Robert Simmons [9], NATO's special representative to the South Caucasus and Central Asia - former Senior Adviser to the United States Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs on NATO - was in this South Caucasus nation earlier this month and announced that he had recruited an initial contingent of Armenian troops for the war in Afghanistan. This marks the first deployment to that nation of soldiers from the Russian-led seven-nation Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a potential counterbalance to NATO in post-Soviet space. "Simmons expressed NATO's 'appreciation to Armenia for its strong contributions' to alliance missions, which he said began in Kosovo and will now be repeated in Afghanistan." [10] In reference to his mission of pulling yet another Russian ally into the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization orbit, Simmons said, "We are continuing cooperation with the Armenian Defense Ministry. NATO assists the implementation of reforms and the development of strategically important documents." [11] Baltic Sea After participating in NATO war games off the coast of Scotland, the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole paid visits to the capitals of Finland and Estonia in the Baltic Sea. "Cole hosted a reception in Helsinki, which was joined by Adm. Mark Fitzgerald, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, U.S. Naval Forces Africa and Allied Joint Forces Command Naples. "Immediately following the departure from Helsinki, Cole arrived in Tallinn, Estonia, a few hours later." [12] The beginning of this month the guided-missile frigate USS John L. Hall with sailors of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 48 "completed a theater security cooperation (TSC) port visit to Klaipeda, Lithuania." A U.S. Navy official stated: "We are here as part of the United States Navy's continuing presence in the Baltic Sea....We are also here to work with the Lithuanian Navy, who has been a valuable partner and our visit here is part of the ongoing relationship between our two countries and our two navies." [13] [14] On November 3 Estonian Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo was at the Pentagon to meet with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Associated Press reported on the occasion that he was "discussing with the United States why NATO needs plans in case his region is attacked." [15] Bangladesh In early November three high-ranking American military officials arrived in the country. The three - U.S. Army Lieutenant General Benjamin R. Mixon, Commanding General of U.S. Army, Pacific, Vice-Admiral John M. Bird, Commander of U.S. Navy 7th Fleet, and U.S. Marine Corps Major General Randolph D. Alles, Director for Strategic Planning and Policy at the U.S. Pacific Command - engaged in discussions focusing "on interoperability, readiness in the region, security-force assistance, and bilateral approaches to maintaining regional stability." [16] On November 12 the U.S.-led Tiger Shark military exercises to train Bangladeshi naval commandos ended. A press release on the operation stated: "The training demonstrates the United States government's commitment to Bangladesh and to regional security by promoting military-to-military relationships throughout Asia and the Pacific." [17] Black Sea The Pentagon's European Command (EUCOM) reported on November 2 that its Joint Task Force-East had completed an almost three-month series of trainings in Bulgaria and Romania which began on August 7 and included Stryker and Airborne units destined for the war in Afghanistan. [18] "Nearly 600 members of the Romanian Land Forces, 500 Bulgarian Land Forces, and more than 1,500 U.S. service members participated in this year's combined training." [19] After U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden's visit to the country on October 22, a news source in Romania wrote of Washington's new interceptor missile plans: "A strong and modern surveillance system located in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey could monitor three hot areas at once: the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Caspian and relevant zones in the Middle East." [20] Colombia The Obama administration signed a ten-year military treaty with the Alvaro Uribe government on September 30 which "gives American military forces access to seven Colombian army, navy and air force bases, but also to major international civilian airports in the country. In addition, U.S. personnel and defense contractors will enjoy diplomatic immunity under the agreement." [21] A copy of the pact surfaced on November 4 and detailed that it "allows Washington access to civilian airports as well as military bases" and as a result "the US will have access to all international airports across the Andean nation including airports in the cities of Barranquilla, San Andres, Cartagena, Bogota, Cali, Medellin and Bucaramanga." [22] In the initial phase an estimated 1,400 U.S. personnel will be assigned to the seven bases with the likelihood that the number will be increased as Washington sees fit. [23] Eva Golinger observed that one of the newly acquired bases, that at Palanquero, was identified by a American Air Force document as providing the Pentagon "an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America...." [24] Two South American nations bordering or near Colombia, Venezuela and Bolivia, were not slow to respond. Earlier this month Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stated in his weekly radio and television address that "We cannot waste one day to fulfill our mission: to prepare for war and help the people to get ready for war," [25] warning that an armed conflict with the U.S. client regime in Bogota "could extend throughout the whole continent." [26] Days earlier two Venezuelan National Guard troops were killed at a checkpoint near Colombia and Caracas deployed 15,000 troops to the border. In his November 13 address Chavez added. "Don't make a mistake, Mr. Obama, by ordering an attack against Venezuela by way of Colombia." [27] On the same day his Bolivian counterpart, President Evo Morales, warned "I am convinced that where there are military bases, the social peace, the democracy and the development of the nations as well as their integration are not guaranteed. These facilities are an open provocation against the peace." Morales also said that he failed to comprehend how the American head of state could have been awarded the Peace Nobel Price "when his country does everything to promote wars and conflicts. "Obama must justify that award by withdrawing all the troops of his country from around the world...." [28] Czech Republic Following up on his visit to Prague in late October, on November 5 U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden hosted Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the White House and "they mostly discussed the U.S. plan for a new missile defence architecture." The two "also talked about the situation in Afghanistan and Iran" and "Klaus said the United States knows that it is necessary to continue with the anti-missile project in Europe." [29] The next day U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow met with Czech defense officials in their nation to discuss new American missile plans for Eastern Europe, ones intended to be "stronger, smarter, and swifter" than the previous Bush administration version and to incorporate all of Europe under a NATO umbrella. Vershbow characterized the content of the talks as having presented "some concrete ideas to begin that process of developing the Czech role in the new approach" and said that the Czech contribution could include "potential facilities here on the territory of the Czech Republic." [30] On November 4 the local press announced that "A few U.S. delegations will visit the Czech Republic in November, following up on the recent visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, including an expert military team that arrives in Prague this Friday." One of those delegations will include Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher, who "recently said the command for the managing and control of elements of the new version of anti-missile defence could be stationed in the Czech Republic." "The USA wants to build the system in cooperation with NATO." [31] Georgia Earlier this week U.S. Marines completed the two-week Immediate Response 2009 military training exercises in the South Caucasus nation of Georgia. The preceding maneuvers of the same name, those of 2008 in which over 1,000 American troops participated, ended one day before Georgia started shelling neighboring South Ossetia and killed several people including a Russian peacekeeper. [32] Days after that the U.S. client regime launched an all-out invasion of South Ossetia, triggering a five-day war with Russia. The official purpose of this year's exercises was to train Georgian troops to serve under NATO command in Afghanistan, but a Russian news source saw matters differently: "Immediate Response was clearly designed not to fight against the Taliban or al-Qaeda.....Commander of US Army in Europe General Carter Ham visited Georgia to inspect the exercises but no one came from Afghanistan. "Perhaps, the exercises were aimed at issuing a warning to Russia." [33] As the drills were ending Alexander Shliakhturov, chief of Russia's military intelligence, said "that he did not rule out that Georgia might again use force against breakaway South Ossetia and Abkhazia." [34] A lengthier account of Shliakhturov's concerns appeared in the Georgian media and included these quotes: "According to our information, Georgia is still getting military aid from Ukraine, Israel and NATO. NATO countries, especially Eastern European countries, provide Georgia with arms and equipment, Israel provides Georgia with air equipment, the USA trains Georgian troops and Ukraine provides Georgia with heavy equipment, namely, tanks." "The Russian Intelligence Service is addressing other dangers too, namely, the efforts being made by the USA and NATO to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance and the new US plan to locate anti-missile systems in Europe." [35] Four days later other Russian sources revealed "that the United States plans to supply weapons, including a Patriot-3 air defense system and shoulder-launched Stinger missiles, worth a total of $100 million, to Georgia." [36] The next day Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov "recalled the situation in the summer of 2008 when many countries ignored Russian warnings that modern arms in Saakashvili's hands might prompt this man to unleash military aggression." [37] The chief of the Russian General Staff, General Nikolai Makarov, said "Georgia is getting large amounts of weapons supplied from abroad" and "Georgian military potential is currently higher than last August [2008]." [38] India Shortly after the Pentagon wrapped up the largest joint U.S.-Indian military exercises ever, Yudh Abhyas [Preparation for War] - which featured the first deployment of new American Stryker armored combat vehicles outside of Iraq and Afghanistan - at the end of October [39], it was announced that "India is negotiating with the United States to acquire state of the art Javelin anti-tank missiles worth several million dollars for large-scale induction." [40] Days earlier former president George W. Bush was in India and called on his host nation to join in the war in Afghanistan, urging the U.S. and India to "work together to win the war in Afghanistan." [41] Iraq In early November Arabic language news sources revealed that "The US military has finished erecting an advanced radar system in Iraq to monitor the border with Iran, Syria and Turkey" and that "the radar is a preparatory measure aimed at providing the United States and its allies advanced control capabilities in event of a US military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." [42] Israel The largest-ever joint American-Israeli military exercises, the two-week Juniper Cobra 10, ended on November 3. They concentrated on live-fire missile interception exercises described by many observers as a test run for the new continent-wide NATO missile shield planned for Europe. [43] Over 2,000 troops from the two nations and 17 U.S. warships participated in the war games to create "the infrastructure that would be necessary in the event that the Obama administration decides to deploy US systems here in the event of a conflict." [44] The top military commander of United States European Command and of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis, paid a three-day call to Israel for the occasion and met with "Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Gantz and several other commanders." [45] On November 1 American arms manufacturer Raytheon Company announced that it had secured contracts worth $100 million for a joint interceptor missile program of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Israel Missile Defense Organization. The Pentagon's European Command has over 100 troops stationed in Israel's Negev Desert manning an advanced missile radar site there. Korean Peninsula The South Korean Yonhap News Agency reported on November 1 that "The US and South Korea have completed joint action plans for responding to a regime collapse and other internal emergency situations in North Korea...." [46] Citing an unidentified South Korean official, the report contains these details: "South Korea and the US had long worked on Concept Plan 5029, to prepare for a regime collapse and other internal emergencies in North Korea. ?Since its inauguration last year, the [South Korean President] Lee Myung-bak government has pushed to convert the concept plan into an operational plan and it was recently completed. "If the South Korea-US combined forces intervene in North Korea's internal instabilities, the South Korean military will assume the leading role in consideration of neighboring countries, while the US military will be responsible for the removal of the North's nuclear facilities and weapons." [47] On the final day of last month Washington expressed its satisfaction at South Korea redeploying troops to Afghanistan shortly after Pentagon chief Robert Gates' visit to Seoul and the South Korean defense ministry on October 22. "Washington supports and welcomes South Korea's plans to deploy troops to Afghanistan...the U.S. Department of State said." [48] Kosovo This month began with former U.S. president Bill Clinton arriving in the capital of Kosovo for the unveiling of a gaudy 11-foot gold-sprayed bronze statue of himself on November 1. [49] He was being hailed by the breakaway entity's nominal prime minister, former Kosovo Liberation Army chieftain Hashim Thaci, for his role in launching the 78-day NATO air war against Yugoslavia in March of 1999. That sustained bombing campaign, Operation Allied Force, inaugurated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as an active war-making machine and issued in the ten-year war cycle that continues to this day with no indication of it ever abating. A Russian commentary of the following day put the ceremony in perspective: "Over the course of the 10-week conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions; even the German Luftwaffe had its first taste of combat over the skies of Yugoslavia since having its wings clipped in World War II. "The ensuing 78-day aerial bombardment campaign, which grew continuously more aggressive and reckless, spared little infrastructure: factories, bridges, roads and power stations were all bombed with deadly accuracy. As a result, thousands of innocent civilians suffered great deprivation on both sides of the battle. "In perhaps the worst public relations disaster for NATO during the conflict, five US 'smart' bombs severely damaged the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists. NATO officials, in an effort to cool Chinese outrage, blamed the error on outdated maps. Chinese officials rejected both the apologies and explanations." [50] Pakistan Over the past year the nine-year-long U.S. and NATO war in Afghanistan has been extended into Pakistan, the so-called AfPak theater of operations. On November 4 the U.S. launched its latest drone missile attack into North Waziristan, killing two Pakistanis. "According to independent reports, since August 2008 alone, around 70 cross-border predator strikes carried out by American drones have resulted in the death of 687 Pakistani civilians." [51] The Nation, a Pakistani daily newspaper, reported on November 12 that the massive increase in NATO convoys crossing the country en route to Afghanistan are overwhelming the country's highways and that "Pakistani authorities are simply helpless in checking truckloads of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces badly damaging the Indus Highway, the repair of which would cost billions of rupees to the national exchequer....NATO trucks and trailers have not been [held accountable] even once for the repair and maintenance work, while cracks are developing on the Indus Highway after every three to four months due to overloading...." [52] Persian Gulf A local news sources wrote on November 9 that "The US has deployed a new expeditionary force in the Persian Gulf - the first time a permanent self-sustaining US naval force has been set up in the region. "The newly established Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) 5 will serve in the area of responsibility of the US Navy 5th Fleet Combined Task Force (CTF) 51 in Manama, Bahrain," where the entire U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. [53] The Philippines Two American servicemen were killed in a mine attack in Mindanao in late September, the first official deaths in the U.S.-assisted counterinsurgency war against not only the Abu Sayyaf Group but also the Moro National Liberation Front and the New People's Army. Filipino senators "called for the abrogation of the [Visiting Forces Agreement], saying the US Seabees killed in the explosion weren't supposed to be there, as...the presence of the alleged land mine constitutes the area as a war zone." [54] Pentagon chief Robert Gates insisted earlier in the month "that some 600 US counter-terrorism troops will remain in the southern Philippines...." [55] An opponent of the active American military involvement in the country said that "the US military has established its permanent presence in the Philippines through the auspices of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Many of the US soldiers are currently deployed in Mindanao under the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines headquartered in Zamboanga City." [56] On November 12 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Manila after the Philippine Senate recently passed a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to renegotiate the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement, "which enables U.S. forces to train and assist Philippine troops" and "vowed...to continue American military support." [57] Poland Before departing for the Philippines Clinton hosted Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in Washington "to discuss the new anti-missile shield plan." [58] On the same day, November 2, U.S. Air Force personnel transferred five C-130 Hercules military cargo planes from the Ramstein Air Base in Germany to the Powidz Air Base in Poland. A U.S. Air Force website offered these details: "Prepping Polish aircrews and maintainers for the transition to the larger Lockheed-Martin built Hercules has been accomplished with a blend of English language and specialty knowledge training at bases in Texas and Arkansas and through a type of work mentorship exchange between U.S. and Polish air force personnel...." A Polish air force officer revealed the purpose of the U.S. transfer in stating "The main task for the C-130s is to support our contingency operations in Afghanistan, Chad, Africa and everywhere Polish troops and supplies are needed." [59] After NATO defense chiefs, including the U.S.'s Gates, met in Slovakia late last month and U.S. Vice President Biden visited Poland at about the same time, Warsaw announced that it was deploying 600 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing the nation's total toward the 3,000 mark. Sweden Sweden's Chief of Defense Staff General Sverker Goranson was in Washington, D.C. in early November and was interviewed by Defense News. His nation, which has for decades presented itself as neutral, has 500 troops serving under NATO command in Afghanistan - Sweden and Finland are in charge of four northern provinces for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force - and five Swedish soldiers were injured in a roadside bomb explosion on November 11, two them seriously. Goranson's comments demonstrate how far from anything resembling neutrality Sweden has recently strayed: "The transformation we are conducting is a huge turnaround, and as I told Adm. [Michael] Mullen [U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman], we know where we are going....The major shift is globalization and the fact that most of the things we are dealing with aren't necessarily about national boundaries. "What turned Sweden around is not focusing on national defense, but being a part of this globalized world and solving issues together, because wherever conflicts are, whether in the Balkans or Afghanistan...." When asked about the potential for a showdown in the Arctic Circle with Russia, he spoke about starting "discussions between the United States, Norway, Denmark and Canada [all NATO members] about what are the borders....As part of the Nordic Battle Group, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark are already sharing the operational picture in the air and on the sea, and that can be extended to the High North." Lastly, the Swedish visitor, whose meetings included one with the U.S.'s top military commander, acknowledged: "We had a defense resolution in 1996 that said the Swedish armed forces should be completely NATO-interoperable, which is the standard we have worked to accordingly, to make sure that wherever we go, as we did to Afghanistan." [60] Yemen The government of Yemen is waging military operations against Shiite rebels in the north of the country and neighboring Saudi Arabia started launching air strikes against them earlier this month. On November 10 Yemen's official news agency, Saba, announced that the U.S. has signed a military cooperation agreement with the nation. The news agency also quoted Brigadier General Jeffrey Smith, the commander of the U.S. 5th Signal Command, "as renewing Washington's support for Yemen's unity, security and stability." [61] One account of the agreement was provided under the headline "Yemen, US sign military deal to fight rebels." [62] As the rebels are Shiite Muslims, Washington is exploiting the conflict to recruit Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations against Iran. Yemen, on the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula, lies directly across from Djibouti where the Pentagon maintains its only permanent base in Africa, Camp Lemonier, and from Somalia, which U.S. warships periodically shell from the Indian Ocean. Notes: [1]. New York Times, November 5, 2009 [2]. Afghanistan: West's 21st Century War Risks Regional Conflagration, Stop NATO, October 12, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yfh65p7 [3]. Associated Press, November 1, 2009 [4]. Reuters, November 3, 2009 [5]. Army Times, November 11, 2009 [6]. U.S. Department of Defense, American Forces Press Service, November 5, 2009 [7]. AFRICOM Year Two: Seizing The Helm Of The Entire World, Stop NATO, October 22, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yk4ljbx [8]. Navy Newsstand, November 5, 2009 [9]. Mr. Simmons' Mission: NATO Bases From Balkans To Chinese Border, Stop NATO, March 4, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yh7cqqj [10]. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, November 9, 2009 [11]. PanArmenian.net, November 6, 2009 [12]. United States European Command, November 3, 2009 [13]. United States European Command, November 2, 2009 [14]. Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict, Stop NATO, February 27, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yccrh52 Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO's War Plans For The High North, Stop NATO, June 14, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yfpme5z [15]. Associated Press, November 2, 2009 [16]. All Headline News, November 2, 2009 [17]. Financial Express, November 13, 2009 [18]. Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East, Stop NATO, October 24, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yf5f3zj [19]. United States European Command, November 2, 2009 [20]. The Diplomat, November, 2009 [21]. AllGov, November 6, 2009 [22]. Press TV, November 4, 2009 [23]. Twenty Years After End Of The Cold War: Pentagon's Buildup In Latin America, Stop NATO, November 4, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ygf9eyk [24]. VHeadline, November 5, 2009 [25]. Xinhua News Agency, November 9, 2009 [26]. Press TV, November 9, 2009 [27]. Ibid [28]. Xinhua News Agency, November 10, 2009 [29]. Czech News Agency, November 6, 2009 [30]. Associated Press, November 6, 2009 [31]. Czech News Agency, November 4, 2009 [32]. NATO War Games In Georgia: Threat Of New Caucasus War, Stop NATO, May 8, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ylfq2r8 [33]. Voice of Russia, November 9, 2009 [34]. Civil Georgia, November 5, 2009 [35]. Interpressnews, November 6, 2009 [36]. RosBusinessConsulting/Komsomolskaya Pravda, November 10, 2009 [37]. Voice of Russia, November 11, 2009 [38]. Voice of Russia, November 10, 2009 [39]. U.S. Expands Asian NATO Against China, Russia, Stop NATO, October 16, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ye743gv [40]. Daily Times, November 11, 2009 [41]. Indo-Asian News Service, October 31, 2009 [42]. Press TV, November 2, 2009 [43]. Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran, Stop NATO, November 5, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ydq6z57 [44]. Jerusalem Post, October 31, 2009 [45]. Israeli Defense Forces, November 3, 2009 [46]. Press TV, November 1, 2009 [47]. Yonhap News Agency, November 1, 2009 [48]. Russian Information Agency Novosti, October 31, 2009 [49]. Kosovo: Marking Ten Years Of Worldwide Wars, Stop NATO, October 31, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yzxf3ng [50]. Russia Today, November 2, 2009 [51]. Press TV, November 4, 2009 [52]. The Nation, November 12, 2009 [53]. Press TV, November 9, 2009 [54]. Business Mirror, September 30, 2009 [55]. Mindanao Examiner, September 13, 2009 [56]. Ibid [57]. Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2009 [58]. Polish Radio, November 2, 2009 [59]. U.S. Air Forces in Europe, November 12, 2009 [60]. Defense News, November 2, 2009 [61]. Agence France-Presse, November 10, 2009 [62]. Daily Times, November 12, 2009 Source: by courtesy & ? 2009 Rick Rozoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 02:22:14 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:22:14 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Carbon emissions still growing despite the effects of the recession Message-ID: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Carbon+emissions+still+growing+despite+effects+recession/2236166/story.html Vancouver Sun November 18, 2009 Carbon emissions still growing despite the effects of the recession By Margaret Munro, Canwest News Service A record 1.3 tonnes of carbon was pumped into the atmosphere for every person on the planet last year, according to a new report that says "drastic" reductions are needed to avoid climate disaster. Despite the global economic downturn in 2008, total global emissions rose by two per cent in 2008 and per capita emissions hit an "all-time high" of 1.3 tonnes of carbon, an international team reported in the journal Nature Geoscience on Tuesday. Canada is among the world's worst emitters, pumping out more than 4.5 tonnes of carbon for every man, woman and child in the country, three times the per capita rate in China and 10 times the rate in India. The report's authors warn that global emissions are tracking the worst-case scenarios laid out by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and average global temperatures could eventually soar by five to six degrees Celsius. "That's the path that we are on," lead author Corinne Le Quere, of the University of East Anglia, told a teleconference. Climatologist Andrew Weaver, at the University of Victoria, says a six-degree rise in global temperatures would be "game-over for our civilization." Weaver says the new report is "deeply troubling" as it indicates the human emissions are outstripping the ability of the planet's natural "sinks" to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Le Quere says it's critical that nations agree to "a drastic reduction" in emissions at next month's climate talk in Copenhagen. "Any delay in agreement has serious consequences," she said, when asked about U.S. President Barack Obama's suggestion over the weekend that it was unlikely a Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty. "The Copenhagen conference next month is, in my opinion, our last chance to stabilize climate at two degrees Celsius globally above pre-industrial (temperatures) in a smooth and organized way," Le Quere said. To hold warming to two degrees she says total global emissions have to drop markedly after 2015 -- to about 0.3 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, down from 1.3 tonnes today. The researchers track the production and fate of heat-trapping carbon-dioxide and say more than half of it is absorbed by oceans, plants and trees The fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere has increased over the past 50 years, indicating the natural sinks are becoming "less efficient 'cleaners' of human carbon pollution," says co-author Pep Canadell, a leading Australian climate researcher. The report says the global financial crisis had a discernible impact on emissions growth in 2008 -- with a two per cent increase compared with an average 3.6 per cent over the previous seven years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 02:22:24 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:22:24 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Joel Kovel: Environment and Climate Change Message-ID: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2564/ Canadian Dimension October 29th 2009 Environment and Climate Change End Times in Copenhagen Joel Kovel It?s hard to overstate the importance of the upcoming December meetings at Copenhagen, Denmark, set up by the UN for the purpose of renegotiating the climate protocols set forth in Kyoto, in 1997 and due to expire in 2012. These latter were greeted with a certain modicum of hope and a small offsetting of skepticism. As Copenhagen looms, the skeptics have been proven right in spades, those who thought something good would come out of Kyoto stand revealed as fools or liars and charlatans. In the sober words of Nature from 2007, the Kyoto protocols, which demanded of wealthy countries that they reduce carbon emissions by 2012 to six-to-eight percent below 1990 levels, have ?produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth.? The reason we cannot afford to have the results of Copenhagen go the same way is known by many but taken seriously by few: The best science tells us there is a rapidly closing window for turning climate change around before irreversible positive feedback loops set in, e.g., methane freed from beneath melting tundra, or the loss of albedo reflectivity from seas once covered with ice. Once this sets in (it may already have begun), climate change, awful as it now is, will likely spiral rapidly downhill with consequences catastrophic beyond belief and comprehension. And yet the numbers of those who do not take this brutal truth seriously include the main forces geared up for Copenhagen. You may, if you turn to the voluminous reports circulating on the internet and elsewhere, learn a great deal about what is planned for Copenhagen and the numberless players in its scenario. You will wear your eyes out and confuse yourself to distraction as you try to pick your way through the bulletins and pontifications of the experts who have been given their proverbial ?seat at the table? that is being set in the lovely Danish capital. But you will not discover there any serious attention paid as to why Kyoto has so abysmally failed, nor indeed about the fundamental truth about climate change and the whole ecological crisis of which it is the most spectacular manifestation. Class and Climate Change Class forces palpably drive the crisis of climate change with the ruling class of capitalists, along with the capitalist state structures that regulate their world, responsible for the gathering nightmare. After all, the vast bulk of carbon spewed into the atmosphere is there because of decisions made by capitalists and not ordinary people. It follows that the climate crisis also introduces the profound question of the survivability of the dominant capitalist mode of production. We have been told of the ?inconvenient truth,? as the largely forgotten Al Gore has put it, that rising atmospheric carbon threatens the survival of civilization. But who speaks of the much more inconvenient truth: that controlling carbon levels to the point where breakaway climate change can be arrested will almost certainly entail a structural contraction of the capitalist economy, which, as any student of capitalism knows, means the end of the capitalist system. Basically a simple choice looms: We can have either capitalism with no hope for the future, or get rid of capitalism and have a fighting chance for a future. The global bourgeoisie understands this. They might not understand it consciously, but they know viscerally that the ecological crisis is their Armageddon, and this conditions their responses at meetings like Kyoto and Copenhagen. These do not fail because of stupidity but from existential reasons. Capitalism is the life-process of the bourgeoisie and profit is its blood; thus survival for the bourgeois means to pump profit through the arteries of society. The appeal of mechanisms like the cap-and-trade regimen that has ruled Kyoto and will most likely continue after Copenhagen is not that it solves the dilemmas of carbon accumulation. Indeed, it is essential to understand that capitalists do not want to solve the dilemma of carbon accumulation, because this would mean their suicide as a ruling class. Instead, they substitute what they know ? the accumulation of capital, which is to say, its expansion ? and, secure in their power, they delude themselves into thinking this can also solve the climate crisis. Cap and trade creates new commodities and markets for them, gardens where capital can grow. Trillions of dollars, we are told, await the financiers who will command these new markets: a blinding sun that completes the building of delusion. Thus the ruling class is quite willing to sacrifice nature, and therefore humanity itself, including, it might be added, their own children and grandchildren, so that their profits keep rolling in. Where is our Turning Point? And the rest of us? Are we going to accept this madness from the pundits, the officials and the police, panels and bureaucracies who represent capitalist reality? Are we going to petition our governments, as the liberal press urges us to do, bowing down to beg: ?Please, my liege, be sensible, and slow down the rate of carbon accumulation ? give us another generation before the hammer of nature descends.? Are we going to respect Barack Obama, who will be telling us with his pleasant demeanour and rhetorical skill, that compromising is the best we can do given the way the world is set up? Or will Copenhagen be the great moment of refusal that the world has been waiting for? Will we take the opportunity afforded by the tenth anniversary of the Seattle uprisings to complete their work? Plainly, these meetings will be a turning point. The question remains as to the direction taken, whether toward eco-catastrophe or hope for life. I do not think it will be possible to deal a fatal blow to the carbon system in this one place. Reality is not set up to accommodate fantasies of instant transformation. But we should do our best to non-violently impede the meetings so long as they serve capital. More important, it will be possible to use the moment to energize and begin to pull together the vast array of spontaneously emerging movements that have sprung up on every continent over the past decade, chiefly under the rubric of ?climate justice.? We can build a ?movement of movements? from below, harbingers of a transformed world: a movement to reveal the murderous betrayal of life by the capitalist class, and centered around the principle of keeping the sources of carbon in the ground as we build ecologically socialist ways of production. The system massed at Copenhagen will have its day. But the day after can belong to us all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 02:47:42 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:47:42 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Joe Hill: The Man Who Didn't Die Message-ID: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4048 Joe Hill: The Man Who Didn't Die November, 19 2009 By Dick Meister It's Nov. 19, 1915, in a courtyard of the Utah State Penitentiary in Salt Lake City. Five riflemen take careful aim at a condemned organizer for the Industrial Workers of the World, Joe Hill, who stands before them straight and stiff and proud. "Fire!" he shouts defiantly. The firing squad didn't miss. But Joe Hill, as the folk ballad says, "ain't never died." On this 94th anniversary of his execution, he lives on as one of the most enduring and influential of American symbols. Joe Hill's story is that of a labor martyr framed for murder by viciously anti-labor employer and government forces, a man who never faltered in fighting for the rights of the oppressed, who never faltered in his attempts to bring them together for the collective action essential if they were to overcome their wealthy and powerful oppressors. His is the story of a man and an organization destroyed by government opposition yet immensely successful. As historian Joyce Kornbluh noted, the IWW made "an indelible mark on the American labor movement and American society," laying the groundwork for mass unionization, inspiring the formation of groups to protect the civil liberties of dissidents, prompting prison and farm labor reforms, and leaving behind "a genuine heritage ... industrial democracy." Joe Hill's story is the story of perhaps the greatest of all folk poets, whose simple, satirical rhymes set to simple, familiar melodies did so much to focus working people on the common body of ideals needed to forge them into a collective force. Remember? "You will eat, bye and bye/In that glorious land above the sky/Work and Pray, live on hay/You'll get pie in the sky when you die." Ralph Chaplain, the IWW bard who wrote "Solidarity Forever," found Hill's songs "as coarse as homespun and as fine as silk; full of laughter and keen-edged satire; full of fine rage and finer tenderness; songs of and for the worker, written in the only language he can understand." Joe Hill's story is the story of a man who saw with unusual clarity the unjust effects of the political, social and economic system on working people and whose own widely publicized trial and execution alerted people worldwide to the injustices and spurred them into corrective action. It's the story of a man who told his IWW comrades, just before stepping in front of the firing squad: "Don't waste any time in mourning. Organize!" Hill's comrades aimed at nothing less than organizing all workers into One Big Union regardless of their race, nationality, craft or work skills, calling a general strike and wresting control of the economy from its capitalist masters. The revolutionary message was presented in the simple language of the workplace, in the songs of Hill, Chaplain and others, in the streetcorner oratory and in a tremendous outpouring of publications, including a dozen foreign-language newspapers which were distributed among the many unskilled immigrants from European nations where unions had similar goals. Workers were told again and again that they all had the same problems, the same needs and faced the same enemy. It was they who did the work, while others got the profit; they were members, all of them, of the working class. To aspire to middle-class status, as the established labor movement advocated, would mean competing against their fellow workers and chaining themselves to a system that enslaved them. Organized religion also was a tool of enslavement, to keep the worker's eye on that "pie in the sky" while he was being exploited in this world. Patriotism was a ruse to set the workers of one nation against those of another for the profit of capitalist manipulators. IWW organizers carried the message to factories, mines, mills and lumber camps throughout the country, and to farms in the Midwest and California. The cause of radical unionism to which Joe Hill devoted his life was lost a long time ago. The call to revolution is scarcely heard in today's clamorously capitalist society. Labor organizations seek not to seize control of the means of production but rather to share in the fruits of an economic system controlled by others. Yet Joe Hill's fiery words and fiery deeds, his courage and his sacrifices continue to inspire political, labor, civil rights and civil liberties activists. They still sing his songs, striking workers, dissident students and others, on picket lines, in demonstrations, at rallies, on the streets and in auditoriums. They echo his spirit of protest and militancy, his demand for true equality, share his fervent belief in solidarity, even use tactics first employed by Hill and his comrades. Hill emigrated to the United States from his native Sweden in 1902, changing his name from Joel Haaglund, working as a seaman and as an itinerant wheat harvester, pipe layer, copper miner and at other jobs as he made his way across the country to San Diego, translating into compelling lyrics the hopes and desires, the frustrations and discontents of his fellow workers. In San Diego, Hill joined in one of the first of the many "free speech fights" waged by the Industrial Workers of the World against attempts by municipal authorities around the country to silence the streetcorner oratory that was a key part of the IWW's organizing strategy. Not long afterward Hill hopped a freight for Salt Lake City, where he helped lead a successful construction workers' strike and began helping organize another free speech fight. But within a month, he was arrested on charges of shooting to death a grocer and his son and was immediately branded guilty by the local newspapers and authorities alike. Ultimately, Hill was convicted on only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. Hill had staggered into a doctor's office within an hour after the shootings, bleeding from a chest wound that he said had stemmed from a quarrel over a woman. The prosecutor argued that the wound was inflicted by the grocer in response to an attack by Hill, although he did not introduce into evidence either the grocer's gun or the bullet that allegedly was fired from it. He did not introduce the gun that Hill allegedly used and did not call a single witness who could positively identify Hill as the killer. But he easily convinced the jury that the murders were an example of IWW terrorism and that since Hill was an IWW leader and had been arrested and charged with the crime, he was guilty. As Hill's futile appeals made their way through the courts, Gov. William Spry of Utah was swamped with thousands of petitions and letters from all over the world asking for a pardon or commutation. But he would not even be swayed by the pleas for mercy from the Swedish ambassador. Not even by the pleas of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. The governor paid much greater attention to the views of Utah's powerful Mormon Church leaders and powerful employer interests, particularly those who controlled the state's dominant copper mining industry. They insisted that the man they considered one of the most dangerous radicals in the country be put to death. Joe Hill's body was shipped to Chicago, where it was cremated after a hero's funeral, the ashes divided up and sent to IWW locals for scattering on the winds in every state except Utah. Hill, with typical grim humor, had declared that "I don't want to be caught dead in Utah." Even in death, Hill was not safe from the government. One packet of his ashes, sent belatedly to an IWW organizer in 1917 for scattering in Chicago, was seized by postal inspectors. They acted under the Espionage Act, passed after the United States entered World War I that year, which made it illegal to mail any material that advocated "treason, insurrection. or forcible resistance to any law of the United States." The envelope, containing about a tablespoon of Hill's ashes, was sent to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. It remained hidden there until 1988, when it was discovered and turned over in Chicago to the men who presided over what little remained of the Industrial Workers of the World, shrunken to only a few hundred members. The Post Office apparently had objected to the caption beneath a photo of Hill on the front of the envelope. "Joe Hill," it said -- "murdered by the capitalist class, Nov. 19, 1915." From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 02:56:51 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:56:51 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Labor Fight Ends in Win for Students Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/18labor.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 New York Times November 17, 2009 Labor Fight Ends in Win for Students By STEVEN GREENHOUSE The anti-sweatshop movement at dozens of American universities, from Georgetown to U.C.L.A., has had plenty of idealism and energy, but not many victories. In August, members of United Students Against Sweatshops picketed a Target store in Washington, to pressure the retailer to stop selling products made by Russell Athletic. Until now. The often raucous student movement announced on Tuesday that it had achieved its biggest victory by far. Its pressure tactics persuaded one of the nation's leading sportswear companies, Russell Athletic, to agree to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who lost their jobs when Russell closed their factory soon after the workers had unionized. >From the time Russell shut the factory last January, the anti-sweatshop coalition orchestrated a nationwide campaign against the company. Most important, the coalition, United Students Against Sweatshops, persuaded the administrations of Boston College, Columbia, Harvard, New York University, Stanford, Michigan, North Carolina and 89 other colleges and universities to sever or suspend their licensing agreements with Russell. The agreements - some yielding more than $1 million in sales - allowed Russell to put university logos on T-shirts, sweatshirts and fleeces. Going beyond their campuses, student activists picketed the N.B.A. finals in Orlando and Los Angeles this year to protest the league's licensing agreement with Russell. They distributed fliers inside Sports Authority sporting goods stores and sent Twitter messages to customers of Dick's Sporting Goods to urge them to boycott Russell products. The students even sent activists to knock on Warren Buffett's door in Omaha because his company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns Fruit of the Loom, Russell's parent company. "It's a very important breakthrough," said Mel Tenen, who oversees licensing agreements for the University of Miami, the first school to sever ties with Russell. "It's not often that a major licensee will take such a necessary and drastic step to correct the injustices that affected its workers. This paves the way for us to seriously consider reopening our agreement with Russell." Other colleges are expected to do the same. Analysts say the college market occupies a significant part of Russell's business. Because Fruit of the Loom does not detail Russell's sales, it is not known how large a part. In its agreement, not only did Russell agree to reinstate the dismissed workers and open a new plant in Honduras as a unionized factory, it also pledged not to fight unionization at its seven existing factories there. Mike Powers, a Cornell official who is on the board of the Worker Rights Consortium, said Cornell had canceled its licensing agreement because it viewed Russell's closing of the Honduras factory as a flagrant violation of the university's code of conduct, which calls for honoring workers' freedom of association. He applauded Russell's agreement, which was reached with the consortium and union leaders in Honduras over the weekend. "This is a landmark event in the history of workers' rights and the codes of conduct that we expect our licensees to follow," Mr. Powers said. "My hat is off to Russell." John Shivel, a spokesman for Russell and Fruit of the Loom, said, "We are very pleased with the agreement between Russell Athletic and the Workers Rights Consortium, and look forward to its implementation." He declined to discuss why Russell had adopted a friendlier attitude toward unionization after years of aggressively fighting unions. In a statement Russell released jointly with the apparel workers' union in Honduras, the company said the agreement was "intended to foster workers' rights in Honduras and establish a harmonious" relationship. "This agreement represents a significant achievement in the history of the apparel sector in Honduras and Central America," the joint statement said. In the past, the Honduran workers condemned Russell's behavior, saying that it had fired 145 workers in 2007 for supporting a union. The union's vice president, Norma Mejia, said at a Berkshire Hathaway shareholders' meeting last May that she had received death threats for helping lead the union. Russell denied the assertion. Union leaders in Honduras hailed the agreement, which would put hundreds of laid-off employees back to work in a country whose economy has been hit by a political crisis over who will lead it. "For us, it was very important to receive the support of the universities," Moises Alvarado, president of the union at the closed plant in Choloma, said by telephone on Tuesday. "We are impressed by the social conscience of the students in the United States." This was in no way an overnight victory - it came after 10 years of building a movement that persuaded scores of universities to adopt detailed codes of conduct for the factories used by licensees like Russell. In addition, the students, sometimes through lengthy sit- ins, pressured their officials to create and finance an independent monitoring group, the Worker Rights Consortium, that inspected factories to make sure they complied with the universities' codes. When the consortium issued a detailed report accusing Russell of violating workers' rights, United Students Against Sweatshops began its nationwide campaign. Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, which has more than 170 universities as members, said: "This represents the maturation of the universities' codes of conduct. There's a recognition by the universities of their ability to influence the actions of important brands and change outcomes for the better." He said the agreement was "unprecedented" in terms of scope and size and in "the transformative impact it can have in one of the hardest regions of the world to win respect for workers' rights." Mr. Nova also praised Russell for changing course. "I think the executives at Russell recognized it was time for a new approach," he said. "They decided it was important for the success of their company." As part of its campaign, United Students Against Sweatshops contacted students at more than 100 campuses where it did not have chapters, getting them involved, including at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, where Fruit of the Loom has its headquarters. The group helped arrange a letter signed by 65 members of Congress, who voiced "grave concern about reports of severe violations" of labor rights at Russell. This time around, the students did not feel the need to resort to sit-ins to persuade university administrators. "The schools remember our sit-ins of the past," said Dida El-Sourady, a senior at the University of North Carolina. "There's an institutional memory that students will escalate their tactics, and this could become a very big deal, a lot bigger than people holding signs." From may at applebybooks.net Thu Nov 19 03:08:13 2009 From: may at applebybooks.net (May at Appleby Books) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:08:13 -0800 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Joe Hill - the musical Message-ID: <4B050AFD.70002@applebybooks.net> Hill was memorialized in a tribute poem written about him c. 1930 by Alfred Hayes titled "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night." Hayes's lyrics were turned into a song in 1936 by Earl Robinson. Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger often performed this song and are associated with it, along with Irish folk group The Dubliners. Joan Baez's Woodstock performance of "Joe Hill" in 1969 is one of the best known recordings. As long as there've been workers, there've been workers songs. Here's the one Alfred Hayes wrote about Joe. I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you or me Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead I never died, says he I never died, says he In Salt Lake, Joe, says I to him Him standing by my bed They framed you on a murder charge Says Joe, But I ain't dead Says Joe, But I ain't dead The copper bosses killed you, Joe They shot you, Joe, says I Takes more than guns to kill a man Says Joe, I didn't die Says Joe, I didn't die And standing there as big as life And smiling with his eyes Joe says, What they forgot to kill Went on to organize Went on to organize Joe Hill ain't dead, he says to me Joe Hill ain't never died Where working men are out on strike Joe Hill is at their side Joe Hill is at their side From San Diego up to Maine In every mine and mill Where workers strike and organize Says he, You'll find Joe Hill Says he, You'll find Joe Hill I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you or me Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead I never died, says he I never died, says he For a real treat, here are two beautiful voices singing "Joe Hill." Listen to Paul Robeson sing "Joe Hill" by scrolling down a little and clicking the red button. http://mog.com/music/Paul_Robeson To hear Joan Baez sing the song at Woodstock, go to youtube. The intro to the song starts at about :53. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pJhmnYzGaA&feature=related From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 03:19:33 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:19:33 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [South Africa] Diseased workers take on gold giant Message-ID: http://www.smh.com.au/world/diseased-workers-take-on-gold-giant-20091118-imm1.html Diseased workers take on gold giant DAVID SMITH November 19, 2009 JOHANNESBURG: Tens of thousands of goldminers in South Africa have contracted lung diseases because employers failed to protect them from harmful dust, it was claimed. Eighteen former workers who suffer from silicosis or silico-tuberculosis are bringing a test case against the mining giant Anglo American South Africa, a subsidiary of the Anglo American Corporation. If successful, the lawsuit could set a precedent for further litigation against mining houses for compensation and medical care worth millions of dollars. South Africa's goldmining industry has employed up to half a million miners over the past century. A series of studies found that one-in-four long-term miners suffered from silicosis, which put them at increased risk of tuberculosis and lung cancer. ''There's absolutely no doubt that a huge river of disease is flowing out of the South African goldmines,'' said Professor Tony Davies, a clinical expert on occupational health. The 18 plaintiffs were employed at an Anglo-owned mine in the Free State from the 1970s to 1998, when Anglo was restructured and moved its head office to London. They say they were not provided with face masks or any other protection against intensive and excessive exposure to dust and were encouraged to continue working even after they fell ill. They say they received no aftercare or medical treatment. Among them is Alpheus Blom, 48, who worked eight hours a day underground. ''They did not give us facemasks ?,'' he said this week. ''The masks were given to people visiting the mine, not us. There was nothing we could do ? we needed work.'' Mr Blom, who was the sole breadwinner but now lives far from his family, continued: ''When I left ? I was told I had silicosis and it is incurable. There was no way I could work again. I do temp jobs but I cannot really do anything because I have a shortage of breath.'' He says he does not receive any medical treatment. ''My heart is sore because the company hasn't done anything ? This case is long and I might die before it's over.'' Black miners, many of them migrants, were the most affected during the apartheid era. Richard Meeran, a lawyer at London firm Leigh Day and Co, who is working on the litigation with South Africa's Legal Resources Centre, said black miners did the dustiest jobs. Unlike white miners, they did not have access to onsite showers or changing rooms to remove dust from their bodies. ''Thousands of miners have been sacrificed to profit these mining corporations,'' Mr Meeran said. ''The goldmining industry has, in the past, got away with this ? because there appears to have been too little regard for the well-being of black mineworkers. The scale of the disease affecting South African miners is astronomical.'' The specific claim against Anglo American South Africa alleges it negligently advised the mines in relation to dust protection of miners. The claim is seeking compensation and medical help for former miners. Two of the litigants have died since the action began in 2004. Anglo American will contest all the allegations in a court case expected to take place next year. A spokesman for the company said: ''Anglo American South Africa denies that it gave negligent advice.'' From may at applebybooks.net Thu Nov 19 03:41:00 2009 From: may at applebybooks.net (May at Appleby Books) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:41:00 -0800 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Joe Hill - the musical In-Reply-To: <4B050AFD.70002@applebybooks.net> References: <4B050AFD.70002@applebybooks.net> Message-ID: <4B0512AC.9000900@applebybooks.net> My apologies. They've moved that link. Here it is on youtube. > For a real treat, here are two beautiful voices singing "Joe Hill." > > Listen to Paul Robeson sing "Joe Hill" by scrolling down a little and > clicking the red button. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Kxq9uFDes > > To hear Joan Baez sing the song at Woodstock, go to youtube. The intro > to the song starts at about :53. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pJhmnYzGaA&feature=related From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 06:35:58 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:35:58 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] How (not) to resolve the energy crisis Message-ID: <> http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/11/renewable-energy-is-not-enough.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fkrisdedecker%2Flowtechmagazineenglish+%28Low-tech+Magazine%29 or http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzyqx5p Low-tech Magazine November 18, 2009 How (not) to resolve the energy crisis Increasing the share of renewable energy will not make us any less dependent on fossil fuels as long as total energy consumption keeps rising. Renewable energy sources do not replace coal, oil or gas plants, they only meet (part of) the growing demand. The solution is simple: set an absolute limit to total energy production. Why should we not be able to cope in 2030 with the amount of energy we consume today? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In spite of the impressive development of wind power, Spain is now 3 times more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation than a decade ago ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regardless of the growing share of renewable energy sources, we burn up more and more fossil fuels every year. This is the case in the US, in Europe and on a global scale, but to make my point I will start by analysing the situation in Spain and in the Netherlands, because both countries are regarded to be an example for their commitment to renewable energy. Moreover, the Netherlands have a negligible share of nuclear energy and hydropower (green according to some, not green according to others), while in Spain these energy sources have remained unchanged over the last decade, which makes the calculations more clear. Share of renewables Last week, Spain made headlines around the world with the news that it generated over 53 percent of its electricity by wind power alone, be it during an extremely windy night and only for some hours. There is no denying that the development of wind power in Spain is impressive. Electricity generated by wind power grew with 8,000 percent between 1996 and 2007, from 338 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1996 to 27,509 GWh in 2007. With it, the share of wind power in electricity production grew from 0.2 to 9 percent (source). In the Netherlands, the amount of "green" electricity increased by 400 percent between 1998 and 2008, from 2,300 GWh to 9,500 GWh. With it, the share of renewable energy (mostly biomass and wind) in electricity production grew from 2.5 percent to 9 percent (source). This sounds great, especially when you compare it to the situation in the United States, where the share of renewable energy in electricity production (excluding hydropower*) rose from 1.4 percent to 2.3 percent during the same period (1998-2008, source). Or, on a global scale, where the share of renewables rose from 1.12 percent in 1990 to 2.3 percent in 2006. Yet, just like the Americans and the rest of the world, the Spanish and the Dutch are now more dependent on fossil fuels than a decade ago, not less. Total electricity production The reason is, of course, that the total electricity production in both countries kept rising. In Spain, it went up from 174,246 GWh in 1996 to 303,293 GWh in 2007 (a rise of almost 80 percent in 11 years). The share of fossil fuels in electricity generation grew from 38 percent in 1996 to 59 percent in 2007, while the absolute amount of fossil fuels used for electricity generation grew from 67,651 GWh to 179,737 GWh (source). So, from 1996 to 2007 the amount of wind powered electricity in Spain grew with 27,171 GWh (around 30,000 GWh if you include the use of solar and biomass), and the amount of fossil fuel powered electricity grew with 112,086 GWh. Now please explain to me, what is so "green" and exciting about this trend? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Spanish would have obtained the same results if they would not have built one wind turbine, but had chosen to limit the rise of energy consumption to 85 TWh instead of the recorded 112 TWh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You could argue that Spain went through an economic boom during the last decade, and that it was merely catching up with the rest of Europe. This is why it is interesting to look at the Netherlands, too, a mature economy. Dutch electricity production rose less spectacularly, from 92,000 GWh in 1998 to 105,000 GWh in 2008 (a rise of 14 percent in 10 years). The share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the Netherlands even dropped from 90 to 85 percent, but here also the absolute amount of fossil fuel generated electricity grew from 83,000 GWh in 1998 to almost 90,000 GWh in 2008 (source). Thus, from 1998 to 2008 the amount of "green" electricity in the Netherlands grew with 7,200 GWh, while the amount of "non-green" electricity grew with 7,000 GWh. So today, the Dutch are more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation than they were in 1998. Avoided emissions Of course, things could have been even worse: that is why policymakers and statisticians prefer to talk about "avoided use of fossil energy" and "avoided CO2-emissions". The reasoning goes as follows: if we would not have built those wind turbines and solar panels, then we would have burnt up even more fossil fuels. But, who are we fooling here? The Spanish would have "avoided" the same amount of emissions and fossil energy if they would have built not one wind turbine between 1996 and 2007, but had chosen to limit the rise of energy consumption to 84,915 GWh, instead of the recorded 112,086 GWh. If they would have done that, they would have been just as dependent on fossil fuels as they are today, and they would have emitted the same amount of greenhouse gases as they do today - all this without those 27,171 GWh of wind powered electricity. They would not have made headlines with it, though. Nobody would have noticed. The same goes for the Dutch: they would have "avoided" the same amount of emissions and fossil energy if they would have limited the rise of energy consumption to 7,000 GWh, instead of the recorded 14,000 GWh. Embodied energy In fact, this low-tech scenario would have been a more ecological and energy-efficient choice, because both countries would have saved the energy required to produce those renewable energy plants and sources - solar panels, wind turbines and wood pellets. Green electricity is not generated by a "clean" energy source, but by a "cleaner" energy source. Solar panels, wind turbines and wood pellets do not use gas or coal during their operation, but they do require energy for their production (and since they are mostly produced far away from the place where they are used these figures do not show up in national statistics of energy consumption). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The embodied energy of wind turbines and solar panels is not a problem if they replace non-renewable energy plants. However, this is not the case. We are piling up energy sources. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mind you: the embodied energy of wind turbines (and solar panels) is not a problem if they replace non-renewable energy plants, because in that case we do save energy and thus make progress. But, this is not the case, so the embodied energy of this added electricity generation capacity is definitely extra energy use. We do too much This does not mean that coal plants are preferable to wind turbines and solar panels. In fact, if the Dutch had built the (7,200 GWh) renewable energy plants and not built the (7,000 GWh) non-renewable energy plants, the result would have been real progress. Likewise, if they would have frozen energy consumption at the 1998 level and built nothing - renewable nor non-renewable energy plants - again there would have been substantial progress. They would be less dependent on fossil fuels and they would produce less CO2 and air pollution. The problem is that they did not do any of this. Or, better said, they did everything at the same time; constructing more renewable energy plants, constructing more non-renewable energy plants, and consuming more energy. Piling up energy sources Again, this trend is not limited to Spain and to the Netherlands (see these figures), and what is happening is not a new phenomenon either. What we are doing for more than 100 years now, is piling up energy sources. Today (in the Netherlands, Spain, the US and worldwide) the absolute amount of coal consumed for electricity production is much larger than one century ago, when there was no talk of gas, oil and nuclear. The dirty coal of the beginning of the industrial revolution was not replaced by cleaner gas plants. The gas plants joined the coal plants. [see graph] Next, nuclear plants did not replace the existing coal and gas plants, they joined them. Today, with renewable energy, the same thing is happening. They address an energy demand that did not exist before. We use renewable energy sources to power an ever growing plethora of energy-sucking gadgets - and this will not get us anywhere. Up until now, newer and cleaner energy sources have always been used to enlarge energy production, not to make it "greener" (see for instance the image below, depicting US energy consumption from 1845 to 2001, source). The so-called greening of our electricity production, which generates so much talk, is still 100 percent wishful thinking. We are not one step further than 5, 10, 20 or even 100 years ago. On the contrary, things get worse every day. Relative versus absolute figures Much more important than what we do, is what we don't do. The key to progress is scaling down non-renewable energy production, or at least keeping it at the same level. Instead of aiming for the development of more renewable energy, policymakers should do anything in their power to make sure that not one more kilowatt of non-renewable energy is added. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All policy objectives are expressed in relative terms - a fruitless approach as long as total energy consumption is on the rise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem is that all policy objectives are expressed in relative terms (as a percentage of total electricity production) and never as absolute figures. The European Union aims to generate 20 percent of total electricity production by wind energy and 15 percent by solar energy in 2020 (source). The US aims to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 (source). None of their reports describe any goal in absolute figures. This is a fruitless approach as long as total electricity consumption is on the rise. United States For instance, imagine that the US indeed realises the very ambitious goal of generating 25 percent of their electricity consumption by renewables, and let's assume it takes them 5 years longer as planned. According to the projections of the IEA, US electricity demand will grow by 26 percent (16 to 36 percent) from 2007 to 2030. This means that the 3,800,000 GWh of today will be 4,788,000 GWh by 2030. When everything goes to plan, about 1,244,880 GWh of that will then be renewable (that is 3 times the worldwide renewable electricity capacity today). But, this is scarcely more than the 988,000 GWh of electricity demand that will be added during that period. So even if this ambitious goal would be realised, the US would still be as dependent on fossil fuels as it is today. Limiting electricity demand to current levels and not building any renewable electricity generating capacity would yield the same result. Limiting electricity demand to current levels and greening 25 percent of the existing electricity production would bring real progress. Worldwide The rise of renewable energy is of secondary importance. What matters is that the absolute amount of burned up fossil fuels lowers. Only then would we become less dependent on non-renewable energy sources and on foreign energy suppliers, and only then would we lower CO2-emissions. [see graph] On a global scale, the futility of the present approach is even more obvious. The total amount of renewable electricity worldwide (excluding hydro*) rose from 31,000 GWh in 1980 to 414,000 GWh in 2006 - a rise of 1,300 percent or an absolute increase of 383,000 gigawatt-hours. Yet, the amount of electricity generated by coal and gas doubled in that same period, which comes down to an absolute increase of 6,355,900 GWh. So, we added around 20 times more non-renewable sources than renewable sources. Total global electricity production rose from 8,027,000 Gwh to 18,008,000 Gwh, a rise of 250 percent. If we look at total energy production instead of just electricity production, the preponderance of fossil fuels is even larger (see the image above, courtesy of Der Spiegel). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Much more important than what we do, is what we don't do. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This trend does not seem to come to an end soon. Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its "World Energy Outlook 2009", which looks forward to 2030. According to the organisation, energy consumption will rise by 40 percent between now and 2030. This will happen in spite of the fact that global energy consumption decreased in 2009 owing to the economic crisis. The IEA expects electricity consumption to rise with another 76 percent in 2030, which equals a required capacity of 4,800 gigawatts - almost 5 times the present capacity in the United States. Even if we succeed in building 4,800 gigawatts of renewable energy in the coming 20 years (something which is rather unrealistic), we would still not be one step further than we are today. What we have to deal with is that which is almost regarded as an unshakable natural law - the non-stop growth of energy use. How to solve the energy crisis Don't get me wrong: all efforts to build and develop renewable energy and energy efficient technology are useful and very necessary. My point is that, by themselves, they will not yield any results. To make them work, we need to put an absolute limit to energy use. Imagine that the European Union or the US would decide that in 2020 we can only use as much energy (or electricity) as we do today. Interestingly, all other efforts suddenly make sense. If the share of renewable energy would rise, then the share of non-renewable energy would automatically fall. Energy efficient technology would be automatically transformed in energy savings, and not in extra applications or performance, as it happens now (the energy efficiency paradox). In this scenario, with every small step forward in renewable energy production and energy efficient technology, we would become less and less dependent on fossil fuels, and we would emit less and less greenhouse gases. Moreover, it is hard to call this measure drastic or radical: if we can manage today with 18,008,000 Gwh, why not in 2030? What more energy-sucking gadgets do we need? By the way, we can keep developing new products and services as we please, we will only have to make sure that these are energy efficient. Considering the amount of energy that is now wasted by most products and services, there is lots of room for innovation, improvement, and thus economic growth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we put an absolute limit to energy use, all other efforts (renewable energy sources, energy-efficient technology) suddenly make sense ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right now we try to match our energy production to an ever increasing demand. But, we could also try to match our demand to a fixed supply. Considering the circumstances, this would be a much more realistic and intelligent strategy. An even better strategy is the "oil depletion protocol", an idea of author Richard Heinberg. He proposes an international agreement to lower oil production and consumption each year with 2.6 percent. We can wait until the geological, economical or geopolitical reality lowers the availability of fossil fuels, but if we anticipate that reality now then we definitely have more of a chance to make a successful transition to a durable, less energy-intensive society. Not China's fault Last, but not least, the IEA notes that the rise of energy use is largely on account of non-western countries, with China ahead. But, this does not clear us at all. As the IEA calculated in a former report, almost 30 percent of energy use in China comes from the production of export goods - from bicycles over jeans to solar panels. Western countries succeed in limiting the rise of their energy consumption because they have outsourced ever more energy use. Moreover, the IEA states in its last report, non-OECD countries are, in spite of their high share in current energy use, only responsible for 42 percent of the CO2-emissions since 1890 - with a much bigger population. This means that - in a fair world - we would have to reduce our energy use much more than them. ? Kris De Decker (edited by Vincent Grosjean). First illustration by Milo, illustration on the right by Agence Eureka. Energy statistics: World / US / Europe / The Netherlands / Spain * Even if you consider hydropower to be an ecologically sound energy source, its potential is limited to countries that have a suitable geology. Its share in electricity production has fallen, both worldwide and in the US. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 19 07:42:21 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:42:21 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Canada complicit in torture of innocent Afghans, diplomat says Message-ID: <> <> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-complicit-in-torture-of-innocent-afghans-diplomat-says/article1369069/ Canada complicit in torture of innocent Afghans, diplomat says Steve Chase Ottawa ? From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 10:08PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009 6:50AM EST In a damning indictment of how Canada handled prisoners early in its southern Afghan mission, a government whistleblower says all captives that Canadian soldiers transferred to local authorities ended up being tortured ? even though many were likely innocent. The revelation to MPs by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin, who served 17 months in Afghanistan, is the first ever testimony by a government official that says the country's military handed over detainees to certain torture. The Harper government has never admitted it knew this was happening. In his remarks to a Parliamentary committee on the Afghanistan mission, Mr. Colvin also described a startling pattern of indifference and obstruction to his attempts to warn higher ups of what was happening in 2006 and 2007. He said Canada's ?complicity in torture? ultimately thwarted its military aims in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar. ?Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners. Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.? Mr. Colvin, who first started red-flagging for Ottawa ?serious, imminent and alarming? problems with the treatment of detainees in May 2006, said Canada took far more prisoners in the early days than some other NATO allies. He said Canadians captured six times more than the British and 20 times as many as the Dutch. ?They were picked up ... during routine military operations, and on the basis typically not of intelligence [reports] but suspicion or unproven denunciation.? Most of the detainees Canada collected were not what Afghan intelligence services would call ?high value targets? such as Taliban commanders, al-Qaeda terrorists or bomb makers, Mr. Colvin told MPs in testimony Wednesday. ?Many were just local people: farmers; truck drivers; tailors, peasants ? random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time.? Yet, he said, they all faced the same fate. ?According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured. For interrogators in Kandahar, it was standard operating procedure,? Mr. Colvin said. ?In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.? The diplomat said from the very beginning in May 2006 his warnings were sent to the senior ranks of the military. This included Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, then-commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, which oversees foreign deployments. Mr. Colvin said he believes that Lt.-Gen. Gauthier would have relayed these reports to Canada's top soldier at the time, General Rick Hillier. It wasn't until May of 2007 that the Harper government overhauled its prisoner-transfer agreement with the Afghan government, negotiating a new one that allowed for follow-up visits to ensure detainees weren't tortured. Before then, the Conservative government fiercely defended the treatment of Afghans they had handed over to Kabul's security services for interrogation, with then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor saying that if there was something wrong the Red Cross would have informed Canada. But Mr. Colvin, now posted at Canada's embassy in the United States, said the Red Cross had trouble even contacting Canada. He said for three months in 2006, when the Red Cross tried to raise concerns about detainees with the Canadian army, the ?Canadian Forces in Kandahar wouldn't even take their phone calls.? It's now known the Red Cross was trying to warn Ottawa about abuse. The diplomat said the Canadian government responded to his frequent warnings by telling him to stop writing these concerns into reports. He said those asking him to censor himself included David Mulroney, then the senior point man on Afghanistan, as well as Colleen Swords, a senior official at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). ?At first, we were mostly ignored. However by April 2007 we were receiving written messages from the senior Canadian government co-ordinator for Afghanistan to the effect that I should be quiet and do what I was told, and also phone messages from a DFAIT assistant deputy minister suggesting that, in future, we should not put things on paper, but instead use the telephone,? Mr. Colvin told MPs. He said censorship expanded with the arrival of Arif Lalani as Canada's new ambassador to Afghanistan in May 2007. ?Immediately, thereafter, the paper trail on detainees was reduced,? he said. ?Reports on detainees began sometimes to be censored with crucial information removed.? Conservative government MPs listening to Mr. Colvin's testimony said they doubted his testimony, suggesting captured prisoners have lied about abuse or self-harmed themselves for propaganda purposes. ?Out of 5,000 Canadians who have travelled through there, at least in that period of time, you were the one single person who is coming forward with this information. So you will forgive me if I am skeptical,? Tory MP Jim Abbott said. Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant said talk of abuse of detainees is hurting public support for Afghan military mission. ?The fanning of the fames of outrage over allegations [of torture], however unproven, are really having the desired effect on the Canadian people of wanting our troops to return even quicker.? From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 20 02:26:28 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:26:28 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] New book trashes Teddy Roosevelt Message-ID: <> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/books/19book.html Books of The Times The Queasy Side of Theodore Roosevelt?s Diplomatic Voyage By JANET MASLIN Published: November 18, 2009 James Bradley?s incendiary new book about Theodore Roosevelt is not really packed with secrets. Much of the material it discusses has long been hidden in plain sight. But Roosevelt biographers often subscribe to certain orthodoxies, and one of them is this: When Roosevelt made noxiously racist and ethnocentric remarks about Anglo-Saxon greatness, so what? He was just voicing the tenets of his time. ?Nationalistic boasting was in fashion,? shrugs Douglas Brinkley?s nearly 1,000-page ?Wilderness Warrior,? published this year. Mr. Bradley, the author of ?Flags of Our Fathers,? does not simply cite Roosevelt?s egregious talk. He presents this much-ignored aspect of Roosevelt?s thinking with sharp specificity (?I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth,? Roosevelt wrote in 1906) and then goes on to make a much more damaging point, angrily and persuasively connecting Roosevelt?s race-based foreign policy miscalculations in Asia. His thesis in ?The Imperial Cruise? is startling enough to reshape conventional wisdom about Roosevelt?s presidency. ?Here was the match that lit the fuse, and yet for decades we paid attention only to the dynamite,? Mr. Bradley writes. The flame to which he refers is Roosevelt?s secret diplomacy with Japan and his encouragement of Japanese imperialism. (?I should like to see Japan have Korea,? he once declared.) In a far-reaching book that also addresses Roosevelt?s misconceptions about Korea, Hawaii, China and the Philippines, Mr. Bradley places critical emphasis on the dangerous American-Japanese relationship that, he says, Roosevelt helped create. ?Knowing a lot about race theory but less about international diplomacy and almost nothing about Asia,? he writes, ?Roosevelt in 1905 careened U.S.-Japanese relations on the dark side road leading to 1941.? This assertion is certainly debatable. And neither ?The Imperial Cruise? nor Mr. Bradley, whose earlier ?Flyboys? offered a gruesome account of the deaths of American World War II pilots on the Japanese-held island of Chichi Jima, is beyond reproach. Mr. Bradley favors broad strokes and may at times be overly eager to connect historical dots, but he also produces graphic, shocking evidence of the attitudes that his book describes. If racism is nothing new, Mr. Bradley?s readers may still be surprised at the xenophobic ugliness of the photos, letters, cartoons, lyrics and political speeches cited here. And if, for instance, American use of waterboarding against turn-of-the-century Filipino prisoners is not unknown (it was the subject of a New Yorker article last year), neither is it common knowledge. Nor, perhaps, are the lyrics to ?The Water Cure,? a vintage United States Army marching song: ?Shove in the nozzle deep and let him taste of liberty/Shouting the battle cry of freedom.? The toughest parts of this book re-reveal things we should already know. Mr. Bradley builds ?The Imperial Cruise? around the public relations event that its title describes: a 1905 voyage of the liner Manchuria during which the first daughter, Alice Roosevelt, and the future President William Howard Taft, then Roosevelt?s secretary of war, docked in the countries that this book describes. Mixing very familiar elements (i.e., any of Alice Roosevelt?s antics) with other, more startling material, Mr. Bradley first cites some of the academic and philosophical influences on the Harvard-educated Roosevelt?s early thinking. His were common ideas for his time. ?One after another, White Christian males in America?s finest universities ?discovered? that the Aryan was God?s highest creation, that the Negro was designed for servitude and that the Indian was doomed to extinction,? Mr. Bradley writes. Mr. Bradley describes with particular venom the misinformation given to the American public about the cost, duration and intensity of the Philippine struggle, which began when the Filipino revolutionary leader Emilio Aguinaldo allowed American soldiers ashore to fight the Spanish-American War and made the terrible mistake of presuming that the United States Constitution made no provision for taking colonies. Quoting Gen. Arthur MacArthur, he pointedly describes a too familiar situation. ?General MacArthur described a depressing quagmire where the U.S. Army controlled only 117 miles out of a total of 116,000 square miles, a hostile country where Americans could not venture out alone and a shell-shocked populace whose hatred for their oppressors grew each day,? he writes. ?The Imperial Cruise? is all too persuasive in its visions of history repeating itself. Another chapter describes the means by which the idea of exporting suffrage and democracy to primitive societies needed to be adjusted for Hawaii, with its existing native monarch and vastly outnumbered white population. Here and in its discussion of China, the book particularly emphasizes the way American assumptions of white superiority made the patriotism of other populations hard to understand. Roosevelt?s ?inability to recognize third-world nationalism? is cited again and again, not simply as a prejudice but as an obstacle to effective policy. Even worse, according to Mr. Bradley, was Roosevelt?s frequent presumption that he did understand other cultures. This book argues that Roosevelt?s designation of the Japanese as born leaders and veritable Americans, worthy of imposing their own Monroe Doctrine on weaker nations like Korea, was a cataclysmic mistake. In 1905 his miscalculations had expanded to include Russia too. Even while brokering the Portsmouth Treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War and won him the Nobel Peace Prize, ?Roosevelt imagined the Japanese as eternal opponents of the Slav, not entertaining the possibility that Russia and Japan would kiss and make up after the war,? Mr. Bradley writes crudely. ?And since Roosevelt kept his analysis secret from everyone except his Japanese allies and yes-men like Taft, there was no one to grab the reins before Roosevelt drove America?s future in Asia into a ditch.? At times like this, Mr. Bradley risks sounding dangerously hot-headed. But if he brings a reckless passion to ?The Imperial Cruise,? there is at least one extenuating fact behind his thinking. In ?Flags of Our Fathers? he wrote about how his father helped plant the American flag on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II. In ?The Imperial Cruise? he asks why American servicemen like his father had to be fighting in the Pacific at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 20 02:56:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:56:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Canada complicit in torture of innocent Afghans (continued) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For some background, see: http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/federal-lawyers-pressure-diplomat-detainees-probe-lawyer Federal lawyers pressure diplomat at detainees probe: lawyer ?The interests of justice are not served when an ordinary witness is threatened by the Department of Justice for abiding by the terms of a subpoena served on him' Tu Thanh Ha Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009 Federal lawyers are using the anti-terrorism law to bully a diplomat who planned to testify about prisoners risking torture when Canadian troops hand them to Afghan officials, his attorney alleges in a letter obtained by The Globe and Mail. Richard Colvin had been subpoenaed before a public inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees, which resumes hearings Wednesday. Held by the Military Police Complaints Commission, the inquiry is probing whether Canada failed its duties under the Geneva conventions to ensure prisoners aren't abused. However, Ottawa is trying to stop Mr. Colvin and several other witnesses from testifying, citing concerns about national security. The move is part of a string of roadblocks raised by federal lawyers that have delayed and severely limited the scope of the inquiry. Mr. Colvin's feelings or those of his lawyer, Lori Bokenfohr, weren't public until now. In a letter sent Monday to her federal counterpart, Alain Pr?fontaine, Ms. Bokenfohr complained that he misused sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act to muzzle her client. ?The legislation was addressed at combatting terrorism-related activities. It was not intended to be used tactically to intimidate witnesses from giving evidence in administrative proceedings carried out by government-created bodies,? the letter said. ?The interests of justice are not served when an ordinary witness such as Mr. Colvin is threatened by the Department of Justice with severe penalty for abiding by the terms of a subpoena served on him.? Ms. Bokenfohr didn't provide the letter to The Globe. She confirmed its existence but wouldn't comment further. The Anti-Terrorism Act ? which amended a series of laws, including the Canada Evidence Act ? was adopted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Ottawa lawyers invoked Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act to tell the inquiry that the evidence it will hear is so sensitive that key witnesses should be excluded. The government also wants the remaining witnesses to take questions in writing only, with transcripts of their answers to be edited by federal lawyers before they are released to the inquiry. In her letter, Ms. Bokenfohr said that Ottawa is in a conflict of interest since its lawyers want to vet all evidence and at the same time counsel the military police officers who are the subjects of the inquiry. Mr. Colvin now works at the embassy in Washington as deputy head of the Intelligence Liaison Office. He was political director of the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team until 2007. In a previous letter, Ms. Bokenfohr said Mr. Colvin has personal knowledge of what the military police knew about the risks of torture. Other correspondence obtain by The Globe also reveal a new area of friction between the inquiry and government lawyers. The inquiry was informed a week ago that Canada's former top military police officer, retired navy captain Steve Moore, had documents that he wanted to turn over to the inquiry. However, Mr. Moore and his lawyer had to sign a pledge preventing them from passing the documents to the inquiry. In a letter sent to the inquiry Monday, Mr. Pr?fontaine said Mr. Moore's documents first have to be reviewed to remove sensitive information. His letter comes after Mr. Pr?fontaine had already told the inquiry that key documents ? such as logs showing that Canadian military police opened investigations into whether detainees risked torture ? won't be declassified in time for the hearings. The inquiry had asked to be on a special legal schedule that would exempt it from Section 38 and allow it to conduct closed-door hearings instead of the more stringent format sought by Ottawa. But Defence Minister Peter MacKay turned down the request. ?The existing scheme continues to be appropriate for the commission,? the minister wrote to commission chairman Peter Tinsley. Mr. MacKay's office also will not extend Mr. Tinsley's term, which ends Dec. 11, raising the prospect that a more government-friendly commissioner will be appointed before the end of the inquiry. ?I encourage you to ? start your career planning as soon as possible,? Mr. MacKay wrote last month to Mr. Tinsley. Original article on Globe & Mail website (is unavailable except only to online subscribers) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 20 04:22:26 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:22:26 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The Debt Economy Message-ID: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/11/23/091123ta_talk_surowiecki The New Yorker November 23, 2009 The Debt Economy by James Surowiecki John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that all financial crises are the result of "debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale". The recent financial crisis was no exception, with everyone - homeowners, private-equity investors, our biggest banks - taking on enormous amounts of debt. If it's frustrating that the government is footing the bill to clean up the mess, it's even worse that the government helped pay for the debt binge that created the mess in the first place, thanks to a tax system that actually subsidizes borrowing. Debt didn't get dangerously out of scale because the system was broken. It got out of scale, in part, because the system worked. The government doesn't make people go into debt, of course. It just nudges them in that direction. Individuals are able to write off all their mortgage interest, up to a million dollars, and companies can write off all the interest on their debt, but not things like dividend payments. This gives the system what economists call a "debt bias". It encourages people to make smaller down payments and to borrow more money than they otherwise would, and to tie up more of their wealth in housing than in other investments. Likewise, the system skews the decisions that companies make about how to fund themselves. Companies can raise money by reinvesting profits, raising equity (selling shares), or borrowing. But only when they borrow do they get the benefit of a "tax shield". Jason Furman, of the National Economic Council, has estimated that tax breaks make corporate debt as much as forty-two per cent cheaper than corporate equity. So it's not surprising that many companies prefer to pile on the leverage. There are a couple of peculiar things about these tax breaks - which have been around as long as the federal income tax. The first is that they're unnecessary. Few people, after all, can save enough to buy a home with cash, so home buyers naturally gravitate toward mortgages. And businesses like debt because it offers them tremendous leverage, making it possible to put down a little money and potentially reap a huge gain. Even in the absence of the deductions, then, there would be plenty of borrowing. The second thing about these breaks is that their social benefits are pretty much nonexistent. Advocates of the mortgage-interest deduction, for instance, claim that it increases homeownership rates. But it doesn't: in countries where mortgage deductions have been eliminated, homeownership rates haven't dropped. Instead, the deduction simply inflates house prices. The business-interest deduction, meanwhile, may lower an individual company's taxes, but it also means that the over-all corporate tax rate is higher, so its real impact is to give companies with lots of debt an unjustified advantage. If the benefits are illusory, the costs are all too real. Economies work best, generally speaking, when people are making decisions based on economic fundamentals, not on tax considerations. So, as much as possible, the tax system should be neutral between debt and equity, and between housing and other investments. It's not, and, worse still, as we've seen in the past couple of years, debt magnifies risk: if companies or individuals rely on large amounts of leverage, it's much easier for bad decisions to lead to insolvency, with significant ripple effects in the wider economy. A debt-ridden economy is inherently more fragile and more volatile. This doesn't mean that the tax system caused the financial crisis; after all, the tax breaks have been around for a long time, and the crisis is new. But, as a recent IMF study found, tax distortions likely made the total amount of debt that people and companies took on much bigger. And that made the bursting of the housing bubble especially damaging. So encouraging people to take on debt qualifies as a genuinely bad idea. But it's not an easy situation to change. In 2005, a special Presidential panel on tax reform actually proposed eliminating the business-interest deduction and severely restricting mortgage-interest tax breaks. Those proposals, predictably, went nowhere. But we're in a different historical moment now: the perils of too much borrowing have never been clearer. And there are precedents, on a smaller scale, for these kinds of changes. In the US, people used to be able to write off the interest they paid on credit cards. That tax break was abolished in 1986, and, the same year, the mortgage-interest deduction, which used to be unlimited, was capped. Great Britain, meanwhile, abolished its mortgage tax break in 2000. Similarly, there are a number of countries, including Brazil and Belgium, that don't give corporate debt a tax advantage over equity, while, just last year, both Germany and Denmark cut back sharply on their business-interest tax breaks, limiting how much interest companies can write off. Given the weak state of the economy and of housing prices, a wholesale rewriting of the tax code may be a bridge too far right now, but there are plenty of reforms - capping deductions, phasing them out over time, restricting their use by heavily leveraged companies - that would move in the right direction. The clearest hurdle to these changes may be political, but the bigger hurdle is, in a way, psychological: because tax breaks on debt have been around so long, we can hardly imagine what it would be like if we changed them, and we tend to underestimate their influence in shaping our behavior. Subsidizing debt seems harmless simply because we've always done it. But the fact that you've had a bad habit for a long time doesn't make it less dangerous. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 20 04:26:22 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:26:22 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Malalai Joya podcast on CBC Radio's "The Current." Message-ID: Malalai Joya speaking on CBC Radio's "The Current." http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20091119_23321.mp3 From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 20 04:44:48 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:44:48 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] U.S. Military Base Closes in Ecuador Message-ID: <<. . . .many Mantanese were shocked to see the American presence result in a steep rise of night clubs, sex trade, drug dealing and crime.>> <> http://www.tni.org/article/closing-bases Closing bases Wilbert van der... Nov 17 2009 The closure of the US military base in Manta is a huge victory for both the Ecuadorian activists who have been campaigning for a decade against the US military presence in their country, and for the international No-Bases campaign. Manta is a lively city with 200,000 residents, on the Pacific Coast of Ecuador. Because of its harbour, it is a major hub of Ecuadorian tuna fishing industry. The city is home to an airport used only for domestic and regional flights. In 1999, it was this airfield that made Manta the perfect location for a base for the United States military, as the US was looking for new hosts for its Forward Operations Locations (FOL) ? military facilities for monitoring, tracking and intercepting drug trafficking from Colombia. Soon, those locations were found in El Salvador, The Netherlands-Antilles and in Ecuador. This July, US military planes lifted off from the Eloy Alfaro Airbase, for the last time. After ten years of maintaining a base in Manta, the US was asked to end its military presence on Ecuadorian soil. This was a huge victory for the Ecuadorian activists who have been campaigning for a decade, against the US military presence in their country that jeopardised Ecuador?s sovereignty and security. It was a big victory, too, for the international No-Bases campaign that started in 2003, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. As the US military was kicked out of Ecuador, the joy was shared by around 450 No-Bases campaign chapters worldwide. As it happens often, the Ecuadorian population originally welcomed the US military, having been told by the government that the US base would bring international recognition for Manta along with new investments, new jobs and increased tourism. To top it off, the US promised that it would improve the local infrastructure and the harbour. Back then, few people worried about the unclear mandate and mission of the military base, or, the effects of such military presence ? what it would do to the city. In reality, new jobs were minimal ? mostly low-paid work or temporary construction work. The fate of the people did not change as much as they were promised. The US promise to spend big on infrastructure in the region turned out to be one road, leading from the base to the city. In addition, many Mantanese were shocked to see the American presence result in a steep rise of night clubs, sex trade, drug dealing and crime. Public opinion shifted dramatically throughout Ecuador, when the US base was allowed to expand encroaching the lands of local farmers without proper compensation, and, when the US military sunk several fishing boats because they sailed too close to the safety perimeter around the base. Protests grew further, when it was exposed that the Manta base was involved in the chemical spraying of coca-fields in Colombia. Many Ecuadorian farmers, living close to the Columbian border, saw their fields and crops ruined. The disappointments and problems experienced by the people of Manta are shared by many around the globe who face the everyday realities of a foreign military presence in their city or region. The US alone maintains a global network of over a thousand such installations, in over a hundred countries. With this network of military bases and accompanying bilateral treaties with host nations in every continent, the US has built a permanent global military presence that, in the words of the Pentagon, enables it ?to strike at a moments notice in any dark corner of the world.? And, that is excluding the temporary military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Philippines. Meanwhile, former European colonial powers ? current members of Nato ? operate another 200 foreign military bases around the globe. The British can be found in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The French presence is strong in Africa, the South Pacific and the Caribbean. To complete the picture, Russia maintains about half a dozen bases in former Soviet republics while India has an airbase in Tajikistan. The most common problems experienced by the people living close to these military installations are pollution, noise-related stress and high crime rates. Also, the legal immunity awarded to military and civilian personnel operating from these bases ensures that any crimes committed by them go unpunished. Manta and other FOL sites in El Salvador and the Netherlands Antilles are leased from the host governments. The Status of Forces Agreement in all these cases includes not only provisions for legal immunity for the servicemen, but also, provisions that strictly limit the use of the facilities. The Manta base, for example, was only to be used for monitoring drug transports from Colombia to the North American market. Therefore, Plan Colombia ? missions connected to the civil war in Colombia ? was specifically excluded from its mandate. Although in the Netherlands and El Salvador, the government?s attitude is that the US deserves to be trusted on these matters, in Ecuador it soon became clear that this was a rather na?ve position. For ten years, the US military used the Manta base for counterinsurgency missions in Colombia, helping the Colombian government in its war against the Farc and other guerilla groups. Worse, in 2008, the US military coordinated the extrajudicial killing of Farc leader Reyes from Manta, guiding Colombian troops into Ecuadorian territory to do the killing. In other words, the US used its base in Ecuador to help the Colombian army to violate Ecuadorian territorial integrity. Such breach of agreement is repeated over and over on a global level. Lacking proper control mechanisms, the host countries are usually unable to keep the country operating the base stick to the original deal. That is why joint intelligence bases are often used to spy on host countries (like in Europe); drug interception operations develop into reconnaissance and counterinsurgency missions; and, bases originally set up to provide security to a host nation develop into jumping boards for military interventions and invasions ? for example, in Europe, the US military bases originally set up to provide common defence against the Soviet threat are now crucial infrastructure for invasions in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Once a foreign base is established in a country, it is not easy to send the guests back home. In Manta, it took ten years of growing public pressure and a victorious election to convince Washington to close its base. The traditional political parties in Ecuador ignored the rising protests against the base among their own constituencies since they prioritised on remaining a loyal ally to the US. This led to the remarkable victory for Rafael Correa ? the only candidate who promised to shut down the Manta base in his campaign ? in the 2006 presidential elections. In March 2007, just three months after the inauguration of the new government, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases organised its first global conference, in Quito and Manta. The pressure from Washington on the new Ecuadorian government was tangible. The US tried to bully and bribe the government into extending the lease of the Manta base. To repudiate the No-Bases campaigners in town at the time of the conference, the US embassy was busy organising press trips to the Manta base, to show the press that Manta was ?not really a base.? However, that only emphasised the importance of Manta. The No-Bases conference helped solidify a wide consensus among the Ecuadorian population that it was time for the US military to leave. Also, the conference helped to keep the pressure on the new government to not give in under the tremendous pressure from Washington to keep the base open. The closure of the Manta base was a victory for all Ecuadorians, a victory shared by hundreds of similar campaigns around the globe that have been working together since 2003. Through international solidarity, campaigners found out that they are not alone in their long struggles for justice and security. By sharing information they learned from each other?s tactics, and, through joint actions, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military bases has been successful in putting the bases issue on the agenda of many international movements for peace and socio-economic justice. The campaign is slowly creating more space for political debate on the issue, both in the host nations and on an international level. The next step for the network is to campaign for an international treaty regulating ? and strictly limiting ? the opportunities for countries to export their military might through foreign bases. At the same time, the No-Bases network will continue unabatedly to fight for citizens around the world whose rights to livelihood, safety and justice are jeopardised by a foreign military presence. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 20 14:15:30 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:15:30 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] Socialist Register 2010 - Health Under Capitalism Message-ID: The Socialist Register 2010 Morbid Symptoms: Health Under Capitalism Edited by Colin Leys, Leo Panitch ISBN: 9781552663288 Price: $29.95 CAD Publication Date: Nov 2009 Rights: Canada Pages: 288 Orders: http://www.fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/412 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/276.php#continue The B u l l e t Socialist Project ? E-Bulletin No. 276 November 18, 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morbid Symptoms: Current Healthcare Struggles Colin Leys Leo Panitch and Colin Leys have just brought out the 2010 annual volume of the Socialist Register, Morbid Symptoms: Health Under Capitalism, published by Merlin Press in London, Monthly Review Press in the U.S. and Fernwood Books in Canada. The book provides a path-breaking assessment of health under capitalism, providing a systematic account of the antagonistic relationship between capitalism and human bodies, of how modern healthcare has been deeply penetrated by neoliberal capitalism, and the ways in which healthcare workers, activists and socialists are struggling and pursuing alternative paths of solidarity in human health. Socialist Project recently asked Greg Albo to interview Colin Leys about the book and about current healthcare struggles. SP: Colin, the latest Socialist Register, Morbid Symptoms: Health Under Capitalism, is gaining great accolades from health activists and practitioners, and from sections of the Left that have not traditionally been focussed on health. How did you and Leo come to focus on this issue as important for a Register audience? And how does it fit within your personal evolution as a Left intellectual in terms of your long-standing concerns with states and development in the ?third world,? especially Africa, on the one hand and states and parties in the advanced capitalist world, especially Britain, on the other? CL: Given the crucial importance of health in people?s lives it struck us that there was a major lack of critical left thinking about it ? about how neoliberalism was undermining the health gains of the postwar years, about what was happening to healthcare as a field of employment, and above all how healthcare was becoming a massive new field of capital accumulation, with dire implications for population health ? and for democracy ? everywhere. The best contribution the Register could make, we felt, was to help develop a historical materialist analysis of health under capitalism. Over the last 30 years a handful of progressive health experts, such as Vicente Navarro in the U.S., and Lesley Doyall and Julian Tudor Hart in the U.K., have laid the groundwork for this, but the Left in general has not taken it on board as much as we should have. And the extent to which the mainstream health policy literature fails to confront the neoliberal agenda is frankly shocking. Dependence on government funding for research plays an obvious role there. With some honourable exceptions everything is presented as if the political-economic determinants of ill health are a (regrettable) given. We wanted to break decisively with this pattern, foregrounding the centrality of the capitalist health industry in policy-making, and showing how ruling-class interests are served by it. And yes, my own previous work in Africa and on development did give me a special interest in the theme. The routine normality of painful illness and early death in the global ?south? is so shameful, when we know that it is largely preventable; we also know that no amount of ?aid? is going to prevent it under the existing power relations of global capitalism. The determinants of poverty and ill-health, and of the lack of healthcare for all in the ?south,? are the same ones that are now driving the restoration of inequality and the dismantling of social protection in the ?north.? My work on British political economy under Thatcher and Blair took health policy as a test case of the way global market forces were driving domestic policy. What this revealed was a process that has ended in an amazing phenomenon ? the British Labour Party, which 60 years ago set an example of universal and comprehensive healthcare that was followed all over the world ? including in Canada ? is now busy dismantling the integrated National Health Service and recreating a healthcare market ? relying heavily on U.S. advisers and U.S. health multinationals to make it happen. SP: What are some of the key themes of the new Register? CL: There are really two core issues. One is the need to focus on the militant campaign that is now being waged by capital ? the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, and big healthcare provider companies ? to break up state-funded and provided healthcare systems in every country that has them, and turn them into fields of accumulation. In middle- and high-income countries we are talking of potential markets worth from 7 to 12% of national income or even more. The power of the corporations moving in on public health services is huge, and growing. In Canada and the U.K. and other advanced capitalist countries they are major actors in the restructuring of states on neoliberal lines that has been pushed through to a greater or lesser extent in all countries over the past 30 years. They are increasingly installed at the heart of government policy-making. Health ministries and departments have been downsized and policy development has been handed over to private sector personnel as consultants, or appointed to government posts, while ministers and career civil servants leave to take lucrative jobs in the private health sector. The boundary between public and private interests is increasingly blurred, especially in relation to health. This is not nearly as well understood as it needs to be. The second core issue is the fact that healthcare, important as it is, is not the most important thing: the crucial determinants of health, wherever you live ? India, Canada, South Africa, the USA, it makes no difference ? are good food, good shelter, safety at work and protection against infections, so whether you and your family are healthy or not is above all a matter of equality. The poorest countries have the worst health, and so do the poorest people in all countries, including rich ones. Unless public policy is geared toward equality, even in rich countries most people's health will remain a lot worse than it should be. But the more neoliberal a government is, the less policy is concerned with equality. In the U.S. and the U.K., where inequality has been dramatically increased, it is condemning growing numbers of people to pain, disability and early death. The same is true internationally. As Meri Koivusalo shows in her essay in the volume, effective control over international health policy has been steadily transferred from the World Health Organisation to commercially-oriented and unaccountable organisations such as the Gates Foundation and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Even the WHO depends on ?voluntary? contributions from a range of sources for over four-fifths of its budget, as opposed to its core funding through UN member states. The bulk of health aid is thus increasingly controlled by agencies with links to corporate interests, especially those of big pharma. The WHO?s 1978 commitment to promoting ?health for all? via comprehensive primary care has given way to aid targeted at specific diseases largely chosen by these other agencies. The aim of improving people's health is compromised by the aim of making money. SP: How have healthcare and all its associated activities and sectors become integrated into neoliberal capitalism and its global dynamics? Are there any particular contradictions that this volume of the Register reveals? CL: There is an objective contradiction between capital's need for a workforce capable of providing reliable labour-power, and therefore being healthy enough to do so, and the compulsion on individual capitals ? on companies ? to constantly seek to pay less for it, well below what is needed to keep workers healthy. But this contradiction is less in evidence at present because of the huge pool of labour that is now available in China and India and other countries of the ?south?; so far global capital has not found itself obliged to help keep this labour force healthy, and it has not. But there is also an immediate contradiction between healthcare's role in making capitalism acceptable to workers ? its legitimation function ? and healthcare capital's drive for profits. An important essay in the volume by Shaoguang Wang shows that in order to maintain political stability the Chinese government has felt obliged, for the sake of social stability, to give up its market approach to healthcare and at least aim to restore universal access to healthcare. Whether western electorates who have come to take universal access to healthcare for granted will accept seeing it converted back into a commodity, very unequally available, is a question that the Left needs to focus on as a matter of urgency. Will people be ready to accept the idea that it is no longer the responsibility of governments to keep everyone well? SP: It is striking that the volume is coming out in the midst of the U.S. healthcare struggle. Even as a Bill passes the House it seems it will be blocked and transformed in the Senate. What is your assessment of this struggle and what insights does the new volume bring to it? CL: Yes, the struggle over healthcare reform in the U.S. shows just how deeply access to healthcare goes to the heart of politics today. But it's also very significant that Obama and many Democrats in Congress felt unable to win what they had previously supported ? a ?single-payer? (i.e. tax-funded) system, doing away with the grossly inefficient and rapacious health insurance industry. On top of that they then even proved unable to secure their alternative, extremely weak, market-friendly option ? a public insurance plan that would compete with the private ones. Only a taxpayer-subsidised adjustment to the existing private sector oligopoly will ? perhaps ? be allowed to pass. What the story shows above all is just how far the private healthcare industry controls senators and congressmen by funding their campaigns. The health industry also devotes enormous resources to influencing public opinion against any form of ?state medicine.? In spite of that, in this instance public opinion supported a single payer system ? but Congressmen have again proved more answerable to capital than to voters. The book had to go to press before this story had run very far, and we are still waiting to see the outcome; it's a measure of the quality of Marie Gottschalk's analysis of the U.S. situation that her essay stressed the severe limitations of the ?public plan? and assessed what was likely to happen very accurately. The lack of an anti-capitalist movement in the U.S. that could mobilise a powerful response has again denied the American working class what it voted for. It should and could prove to be a catalyst for change in this regard, as the consequences become clear. SP: Colin, another big issue right now is the H1N1 pandemic. This is being portrayed in the most narrow of terms as a public health issue to be managed by cleanliness, on the one hand, and mass vaccines, on the other, with other dimensions going unmentioned. One wonders whether we might see similar dynamic to that of a few years ago with respect to AIDS, which began as a technical issue seen as a minority problem but led to great struggles about social inequalities, sexuality and big pharma. Is it any more rational to treat swine flu as simply technical issue separate from the inequalities, institutions and dynamics of capitalism, or should we be looking at the linkages between the two? CL: If it does develop as a serious killer disease like AIDS we will surely quickly become aware of those linkages. It spreads easily and affects everyone more or less equally and so can?t be attributed to ?lifestyle choices? the way sexually transmitted diseases or lung cancer often are. But given that those most liable to become seriously ill and even die from it are those whose health is already compromised, and that these are typically poorer people than the average, the class dimension of it will be there to see if it becomes more lethal. The issue of who gets the vaccine first has already revealed class privileges in Canada and elsewhere. A related question is whether the price charged by the big pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline who are supplying the vaccine to governments is right: how far should collective protection against a collective threat yield windfall profits for capital? SP: The IMF has now called for a decade of austerity in the public sector and in wages and benefits for workers. This comes on top of a long period of struggles against healthcare privatization and the working conditions of healthcare workers. You have been engaged in a lot of these struggles with the NHS in Britain and, of course, and no doubt kept up with some of the struggles in Canada given your frequent visits and continuing close contacts here. What do you expect might be coming in the way of confrontations? CL: This is a very important issue. In OECD countries other than the USA (where health is still treated as a commodity) people have been resisting ? with varying degrees of success, depending on circumstances ? the privatization of the publicly-funded and managed healthcare systems that were established after WWII. In Canada, for example, the reality of the American healthcare market is there to be seen just across the border. Many Canadians have relatives there and know all about it. They didn?t need to see Michael Moore's film Sicko. Many Canadians are also relatively recent immigrants who are keenly aware of the ?freedom from fear? of illness or accidents that the universal healthcare system in their adopted country gives them. On top of this the labour unions have put resources into the fight to defend Canadian healthcare: the Canada Health Coalition has a high media profile and widespread support. The result is as near unanimity as you can ever get on anything in a free and democratic country ? a recent poll found 89.9% of Canadians support or somewhat support universal healthcare. In spite of this massive public endorsement, the Canadian healthcare system has also been subjected to the application of neo-Taylorism in hospitals, to contracting out of the ?ancillary? work of hospital cleaning, laundry and cooking, and to the offloading of healthcare to the unpaid labour of families, and especially women. This comes across clearly in the essay by Pat and Hugh Armstrong on struggles for control in the Canadian healthcare workplace. The call for more public sector cutbacks and assaults on the rights of public sector workers will undoubtedly worsen these trends, but as the Armstrongs also show, there is a growing potential for alliances among ancillary workers, nurses and even doctors to confront further attacks. In England, where the assault on the public system has gone much further, campaigners against it are handicapped by the fact that it has been pushed through not by the Conservatives (who of course are happy to see it happen), but by a Labour government ? and the trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Even UNISON, the main health service workers? union, is unwilling to attack Labour's marketization of the National Health Service publicly, even though its members are overwhelmingly opposed to it. As a result, while the NHS remains the most popular institution in the country there is limited understanding of how far and fast it is being broken up and privatized. Now that all the main political parties have signed up to the idea that everyone must just put their hands up and pay for the bankers? greed by accepting a decade of cuts in public services, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cuts start to make a major impact on health services. There is an urgent need ? and a major opportunity ? for the Left to make the connections clear. The impact of austerity on health services could and should force the unions to finally detach themselves from their subservience to the neo-Thatcherite Labour elite, and encourage new political forces to coalesce around the need to reassert the right to healthcare as a basic political right, a component of equal citizenship. SP: Do you see the book as a handbook for healthcare activists? CL: We certainly hope it will be, and the essay by Sanjay Basu on what activists can learn from HIV/AIDS mobilizations to build a comprehensive public health movement is very important in this respect. But the book is aimed at a wider readership as well. One of the problems to be overcome is that what is happening to health and healthcare is so poorly reported and analysed in the media. The owners of most newspapers, magazines, TV channels and radio stations are part of the neoliberal order. This means that health features in just two ways: amazing stories about medical ?breakthroughs? in individual treatments, usually in surgery; and failures and scandals ? and never the successes ? of publicly-funded and managed healthcare systems. On the other hand editors working for public-service broadcasting or more critical newspapers tend to see health policy as too complex for most viewers and readers. Even medical students get shockingly little exposure to issues of health policy. Most medical training pays scant attention to the social and economic context of disease and its treatment, or to what forces are determining health policy, or how far current health policies fall short of reflecting what medical science tells us. You don?t need to be a socialist to see that this is wrong. You just need to have a concern for scientific evidence and the welfare of the society you live in. Morbid Symptoms should be read by medical students and doctors and nurses and everyone in the caring professions ? in fact by everyone who thinks health matters. SP: The Socialist Register has always tried to have a vision of practical utopias for socialist struggles. This is something we have encountered as a problem in Canada in relation to healthcare ? the need to go beyond just blocking any further erosion of public health. What contribution does the new Register add to practical utopias today and a programme for the Left in terms of health? CL: The principles that a socialist health programme should rest on come across clearly enough from the volume. In general, a socialist health policy would aim at making economic policy serve the goal of making everyone as healthy as possible, rather than making a few people as rich as possible. As Hans-Ulrich Deppe, an eminent German professor of medicine, says in his essay on the nature of healthcare, health is a universal need that should be a universal right, and this means that every aspect of health policy must be grounded in the principle of social solidarity. What this means in practice will vary widely, depending on the health system that already exists, public attitudes to health and medicine, country-specific variations in need, etc. And it can only be worked out in practice; blueprints made in advance are not going to help much. But a more democratic health policy, which must be the starting-point, will always imply some striking changes. For instance Julian Tudor Hart's powerful closing essay in the volume points out that in advanced capitalist countries an amazing third of all adults experience a mental health problem of one kind or another, but only a tiny fraction of the misery that this represents is even acknowledged, let alone treated ? even in health systems that are supposedly equally accessible by all. A socialist health policy must obviously confront this, implying some major shifts of attitudes and resources, and a radical change in the social conditions that cause so much of the problem. It would aim to bring medical priorities into line with the findings of medical science ? a very different thing from the priority now assigned to high-tech medical care for conditions that represent a tiny fraction of the burden of disease among the population at large (not to mention the populations of the global ?south?). Thinking through what a socialist health policy would look like in any given society in fact opens up several extremely exciting vistas. It also opens up the possibility of new alliances in the struggle for socialism generally. For example, once it is recognised that good health depends more on social and economic equality than on healthcare ? crucially important though healthcare is ? healthcare activists thinking about the kind of politics needed to secure good health for all find they have natural allies in a whole range of movements struggling for equality ? for labour, for women, for the unemployed, for undocumented people, and for minorities of many kinds. In the same way, envisaging the kind of state, and the kinds of democratic accountability, that could ensure that maximizing people?s health became and remained a core commitment of society, is a powerful way of focusing on the kind of state needed for achieving other solidaristic goals. Health is a deeply emotive matter, and the Left has every reason to make it a core issue of its own. And not just in defending publicly-provided, universal-access healthcare, but in a more radical sense too, as Leo and I suggest in the Preface to the book: ?the contradiction between capitalism and health should become a pivotal dimension of a revitalized socialist strategy.? ? In addition to co-editing the Socialist Register Colin Leys is the author of various books including Underdevelopment in Kenya, Politics in Britain: From Labourism to Thatcherism, The Rise and Fall of Development Theory, and Market-Driven Politics: Neoliberal democracy and the public interest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( The B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 21 04:53:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:53:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Event Notice] A Pipeline Through a Troubled Land Message-ID: (for those of you in the Toronto area) A Pipeline Through a Troubled Land: Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game John Foster, Energy Economist Speaks Monday, November 30, 2009 7 PM Steelworkers Hall 25 Cecil Street (1 block South of College, 2 blocks East of Spadina) $5.00 to $10.00 suggested donation (PWYC) Energy economist John Foster will present a rarely told story about Afghanistan - plans for a natural gas pipeline to link Central and South Asia via Kandahar. There is a rivalry for control of Central Asia's oil and gas - how does Afghanistan fit in? Over the past year, he has presented this topic in talks across Canada, and in a Toronto Star op-ed. A report on this subject published last year by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives made front-page banner headlines in the Globe and Mail. He has contributed to a new anthology published by Black Rose Books: Afghanistan and Canada: Is there an alternative to war? (for sale at the event). John Foster is an energy economist and an expert on the world oil scene. He has a unique combination of work experience - with the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and two oil companies (BP and Petro-Canada). He has worked in more than thirty countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Born in London England, he graduated from Cambridge University in economics and law. Sponsored by Davenport Neighbours for Peace, Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, and the Canadian Peace Alliance, and endorsed by Science for Peace. www.davenport4peace.ca davenport4peace at gmail.com www.nowar.ca www.acp-cpa.ca From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 21 04:58:06 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:58:06 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The bravest woman in Afghanistan Message-ID: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-bravest-woman-in-afghanistan/article1370672/ Globe and Mail Nov. 20, 2009 The bravest woman in Afghanistan Afghan politician Malalai Joya defies warlords and death threats to speak out against Canadian troops in her country Sonia Verma Malalai Joya, was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament in 2005, but she was suspended two years later for condemning top government officials as warlords. Now 31, she argues Western-led efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan are futile and is calling on foreign military forces to pull out. Ms. Joya, now 31, has survived at least four assassination attempts, and has been called the bravest woman in Afghanistan, where she still lives. She spoke to The Globe and Mail in Toronto, while promoting her book A Woman Among Warlords . Hamid Karzai has just been sworn in for another term as Afghan President. What are your feelings? He promised during the first election he would not make deals with the warlords. He lied. The main problem with Afghanistan is that the warlords are in power. They are photocopies of the Taliban, maybe even worse. Afghans voted for Karzai during the first election because they thought he was bad, but he was not worse than these warlords. Then he started dealing with them. He betrayed the vote of my people. That's why this time millions of Afghans did not vote in the election. Warlords can't run for office under our own constitution. Nobody ? not the U.S not Canada, nobody ? raised their voice against this illegal act. Why do you think the international community wasn't more critical of Karzai getting a second term? Some say that the election ? even a faulted one ? is at least some sign of progress. The U.S. government has invested millions of dollars in Afghanistan. They have needed these warlords since the Cold War. Now, after 9/11, the U.S. government and NATO have put them back in power. Foreign powers occupy Afghanistan through the warlords under the banner of democracy and women's rights. Their only interest is a geopolitical one. They want easy access to the gas and oil of the Central Asian Republics. They are not there for my people. They are there for themselves. Do you think that when the West says we are in Afghanistan to increase security for everyone that it is a lie? Of course it's a lie. Under the banner of women's rights they occupied my country. Now, even in Kabul we do not have security. Security in Afghanistan is worse than it has ever been. So if the West pulls out, you think Afghanistan will suddenly become a peaceful place? Now my people are squashed between two powerful enemies. From the sky, these occupation forces bombing civilians, from the ground, Taliban warlords. It is much easier for us to fight one enemy instead of two. We want the soldiers to withdraw as soon as possible. Your government says it's leaving in 2011. You have to leave now because for eight years Canada has just followed the dirty policy of the U.S. government. The U.S. is there for their own interests, not for the interest of my people. Do you really think that if the troops pull out, Afghanistan will become more secure for Afghans? I am not saying that peace is coming and that everything will be okay. These warlords were mice when the Taliban were in power, in their holes. But after 9/11 these mice became wolves. They must stop arming them. The foreign occupiers are not honest with my people about their motivations. They are not honest. It's better to leave my country. As long as the troops are there [there] will be war. Your government says the Iraq war is a bad war, the Afghan war is a good war. I don't know what the difference is between these wars. You argue in your book that the Western occupation of your country is being conducted under the banner of women's rights. What do you mean by that? Do you feel women face deeper dangers today than during Taliban rule? Today killing a woman is like killing a bird. The situation for women today is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban. The only difference is all of these crimes are happening under the name of democracy. They cut off noses and ears of women to punish them. Men cut women to pieces. But why do you say this is being done in the name of democracy? That is a very bold claim. Because your government, the Canadian government, says you are trying to bring democracy. But these people are sworn enemies of democracy. It's impossible to bring democracy this way. In Kabul, it is true, women have some access to jobs and education. There are women in parliament, more than in your country, but most of them have symbolic roles. And these women are outnumbered by warlords and drug lords who sit beside them in parliament. What is your life like now in Afghanistan? I am living underground, in safe houses. I travel with armed guards. I have survived many attempts on my life. My family is not with me. Joya is not my real name. Do you see hope for your country? My message to peace-loving activists is to educate my people. My message to Canada is to build schools, shelters, literacy courses, build hospitals. Canadians are doing that. Your government has built some schools, yes, but in the meantime they are supporting the enemies of the school who destroy the school. Now they support Karzai. How can they support an undemocratic leader if they say they are fighting for democracy? What was your reaction to the news today regarding the torture of Afghan detainees? It is an open secret that this happens. The Canadian government is still supporting this. The U.S. is building another Guantanamo Bay at Bagram. This is not new. It is no surprise for my people. Exposing it is not enough. There have been a number of attempts on your life. In Afghanistan, people have threatened to beat you and rape you for saying what you say. Are you afraid? I fear political silence. I do not fear death. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 21 16:30:02 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:30:02 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] CBC poll: Do you believe Richard Colvin's testimony about Afghan detainees? Message-ID: CBC poll: Do you believe Richard Colvin's testimony about Afghan detainees? CBC.ca now has an on-line poll that asks, As Parliament Hill contends with the fallout surrounding the testimony of a former top Kandahar-based Canadian diplomat on alleged torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers into Afghan custody, Thursday's Question of the Day is: Do you believe Richard Colvin's testimony about Afghan detainees? To vote, go to http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/11/power-politics-question-of-the-day-8.html From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 21 16:39:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:39:43 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy Message-ID: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9115978 EXCLUSIVE: CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy ABC News Finds the Location of a "Black Site" for Alleged Terrorists in Lithuania By MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS Nov. 18, 2009 ? The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week. Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a caf?, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time. "The activities in that prison were illegal," said human rights researcher John Sifton. "They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions." Lithuanian officials provided ABC News with the documents of what they called a CIA front company, Elite, LLC, which purchased the property and built the "black site" in 2004. Lithuania agreed to allow the CIA prison after President George W. Bush visited the country in 2002 and pledged support for Lithuania's efforts to join NATO. "The new members of NATO were so grateful for the U.S. role in getting them into that organization that they would do anything the U.S. asked for during that period," said former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant. "They were eager to please and eager to be cooperative on security and on intelligence matters." Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite declined ABC's request for an interview. ABC News first reported that Lithuania was one of three eastern European countries, along with Poland and Romania, where the CIA secretly interrogated suspected high-value al-Qaeda terrorists, but until now the precise site had not been confirmed. Read that report here. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866 Until March 2004, the site was a riding academy and caf? owned by a local family. The facility is in the town of Antaviliai, in the forest 20 kilometers northeast of the city center of Vilnius, near an exclusive suburb where many government officials live. A "Building Within A Building" In March 2004, the family sold the property to Elite, LLC, a now-defunct company registered in Delaware and Panama and Washington, D.C. That same month, Lithuania marked its formal admission to NATO. The CIA constructed the prison over the next several months, apparently flying in prefabricated elements from outside Lithuania. The prison opened in Sept. 2004. According to sources who saw the facility, the riding academy originally consisted of an indoor riding area with a red metallic roof, a stable and a cafe. The CIA built a thick concrete wall inside the riding area. Behind the wall, it built what one Lithuanian source called a "building within a building." On a series of thick concrete pads, it installed what a source called "prefabricated pods" to house prisoners, each separated from the other by five or six feet. Each pod included a shower, a bed and a toilet. Separate cells were constructed for interrogations. The CIA converted much of the rest of the building into garage space. Intelligence officers working at the prison were housed next door in the converted stable, raising the roof to add space. Electrical power for both structures was provided by a 2003 Caterpillar autonomous generator. All the electrical outlets in the renovated structure were 110 volts, meaning they were designed for American appliances. European outlets and appliances typically use 220 volts. The prison pods inside the barn were not visible to locals. They describe seeing large amounts of earth being excavated during the summer of 2004. Locals who saw the activity at the prison and approached to ask for work were turned away by English-speaking guards. The guards were replaced by new guards every 90 days. Former CIA officials directly involved or briefed on the highly classified secret prison program tell ABC News that as many as eight suspects were held for more than a year in the Vilnius prison. Flight logs viewed by ABC News confirm that CIA planes made repeated flights into Lithuania during that period. In November 2005, after public disclosures about the program, the prison was closed, as was another "black site" in Romania. Lithuanian Prison One of Many Around Europe, Officials Said The CIA moved the so-called High Value Detainees (HVD) out of Europe to "war zone" facilities, according to one of the former CIA officials, meaning they were moved to the Middle East. Within nine months, President Bush announced the existence of the program and ordered the transfer of 14 of the detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ramzi bin al Shihb and Abu Zubaydah, to Guantanamo. In August 2009, after ABC News reported the existence of the secret prison outside Vilnius, Lithuanian president Grybauskaite called for an investigation. "If this is true," Grybauskaite said, "Lithuania has to clean up, accept responsibility, apologize, and promise it will never happen again." At the time, a Lithuanian government official denied that his country had hosted a secret CIA facility. The CIA told ABC News that reporting the existence of the Lithuanian prison was "irresponsible" and declined to discuss the location of the prison. On Tuesday, the CIA again declined to talk about the prison. "The CIA's terrorist interrogation program is over," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano. "This agency does not discuss publicly where detention facilities may or may not have been." Former CIA officials told ABC News that the prison in Lithuania was one of eight facilities the CIA set-up after 9/11 to detain and interrogate top al-Qaeda operatives captured around the world. Thailand, Romania, Poland, Morocco, and Afghanistan have also been identified as countries that housed secret prisons for the CIA. President Barack Obama ordered all the sites closed shortly after taking office in January. The Lithuanian prison was the last "black" site opened in Europe, after the CIA's secret prison in Poland was closed down in late 2003 or early 2004. "It obviously took a lot of effort to keep [the prison] secret," said John Sifton, whose firm One World Research investigates human rights abuses. "There's a reason this stuff gets kept secret." "It's an embarrassment, and a crime." From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 04:36:44 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:36:44 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The War Stampede Message-ID: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4051 The War Stampede Nov 21, 2009 By Norman Solomon Norman Solomon's ZSpace Page / ZSpace Disputes are raging within the Obama administration over how to continue the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. A new leak tells us that Washington's ambassador in Kabul, former four-star general Karl Eikenberry, has cautioned against adding more troops while President Hamid Karzai keeps disappointing American policymakers. This is the extent of the current debate within the warfare state. During a top-level meeting November 11 in the White House, the Washington Post reports, President Obama "was given a series of options laid out by military planners with differing numbers of new U.S. deployments, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 troops. None of the scenarios calls for scaling back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan or delaying the dispatch of additional troops." No doubt there are real tactical differences between Eikenberry and the U.S./NATO commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, the ultra-spun brainy spartan who wants to boost the current U.S. troop level of 68,000 to well over 100,000 in the war-afflicted country. But those policy disputes exist well within the context of a permanent war psychology. What's desperately needed is a clear breakaway from that psychology, which routinely offers "kinder, gentler" forms of endless and horrific war. But predictably, in the days and weeks ahead, some progressives -- from the grassroots to Capitol Hill -- will gravitate toward Eikenberry's stance. Fine-tuning the U.S. war in Afghanistan is no substitute for acknowledging -- with words and with policy -- that there will be no military solution. Adjusting the dose and mix of military intervention is a prescription to do more harm on a massive scale. A recent spate of media stories has focused on soldiers, veterans and family members struggling with PTSD and other heartbreaking consequences of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the key messages is that the government must do a better job of caring for battle-scarred veterans. To the great extent that such stories don't question continuation of the warfare, they're part of the stampede. As long as the only options put forward have to do with finding better ways to cope with ongoing war, the men and women in the military are framed as people who are most admirable as participants in their own suffering (and, implicitly, as people who are willing to inflict suffering on others). The suffering of Afghan people, meanwhile, gets short shrift in the USA's media and political discourse. While we hear -- though not enough -- about traumas that continue to plague Americans many months or years after being in war zones, we hear almost nothing about the traumas that the U.S. military visits upon people living in the occupied country. After 30 years of war, Afghans do not need more ingenious war efforts by the latest batch of best and brightest in Washington. Thundering along Pennsylvania Avenue, the stampede for war is hard to resist. It's a stampede that few members of Congress have been willing to directly challenge. So, the "serious" policy arguments, from the White House to Capitol Hill, have remained bullish on war -- and eager to find better ways to wage it. The November 12 edition of the Post reported that Ambassador Eikenberry "has expressed frustration with the relative paucity of funds set aside for spending on development and reconstruction this year in Afghanistan, a country wrecked by three decades of war." The newspaper added: "Earlier this summer, he asked for $2.5 billion in nonmilitary spending for 2010, a 60 percent increase over what Obama had requested from Congress, but the request has languished even as the administration has debated spending billions of dollars on new troops." The Obama administration is spending upwards of 90 percent of all U.S. funds in Afghanistan on military operations -- and what Eikenberry is seeking would add up to mere drops in the bucket compared to what Afghanistan really needs for "development and reconstruction." Nor is the U.S. government in any moral or logistical position to effectively supply such aid. Right now, the paltry aid from Washington is largely disbursed in Afghanistan as an adjunct to the Pentagon's military operations -- and it is widely recognized as such. That's why the resulting projects are so often blown up or burned down by insurgents. In war-ravaged Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, effective aid is possible. While woefully underfunded, the National Solidarity Program and the Aga Khan Foundation are prime examples of successes -- if the goals are genuine humanitarian aid and development rather than providing "hearts and minds" photo-ops and leverage for the occupiers' military campaigns. The current dispute over how to continue the war in Afghanistan should not be mistaken for an argument over basic assumptions. And what's wrong with U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is fundamental. _____________________ Norman Solomon is co-chair of the national Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign, launched by Progressive Democrats of America. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For more information, go to: www.normansolomon.com From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 04:56:04 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:56:04 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] "A Monumental Fiasco" Message-ID: (C'est en fran?ais suivi de sa traduction en anglais) http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/12/un-fiasco_1266192_3232.html Edito du Monde Un fiasco LE MONDE | 12.11.09 | 13h27 ? Mis ? jour le 12.11.09 | 13h27 Il faut cesser de se payer de mots. Au Proche-Orient, il n'y a pas de "processus" de n?gociation en cours. Il n'y a pas non plus de perspective de paix. Pour autant, ce n'est pas le statu quo : la situation r?gresse. Dangereusement. C'est d'abord le fait des Etats-Unis. Barack Obama, il y a quelques mois, avait plac? le conflit isra?lo-palestinien en t?te de ses priorit?s. Il avait exig? d'Isra?l l'arr?t du d?veloppement des colonies de peuplement dans le territoire palestinien de Cisjordanie. C'?tait, sinon un pr?alable, du moins une condition pour que puissent s'ouvrir des n?gociations avec les Palestiniens. Les Isra?liens ont dit non : la colonisation se poursuivra, mais un peu ralentie, a r?pondu le premier ministre, Benjamin N?tanyahou. Les Etats-Unis ont encaiss? : par la voix de la secr?taire d'Etat, Hillary Clinton, ils ont platement endoss? la position de M. N?tanyahou... En quelques semaines, M. Obama a perdu dans le monde arabe le cr?dit que lui avait valu son remarquable discours de juin au Caire. M?me en langage diplomatique, cela s'appelle un monumental fiasco. ======================== http://tinyurl.com/yecvxku Editorial Le Monde (France) November 12, 2009 'It's time to stop the verbal pretense. In the Near East, there is no negotiation "process" underway. Furthermore, there is also no prospect for peace. The situation is nonetheless not in a state of status quo: it is regressing. Dangerously. The United States bears the primary responsibility. Several months ago, Barack Obama had placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of his priorities. He demanded that Israel stop the expansion of settlements within Palestinian territory on the West Bank. It was, if not a prerequisite, at least a condition to allow the reopening of negotiations with the Palestinians. 'The Israelis said no: settlements will continue to expand, but at a somewhat slower rate, replied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The United States just took it: speaking through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it flatly endorsed Mr. Netanyahu's, position.... Within a few weeks, Mr. Obama lost the credit in the Arab world that his remarkable speech in Cairo in June had gained him. Even in diplomatic language, that's called a monumental fiasco.' From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 04:59:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:59:46 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] "A Monumental Fiasco" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (Translation of full article by Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher, below) http://www.truthout.org/1113094 *A Fiasco* Thursday 12 November 2009 by: | Le Monde | Editorial It's time to stop the verbal pretense. In the Near East, there is no negotiation "process" underway. Furthermore, there is also no prospect for peace. The situation is nonetheless not in a state of status quo: it is regressing. Dangerously. The United States bears the primary responsibility. Several months ago, Barack Obama had placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of his priorities. He demanded that Israel stop the expansion of settlements within Palestinian territory on the West Bank. It was, if not a prerequisite, at least a condition to allow the reopening of negotiations with the Palestinians. The Israelis said no: settlements will continue to expand, but at a somewhat slower rate, replied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The United States just took it: speaking through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it flatly endorsed Mr. Netanyahu's, position.... Within a few weeks, Mr. Obama lost the credit in the Arab world that his remarkable speech in Cairo in June had gained him. Even in diplomatic language, that's called a monumental fiasco. The head of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, reckoned he was betrayed by Washington. The United States had already manhandled him by compelling him to neither defend nor bring before the UN a report that stigmatized Israel's behavior during the Gaza War. Seventy-four years old, Mr. Abbas is a man of exemplary dignity. He is one of the few leaders in the region to have publicly attacked the sacrosanct model of "armed struggle" so popular with the Palestinians. Today, largely repudiated by the population for the meager results obtained peacefully, he is threatening to resign. With what result? The other branch of the Palestinian national movement, the Islamists of Hamas, exult. Mr. Netanyahu has consolidated his majority on the right. He is supported by public opinion in Israel which deems that Israel has also been betrayed, obtaining nothing but volleys of rockets in return for leaving southern Lebanon and Gaza. By continuing settlement, Mr. Netanyahu knows that he makes the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel less likely than ever. Small-minded calculations here, weakness and cowardice there. And yet, the settlement of a question that is at the heart of Arab-Muslim world resentments would change the face of the region. All conflicts would be presented in less-acute form, beginning with the Iranian nuclear issue. Here's our question: Is the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate up to the challenge? -------- ----- Original Message ----- From: RICHARD MENEC Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:56 am Subject: [Fresh Ink] "A Monumental Fiasco" To: freshink at booksinternationale.info Cc: RAD TIMES , ICH , ALTERNET , COMMON DREAMS , COUNTERCURRENTS , "ANTIWAR.COM" , ASHEVILLE GLOBAL REPORT > (C'est en fran?ais suivi de sa traduction en anglais) > > http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/12/un- > fiasco_1266192_3232.html > > Edito du Monde > Un fiasco > LE MONDE | 12.11.09 | 13h27 ? Mis ? jour le 12.11.09 > | 13h27 > > Il faut cesser de se payer de mots. Au Proche-Orient, il n'y a > pas de "processus" de n?gociation en cours. Il n'y a pas non > plus de perspective de paix. Pour autant, ce n'est pas le statu > quo : la situation r?gresse. Dangereusement. C'est d'abord le > fait des Etats-Unis. Barack Obama, il y a quelques mois, avait > plac? le conflit isra?lo-palestinien en t?te de ses priorit?s. > Il avait exig? d'Isra?l l'arr?t du d?veloppement des colonies de > peuplement dans le territoire palestinien de Cisjordanie. > C'?tait, sinon un pr?alable, du moins une condition pour que > puissent s'ouvrir des n?gociations avec les Palestiniens. > > Les Isra?liens ont dit non : la colonisation se poursuivra, mais > un peu ralentie, a r?pondu le premier ministre, Benjamin > N?tanyahou. Les Etats-Unis ont encaiss? : par la voix de la > secr?taire d'Etat, Hillary Clinton, ils ont platement endoss? la > position de M. N?tanyahou... En quelques semaines, M. Obama a > perdu dans le monde arabe le cr?dit que lui avait valu son > remarquable discours de juin au Caire. M?me en langage > diplomatique, cela s'appelle un monumental fiasco. > > ======================== > > http://tinyurl.com/yecvxku > > Editorial > Le Monde (France) > November 12, 2009 > > 'It's time to stop the verbal pretense. In the Near East, there > is no negotiation "process" underway. Furthermore, there is also > no prospect for peace. The situation is nonetheless not in a > state of status quo: it is regressing. Dangerously. The United > States bears the primary responsibility. Several months ago, > Barack Obama had placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the > top of his priorities. He demanded that Israel stop the > expansion of settlements within Palestinian territory on the > West Bank. It was, if not a prerequisite, at least a condition > to allow the reopening of negotiations with the Palestinians. > > 'The Israelis said no: settlements will continue to expand, but > at a somewhat slower rate, replied Prime Minister Benjamin > Netanyahu. The United States just took it: speaking through > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it flatly endorsed Mr. > Netanyahu's, position.... Within a few weeks, Mr. Obama lost the > credit in the Arab world that his remarkable speech in Cairo in > June had gained him. Even in diplomatic language, that's called > a monumental fiasco.' > _______________________________________________ > FreshInk mailing list > FreshInk at booksinternationale.info > http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink > From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 10:05:26 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:05:26 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Towards an Alternative to Globalization Message-ID: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16200 Global Research November 21, 2009 Towards an Alternative to Globalization by Sergey A. Stroev Civilization Alternative, original in Russian at http://russoc.kprf.org/ This text will be presented at the Third All-Russia Anti-Global Forum, Moscow, December 2009 It is easier to manage people when they have low needs. Simply because low needs are easier to satisfy. <...> Thus the dictatorship of show business is a part of the state machine. Previously, rock music, as well as earlier the church, were separated from the state, but now they are part of it. The results are well known. Radislava Anchevskaya There is a popular expression (attributed to various famous authors), that any "anti-" is dissolved in that, against which it is "anti-". This phrase has a profound meaning, which consists in the fact that to unite in a bare denial of anything is counter-productive and doomed to defeat. A viable alternative may be only an independent project that contains a constructive idea and a program for implementation. Accordingly, the Third Forum of Anti-Global Resistance diverts from the themes of criticism and exposure of the essence of imperialist globalization and seeks to create its own meaningful project, its own civilizational alternative to globalism. As a part of this task, we would like to present our positions in a succinct form. 1. Economy for man, not man for economy. The logic of modern civilization, which represents global capitalism in the final stage of capital concentration and expansion of markets of raw materials, labor and sales, is profit maximization as the basic task of production. This approach appears to be a form of fetishism, a kind of religious ministry to a deified material idol. It breeds widespread poverty and actual purposeful genocide of the "economically unjustified" populations of entire regions of the world, escalation of class and ethnic conflicts, extremely wasteful and historically irresponsible squandering of nonrenewable natural resources, destruction of traditional cultures and moral standards, imposing standards of consumer thinking and behavior that lead to cultural and intellectual degradation of mankind, denaturalization of consumer goods, leading to an increase in the number of diseases, including the genetic degradation of the human species. As an alternative, we propose a planned system of production, entirely subordinate to the purposes and objectives of Life and Life Reproduction, meeting the needs of a particular country in the agricultural, industrial, and information products required for the stable maintenance of a decent standard of living. Such a type of production requires as a prerequisite the nationalization of major industries and a significant preponderance of public (state) ownership over private ownership. The existence of such production should imply stable, sustainable self-reproduction, rather than unlimited growth and expansion. Of course, this approach does not exclude the differences in the levels of development and consumption between developed regions and those lagging behind, but, at least, the present absurd situation of exterminating the "economically unjustified" population will be impossible, given that population has everything needed for sustainable life reproduction on their land. 2. The unconditional priority of the principles of national statehood and sovereignty over the international law, the authority of international organizations and the rights of transnational corporations. Today, the capitalist system, which has reached the stage of consolidating the world in a single market, seeks to eliminate national borders and make the world completely "free" in the sense of free movement of goods, raw materials, capital and labor, thus totally fine-tuning it with the interests of capitalist profit. This results in withering away of the nationhood, associated with the interests of specific nations and populations of specific areas - that is, with the interests of socially organized populations. In parallel, a number of roles and prerogatives, at first monopolized by the state, have transferred to the extraterritorial power centers (especially TNCs), unrelated to the interests of specific people and specific areas. We observe the formation of private armies and quasi-police security forces of commercial corporations. This situation is fraught with the disappearance of law as a category and the absolutely uncontrollable and irresponsible use of armed violence by financial clans. A special tragedy of the situation is that modern states, being inherently capitalist, primarily express the will of the bourgeois class, and, in the interests of this class, are losing out to multinational corporate structures with virtually no fighting and resistance. We propose the shift to the revival of the sovereignty of nation-states, which is possible only if the first item on the program ? the nationalization of the basic means of production - is implemented. Only in this case the state would become national, not in word, but in deed, that is expressing the will of the nation, rather than the bourgeois class. And in the modern world such a common nation-state, beyond any class interests, can exist only on the basis of a classless socialist society. Only in this case, the monopoly on armed violence remains under the control of people, and there may be reproduction of the legal relationship (although the legal principle is not absolute and should not apply to all spheres of public life, see below). 3. Priority of preserving the natural environment and cultural sites over their consumer use. The domination of the present-day capitalocratic principle leads to the overexploitation of unique and irreplaceable objects of nature and culture, wherever the possibility of their utilization gives hope for profit. In the best case, it admits the prevention of their complete destruction based on the argument of maintaining them as a source of long-term business. The argument that they can exist in their own right is completely ignored. Everything is subjected to the paradigm of consumption, formed by advertising for the sake of the increase of business profits. Rejecting the logic of the subordination of Life to the interest of profit-making, we also deny the principle of the rule of consumption. Of course, the monuments of nature and culture can and should be used for the benefit of man, but only in such a manner that does not contradict the conditions of their conservation and does not cause harm. 4. Preservation of national cultures as an alternative to the unification of the world. Providing free movement of goods, raw materials and labor in order to maximize profits, capitalocracy rapidly destroys the diversity of human cultures. In place of a flowering diversity of cultures there emerges a unified space of faceless housing, English-language pop music on radio and television, advertising brands, unified fast food, consumer lifestyle, corporate standards of conduct. The masses of people, wandering the world as a free-moving labor, lose their national and cultural identity and become a depersonalized "gray race". The notorious "multiculturalism" does not save the case, transforming cities into a sort of circus buffoonery or Babylonian fair. Such "multiculturalism" does not only protect, but even more destroys the identity of national cultures, randomly mixing their elements and destroying their internal unity. We assert that cultural diversity is the key to development, and, on the contrary, the unification or chaotic confusion of cultures inevitably leads to cultural impoverishment and cultural degradation of humanity. We also believe that each national culture is an internal unity, and only in this inner unity of each of its elements it becomes meaningful and imbued with spiritual life. Various aspects of culture, such as elements of clothing or traditional law, have a deep inner connection. Breaking these ties, placing cultural elements, torn from their medium, in an alien context, makes them meaningless and in fact deprives them of their cultural value. Culture in the broadest sense is a way of life of an ethnic group. It is inseparable from the social relations characteristic of this ethnic group, its accommodating landscape, methods and nature of production. The destruction of ethnic boundaries destroys the ethnicity, and, consequently, the culture as a way of its being. Cultural development is achieved through diversity, and this diversity requires a certain (though certainly not absolute) level of isolation of cultures from each other. Cultural contacts, occurring between peoples as subjects of cultures, of course, enrich these cultures, but they should not exceed the level at which they turn into fusion and confusion, leading to the unification and reduction of cultural diversity. A national culture should have the time for processing and ethnification of the experience, obtained from external contacts, otherwise these contacts become destructive for it. Therefore, we oppose the policies that encourage the migration processes and ethnic mixing and support limiting migration and maintaining, to the extent possible, the constancy of ethnic composition of each specific territory. 5. The same applies to the conservation of biological, anthropological and racial diversity of humanity. 6. Traditional social structure as an alternative to social atomization. Traditional social structures ensure multiple and diverse connections and relationships between people, governed by education and customs, rather than legal norms. In this context, a particular importance is given to traditional social institutions (especially family) and the traditional social roles, specific to a particular society and a specific culture. The presence of such multiple informal relations between human beings, on the one hand, is the key to preservation and transmission of a national culture and unwritten life experiences from generation to generation. On the other hand, it protects the individual and the society as a whole from the arbitrary actions of the state and from the manipulation of consciousness. In an effort to transform the human material into ideal subjects of labor and consumption, the capitalocracy deliberately destroys the ties that unite people into a social organism, it destroys culture, which is inexpedient in terms of commerce, divides generations in order to reduce the formative influence of parents on the child and enhance the impact of mass media, schools and other educational means under its control. The purpose of capitalocracy is the maximum atomization of society, maximum alienation of man from man, and, in the limit, the reduction of the diversity of human relationships to the standards of a legal contract. Particular efforts in this regard are concentrated on three areas. First, capitalocracy seeks to combat all forms of non-commercial art. An attempt is made, and not without success, to completely replace the artistic creativity with commercial pop industry, which is fundamentally not only extremely primitive, but also entirely high-tech. Second, there is a consistent leveling of gender differences, i.e. the differences in the social behavior of genders. In parallel, under the hypocritical slogan of "protection from domestic violence" the capitalocracy-controlled state assumes the role of a mediator and supervisor of the relationships between man and woman in marriage and outside it. The result is the destruction of the family as the basic unit of society. Third, under the same pretext of "protection from domestic violence", the state positions itself as a mediator and controller between parents and children, deliberately undermining the authority of parents and virtually making family education and cultural transmission from generation to generation impossible. We put forward and defend the opposite values. We believe that only non-profit art, which arises from the inside urge for creativity, rather than from the need to satisfy someone's demands, is full-fledged. We believe that non-conventional, non-legal, informal forms of relationships between people not only have a right to exist, but should be protected and developed. Therefore, we favor unformatted arts and informal cultures. And of all the informal ties and non-contractual relations, we put at the forefront the most traditional forms as time-tested, rooted in the culture, most stable and able to most effectively resist the destructive influences. As a prerequisite for socio-cultural and organic unity we assert the absolute value of those types of social behavior, which are developed by culture, such as the historically established interactions between senior and junior, teacher and student, parents and children, between relatives, between friends, etc. We affirm the naturalness of the connection between traditional gender patterns of social behavior and biological sex, and regard the disruption of this connection (under whatever specious and "socialist" slogans it is made) as totally destructive from the cultural and biological points of view. We affirm the value of traditional social institutions, especially the traditional family, and believe that government intervention in the internal relations of family members is possible only in exceptional cases, but not everyday life. We believe that the destructive interference of state and public structures in the internal affairs of the family is a much greater evil than the notorious "domestic violence" and the hypocritical struggle with it which this interference is disguised in. We are aware that the traditional social relations we uphold are incompatible with capitalocracy, which is why we set as the sixth paragraph of our program the protection of traditional forms of sociality, and above all put forward the need for transition from the economy of profit to the economy of Life and Life reproduction, which involves the socialization of production and elimination of the very basis of capitalocracy. It is better to pull the bad grass with the roots. 7. Traditional religions as forms of collective spiritual life, calibrated by millennia of experience of many generations. At the same time, we by no means see the main threat to spiritual tradition in atheism, materialism and rationalist philosophy, but in commercial pseudo-religions, constructed as a sphere of ritual and psychological services. We are primarily against the muddy wave of pop mysticism, pseudo-religious commercial businesses in the spirit of New Age, as well as ecumenical and renovation currents, trying to adjust the traditional religion to the standards of consumer society. One of our tasks is the assimilation of traditional forms of spirituality by those informal cultures and subcultures, which oppose the pop-industry anti-culture. 8. Freedom of intellectual and artistic creativity as an alternative to "intellectual property". The so-called "copyright", originally conceived as its name implies, to protect the rights of the author, has now taken completely distorted forms and serves the interests not of the author, but the capitalocracy machine. The system of "intellectual property" today postulates the existence of property rights not only for discovery and technology, but virtually for any text and visual image. And in most cases, the right-holder of this property does not have the slightest relation to its authorship. It reaches the absurdity, when the rights of "intellectual property" are registered for the works of long dead authors. The consistent application of the principle of intellectual property in its modern capitalocratic interpretation makes the development of science, art and culture in general virtually impossible. Any scientific discovery is based on the synthesis of knowledge accumulated by predecessors. The copyright ban on the use of the developments of predecessors makes it impossible to promote any further development. The same can be said about art: any original work grows out of the surrounding cultural context. If the surrounding context is cut into fragments and prohibited to use, live creativity becomes impossible. An artist?s place is taken by a team of lawyers, verifying the compliance and non-compliance of a combination of sounds with the previously obtained licenses and able to prove the illegality of a piece of art. What can work in such conditions is rubber-stamping commercial pop music, rather than real art. Thus with the help of the laws of "intellectual property" the capitalocracy is able to deal with the non-profit art not only by its financial strangulation, but by direct violence ? by sending authors to jail. The copyright and patent law, however, are not only about the development of arts and basic sciences. They obstruct the development of civilization in all fields. Promising discoveries and inventions are bought up and buried by corporations in order not to create competition for their goods, whose production is already established and profitable. Drug prices are jacked up hundredfold and thousandfold, because the patent law eliminates competition and monopolizes the market. The developing countries are caught in the eternal neo-colonial dependence, being deprived of the opportunity to adopt the achievements of progress and having no funds for buying licenses. There appears an absurd situation where people know how to produce a cheap medicine and can easily establish their own production, but under the international law cannot make it without a license and die of epidemics. We stand on the position of unrestricted freedom to produce, copy, distribute, modify and process information of any nature, whether a scientific paper, a technical development or an artistic work, except for the information that is socially dangerous or destructive in terms of moral character. We recognize certain (though limited) rights of the author, but categorically refuse to accept the rights of the owner of a patent or license, if they are not the author himself. The copyright law should not be standardized, and the right of the author of a literary text is absolutely not the same thing as the right of the author of a technical invention, and certainly is not the same as a registered trademark. We recognize the right of the author of an artistic or scientific text to require the reference to his/her name when this text is quoted or distributed, as well as the identity of the text signed by his/her name. If the text has been subjected to editing or modifying, it should be stated that a text by a certain author is taken as the basis for the present text; it has been modified and is not the original. With this indication the modified text may be freely distributed and used. We reject the right of the author of a text to impose restrictions on its copying and distribution, if the author of this text or its fragments is indicated, as well as on its modification, if the fact of modification and inconsistency with the original is indicated. We recognize the right of an inventor to a material reward for his/her invention, either in the form of a lump-sum repayment by the society, or in the form of a short-term monopoly on its use. However, after that any invention becomes in the public domain and can be used without limit as well as developed by other inventors. The proposed approach is progressive as it removes the completely artificial limitation that "intellectual property" puts in the way of progress. Like any progressive movement, our approach is doomed to ultimate victory, since, being implemented in one country, it inevitably leads to the multifold superiority of this country?s development and willy-nilly forces others to follow its example. 9. We favor the strict supervision by the public organizations of any technology being introduced into the sphere of public administration and management. With the introduction of various hardware, especially electronic, in management, a situation is created, in which the technical capabilities and limitations (the logic of the machine) are in contradiction with the constitutional rights of individuals and indeed triumph over them. The simplest example is the electronic system, which automatically processes documents and may require of a person parameters, which he/she may not have and not obliged by law to have (e.g. TIN, credit card number, etc.), or offer alternatives, none of which are suitable. To argue with the electronic system is impossible. It creates a situation of domination of technology over civil rights. Particularly threatening are those electronic systems which automatically accumulate and process the electronic information about citizens and create their electronic profiles. We stand for a substantial restriction of electronic monitoring and control and strict public control over them. In particular, we categorically oppose to awarding people personal numbers. The number should be identified only with a specific document, such as a passport, but not with its owner. We stand for the categorical prohibition of the summation of information about people in a common database from different departmental sources, unless there is a direct need for it, for the technical dissociation of this kind of databases, including the dissociation of documents, under the numbers of which the information about a person is stored. For example, medical information should be stored only in the medical database under the medical record number, not matching with the data stored under the number of a bank card, passport data, etc. The purpose of this separation of information is to limit the technical capabilities of the state and, especially, non-state actors, to violate the individual right to private life. We would also like to alert the public to monitor the timely destruction of personal information about a person in departmental, company and other databases after the cessation of actual and immediate need for its use, with a view of compulsory depersonalization of the disused numbers of his/her documents, etc. We support the categorical rejection of the implantation of microchips in human body except in cases of extreme necessity for medical reasons. We also favor the ban on placing RFID-chips in consumer goods and installation of sensors. We oppose the introduction of bioidentification and electronically readable elements in the personal documents. And, of course, we strongly advocate the legal prohibition of wiretapping by government services prior to its judicial authorization. We are, therefore, for the creation of a strong social counterweight to balance the technical capacity of public and commercial services of collecting, storing and analyzing personal information about citizens. 10. We assert the priority of rights of the majority against minority rights in all respects: economic, cultural, national, etc., as well as the priority of public and national interests over group, clan and personal ones. The modern capitalocratic society, deliberately destroying the unity of the social organism, specifically encourages minorities, opposing them to the interests of the majority. Ultimately, this leads to stripping the entire society into a set of minorities lobbying the narrow sectarian interests of their clans. The purpose of this policy is obvious: the capitalocratic oligarchy is numerically a tiny minority and can stably maintain their position only in a society fragmented into minorities, in which they are the strongest minority. We are aware that every member of the society in some respects belongs to the majority, and in some other respects - to a minority. The principal difference in the positions is that the capitalocratic system accentuates the features of belonging to a minority, making them socially prestigious or lucrative, and obscures the features of identification with the majority, making them undesirable and unprofitable. This results in a subjective self-identification of an individual with one of the minorities, rather than with the socio-forming majority. Our approach is diametrically opposed to this. It is to encourage and promote the features of identity with the majority and level the features of attributing oneself to minorities. Summarizing the above ten theses, we should say, that we speak from the position of domination of man, his biological, social, cultural and spiritual needs over the technosphere, state machine and impersonal economic forces. We strongly refuse to position ourselves on the political line between the "right" and "left" imposed on us by the capitalocracy. Speaking from the standpoint of socialization and nationalization of the means of production, natural resources and intellectual property, from the position of domination of the planning elements in the economy over the market, we do not consider binding ourselves with the typical "left" love of minorities, the struggle for gender equality (not to be confused with legal equality) and hatred of the traditional "patriarchal" social norms and institutions. On the other hand, being supporters of traditional religion, morality and family values, we do not believe it mandatory to burden ourselves with the typical "right-wing" absolutisation of economic freedom and individual rights to the detriment of the people as a whole. We are located outside of the linear "right-left" political system, dictated by the world capitalocracy, and propose our own draft of the civilization development, involving, as opposed to globalist concepts, prudent self-restraint of society in material production and consumption, but unlimited freedom in creative, intellectual and spiritual self-development . Translated by Helen V. Shelestiuk Announcement: Readers are invited to attend the Third All-Russia Anti-Global Forum to be held in Moscow on 3-4 December 2009 ( http://www.anti-glob.ru/public-conf/index.html, email: egbor at mail.ru to Elena Borisova) From sacolargo at gmail.com Sun Nov 22 11:17:08 2009 From: sacolargo at gmail.com (Phil Little) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:17:08 -0800 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Harper's "6,000-mile screwdriver" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PMO issued instructions on denying abuse in '07 November 22, 2009 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729157--pmo-issued-instructions-on-denying-abuse-in-07 Mitch Potter WASHINGTON?Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office used a "6,000-mile screwdriver" to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul. The former official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told the *Toronto Star *that Harper's office in Ottawa "scripted and fed" the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul used to repudiate allegations of abuse "at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero." "It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally," said the former official, who is not Canadian. "The lines were, 'We have no evidence' of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister's Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver." The official described the tensions over the fate of detainees as "uniquely Canadian" ? despite the fact that doubts over the treatment of Afghan detainees were ubiquitous among all NATO partners with military footprints in Afghanistan. "It was not an issue for anyone else, though other nations ought to have been as concerned as the Canadians. The Americans in particular were not remotely squeamish on this. To them, everyone was an enemy combatant." Dutch soldiers deployed in Uruzgan province north of the Canadian positions in Kandahar forestalled such concerns by "operating in a fairly Dutch way by being very, very risk-averse.'' "The Dutch were extremely nervous about the level of intensity of their military engagement in a way that the Canadians were not." Australian soldiers, by contrast, operated almost exclusively under joint Special Forces command exercised by the U.S. military ? activity that remains shielded by a total news blackout. "We just weren't encouraged to ask about Special Forces. They operate on a need-to-know basis and there was no need for us to know," the former official said. The former official, speaking in a telephone interview Saturday, said that throughout the ISAF Headquarters in Kabul "everyone knew that if a detainee got handed to the NDS (the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's intelligence service), they were not going to be in any way looked after the way they should have been. "The NDS operated under almost impenetrable secrecy. The closest relationship the NDS had with any foreign forces was with the Americans. But that ran completely outside of ISAF channels because of the exclusively American parallel operation in Afghanistan." The dynamic was especially disturbing to Canadian military officers based at ISAF in Kabul, the former official said. "One delightful Canadian officer, a colonel, who worked just down the hall, spoke privately to me about his general unease about the fact that detainees were being handed over (and) the procedures were not as robust as they should be." Many NATO officials in Kabul were also aware how seriously Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin was following the issue, he said. "Richard Colvin behaved as a straight-up-and-down person, completely honest and doing his job to the best of his abilities," the former official said. "He had to be terribly careful. He couldn't speak to us about this. But it was clear that the tone at the Canadian Embassy had changed. It became far more politicized ? and it was clear that Richard Colvin was struggling enormously to do his work on the question of detainees." Colvin, whose searing testimony in Ottawa last week ignited the furor anew, may ultimately be remembered as the man who ended Canada's war in Afghanistan. With the countdown already underway toward an end to combat operations in 2011, a new round of national hand-wringing over Canada's role in the faltering effort makes renewal of the commitment far less likely. Amid the swirl of accusations ? who knew what, when did they know it ? foreign aid workers who have logged years in Afghanistan wonder at the naivet? that informed good Canadian intentions from the beginning. "What did they think was going to happen when they handed over detainees?" asked one Kabul-based foreign national, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal against his organization's Afghan staff. Torture allegations have swirled around every Afghan government since the Soviet-backed regime of the 1980s. Afghan warlords who seized the country in the chaotic wake of the Soviet withdrawal used torture, as did the Taliban who replaced them. And just as the Taliban continues to use torture today ? British Coldstream Guards last year uncovered a Taliban torture chamber in Helmand province ? aid workers on the ground say the NDS does the same, operating with impunity under the enfeebled regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "Torture in Afghanistan is routine. It is matter-of-fact. In Canada, you might have to blow a Breathalyzer if you are stopped by the police. Well, in Kandahar when you piss somebody off the NDS will come and get you and hook you up to their machines," a senior humanitarian aid official told the *Star *, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is medieval, horrific. It is what they do to exercise power and control. And we are terrified to speak about it openly because it leaves our Afghan staff completely exposed and vulnerable to reprisals. To pretend otherwise is a fantasy narrative. "What disturbs me most ? this story is all about Canada and Canada's moral authority on the international stage and about which minister will have to resign. And sooner or later Canada will leave and it's over. "I would just remind people that for Afghans it is not over. And for the Afghans who have worked closely with the Canadians up to this point, what do you think is going to happen to them when you're gone?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 12:26:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:26:46 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Cuba] Economic data Message-ID: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2455 A Letter on Cuba ? Barry Sheppard I APPRECIATE THE articles on Cuba from various viewpoints in ATC issues #141 and #142. They provide food for thought for socialists with different analyses of Cuba. I would like to comment on the article by Frank Thomson in #141 on the Cuban economy, which I think gives a false picture. Thompson acknowledges that per capita Gross Domestic Product is a poor measure of a country?s economic wellbeing. I?ll return to that -- but since he largely utilizes this measurement, I want to start there. Thompson says, ??. in 2001, Cuba was the third poorest country in Latin America as measured by per capita GDP. Only Nicaragua and the poorest-of-the poor Haiti ranked lower.? Be that as it may, in 2008 the situation was markedly different. According to the CIA?s ?World Factbook,? Cuba ranked 107th in the world with a per capita GDP of $9,100. The world average, including the advanced imperialist countries (and the very poor), was $10,400. The following countries of Latin America and the Caribbean rank below Cuba: Colombia, #111 at $8,900 Surinam, #112 at $8,900 Anguilla, #114 at $8,800 Peru, #117 at $8,400 Dominican Republic, #118 at $8,100 Ecuador, #122 at #7,500 Jamaica, #123 at $7,400 El Salvador, #129 at $6,200 Guatemala, #137 at $5,200 Bolivia, #148 at $4,500 Honduras, #149 at $4,400 Paraguay, #151 at $4,200 Guyana, #156 at $$3,900 Nicaragua, #167 at $2,900 Haiti, # 202 at $1,300 It also should be noted that it is difficult to measure Cuban GDP in terms of U.S. dollars. The official exchange rate doesn?t reflect the real cost of living. This can be seen from the well-known fact that those in Cuba who receive dollars either in the dollar economy (tourism, mainly) or from remittances abroad have greater buying power than those who don?t. Also, basic food is rationed at low prices, and education and medical care are free to everyone, paid by the government from its general funds -- and how are these to be converted to U.S. dollars? The measure of GDP is: GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). C is consumption, I is investment, G is government expenditures, X is exports and M is imports. Cuba has to rely on large imports, and these have to be paid in hard currency, so this is a large minus when calculating GDP in dollar terms. But my main problem with Thompson?s article is that he relies on averages. Per capita GDP is an average, the GDP divided by the total population. To see how most people in a country live, it is important to know the distribution of income. At best, GDP is only a rough indication of total income. The distribution of income in capitalist countries is extremely skewed. A very few have very high incomes, and most people have much, much less. The average income, total income divided by total population, tells us nothing about what most people?s income are like in the United States, for example, because the hundreds of millions of dollars that a very few make greatly raise the average. One person making $100,000,000 balances out one thousand making $100,000, and ten thousand making $10,000 (and there are many people in the U.S. making that). The real incomes of the very rich contain hidden amounts not counted per person. Some examples: capital returns to trust funds, and that portion of company and bank profits not returned to shareholders but reinvested. A more accurate measure would be not the average, but the median (50 percent make more and 50 percent less). This too gives a figure too high because of the skewing of income to the very rich. Often figures are given for the median family income, but the median per capita income is less. What would be the most accurate measure would be the mode, the amount the income of most people is bracketed around. The average, the median and the mode are often confused in the popular mind, but when statistics are highly skewed they are very different. If a graph of the U.S. population on the X axis vs. income on the Y can be imagined, there would be a tiny tail of fewer and fewer people way out to the right towards incomes of $100,000,000 and higher, and we know there are higher just from the announcements of Wall Street bonuses, let alone the big capitalist families. Most of the population would be clustered near the left, the mode, the highest point, and the graph would tail off from there. The median would be considerably to the right of the mode, and the average would be still further to the right. Such a graph would be even more extreme if, instead of income, total wealth were plotted. In the United States, a sizable percentage has a total wealth of zero (do not own a home, stocks, bank accounts, and so forth). So the graph would run along the zero wealth line for a distance, rise up to the mode, and then tail off to the few who are the most rich. In Brazil there would be an even higher percentage with a total wealth of zero. Brazil ranks a little higher than Cuba in the CIA?s chart, at #113 and a per capita GDP of $10,400. But Brazil has a tiny few of extremely rich people and a big number of poor people. Millions do have not enough food. In Cuba everyone has adequate food. Millions of Brazilians have no health care. Everyone has health care in Cuba. Millions in Brazil are illiterate. Cubans are highly educated and all schools through college are free. Ninety percent of Cubans pay no rent because they own their own homes. A graph of income in Brazil would show a large mode on the left, at lower income, and a tail off to the right where the very rich reside. There are income disparities in Cuba, and income is skewed. There are different pay levels. Those who receive dollars earn more than those who don?t. The bureaucracy skims off from its control over distribution, but not nearly the amount in the old Soviet Union, and even there bureaucrat?s incomes were nowhere near what capitalists ?earned? ? a main reason why the bureaucracy wanted a return to capitalism. But the graph in Cuba would not tail off to millionaires and billionaires. There are none. Not even $100,000-aires. The graph would have the average, the median and the mode closer together. So Thompson?s unfavorable comparison between Cuba after the Revolution with Cuba under U.S. imperialist domination, dictatorship and gangsterism by using GDP is quite misleading. Income and wealth in pre-Revolution Cuba were highly skewed to the rich, and so were literacy and access to health care. November-December 2009, web only From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 15:10:37 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:10:37 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Come Back Karl Message-ID: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2009/11/20/bernard-porter/come-back-karl/ Come Back Karl 20 November 2009 Bernard Porter Amid all this celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago, I?m left wondering whether I was the only one to have jumped the other way at the time. It turned me into a Marxist. All my adult life before then I had thought that Marx had been wrong, for example in predicting that capitalism would need to get redder in tooth and claw before it was undermined by its internal contradictions. The Russian Revolution however had not occurred in the most advanced capitalist country, which is why, by my way of thinking, it could only be kept alive by tyranny ? a premature baby in an incubator was the metaphor I liked to use. In the West it had been shown that enlightened capitalist societies could smooth away their own roughest edges, by taking on board social democracy, the welfare state, decolonisation and the like. All this seemed to put the kibosh on the old man?s gloomy prognostication of capitalism?s needing to get worse before it exploded, releasing us into a brave new socialist world that not even Marx could describe in detail (consistently with his belief that it was the material base that determined intellectual superstructures), and that I, for one, was not at all confident that I would come to like. Happy days. Then came Thatcher, Reagan and 1989; smashing the incubator that was the only thing keeping the Communist weakling alive, and reversing the social democratic ?advances?, as we had seen them, of fifty years. All this really did seem to be driven by underlying economic imperatives. (Thatcher and Reagan were only riding them.) Since then events have followed Marx?s closer predictions almost uncannily: globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, the undermining of democracy, the triumph of a capitalist discourse (railway ?customers? rather than ?passengers?), the decline of socialist ideology, and a succession of capitalist crises, each worse than the last ? but none of them as yet showing any sign of being the last. Come back Karl; all is forgiven. You were right. (Up to ?the revolution?, that is.) I imagine that others must have had thoughts such as these, but I?ve not seen much sign of them in the triumphalism that has greeted the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 22 15:11:18 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:11:18 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Historic Peak Oil Motion Defeated In Australian Senate Message-ID: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya221109.htm 22 November 2009 Countercurrents.org Historic Peak Oil Motion Defeated In Australian Senate By Dr Gideon Polya Peak oil is the point in time at which maximum oil production occurs and after which production declines. Peak oil has already happened for nearly all oil producers including the US and Venezuela (in 1970), Indonesia (1991) and Russia (2007), with peak oil rapidly approaching in Kuwait (2013), Saudi Arabia (2014) and war-torn, US-occupied Iraq (2018). [1]. Aside from the evident arrival of Peak Oil with record, business as usual (BAU) oil consumption (with the booming economies of China and India also demanding their fair share), future use of oil for transport and heating is contraindicated by (a) the massive and growing use of scarce oil resources as the feedstock for industrial production of plastics and pharmaceuticals and (b) the urgent need, according to top climate scientists, to return atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from the current, dangerous, climate-disrupting 390 parts per million (ppm) to a safe and sustainable level of 300-350 ppm. [2]. Sensible people have recognized the problem of Peak Oil for decades ? indeed I remember the indignation of my organic chemistry professor nearly half a century ago over the fact that we were actually BURNING this valuable feedstock for the organic chemical industry that provides us with a cornucopia of sophisticated products from all kinds of plastics to life-saving pharmaceuticals. However the corporate world has failed to act on the problem and the corrupt, corporation-lobbied, Western politicians have failed to act on Peak Oil except by securing control over oil supplies by a century of subversions, civil wars, invasions, occupations and genocides as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. For a history of the carnage inflicted by oil- and resource-hungry USA in the post-war era see William Blum?s book ?Rogue State? but for a wider history of every country of the world before, during and after WW2 and for estimates of the horrendous human cost of the 20th and 21st century American, European and Japanese Oil Wars see my book ?Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950?. [3, 4, 5]. The human cost of the Oil Wars and of European colonialism, neo-colonialism and hegemony in general can be estimated as avoidable mortality (excess mortality, avoidable deaths, excess deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) which is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a decently run, peaceful country with the same demographics. Thus the 1950-2005 excess mortality/ 2005 population (both in millions, m) and expressed as a percentage (%) can be calculated for the USA and for each country occupied by the US in the post-1945 era. (the asterisk (*) below indicates major occupation by another country as well): the USA [8.455m/300.038m = 2.8%] - Afghanistan* [16.609m/25.971m = 64.0%], Cambodia* [5.852m/14.825m = 39.5%], Dominican Republic [0.806m/8.998m = 9.0%], Federated States of Micronesia [0.016m/0.111m = 14.4%], Greece* [0.027m/10.978m = 0.2%], Grenada* [0.018m/0.121m = 14.9%], Guam [0.005m/0.168m = 3.0%], Haiti* [4.089m/8.549m = 47.9%], Iraq* [5.283m/26.555m = 19.9%], Korea* [7.958m/71.058m = 11.2%], Laos* [2.653m/5.918m = 44.8%], Panama [0.172m/3.235m = 5.3%], Philippines [9.080m/82.809m = 11.0%], Puerto Rico [0.039m/3.915m = 1.0%], Somalia* [5.568m/10.742m = 51.8%], US Virgin Islands [0.003m/0.113m = 2.4%], Vietnam* [24.015m/83.585m = 28.7%], total = 82.193m/357.651m = 23.0% . The 1950-2005 excess deaths in countries occupied in the post-war era by the US, UK, Apartheid Israel and France total 82 million, 727 million, 24 million and 142 million, respectively (for details see ?Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950?). [4, 5]. Professor Noam Chomsky has cogently described the Middle East oil as the key strategic area of US foreign policy: ?The area of greatest concern is the Middle East. There is nothing novel about that. I often have to arrange talks years in advance. If I am asked for a title, I suggest ?The Current Crisis in the Middle East.? It has yet to fail. There?s a good reason: the huge energy resources of the region were recognized by Washington sixty years ago as a ?stupendous source of strategic power,? the ?strategically most important area of the world,? and ?one of the greatest material prizes in world history.? Control over this stupendous prize has been a primary goal of U.S. policy ever since, and threats to it have naturally aroused enormous concern.? [6]. President Barack Obama made lots of fine rhetorical statements during his election campaign and indeed has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However under his dishonest, racist, warmongering and war-making Administration, in a mere 10 months the US and its allies have been involved in attacking and/or occupying a swathe of Middle East countries namely Somalia, Sudan , Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and NW Pakistan. Just in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories alone post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million, 2.3 million and 3-7 million, respectively , and refugees total 7 million, 5-6 million and 3-4 million, respectively, with a further 2.5 million refugees generated by war under Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama in NW Pakistan ? a Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. Smarter, non-racist, non-violent and non-genocidal ways of dealing with Peak Oil and the worsening Climate Emergency involve rational risk management, this successively involving (a) getting accurate data, (b) scientific analysis and (c) sensible, informed system change to minimize risk. At a city level, Bloomington, Indiana , USA has led the way by recognizing the Peak Oil problem in 2006 and setting up a Peak Oil Task Force in 2007 to apply sensible risk management to protect the city from negative consequences of Peak Oil. Other cities may well move to do likewise. [7]. However at a national government level the approach seems to be to be a policy of ignoring the Awful Truth and of keeping Peak Oil under wraps. Thus Tom Whipple writing in the Energy Bulletin recently (November 2009) exposed how the US government was attempting to manipulate public information on Peak Oil: ?Last week we had an early insight into the recriminations when the UK's Guardian newspaper (formerly the Manchester Guardian) published an expos? on how the world's official keeper-of-the-books on energy matters, the International Energy Agency (IEA), has been manipulating its forecasts. Two senior IEA officials, one active and one retired, were the sources of the story which was corroborated by others who have had close contact with the inner workings of the IEA in recent years. The most damning part of the expos? was the allegation the manipulation of the oil production forecasts was done at the behest of the United States government which feared the consequences, should it become generally known and believed that oil soon would no longer be available in unlimited quantities. Oil products would become too expensive for many uses and the world would change forever.? [8, 9]. In Australia the Australian Greens recently attempted to introduce what, to the best of my knowledge (please let me know otherwise ASAP), may be the first ever Peak Oil motion introduced into a national assembly. Unfortunately, in the Federal Parliament of pro-coal, fossil fuel-obsessed, climate criminal Australia (the world?s worst per capita greenhouse gas polluter), the motion was defeated 31 to 6 on 20 November 2009 with the five Australian Greens Senators supporting the motion and one supposes South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon as the sixth supporting vote. [10]. The Australian Greens motion, moved by Australian Greens Deputy Leader Senator Christine Milne, was as follows. QUOTE. ?I move that the Senate: a) Notes that: i. Neither the former Howard government nor the Rudd government implemented the first recommendation of the 2007 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels, namely, that Geoscience Australia, ABARE and Treasury reassess both the official estimates of future oil supply and the 'early peak' arguments and report to the Government on the probabilities and risks involved, comparing early mitigation scenarios with business as usual. ii. Of the nine recommendations of that Report, only recommendation 6 relating to incentives for fuel efficient vehicles have even been considered let alone addressed. iii. In the week beginning 8 November 2009, the International Energy Agency issued its annual 'World Energy Outlook', predicting that global oil demand is forecast to rise from 85m barrels per day 2008 to 105m barrels per day in 2030. iv. A whistleblower at the International Energy Agency has claimed "it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying" and that a "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". (b) Calls on the government to immediately develop a national plan to respond to the challenge of peak oil and Australia's dependence on imported foreign oil.? END QUOTE. Australian Greens Senator Milne has supported action to respond to Peak Oil as follows: ?"The global financial crisis drove manufacturing from the developed world into the developing world, thereby replacing oil with coal and increasing greenhouse emissions. If we don't start planning now, peak oil will repeat that process many times over with disastrous outcomes. Australia needs to kick the oil addiction before peak oil kicks it for us by driving prices sky high. Martin Ferguson [Australian Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism] is already promoting coal-based transport fuels as a way to keep Australia's coal sector flourishing. The climate impact of such a short-sighted move would be horrendous. We must start planning now to bring on the sustainable alternatives of renewably-powered electric vehicles, both public and private, and tackle the climate and peak oil crises together. The International Energy Agency [IEA] whistleblower's report is shocking but unsurprising to those of us who have watched the refusal by Australian governments to acknowledge the peak oil threat." [10]. There is immense danger to the Planet from a shift from conventional oil to alternative carbon-based transport fuels. Thus the legislatively-mandated use of biofuel in the US, UK and EU means using food as fuel in a world in which 4 billion people already suffer from malnutrition and has already contributed to enormous increases in food prices in recent years (16 million people already die worldwide each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease). While oil and natural gas reserves have been substantially depleted, these resources are dwarfed by enormous reserves of coal, methane hydrates, oil sands and oil shale that are already being exploited for carbon-based transport fuels. Thus methane is being extracted from coal mines and coal can be used to generate combustible synthesis gas (carbon monoxide, CO, and hydrogen, H2) which can thence be converted to liquid hydrocarbons by the Fischer-Tropsch process. Top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen (head, NASA?s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, adjunct professor at Columbia University and a member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences) has written a letter with a detailed Appendix to the PM of Australia, Kevin Rudd (aka KRudd for his pro-coal stance) setting out the danger to the Planet from further exploitation of these alternative carbon fuel resources, namely the huge coal reserves (notably in climate criminal Australia, the world?s leading coal exporter and worst annual per capita GHG polluter), huge methane hydrate deposits (under the oceans, now bubbling to the surface in the shallow parts of the rapidly warming Arctic), and huge shale oil and tar sands reserves (notably in climate criminal Canada where tar sands are being exploited and provide the biggest single source of imported oil for the US): ?Figure 3 shows reported fossil fuel reserves and resources (estimated undiscovered deposits). Reserves are hotly debated and may be exaggerated, but we know that enough oil and gas remain to take global warming close to, if not into, the realm of dangerous climate effects. Coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale contain enough carbon to produce a vastly different planet, a more dangerous and desolate planet, from the one on which civilization developed, a planet without Arctic sea ice, with crumbling ice sheets that ensure sea level catastrophes for our children and grandchildren, with shifting climate zones that cause great hardship for the world?s poor and drive countless species to extinction, and with intensified hydrologic extremes that cause increased drought and wildfires but also stronger rain, floods, and storms. Oil and coal uses differ fundamentally. Oil is burned primarily in small sources, in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the CO2 emissions. Available oil reserves will be exploited eventually, regardless of efficiency standards on vehicles, and the CO2 will be emitted to the atmosphere. The climate effect of oil is nearly independent of how fast we burn the oil, because much of the CO2 remains in the air for centuries.? [11]. Climate criminal Australia (the world?s leading coal exporter and worst annual per capita GHG polluter) has set its course to effective business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels FOREVER. While top climate scientists urge a rapid DECREASE of the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 300-350 ppm, current Australian Government policies commit Australia to INCREASE its already huge domestic and exported CO2 and methane (CH4) emissions. Indeed the recent decision by the Australian Labor Government and Liberal-National Party Opposition (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) to permanently exclude agriculture from any carbon pollution caps means that the Lib-Labs have committed Australia to over 50% of its huge GHG emissions FOREVER. [12]. The pro-war, war criminal, pro-coal, climate criminal, US lackey Australian Lib-Labs have now underscored their greedy, anti-science, anti-humanity, genocidal commitment to GHG pollution by the 31 to 6 rejection of the Greens? historic Peak Oil motion in the Australian Senate. We must hold the climate criminals legally, commercially and electorally Accountable for their crimes against Humanity and the Biosphere. While Western car drivers will continue to look the other way in relation to the worsening Climate Genocide (from ignorance or politically correct racist hypocrisy), I suspect that they WILL react angrily at the ballot box over the continuing Peak Oil lying, betrayal and inaction by Western governments. The Euro-American conscience, deadened by 8 years of genocidal Bush-ite and racist Zionist (RZ) terror hysteria and warmongering, is unperturbed by Obama the Bomber (Gringo lingo: B-ah-mer) and 2.5 million Pashtun refugees from NW Pakistan and the 20 million Muslim refugees generated in toto by the racist, genocidal, Oil Wars of the racist Zionists (RZs) and US Alliance. However Western car-drivers are rapidly getting wise to Obama the Bummer (also more or less in Gringo lingo: B-ah-mer) over Peak Oil and the already manifesting climate disruption downside from man-made global warming (greatly increased intensity and extent of forest fires, doubling of hurricane intensity, and other climate change-related heatwave, flood, drought and sea level rise impacts occurring in the oh-so-nice West). We all must take action in the face of worsening First World-imposed climate genocide that is predicted to kill 10 billion people this century from unaddressed global warming, this predicted carnage including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Decent people must act urgently to help save Humanity and the Biosphere of the Planet by (a) informing everyone they can about the worsening Climate Emergency and Climate Genocide and by (b) urging and taking individual and collective action by Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, Reparations Demands and Prosecutions against people, products, corporations and countries involved in the worsening Global Warming, Climate Injustice and Climate Genocide . [1]. Wikipedia, ?Peak oil?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil . [2]. 300.org,?300.org ? return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm?: http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/ 300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm . [3]. William Blum, ?Rogue State? (Zed Books, London, 2006). [4]. Gideon Polya, ?Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950? (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007): http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya . [5]. Gideon Polya, ?Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950? (2008 lecture): http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/ 2008/08/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html . [6]. Noam Chomsky, ?Imminent crises: threats and opportunities?, Monthly Review, vol. 59, number 2, 2007: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0607nc.htm . [7]. ?Bloomington (IN) Peak Oil Task Force Legislation and background material?, Post Carbon Cities, 5 December 2007: http://postcarboncities.net/node/2086 . [8]. Tom Whipple, ?The Peak Oil crisis: accusations?, Energy Bulletin, 18 November 2009: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50748 . [9]. Terry Macalister, ?Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower?, Guardian, 9 November 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/n ov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency . [10]. Australian Greens, ?Peal Oil plan needed to avoid default to coal?: http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/ peak-oil-plan-needed-avoid-default-coal . [11]. Dr James Hansen, Letter to Australian PM Kevin Rudd, 27 March 2008: http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/ Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf . [12]. Gideon Polya, ?We are running out of time tosave Humnaity and thre Biosphere?, Countercurrents, 20 November 2009: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya201109.htm . Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003: http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical- Targets-Plant-Bioactive-Compounds/dp/0415308291 ). He has recently published ?Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950? (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ and http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya) and an updated 2008 version of his 1998 book ?Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History, Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability? (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2008: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). He is currently teaching Biochemistry theory and practical courses to second year university agricultural science students at a very good Australian university. Words having failed, he also paints huge Paintings for Peace, Planet, Mother and Child: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ (anyone is free to reproduce these images with attribution in the interests of Humanity). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 24 10:33:54 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:33:54 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Sewers at Capacity, Waste Poisons Waterways (Drowning in our own shit) Message-ID: Karl Marx, Capital III: "In London...they can do nothing better with the excrement produced by 4.5 million people than pollute the Thames with it, at monstrous expense". ---------- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23sewer.html?_r=1&hp As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways By CHARLES DUHIGG Published: November 22, 2009 It was drizzling lightly in late October when the midnight shift started at the Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant, where much of Brooklyn?s sewage is treated. A few miles away, people were walking home without umbrellas from late dinners. But at Owls Head, a swimming pool?s worth of sewage and wastewater was soon rushing in every second. Warning horns began to blare. A little after 1 a.m., with a harder rain falling, Owls Head reached its capacity and workers started shutting the intake gates. That caused a rising tide throughout Brooklyn?s sewers, and untreated feces and industrial waste started spilling from emergency relief valves into the Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Canal. ?It happens anytime you get a hard rainfall,? said Bob Connaughton, one of the plant?s engineers. ?Sometimes all it takes is 20 minutes of rain, and you?ve got overflows across Brooklyn.? One goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to upgrade the nation?s sewer systems, many of them built more than a century ago, to handle growing populations and increasing runoff of rainwater and waste. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress distributed more than $60 billion to cities to make sure that what goes into toilets, industrial drains and street grates would not endanger human health. But despite those upgrades, many sewer systems are still frequently overwhelmed, according to a New York Times analysis of environmental data. As a result, sewage is spilling into waterways. In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation?s 25,000 sewage systems ? including those in major cities ? have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency. But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows. It is not clear whether the sewage systems that have not reported such dumping are doing any better, because data on overflows and spillage are often incomplete. As cities have grown rapidly across the nation, many have neglected infrastructure projects and paved over green spaces that once absorbed rainwater. That has contributed to sewage backups into more than 400,000 basements and spills into thousands of streets, according to data collected by state and federal officials. Sometimes, waste has overflowed just upstream from drinking water intake points or near public beaches. There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste. A 2007 study published in the journal Pediatrics, focusing on one Milwaukee hospital, indicated that the number of children suffering from serious diarrhea rose whenever local sewers overflowed. Another study, published in 2008 in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, estimated that as many as four million people become sick each year in California from swimming in waters containing the kind of pollution often linked to untreated sewage. Around New York City, samples collected at dozens of beaches or piers have detected the types of bacteria and other pollutants tied to sewage overflows. Though the city?s drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs, environmentalists say untreated excrement and other waste in the city?s waterways pose serious health risks. A Deluge of Sewage ?After the storm, the sewage flowed down the street faster than we could move out of the way and filled my house with over a foot of muck,? said Laura Serrano, whose Bay Shore, N.Y., home was damaged in 2005 by a sewer overflow. Ms. Serrano, who says she contracted viral meningitis because of exposure to the sewage, has filed suit against Suffolk County, which operates the sewer system. The county?s lawyer disputes responsibility for the damage and injuries. ?I had to move out, and no one will buy my house because the sewage was absorbed into the walls,? Ms. Serrano said. ?I can still smell it sometimes.? When a sewage system overflows or a treatment plant dumps untreated waste, it is often breaking the law. Today, sewage systems are the nation?s most frequent violators of the Clean Water Act. More than a third of all sewer systems ? including those in San Diego, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco ? have violated environmental laws since 2006, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data. Thousands of other sewage systems operated by smaller cities, colleges, mobile home parks and companies have also broken the law. But few of the violators are ever punished. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that officials agreed that overflows posed a ?significant environmental and human health problem, and significantly reducing or eliminating such overflows has been a priority for E.P.A. enforcement since the mid-1990s.? In the last year, E.P.A. settlements with sewer systems in Hampton Roads, Va., and the east San Francisco Bay have led to more than $200 million spent on new systems to reduce pollution, the agency said. In October, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said she was overhauling how the Clean Water Act is enforced. But widespread problems still remain. ?The E.P.A. would rather look the other way than crack down on cities, since punishing municipalities can cause political problems,? said Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. ?But without enforcement and fines, this problem will never end.? Plant operators and regulators, for their part, say that fines would simply divert money from stretched budgets and that they are doing the best they can with aging systems and overwhelmed pipes. New York, for example, was one of the first major cities to build a large sewer system, starting construction in 1849. Many of those pipes ? constructed of hand-laid brick and ceramic tiles ? are still used. Today, the city?s 7,400 miles of sewer pipes operate almost entirely by gravity, unlike in other cities that use large pumps. New York City?s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber. When a toilet flushes in the West Village in Manhattan, the waste runs north six miles through gradually descending pipes to a plant at 137th Street, where it is mixed with so-called biological digesters that consume dangerous pathogens. The wastewater is then mixed with chlorine and sent into the Hudson River. Fragile System But New York?s system ? like those in hundreds of others cities ? combines rainwater runoff with sewage. Over the last three decades, as thousands of acres of trees, bushes and other vegetation in New York have been paved over, the land?s ability to absorb rain has declined significantly. When treatment plants are swamped, the excess spills from 490 overflow pipes throughout the city?s five boroughs. When the sky is clear, Owls Head can handle the sewage from more than 750,000 people. But the balance is so delicate that Mr. Connaughton and his colleagues must be constantly ready for rain. They choose cable television packages for their homes based on which company offers the best local weather forecasts. They know meteorologists by the sound of their voices. When the leaves begin to fall each autumn, clogging sewer grates and pipes, Mr. Connaughton sometimes has trouble sleeping. ?I went to Hawaii with my wife, and the whole time I was flipping to the Weather Channel, seeing if it was raining in New York,? he said. New York?s sewage system overflows essentially every other time it rains. Reducing such overflows is a priority, city officials say. But eradicating the problem would cost billions. Officials have spent approximately $35 billion over three decades improving the quality of the waters surrounding the city and have improved systems to capture and store rainwater and sewage, bringing down the frequency and volume of overflows, the city?s Department of Environmental Protection wrote in a statement. ?Water quality in New York City has improved dramatically in the last century, and particularly in the last two decades,? officials wrote. Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. ?Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,? the department wrote. ?It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.? The E.P.A., concerned about the risks of overflowing sewers, issued a national framework in 1994 to control overflows, including making sure that pipes are designed so they do not easily become plugged by debris and warning the public when overflows occur. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to crack down on overflows. But in hundreds of places, sewer systems remain out of compliance with that framework or the Clean Water Act, which regulates most pollution discharges to waterways. And the burdens on sewer systems are growing as cities become larger and, in some areas, rainstorms become more frequent and fierce. New York?s system, for instance, was designed to accommodate a so-called five-year storm ? a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, the city experienced three 25-year storms, according to city officials ? storms so strong they would be expected only four times each century. ?When you get five inches of rain in 30 minutes, it?s like Thanksgiving Day traffic on a two-lane bridge in the sewer pipes,? said James Roberts, deputy commissioner of the city?s Department of Environmental Protection. Government?s Response To combat these shifts, some cities are encouraging sewer-friendly development. New York, for instance, has instituted zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for roofs with absorbent vegetation and begun to use millions of dollars for environmentally friendly infrastructure projects. Philadelphia has announced it will spend $1.6 billion over 20 years to build rain gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and to plant thousands of trees. But unless cities require private developers to build in ways that minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into sewers is likely to grow, environmentalists say. The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation?s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office. Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems. But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state?s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are ?using outmoded, inadequate technology.? ?The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,? said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. ?Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We?re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn?t enough.? From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 24 13:20:25 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:20:25 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Video] The children of Falluja Message-ID: The children of Falluja Warning: This video contains disturbing images http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/nov/14/falluja-children-iraq-conflict?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 24 14:33:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:33:43 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Honduras] Solidarity Wins for Maquila Workers Message-ID: ..."Maquilas are especially important for women," conservative cardinal Rodriguez added, "because their jobs have been a source of dignity. When they earn their own money they are no longer slaves to the macho man in their lives, who often is not even their husband."... Weekly News Update on the Americas Issue #1013, November 22, 2009 1. Honduras: Solidarity Wins for Maquila Workers 2. Honduras: Isolated, De Factos Prepare for Vote 3. US: SOA Protest Highlights Honduras, El Salvador 4. Haiti: UN Troops Shoot Again 5. Links to alternative sources on: Economic Crisis, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Puerto Rico ISSN#: 1084-922X. Weekly News Update on the Americas covers news from Latin America and the Caribbean, compiled and written from a progressive perspective. It has been published weekly by the Nicaragua Solidarity Network of Greater New York since 1990. For a subscription, write to weeklynewsupdate at gmail.com . It is archived at http://weeklynewsupdate.blogspot.com/ *1. Honduras: Solidarity Wins for Maquila Workers On Nov. 17 the US-based United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) announced an agreement with Russell Athletic of Atlanta for the sports apparel maker to rehire 1,200 workers it laid off in January when it closed its Jerzees de Honduras plant soon after the workers joined a union. Russell, a subsidiary of Kentucky-based Fruit of the Loom, is to open a new maquiladora (tax-exempt assembly plant producing largely for export) in the same area as the old plant, the Choloma region of the northwestern Honduran department of Cortes. The new plant will be called Jerzees Nuevo D?a ("Jerzees New Day"). The agreement is the biggest win to date for the decade-old student movement against sweatshops, which organized at nearly 100 North American campuses to force colleges to end licensing agreements for Russell sportswear because of the company's labor violations. The workers were represented by the local Union of Empresa Jerzees Workers (SITRAJERZEESH) and the national General Workers Central (CGT). Although the most conservative of the three main Honduran labor confederations, the CGT has been active in the resistance to a June 28 military coup that removed President Jos? Manuel Zelaya Rosales from office; Honduran business owners generally supported the coup [see Updates #997, 1000]. [...] Read the full Update: http://weeklynewsupdate.blogspot.com/2009/11/wnu-1013-solidarity-wins-for-honduran.html From dh56 at parit.ca Tue Nov 24 17:30:04 2009 From: dh56 at parit.ca (David Henry) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:30:04 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] 150th anniversary, 'On the Origin of Species' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1259105404.11688.67.camel@localhost> Today, November 24, is the 150th anniversary of 'On the Origin of Species'. Enjoy. Excerpts from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species', published on 24 November 1859, is a seminal work of scientific literature, considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to 'The Origin of Species'. Darwin's book introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation. Various evolutionary ideas had already been proposed to explain new findings in biology. There was growing support for such ideas among dissident anatomists and the general public, but during the first half of the 19th century the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, while science was part of natural theology. Ideas about the transmutation of species were controversial as they conflicted with the beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unique, unrelated to animals. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream. The book was written for non-specialist readers and attracted widespread interest upon its publication. As Darwin was an eminent scientist, his findings were taken seriously and the evidence he presented generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. The debate over the book contributed to the campaign by T.H. Huxley and his fellow members of the X Club to secularise science by promoting scientific naturalism. Within two decades there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent, had occurred, but scientists were slow to give natural selection the significance that Darwin thought appropriate. During the "eclipse of Darwinism" from the 1880s to the 1930s, various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit. With the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s, Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, now the unifying concept of the life sciences. Summary of Darwin's theory Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows: * Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact). * Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact). * Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact). * A struggle for survival ensues (inference). * Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact). * Much of this variation is inheritable (fact). * Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference). * This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference). Events leading to publication An 1855 paper on the "introduction" of species, written by Alfred Russel Wallace, claimed that patterns in the geographical distribution of species and fossils could be explained if every new species always came into existence near an already existing, closely related species. Charles Lyell recognised the implications of Wallace's paper and its possible connection to Darwin's work, although Darwin did not, and in the spring of 1856 Lyell urged Darwin to publish his theory to establish priority. Darwin was torn between the desire to set out a full and convincing account and the pressure to quickly produce a short paper. He decided he did not want to expose his ideas to review by an editor as would have been required to publish in an academic journal. On 14 May 1856, he began a "sketch" account, and by July had decided to produce a full technical treatise on species. Darwin was hard at work on his "big book" on 'Natural Selection', when on 18 June 1858 he received a parcel from Wallace, who was working in Borneo. It enclosed twenty pages describing an evolutionary mechanism, a response to Darwin's recent encouragement, with a request to send it on to Lyell if Darwin thought it worthwhile. The mechanism was similar to Darwin's own theory. Darwin wrote to Lyell that "your words have come true with a vengeance, ... forestalled" and he would "of course, at once write and offer to send [it] to any journal" that Wallace chose, adding that "all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed". Lyell and Hooker agreed that a joint paper should be presented at the Linnean Society, and on 1 July 1858, the papers entitled 'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties'; and 'On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection', by Wallace and Darwin respectively, were read out but drew little reaction. While Darwin considered Wallace's idea to be identical to his concept of natural selection, historians have pointed out differences. Darwin described natural selection as being analogous to the artificial selection practised by animal breeders, and emphasised competition between individuals; Wallace drew no comparison to selective breeding, and focused on ecological pressures that kept different varieties adapted to local conditions. On 20 July 1858, Darwin started work on an "abstract" trimmed from his 'Natural Selection', writing much of it from memory. Lyell made arrangements with publisher John Murray, who agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. Darwin had initially decided to call his book 'An abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through natural selection', but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: 'On the Origin of Species', with the title page adding by 'Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'. Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races--the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants". Time taken to publish By December 1838, Darwin had his basic theory of natural selection "by which to work", yet when Wallace's letter arrived on 18 June 1858 Darwin was still not ready to publish his theory. It is commonly thought that Darwin avoided or delayed making his ideas public, and scholars have suggested various reasons, including fear of religious persecution or social disgrace if his views were revealed, and concern about upsetting his clergymen naturalist friends or his pious wife Emma. Charles Darwin's illness caused repeated delays. His paper on Glen Roy had proved embarrassingly wrong, and he may have wanted to be sure he was correct. David Quammen has suggested all these factors may have contributed, and notes Darwin's large output of books and busy family life during that time. A more recent study by science historian John van Wyhe has determined that the idea that Darwin delayed publication only dates back to the 1940s, and Darwin's contemporaries thought the time he took was reasonable. Darwin always finished one book before starting another he had been researching, and he told many people about his interest in transmutation without causing outrage. While he firmly intended to publish, it was not until September 1854 that he could work on it full time. His estimate that writing his "big book" would take five years was optimistic. Publication and subsequent editions 'On the Origin of Species' was first published on Thursday 24 November 1859, priced at fifteen shillings. The book had been offered to booksellers at Murray's autumn sale on Tuesday 22 November, and all available copies had been taken up immediately. In total, 1,250 copies were printed but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers' Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale. The second edition of 3,000 copies was quickly brought out on 7 January 1860, and incorporated numerous corrections as well as a response to religious objections by the addition of a new epigraph on page ii, a quotation from Charles Kingsley, and the phrase "by the Creator" amended to the closing sentence. During Darwin's lifetime the book went through six editions, with cumulative changes and revisions to deal with counter-arguments raised. The third edition came out in 1861, with a number of sentences rewritten or added and an introductory appendix, 'An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species', while the fourth in 1866 had further revisions. The fifth edition, published on 10 February 1869, incorporated more changes and for the first time included the phrase "survival of the fittest", which had been coined by the philosopher Herbert Spencer in his 'Principles of Biology' (1864). In January 1871, George Jackson Mivart's 'On the Genesis of Species' listed detailed arguments against natural selection, and claimed it included false metaphysics. Darwin made revisions to the sixth edition of the 'Origin', using the word "evolution" for the first time, and added a new chapter VII, 'Miscellaneous objections', to address Mivart's arguments. The sixth edition was published by Murray on 19 February 1872 with "On" dropped from the title. Darwin had told Murray of working men in Lancashire clubbing together to buy the 5th edition at fifteen shillings and wanted it made more widely available; the price was halved to 7s 6d by printing in a smaller font. It includes a glossary compiled by W.S. Dallas. Book sales increased from 60 to 250 per month. Publication outside Great Britain In the United States, Asa Gray negotiated with a Boston publisher for publication of an authorised American version, but learnt that two New York publishing firms were already planning to exploit the absence of international copyright to print 'Origin'. Darwin was delighted by the popularity of the book, and asked Gray to keep any profits. Gray managed to negotiate a 5% royalty with Appleton's of New York, who got their edition out in mid January 1860, and the other two withdrew. In a May letter, Darwin mentioned a print run of 2,500 copies, but it is not clear if this referred to the first printing only as there were four that year. The book was widely translated in Darwin's life time, but problems arose with translating concepts and metaphors, and some translations were biased by the translator's own agenda. Darwin distributed presentation copies in France and Germany, hoping that suitable applicants would come forward, as translators were expected to make their own arrangements with a local publisher. He welcomed the distinguished elderly naturalist and geologist Heinrich Georg Bronn, but the German translation published in 1860 imposed Bronn's own ideas, adding controversial themes that Darwin had deliberately omitted. Bronn translated "favoured races" as "perfected races", and added essays on issues including the origin of life, as well as a final chapter on religious implications partly inspired by Bronn's adherence to Naturphilosophie. In 1862, Bronn produced a second edition based on the third English edition and Darwin's suggested additions, but then died of a heart attack. Darwin corresponded closely with Julius Victor Carus, who published an improved translation in 1867. Darwin's attempts to find a translator in France fell through, and the translation by Cl?mence Royer published in 1862 added an introduction praising Darwin's ideas as an alternative to religious revelation and promoting ideas anticipating social Darwinism and eugenics, as well as numerous explanatory notes giving her own answers to doubts that Darwin expressed. Darwin corresponded with Royer about a second edition published in 1866 and a third in 1870, but he had difficulty getting her to remove her notes and was troubled by these editions. He remained unsatisfied until a translation by Edmond Barbier was published in 1876. In 1864, translations were published in Dutch, Italian and Russian. In Darwin's lifetime, 'Origin' was published in Swedish in 1869, Danish in 1872, Polish in 1873, Hungarian in 1873?1874, Spanish in 1877 and Serbian in 1878. By 1977, it had appeared in an additional 18 languages. Reception British cartoonists presented Darwin's theory in an unthreatening way. In the 1870s iconic caricatures of Darwin with an ape or monkey body emphasised his significance in transforming ideas, and contributed to widespread identification of evolutionism with Darwinism. The book aroused international interest and a widespread debate, with no sharp line between scientific issues and ideological, social and religious implications. Much of the initial reaction was hostile, but Darwin had to be taken seriously as a prominent and respected name in science. There was much less controversy than had greeted the 1844 publication 'Vestiges of Creation' (published anonymously by Robert Chambers), which had been rejected by scientists, but had influenced a wide public readership into believing that nature and human society were governed by natural laws. 'The Origin of Species' as a book of wide general interest became associated with ideas of social reform. Its proponents made full use of a surge in the publication of review journals, and it was given more popular attention than almost any other scientific work, though it failed to match the continuing sales of 'Vestiges'. Darwin's book legitimised scientific discussion of evolutionary mechanisms, and the newly coined term Darwinism was used to cover the whole range of evolutionism, not just his own ideas. By the mid 1870s, evolutionism was triumphant. In the final chapter, Darwin merely hinted that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man", but the first review claimed it made a creed of the "men from monkeys" idea from 'Vestiges'. Human evolution became central to the debate and was strongly argued by Huxley who featured it in his popular "working-men's lectures". Darwin did not publish his own views on this until 1871. The naturalism of natural selection conflicted with presumptions of purpose in nature and while this could be reconciled by theistic evolution, other mechanisms implying more progress or purpose were more acceptable. Herbert Spencer had already incorporated Lamarckism into his popular philosophy of progressive free market human society. He popularised the terms evolution and survival of the fittest, and many thought Spencer was central to evolutionary thinking. Impact on the scientific community Scientific readers were already aware of arguments that species changed through processes that were subject to laws of nature, but the transmutational ideas of Lamarck and the vague "law of development" of 'Vestiges' had not found scientific favour. Darwin presented natural selection as a scientifically testable mechanism while accepting that other mechanisms such as inheritance of acquired characters were possible. His strategy established that evolution through natural laws was worthy of scientific study, and by 1875, most scientists accepted that evolution occurred but few thought natural selection was significant. Darwin's scientific method was also disputed, with his proponents favouring the empiricism of John Stuart Mill's 'A System of Logic', while opponents held to the idealist school of William Whewell's 'Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences', in which investigation could begin with the intuitive truth that species were fixed objects created by design. Early support for Darwin's ideas came from the findings of field naturalists studying biogeography and ecology, including Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1860, and Asa Gray in 1862. Henry Walter Bates presented research in 1861 that explained insect mimicry using natural selection. Alfred Russel Wallace discussed evidence from his Malay archipelago research, including an 1864 paper with an evolutionary explanation for the Wallace line. Evolution had less obvious applications to anatomy and morphology, and at first had little impact on the research of the anatomist Thomas Henry Huxley. Despite this, Huxley strongly supported Darwin on evolution; though he called for experiments to show whether natural selection could form new species, and questioned if Darwin's gradualism was sufficient without sudden leaps to cause speciation. Huxley wanted science to be secular, without religious interference, and his article in the April 1860 Westminster Review promoted scientific naturalism over natural theology, praising Darwin for "extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated" and coining the term "Darwinism" as part of his efforts to secularise and professionalise science. Huxley gained influence, and initiated the X Club, which used the journal Nature to promote evolution and naturalism, shaping much of late Victorian science. Later, the German morphologist Ernst Haeckel would convince Huxley that comparative anatomy and palaeontology could be used to reconstruct evolutionary genealogies. The leading naturalist in Britain was the anatomist Richard Owen, an idealist who had shifted to the view in the 1850s that the history of life was the gradual unfolding of a divine plan. Owen's review of the 'Origin' in the April 1860 Edinburgh Review bitterly attacked Huxley, Hooker and Darwin, but also signalled acceptance of a kind of evolution as a teleological plan in a continuous "ordained becoming", with new species appearing by natural birth. Others that rejected natural selection, but supported "creation by birth", included the Duke of Argyll who explained beauty in plumage by design. Since 1858, Huxley had emphasised anatomical similarities between apes and humans, contesting Owen's view that humans were a separate sub-class. Their disagreement over human origins came to the fore at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting featuring the legendary 1860 Oxford evolution debate. In two years of acrimonious public dispute which Charles Kingsley satirised as the "Great Hippocampus Question" and parodied in 'The Water-Babies' as the "great hippopotamus test", Huxley showed that Owen was incorrect in asserting that ape brains lacked a structure present in human brains. Others, including Charles Lyell and Alfred Russel Wallace, thought that humans shared a common ancestor with apes, but higher mental faculties could not have evolved through a purely material process. Darwin published his own explanation in the 'Descent of Man' (1871). Impact outside Great Britain Evolutionary ideas, although not natural selection, were accepted by German biologists accustomed to ideas of homology in morphology from Goethe's 'Metamorphosis of Plants' and from their long tradition of comparative anatomy. Bronn's alterations in his German translation added to the misgivings of conservatives, but enthused political radicals. Ernst Haeckel was particularly ardent, aiming to synthesise Darwin's ideas with those of Lamarck and Goethe while still reflecting the spirit of Naturphilosophie. Their ambitious programme to reconstruct the evolutionary history of life was joined by Huxley and supported by discoveries in palaeontology. Haeckel used embryology extensively in his recapitulation theory, which embodied a progressive, almost linear model of evolution. Darwin was cautious about such histories, and had already noted that von Baer's laws of embryology supported his idea of complex branching. Asa Gray promoted and defended 'Origin' against those American naturalists with an idealist approach, notably Louis Agassiz who viewed every species as a distinct fixed unit in the mind of the Creator, classifying as species what others considered merely varieties. Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt reconciled this view with evolutionism in a form of neo-Lamarckism involving recapitulation theory. French speaking naturalists in several countries showed appreciation of the much modified French translation by Cl?mence Royer, but Darwin's ideas had little impact in France, where any scientists supporting evolutionary ideas opted for a form of Lamarckism. The intelligentsia in Russia had accepted the general phenomenon of evolution for several years before Darwin had published his theory, and scientists were quick to take it into account, although the Malthusian aspects were felt to be relatively unimportant. The political economy of struggle was criticised as a British stereotype by Karl Marx and by Leo Tolstoy, who had the character Levin in his novel 'Anna Karenina' voice sharp criticism of the morality of Darwin's views. Challenges to natural selection There were serious scientific objections to the process of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution, including Karl von N?geli's insistence that a trivial characteristic with no adaptive advantage could not be developed by selection. Darwin conceded that these could be linked to adaptive characteristics. His estimate that the age of the Earth allowed gradual evolution was disputed by William Thomson (later awarded the title Lord Kelvin), who calculated that it had cooled in less than 100 million years. Darwin accepted blending inheritance, but Fleeming Jenkin calculated that as it mixed traits, natural selection could not accumulate useful traits. Darwin tried to meet these objections in the 5th edition. Mivart supported directed evolution, and compiled scientific and religious objections to natural selection. In response, Darwin made considerable changes to the sixth edition. The problems of the age of the Earth and heredity were only resolved in the 20th century. By the mid 1870s, most scientists accepted evolution, but relegated natural selection to a minor role as they believed evolution was purposeful and progressive. The range of evolutionary theories during "the eclipse of Darwinism" included forms of "saltationism" in which new species were thought to arise through "jumps" rather than gradual adaptation, forms of orthogenesis claiming that species had an inherent tendency to change in a particular direction, and forms of neo-Lamarckism in which inheritance of acquired characteristics led to progress. The minority view of August Weismann, that natural selection was the only mechanism, was called neo-Darwinism. It was thought that the rediscovery of Mendelian inheritance invalidated Darwin's views. Religious attitudes The book produced a wide range of religious responses at a time of changing ideas and increasing secularisation. The issues raised were complex and there was a large middle ground. Developments in geology meant that there was little opposition based on a literal reading of Genesis, but defence of the argument from design and natural theology was central to debates over the book in the English speaking world. Natural theology was not a unified doctrine, and while some such as Louis Agassiz were strongly opposed to the ideas in the book, others sought a reconciliation in which evolution was seen as purposeful. In the Church of England, some liberal clergymen interpreted natural selection as an instrument of God's design, with the cleric Charles Kingsley seeing it as "just as noble a conception of Deity". In the second edition of January 1860, Darwin quoted Kingsley as "a celebrated cleric", and added the phrase "by the Creator" to the closing sentence, which from then on read "life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". While some commentators have taken this as a concession to religion that Darwin later regretted, Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature, and even in the first edition there are several references to "creation". The theologian Rev. Baden Powell praised "Mr Darwin's masterly volume [supporting] the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature". In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design, and published a pamphlet defending the book in terms of theistic evolution, 'Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology'. Theistic evolution became a popular compromise, and St. George Jackson Mivart was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as neo-Lamarckism were favoured as being more compatible with purpose. Even though the book had barely hinted at human evolution, it was at the centre of debate as mental and moral qualities were seen as spiritual aspects of the immaterial soul, and it was believed that animals did not have spiritual qualities. This conflict could be reconciled by supposing there was some supernatural intervention on the path leading to humans, or viewing evolution as a purposeful and progressive ascent to mankind's position at the head of nature. While many conservative theologians accepted evolution, Charles Hodge argued in his 1874 critique "What is Darwinism?" that "Darwinism", defined narrowly as including rejection of design, was atheism--though he accepted that Asa Gray did not reject design. Asa Gray responded that this charge misrepresented Darwin's text. By the early 20th century, four noted authors of 'The Fundamentals' were explicitly open to the possibility that God created through evolution, but fundamentalism inspired the American creation-evolution controversy which began in the 1920s. Some conservative Roman Catholic writers and influential Jesuits opposed evolution in the late 19th and early 20th century, but other Catholic writers, starting with Mivart, pointed out that early Church Fathers had not interpreted Genesis literally in this area. The Vatican stated its official position in a 1950 papal encyclical which stated that evolution was not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Modern influence Various evolutionary theories proposed during "the eclipse of Darwinism" became untenable as more was learned about inheritance and mutation. The full significance of natural selection was at last accepted in the 1930s and 1940s as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. During that synthesis biologists and statisticians, including R. A. Fisher, Sewall Wright and J.B.S. Haldane, merged Darwinian selection with a statistical understanding of Mendelian genetics. Modern evolutionary theory continues to develop. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, with its tree-like model of branching common descent, has become the unifying theory of the life sciences. The theory explains the diversity of living organisms and their adaptation to the environment. It makes sense of the geologic record, biogeography, parallels in embryonic development, biological homologies, vestigiality, cladistics and other fields, with unrivalled explanatory power; it has also become essential to applied sciences such as medicine and agriculture. Despite the scientific consensus, a religion-based political controversy has developed over how evolution is taught in schools, especially in the United States. Interest in Darwin's writings continues, and scholars have generated an extensive literature, the Darwin Industry, about his life and work. The text of 'Origin' itself has been subject to much analysis including a variorum, detailing the changes made in every edition, first published in 1959, and a concordance, an exhaustive external index published in 1981. Worldwide commemorations of the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' and the bicentenary of Darwin's birth were scheduled for 2009. They celebrate the ideas which "over the last 150 years have revolutionised our understanding of nature and our place within it". From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 01:53:18 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:53:18 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Hugo Chavez calls for Formation of Fifth International Message-ID: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4946 Venezuela?s Chavez Calls for International Organisation of Left Parties Published on November 23rd 2009, by Kiraz Janicke [Photo: President Chavez addresses Conference of Left Parties (ABN) ] Caracas, November 23rd 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) ? Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for the formation of a ?Fifth International? of left parties and social movements to confront the challenge posed by the global crisis of capitalism. The president made the announcement during an international conference of more than fifty left organisations from thirty-one countries held in Caracas over November 19-21. ?I assume responsibility before the world. I think it is time to convene the Fifth International, and I dare to make the call, which I think is a necessity. I dare to request that we create my proposal,? Chavez said. The head of state insisted that the conference of left parties should not be ?just one more meeting,? and he invited participating organizations to create a truly new project. ?This socialist encounter should be of the genuine left, willing to fight against imperialism and capitalism,? he said. During his speech, Chavez briefly outlined the experiences of previous ?internationals,? including the First International founded in 1864 by Karl Marx; the Second International founded in 1889, which collapsed in 1916 as various left parties and trade unions sided with their respective capitalist classes in the inter-imperialist conflict of the First World War; the Third International founded by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, which Chavez said ?degenerated? under Stalinism and ?betrayed? struggles for socialism around the world; and the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938, which suffered numerous splits and no longer exists, although some small groups claim to represent its political continuity. Chavez said that a new international would have to function ?without impositions? and would have to respect diversity. Representatives from a number of major parties in Latin America voiced their support for the proposal, including the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) of Bolivia, the Farabundo Mart? National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El Salvador, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, and Alianza Pais of Ecuador. Smaller parties from Latin America and around the world also indicated their support for the idea, including the Proposal for an Alternative Society (PAS) of Chile, New Nation Alternative (ANN) of Guatemala, and Australia?s Socialist Alliance, among others. Sandinista leader Miguel D?Escoto said, ?Capitalism has brought the human species to the precipice of extinction? we have to take control of our own destiny.? ?There is no time to lose,? D?Escoto added as he conveyed his support for the proposal of forming a fifth international. ?We have to overcome the tendency of defeatism. Many times I have noted a tendency of defeatism amongst comrades of the left in relation to the tasks we face,? he continued. Salvador S?nchez, from the FMLN, said ?We are going to be important actors in the Fifth International. We cannot continue waiting ? all the forces of the left. The aspiration of the peoples is to walk down a different path. We must not hesitate in forming the Fifth International. The people have pronounced themselves in favour of change and the parties of the left must be there with them.? Other organisations, including Portugal?s Left Block, Germany?s Die Linke, and France?s Partido Gauche expressed interest in the proposal but said they would consult with their various parties. A representative of the Cuban Communist Party described the proposal as ?excellent,? but as yet the party has made no formal statement. Many communist parties, including those from Greece and Brazil, expressed strong opposition to the proposal. The Venezuelan Communist Party said it was willing to discuss the proposal but expressed strong reservations. The Alternative Democratic Pole (PDA) from Colombia expressed its willingness to work with other left parties, but said it would ?reserve? its decision to participate in an international organisation of left parties. Valter Pomar, a representative from the Workers Party of Brazil (PT), said its priority is the Sao Paolo Forum ? a forum of various Latin American left, socialist, communist, centre-left, labour, social democratic and nationalist parties launched by the PT in 1990. A resolution was passed at the conference to form a preparatory committee to convoke a global conference of left parties in Caracas in April 2010, to discuss the formation of a new international. The resolution also allowed for other parties that remain undecided to discuss the proposal and incorporate themselves at a later date. Chavez emphasised the importance of being inclusive and said the April conference had to go far beyond the parties and organisations that participated in last week?s conference. In particular, he said it was an error that there were no revolutionary organisations from the United States present. The conference of left parties also passed a resolution titled the Caracas Commitment, ?to reaffirm our conviction to definitively build and win Socialism of the 21st Century,? in the face of ?the generalized crisis of the global capitalist system.? ?One of the epicentres of the global capitalist crisis is the economic sphere. This highlights the limitations of unbridled free markets dominated by monopolies of private property,? the resolution stated. Also incorporated was a proposed amendment by the Australian delegation which read, ?In synthesis, the crisis of capitalism cannot be reduced to a simple financial crisis, it is a structural crisis of capital that combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis and an energy crisis, which together represent a mortal threat to humanity and nature. In the face of this crisis, the movements and parties of the left see the defence of nature and the construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world.? The Caracas Commitment expressed ?solidarity with the peoples of the world who have suffered and are suffering from imperialist aggression, especially the more than 50 years of the genocidal blockade against Cuba? the massacre of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation of part of the territory of the Western Sahara, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which today is expanding into Pakistan.? The conference of left parties also denounced the decision of the Mexican government to shut down the state-owned electricity company and fire 45,000 workers, as an attempt to ?intimidate? the workers and as an ?offensive of imperialism,? to advance neoliberal privatisation in Central America. In the framework of the Caracas Commitment, the left parties present agreed, among other things, to: Organise a global week of mobilisation from December 12-17 in repudiation of the installation of U.S. military bases in Colombia, Panama and around the world. Campaign for an ?international trial against George Bush for crimes against humanity, as the person principally responsible for the genocide against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. ?Commemorate 100 years since the proposal by Clara Zetkin to celebrate International Women?s Day on March 8, through forums, mobilizations and other activities in their respective countries. Organise global solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution in the face of permanent imperialist attacks. Organise global solidarity with the people of Honduras who are resisting a U.S.-backed military coup, to campaign for the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, Jos? Manuel Zelaya and to organise a global vigil on the day of the elections in Honduras, ?with which they aim to legitimise the coup d?etat.? Demand an ?immediate and unconditional end to the criminal Yankee blockade? of Cuba and for the ?immediate liberation? of the Cuban Five, referring to the five anti-terrorist activists imprisoned in the United States. Accompany the Haitian people in their struggle for the return of President Jean Bertrand Aristide ?who was kidnapped and removed from his post as president of Haiti by North American imperialism.? From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 01:55:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:55:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Fewer Americans believe in global warming, poll shows Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/11/24/ST2009112403099.html?hpid=topnews Fewer Americans believe in global warming, poll shows By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 25, 2009 The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dipped from 80 to 72 percent in the past year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, even as a majority still support a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Poll data The poll's findings -- which also show that 55 percent of respondents think the United States should curb its carbon output even if major developing nations such as China and India do less -- suggest increasing political polarization around the issue, just as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are intensifying efforts to pass climate legislation and broker an international global warming pact. The increase in climate skepticism is driven largely by a shift within the GOP. Since its peak 3 1/2 years ago, belief that climate change is happening is down sharply among Republicans -- 76 to 54 percent -- and independents -- 86 to 71 percent. It dipped more modestly among Democrats, from 92 to 86 percent. A majority of respondents still support legislation to cap emissions and trade pollution allowances, by 53 to 42 percent. Amanda Feinberg, a retired administrative assistant living in South Williamsport, Pa., said she became disenchanted with the idea of human-caused global warming when former vice president Al Gore launched a public awareness campaign with his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." "He just seemed a little radical in his views," said Feinberg, a Republican. "I don't deny it's happening, I just think it's just an evolution of nature." Lisa Woolcott, another Republican poll respondent, said she doesn't think that burning fossil fuels is "causing all the global warming," adding: "We can't control what happens in the atmosphere." But Woolcott, a physician's assistant who lives in Kansas City, Kan., said she supports the idea of a bill that would cap the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and doesn't think the United States should predicate its actions on what other nations do. "We need to do what's best for us," she said. "I don't think we should back down." Even proponents of action on climate change, such as Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who has conducted polls on the issue for the American Security Project and the Pew Charitable Trusts, say they have detected a recent fraying of bipartisanship. "It's a sad state of affairs when science becomes subject to partisan politics," Mellman said. "It can only be attributed to the sense that this issue has become part of a political battle." This schism poses a challenge for Democratic leaders, who are pushing for more stringent controls on greenhouse gases nationwide and as part of an international agreement that will be discussed when negotiators meet in Copenhagen next month. Both Mellman and Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, noted that most Americans still support taking action on climate change. Still, even respondents such as Woolcott who favored a cap-and-trade bill questioned whether Americans would support a policy that could raise energy prices in the short term, given the current state of the economy. "Honestly, I don't think the public's going to back it," she said. "Right now it's all they can do to pay their electric bill and put gas in their cars. You're asking me right now, and it's like, let's get through Thanksgiving and Christmas." David Winston, who has polled for the House and Senate GOP leadership on the issue, said it is less a question of whether Americans think they have contributed to climate change. "Where there's disagreement is how immediate and huge is the threat," he said. As a result, "the majority of people view it as an economic issue." Polling director Jon Cohen and polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 02:00:32 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:00:32 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Hitting the Brakes on Afghanistan Message-ID: (from Portside) Hitting the Brakes on Afghanistan 1. Hitting the Brakes on Afghanistan (Foreign Policy in Focus) 2. Oakland's Rep. Lee continues call for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan (Oakland North) ========== Hitting the Brakes on Afghanistan By John Feffer Foreign Policy in Focus November 23, 2009 http://www.fpif.org/fpifzines/wb/6599 Imagine finding yourself in the driver's seat of a car heading directly at a brick wall. You panic: What to do? Fortunately, there are three people in the car with you, and they all have very firm advice. The person in the passenger seat tells you to push the pedal to the metal. Right behind you in the back seat, your friend is urging you to accelerate only modestly. And the fourth person in the car recommends that you maintain your current speed. You might be thinking: These are my only choices? I'll hit the brick wall either really quickly, rather quickly, or pretty darn soon. The end result will be the same. The car will be destroyed and all four of you will be in the hospital. Since these are the choices now being presented to President Barack Obama for his Afghanistan policy, who can blame him for being slow to make up his mind? His top general is telling him to send 40,000 troops. His vice president is telling him to send 10-15,000 troops. And his secretary of state and Pentagon chief are urging the middle course of 30,000 troops. Isn't anyone out there telling the president that he has more levers at his disposal than simply the gas pedal? Isn't anyone pointing out the obvious? The brake, Mr. President, the brake! Frankly, the car metaphor isn't precise. It's actually a bus heading toward that brick wall. A really, really big bus. And we're all on board, the entire U.S. population. The president's advisors are all clustered up at the front. Their voices are pretty loud. But we can all make our voices heard if we all shout together from the back of the bus.Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and keep the message simple: Don't send more troops to Afghanistan, Mr. President. Peace groups around the country are coordinating this call-in campaign in these few days before Thanksgiving so that the president knows, before the expected announcement of his Afghanistan policy next week, that there are other choices. Here's a link to some additional talking points about different congressional options. "It is unlikely that we will soon have another president with the moral and rhetorical force to talk us out of a foolish commitment that cannot be sustained without shame and defeat," writes Garry Wills in The New York Review of Books. "If it costs him his presidency, what other achievement can match it? During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama said he would rather be a one-term president than give up on his goals. Here is a goal no other president we can imagine would have a possibility of reaching. Presidents who just kick the can down the road are easy to come by. Lost lives and limbs are not." The crash can be avoided. But we must call the White House and let the driver-in-chief know that we're here, we're clear, and we don't want this war no more. ========== Oakland's Rep. Lee continues call for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan By: John Grennan Oakland North - November 23, 2009 - 7:11 pm http://oaklandnorth.net/2009/11/23/oakland%E2%80%99s-rep-lee-continues-calls-for-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/ As the deadliest year of the U.S. war in Afghanistan draws to a close, Oakland's congressional representative Barbara Lee today stepped up her calls to end U.S. involvement in the conflict. "I stand here today to put this stage of American history - a stage characterized by open-ended war - to a close," Lee told a crowd of more than 200 people attending a noon rally at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in downtown Oakland. So far this year, 297 American service personnel have died in Afghanistan, almost twice as many as in any other year of the war. Taliban forces have re- established strongholds in southern Afghanistan, and deaths among NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians have also increased over figures from recent years. After scaling down its presence in Iraq, the U.S. military has intensified its efforts against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and, since 2008, in neighboring Pakistan. U.S. ground commander General Stanley McChrystal called in late September for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but President Barack Obama has not committed more troops as he awaits a full review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. "President Obama is right to take his time," Lee said. "He shouldn't be rushed into making a decision. He inherited a quagmire from George W. Bush. We know there's no military solution in Afghanistan, and a long-term presence there is not in our interest." Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 authorization of war in Afghanistan, introduced House Resolution 3699 in October, which would prevent funding for any additional troop deployments to Afghanistan. Her bill, one of several recent House initiatives to halt expansion of U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan, now has 23 co-sponsors, including former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma). At the rally today, Lee said she's not alone in opposing the war and that her votes on Capitol Hill reflect her constituents' political views. "My district - California's 9th Congressional district - remains the most progressive, diverse and committed to dissent in the country," Lee said to a round of applause. "Where we lead, others go." A large contingent of the crowd belonged to Code Pink, a primarily women's antiwar organization whose members held signs and led chants of "Barbara Lee speaks for me." The congresswoman was joined on the dais by 1960s Students for Democratic Society president Tom Hayden, Veterans Speaker Alliance founder Paul Cox, the Alameda Labor Council executive secretary-treasurer Sharon Cornu, and actor and activist Danny Glover. "With Barbara Lee's resolution [HR 3699], there's more than ideas on the table for leaving Afghanistan, there are bills on the floor of Congress. " Hayden said. "We hope for the recovery and growing strength of the peace movement with Barbara's leadership." Several speakers drew parallels between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Afghanistan and argued that military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan has prevented the U.S. government from addressing domestic political needs. "Our military demands ever more troops," Cox said. "Meanwhile, our economy is in the toilet, health care costs are out of control, and we can't afford to educate our children. But somehow, there's always money for war." Lee argued that the United States needs to employ "smart power" to improve the situation in Afghanistan, citing her hopes for increased diplomacy and economic development in the region. She drew on historical parallels in her argument against the U.S. military presence in the country. "Afghanistan is known historically as the graveyard of empires for a reason. It's good to ask why we should follow the same course as the British and the Soviets," she said. "We need an exit strategy to bring troops and contractors home to ensure the economic security of all Americans." From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 02:20:02 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:20:02 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Humanitarium Award Acceptance Letter from Leonard Peltier Message-ID: *From:* "contact at whoisleonardpeltier.info" ***Sent:* Tue, November 24, 2009 12:04:22 PM *Subject:* Red Nation Humanitarium Award Acceptance Letter from Leonard Peltier The Red Nation Film Festival has chosen Leonard Peltier to receive its first annual Humanitarian Award for his lifelong commitment to indigenous and human rights, as well as his leadership in efforts to alleviate poverty and domestic abuse among Native peoples. As a political prisoner for nearly 34 years, Peltier has helped focus world attention on government repression of Native resistance throughout the Americas, while the United States continues to make an example out of him of the consequences of seeking freedom. Unable to accept the award in person, Leonard wrote the following acceptance speech for award: "I am very humbled to have been honored with the first-ever Red Nation Humanitarian Award. I wish the Red Nation Film Festival success in all its endeavors, as I believe your event benefits Indian people everywhere. With your continued support, I hope that I will one day have the freedom to thank you in person. Film is a powerful medium with the potential to help change one's consciousness, which can in turn change the world. Film can transport the viewers to places and situations they might never encounter, from the mountains and jungles of Peru and Bolivia, to the prison cells of Abu Ghraib and Lewisburg, the federal penitentiary where I am held in limbo as they transform the facility into a special site for problematic prisoners. Although I have been what they call a model prisoner, I am still here because I was jumped and beaten by other inmates when I was transferred to another prison. I am here in spite of the fact that I was an ideal candidate for parole by any objective standard free of politics. But because of my beliefs, and the FBI's fears of exposure of their crimes against the people of Pine Ridge and the American Indian Movement, the federal government is determined to see to it that I die in prison. So here I sit in a 3 foot by 6 foot cell. The fact that you are here today at a Native film festival shows how far we have come from the days when Hollywood Indians were portrayed by white actors as one-dimensional savages standing in the way of civilization. The fact that we are today not only acting in films but also directing and producing shows how far we have in the last forty years since the American Indian Movement arose from the ashes of the Termination Era and demanded political sovereignty and cultural respect . But how far have we really come? We are still subject on the reservations to the jurisdiction of the colonial police force known as the FBI, an agency which ignores serious crimes such as sexual assault while persecuting those who would stand up for true sovereignty and human rights. On other reservations, state police play the same role, though their jurisdiction is a legacy of the discredited termination era. Last week, President Obama held what was billed as a historic summit meeting with hundreds of tribal officials in attendance, but what was really accomplished? My defense committee sent faxes to more than 500 reservation chairman asking them to speak out on my behalf on this unique occasion. A few said they would, but when the opportunity presented itself they were too polite to speak out to a president who spoke of dissolving tribes in his inauguration speech. It is the same in movies. While we now have realistic films dealing with poverty, alcoholism, and related social problems on the rez, how many deal with the root cause - colonial oppression which extinguishes hope for the future? I ask you filmmakers to use this powerful medium to help create visions for the future and to put our many problems in an accurate context. I plead with you, if you can't get me out of prison and I am destined to die here, to make my sacrifice worth it in terms of creating a more sustainable future for our children and future generations. " In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier " From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 02:44:21 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:44:21 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Canada's Guantanamo Message-ID: http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205:canadas-guantanamo&catid=39:europe-canada-and-us-&Itemid=92 Canada's Guantanamo Written by Eric Walberg Tuesday, 24 November 2009 06:22 A scandal erupted last week in sleepy Ottawa with the revelations of Canada?s chief diplomat in Kandahar in 2006-07, Richard Colvin, who told a House of Commons committee on Afghanistan that Afghans arrested by Canadian military and handed over to Afghan authorities were knowingly tortured. His and others? attempts to raise the alarm had been quashed by the ruling Conservative government and he felt a moral obligation to make public what was happening. The startling allegations ? the first of their kind from a senior official ? have caused extreme embarrassment to the government, which has more than once stated categorically detainees were not passed to Afghan control if there was any danger of torture. Canada has 2,700 soldiers in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, the hotbed of the insurgency, on a mission that is due to end in 2011. Warnings to Colvin to keep quiet were not enough to cow him and he calmly told shocked MPs that he started sending reports soon after he arrived in Kandahar in early 2006 to top officials indicating the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) was abusing detainees. ?For a year and half after they knew about the very high risk of torture, they continued to order military police in the field to hand our detainees to the NDS.? Colvin?s comments come at a sensitive time for the minority government, which was almost ousted by the opposition a year ago. So far 133 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan and recent polls indicate most Canadians oppose the mission. Colvin said Canadian military leaders in Afghanistan ?cloaked our detainee practices in extreme secrecy,? refused to hand over details of prisoners to the Red Cross in a timely fashion and kept ?hopeless? records. ?As I learned more about our detainee practices, I came to the conclusion that they were un-Canadian, counterproductive, and probably illegal.? Officials in Ottawa initially ignored his reports. ?By April 2007 we were receiving written messages from the senior Canadian government coordinator for Afghanistan to the effect that we should be quiet and do what we were told,? he said. Canadian troops first began transferring detainees to Afghan authorities in late 2005. Eventually, faced with persistent allegations of abuse, Ottawa signed a deal with Kabul in May 2007 to boost protection for detainees. Colvin said Canadian troops regularly detain six times as many Afghans as the British, who are also operating in southern Afghanistan. Although some may have been Taliban members, many were ?random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time?. He added: ?We detained and handed over for severe torture a lot of innocent people. Complicity in torture is a war crime.? In the face of accusations of this complicity, Prime Minister Stephen Harper publically insisted Canadian military officials did not send individuals off to be tortured. ?Behind the military?s wall of secrecy that unfortunately was exactly what we were doing,? Colvin told his captive audience. Now, instead of launching an inquiry, the Conservatives are pursuing their usual practice of smearing critics. ?We frankly just found his evidence lacked credibility. All his information was, he admits, at best second hand,? said Lawrie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to Defense Minister Peter MacKay. MacKay angrily dismissed the charges, while former Canadian military chief-in-command in Afghanistan Rick Hillier can?t ?remember reading a single one of those cables?, and depicted the fuss as mere ?howling at the moon?. ?Even in our own prisons somebody can get beaten up,? he cracked to reporters. But then this is standard operating procedure for Harper?s Conservatives. They called New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton ?Taliban Jack? for his suggestion that NATO should negotiate with elements of the Taliban. That is now the policy not only of Canada in Afghanistan, but of the Karzai government in Kabul. In The Unexpected War, Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang report that the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, and Canadian Louise Arbour, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights ?had concluded that abuse, torture, and extrajudicial killing were routinely inflicted on people in Afghan custody.? University of Ottawa Law Professor Amir Attaran documented how Afghan detainees have been beaten not only by the NDS, but while detained and interrogated by Canadian soldiers. Attaran called for an investigation into the treatment of the detainees by the Military Police Complaints Commission, a civilian body established to investigate complaints against the Canadian military. In February 2007, the Canadian military launched an investigation and heard testimony concerning three Afghans beaten by Canadian soldiers, handed over to the Afghans, who subsequently disappeared. The Globe and Mail managed to find and interview 30 former detainees who said they had been transferred from Canadian to Afghan jurisdiction and then tortured. Then defence minister Gordon O?Connor told the House of Commons that a new agreement struck with the Karzai government stipulated that ?If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action.? This was exposed as a lie when Red Cross spokesman Simon Schorno told the Globe and Mail that ?we were informed of the agreement, but we are not a party to it and we are not monitoring the implementation of it.? Colvin immediately warned that the new agreement was full of holes. It can only be concluded that the government condoned the torture, ignoring and now pooh-poohing complaints about it. Attempts to feign innocence don?t hold water. According to a senior NATO official, Harper used a ?6,000-mile screwdriver? to make sure ?that every single statement that went out [was] cleared by him personally?. Michael Semple, Colvin?s EU colleague in Kabul, said he was ?totally flabbergasted? by insinuations that Colvin?s reports were not credible, that he was a closet Taliban sympathiser ?soft on terrorists?. Colvin was an ?absolutely rock solid? diplomat who volunteered to go in as a civilian representative with Canada?s Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar after a close friend of Semple?s was killed by a suicide car bomber outside Kandahar. But to anyone who knows anything at all about US -- and now, alas, Canadian -- politics this is hardly new. Colin Powell?s rise to the heights of US politics was due to his burying the initial reports of the My Lai massacre in 1968 where US troops gunned down 500 mostly women, children and seniors in an act of revenge. Charged with investigating the incident, then major Powell reported, ?In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.? Powell was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in 1970, served a White House fellowship under president Richard Nixon from 1972-73, and continued up the ladder, becoming a general in 1989 and finally secretary of state in 2001. Current Canadian politics occasionally provides a touch of humour to the inanities of Western moral hypocrisy. Remember the travel ban imposed by the Conservative government on UK MP George Galloway this spring, apparently because he is a terrorist. The Conservative government denied it had anything to do with the decision, that it was entirely up to the Canada Border Services Agency. Or the current furore over US lesbian soldier Bethany Lanae Smith, whom a Canadian judge insists be granted refugee status, overturning an Immigration and Refugee Board ruling. Not because she rejects the illegal US wars and occupations, but because she was harassed by male US soldiers and resented their taunts and/or untoward advances. The recent haemorrhage of US war resisters coming to Canada has been resolutely staunched by the pro-war government, in line with its fervent support of US/ NATO wars. But in the interests of political correctness the government may well allow Smith to stay, unlike her more principled fellow soldiers, male and female, who defected to Canada out of conviction, and who were sent back to the US to face jail terms. Will there be any consequences to Colvin for his embarrassing revelations? Word has it that the hitherto promising career of the former second-in-command in Afghanistan and current high-level diplomat in Washington is over. Remember the fate of UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray from 2002-2004 whom the Foreign Office tried to declare noncompis mentis, and who resigned, supposedly in disgrace. His altercation with the empire sobered him and made him a committed anti-imperialist. At his site, he even posts an update of US-caused deaths in Iraq, now at 1,339,771. If Colvin?s career as a diplomat is over, he can still take a page from Murray ?s post-FO career book. His expose of Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov as one of the world?s most eminent torturers, Murder in Samarkand, is now being made into a feature film. He has been awarded multiple prizes for promoting world peace, ran for parliament against his former boss foreign minister Jack Straw, and is a witty and incisive commentator on the internet, PressTV and elsewhere. He is currently rector of his alma mater the University of Dundee. There is life after the death of diplomatic service. Murray quips, ?Being a dissident is quite fun.? From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 08:09:29 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:09:29 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] New political party - "The Left" - forms in Switzerland Message-ID: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Left_leaning_parties_receive_competition.html?siteSect=104&sid=11522274&cKey=1258887750000&ty=nd November 22, 2009 - 11:52 AM Left-leaning parties receive competition A new Swiss political party has been founded. "The Left" will attempt to win votes with a platform more leftwing than that of the Greens or Social Democrats. Around 200 people took part in a congress of the new party in Schaffhausen on Saturday. In an appeal to Swiss voters, The Left said it intended to become an "eco-socialist power, which is currently lacking in Switzerland". One of the co-founders of the new party, Florian Keller, said The Left should appeal to young people across the country who feel represented by neither the centre-left Social Democrats or Greens. A national committee was elected on Saturday, whose mandate is to enter "into dialogue with all anti-capitalist and eco-socialist movements in the country" with the goal of uniting them in a single party. A formal founding ceremony is scheduled to take play next May in Lausanne. swissinfo.ch and agencies From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 09:55:59 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:55:59 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Thanking Indigenous People for the Food We Eat Message-ID: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19672.cfm Organic Consumers Association November 24, 2009 Thanking Indigenous People for the Food We Eat By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq. This Thanksgiving, the Organic Consumers Association gives thanks to the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere for their contributions to agriculture. 75% of the food crops grown in the world today were first cultivated by Native Americans. These include corn, beans, peanuts, cotton, potatoes, tomatoes, chili peppers, avocados, blueberries, cranberries, strawberries, squashes, black walnuts, pecans, chocolate, tobacco, rubber, and sunflowers. In "Pristine Nature: The Founding Falsehood," Steven H. Rich explains that the New World that European colonists believed was a miraculous wilderness was actually a "human-created landscape full of food and useful plants": Native Americans had managed the woodlands and grasslands to produce native game animals, native birds and fish, berries, nuts, greens, fruits, bulbs, corns, mushrooms, roots, basketry and cordage materials, firewood, weapon-making and building materials, medicines and ceremonially important plants. Many 'wild' native plants that exist today are in fact the products of ancient Native American genetic selection and propagation projects that favored better-tasting and more useful varieties. Popular belief that pre-Columbian America was a "pristine wilderness" is false and based on racist stereotypes that reduce the highly successful and extremely intelligent adaptations and achievements of Native American societies to the instinctual behavior of wildlife or "nobel savages in a state of nature." Native American elders remember better times. "The white man sure ruined this country," said Southern Sierra Miwok elder Jim Rust. "It's turned back to wilderness. In the old days there used to be lots more game: deer, quail, gray squirrels and rabbits." There are no "spontaneous Edens" on earth. The New World paradises were created by the sweat of millions of Native Americans caring for their land. Today, indigenous farmers remain the custodians of an immeasurable wealth of biodiversity. 4,200 Years of Farming on the Colorado Plateau On the Colorado Plateau farming has been an unbroken cultural tradition for at least 4200 years. The Navajo, Zuni, Apache, Hopi, Paiute and Tewa have cultivated the most diverse annual crop assemblage in the New World north of the Tropic of Cancer. Some of the very same fields documented as cultivated four centuries ago by Zuni (and perhaps by Hopi) remain in use today, without soil erosion, nutrient depletion or salination noticeably diminishing their food producing capacity. The 30 ecosystem types on the Colorado Plateau collectively harbor some 2,500 vertebrate species, well over 1,100 invertebrate species, and over 16,000 plant species. Despite the Anglo-American bias of assuming that this diversity is associated with ?pristine? landscapes, it is more likely due to the traditional land use practices of the people who have managed the landscape for centuries. For instance, of the Colorado Plateau's 300-some endemic plants, roughly 2/3 (188) have been kept in fields, orchards and corrals by the region's indigenous farmers and ranchers. You can learn more about the Little Colorado River Watershed (Arizona, USA) on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation's Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems site. Today, the indigenous people of the Colorado Plateau are passing their agricultural traditions to a new generation. In September, students at Zuni High School won two first-place and two third-place ribbons at the New Mexico State Fair. The student's state fair entries included produce from the horticulture class's "waffle gardens," a traditional Zuni method of garden construction consisting of a series of parallel, square or rectangular depressions dug into the ground, creating a waffle-like pattern that maximizes use of water. Students from the STAR School, located just off the Navajo Reservation near Leupp, Ariz., and residents of the Village of Hotevilla on the Hopi Reservation created a gardening project where students learn food and farming traditions by helping Hopi elders tend their gardens. The Wayana's Cultivated Eden The farming system of Wayana society of French Guyana is based on shifting cultivation, with a characteristically high agrobiodiversity. Agriculture forms part of a complex system of activities taking place within the habitat where Wayana obtain a significant portion of their subsistence requirements through gathering, fishing and hunting. In fact, there is not a clear limit between cultivated and wild area, which can be considered as a single agro-ecosystem. The Milpa System and 20,000 Varieties of Corn Milpa is the most evolved farming system in the world. It create relatively large yields of food crops without the use of artificial pesticides or fertilizers, and is self-sustaining. Milpa crops are nutritionally and environmentally complementary. Maize lacks the amino acids lysine and tryptophan, which the body needs to make proteins and niacin, beans have both lysine and tryptophan, and squashes provide an array of vitamins. The milpa, in maintaining soil fertility, providing a variety of healthy foods, and limiting environmental impacts of food production, may well be one of the most successful human inventions ever created. There are over 20,000 varieties of corn in Mexico and Central America. In southern and central Mexico, approximately 5,000 varieties have been identified. In one village in Oaxaca, researchers found 17 different environments where 26 varieties of corn were growing. Each variety has been cultivated to adapt to elevation levels, soil acidity, sun exposure, soil type, and rainfall. Andean Agriculture (Peru) "In the Andean region, generations of farmers have domesticated thousands of potato varieties. Even today, farmers cultivate up to 50 varieties on their farms. In the biodiversity reserve of the Chilo? archipelago in Chile, local people cultivate about 200 varieties of native potato. They use farming practices transmitted orally by generations of mainly women farmers." Potato and Biodiversity, the Global Crop Diversity Trust and FAO's Plant Production and Protection Division, 2008 http://www.potato2008.org/en/potato/biodiversity.html "A long list of cultural and agriculture treasures from the Inca civilization has been carefully preserved and improved over centuries to guarantee living conditions over 4000 meters above sea level. "One of the most amazing features of this heritage is the terracing system used to control land degradation. Terraces allow cultivation in steep slops and different altitudes. From a range of 2800 to 4500 meters, three main agricultural systems can be found: maize is cultivated in the lower areas, potato mainly at medium altitudes. Above 4,000 meters the areas are mostly used as rangeland, but can still be cultivated with high altitude crops as well. In the high plateau, around Lake Titicaca, farmers dig trenches (called "sukakollos") around their fields. These trenches are filled with water, which is warmed by sunlight. When temperatures drop at night, the water gives off warm steam that serves as frost protection for several varieties of potato and other native crops, such as quinoa." http://www.fao.org/nr/giahs/pilot-systems/pilot/andean-agriculture/andean-agriculture-summary/en/ Chilo? Agriculture (Chile) The Archipelago of Chilo?, in the south of Chile, is one of the center of origin of potatoes and is an extraordinary biodiversity reserve: its temperate rainforests hold a wide range of endangered plant and animal species. The Chilotes ?Huilliche indigenous populations and Mestize? still cultivate about 200 varieties of native potatoes, following ancestral practices transmitted orally by generations of farmers, mostly women. Chiloe Island is one of the centers of origin of crop diversity. http://www.ecobooks.com/authors/vavilov.htm It is a centre of origin of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), and a centre of mango (Bromus mango) and strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis). Some 200 documented varieties of native potatoes are still managed today, together with a variety of garlic (Ajo chilote) that is unique to the islands and its volcanic soils. http://www.fao.org/nr/giahs/pilot-systems/pilot/chiloe-agriculture/chiloe-agriculture-summary/en/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 10:31:49 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:31:49 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] In search of oil and drugs: 34, 000 more troops to Afghanistan Message-ID: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79380.html Posted on Monday, November 23, 2009 Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan By Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy. Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said. The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House. They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees. As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops. In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan ? to which the U.S. has long been committed ? and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to brief America's NATO allies after next week's announcement, and the allies are to meet again on Dec. 7 in Belgium to discuss whether some other nations might contribute additional troops. The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month. This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach. A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening's meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders. The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said. "We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said. It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday. The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won't keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said. As McClatchy reported last month, the Obama administration has been quietly working with U.S. allies and Afghan officials on an "Afghanistan Compact," a package of political reforms and anti-corruption measures that it hopes will boost popular support for Karzai and erase the doubts about his legitimacy raised by his fraud-tainted re-election. The British government is offering to host a conference early next year to win international support for the compact. Last week, Clinton suddenly adopted a more conciliatory tone toward Karzai, whom she and other administration officials had been pressing to clean up the rampant corruption and cut his ties to local warlords, some of whom traffic in opium. In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, she said that Karzai had demonstrated "good faith" and added: "Well, there are warlords and there are warlords." As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy. The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan. It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops. There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops. The administration's plan is expected to encounter opposition on Capitol Hill, where some senior Democrats have suggested that the administration may need to raise taxes in order to pay for the additional troops. Obama campaigned saying that he'd fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from the defense budget, but Mullen has said that the Afghan war ? which some administration officials privately concede could cost $700 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years ? might require a supplemental funding bill next year. The administration's protracted deliberations have escalated into open warfare between McChrystal and his supporters and advocates of a more limited strategy led by Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that often played out in dueling leaks to news organizations. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 10:57:39 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:57:39 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [review] Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse Message-ID: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5954#more Book Review Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse, by William R. Catton, Jr. Reviewed by George Mobus First I should confess to a strong bias toward the content of this book. As readers of my blog, Question Everything, will realize, I have been moving inexorably toward the same conclusion as the author, so you will perhaps forgive me if you think I may be suffering from a lack of sufficient critical thinking. Put bluntly, I think this is a book every thinking human being should read, and then consider for themselves. To a growing number of people it is looking more and more like mankind is about to undergo a most unpleasant transition. One might write such views off as being what kooks and apocalyptic religious fanatics hold to, and we know they are crazy. But over the last five years many deep thinking and well respected people have been sounding some alarms that are not as easily put aside. In 2004 Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal in Britain and clearly no intellectual harebrain, wrote Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning, Basic Books. In it he gives humanity about a 50/50 chance of surviving through the century. Not really good chances when you think about it. Last year James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, wrote a sobering call for a massive revision of capitalism and an end to growth in The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, Yale University Press. Like many authors have done, he painted a picture of what was wrong and why, but then pointed to remedies that might presumably fix the problems. That is, if only our leaders and our citizens would see the light and do what is necessary we might avoid total collapse. Most of these authors offer humanity an escape hatch, but point out that we have to be willing to sacrifice substantially, in terms of material wealth, for it to work. The realization that mankind is damaging its planet is certainly not new. Rachel Carson (The Silent Spring, 1962) may have started the trend in increasing awareness that we are doing things, in our zeal to control nature, that were starting to backfire, threatening to leave us worse off if we didn't change our ways and attitudes. Environmentalism has largely operated on this theme for decades. We've been warned of environmental degradation, global warming, and peak oil, and how these are interlinked. We've been made immanently aware of the dangers we have ourselves created. Now William R. Catton, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Sociology at my state's other PhD granting institution, Washington State University, brings on the sequel to his first book in this genre, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, in which he sounded an alarm being heard more frequently. Like Speth, Catton, in that earlier book, pointed out the problems as he saw them, from the viewpoint of a sociologist, and then declared that if we heed these warnings we might yet escape the worst. In the sequel, Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse, Xlibris Corporation, he drops the part about we can evade the worst. The subtitle says it all. Now he concludes that it is already too late to mend our ways and somehow avoid the collapse of civilization. Indeed the main title refers to an impending collapse of the human population. An ecological bottleneck (also called an population bottleneck) is where radical changes in the environment of a species causes a die-off of all but the most hardy of the population; hardy, that is, in terms of the selection pressures arising from the change. Of course there may be no sufficiently hardy individuals left or the ones that manage to survive cannot reproduce sufficiently to produce a new population. In that case the species goes extinct. Catton's arguments for why this is the most likely outcome for humanity boil down to something I have written about in my blog for several years now. It is the rate of change that matters as much as the degree or magnitude of change when it comes to shocking a population. If we look at the rate of climate change due to anthropogenic forcing, or the rate at which our fossil fuel energy sources are depleting, or the rate of aquifer depletion, or the rate of population increase, or the rate of consumption increase per captia in the developed and developing worlds, or... You get the picture. We are changing the world in ways unfavorable to human survivability more rapidly than we can either adapt or mitigate. And we have already passed the point of no return. As to why we are in this state of affairs, Catton calls on several sociological theories surrounding the evolution of culture and especially the development of over-specialization or 'division of labor'. The latter was touted by Adam Smith as the reason we were so efficient in our manufactures. And Catton, like many authors who deplore modern capitalism and corporatism, recognizes that at a time this was indeed a beneficial capacity. Today, however, he says that we overdid it and that the tendency toward deep specialization has tended to dehumanize and isolate each of us from the benefit of interpersonal relations. He further argues that we have come to think of others as instruments, mere means to our own ends. This he says is the end result of taking the abstraction of money as representing wealth too far in our thinking. This idea that once things like money and capitalism, etc. fulfilled good purposes and were good for society as a whole, but have simply been overdone in our modern technologically-driven world, is actually one of the common themes sounded by many writers. It is certainly something I have subscribed to in my evaluation of human affairs. Early in mankind's history, these inventions, these institutions, served a purpose to make man more fit as a species, to quell the negative selective forces of nature and allow humans to succeed evolutionarily. But somewhere along the line humans failed to recognize that too much of a good thing is actually bad. The failure to recognize this is the lack of wisdom, to which I will return in a bit. But to understand how humans got so carried away it is important to recognize, as Catton and others have done, that humans, like all animals, have a biological dictate to maximize their access to energy. For humans this took the shape of learning to control fire, making clothing, building shelters, and later finding additional external energy sources to supplement their bodily abilities. This included the invention of tools and agriculture. And it essentially culminated in the discovery of fossil fuels that allow modern humans incredible power over their environment. Catton renames a subset of Homo sapiens as a 'quasi-species', Homo colossus, those being the people in developed countries who consume massive amounts of fossil fuels to motivate and control machines that do orders of magnitude more work than a human can do with muscle power alone. To achieve this we are combusting carbon to produce CO2 and returning fossil carbon deposits to the atmosphere and oceans after sequestration for millions of years. And it is the rapidity with which this is happening which leads Catton, and others, to conclude that it is infeasible to put the brakes on for this train. That is, you can try to brake, but you won't stop in time to avoid a crash. Unfortunately for mankind, there are now far too many of Homo colossus in the global population. And the damage is done. NASA climatologist James Hanson has claimed that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be over 350 parts per million (ppm) in order to avoid calamitous climate shifts. But we are already at 385ppm and climbing, even though the global recession has slowed the burning of fossil fuels. It just isn't enough to stop let alone reverse the growth in carbon in the air. But beyond the damage done already, and the potential damage to come due to climate changes and sea level rise, Catton sees an impending threat from the fact that we are going to run out of this magical fuel one day. Or at least we will hit a barrier where the cost of extraction exceeds the benefit of having the fuels. When that happens what becomes of Homo colossus? Indeed what happens to Homo sapiens in toto? Even though peoples in developing and underdeveloped nations don't burn the fuels directly, they still rely on the developed world for aid produced by burning those fuels. Catton bases his analysis on the idea of carrying capacity. Fossil fuels have artificially boosted the carrying capacity of earth for human occupancy (if you ignore the damage we've done to other species). We are in overshoot, the theme of his previous book. We are like the cartoon character, Wile Coyote, who would race off a cliff in futile pursuit of the Roadrunner and would remain suspended in mid air until he realized his predicament; then it was too late and he would fall. When the fossil fuels are effectively used up, what will replace them? As things stand now, there simply is no realistic or viable alternative energy source that could scale up to the level needed by modern civilization in time to take over the job. Once again, it's the rate of change that gets us. In spite of continued pie-in-the-sky thinking by even engineers and scientist who should know better, no one has shown how real time solar energy in all of its many forms (thermal, photovoltaic, wind, even hydroelectric) will ever match the power in fossil fuels. These came from ancient photosynthesis over millions of years compressed and cooked into a convenient package over more millions of years. The scope of concentration is literally unimaginable (apparently) yet very serious people dream of capturing current solar influx and replacing fossil fuels with it. They may be serious but they are also dreamers or delusional. While in theory, the total daily influx of solar energy to the earth would provide many times over what we need to sustain our current civilization and provide development for the lesser developed nations, our systems of capture would have to cover gigantic areas of the planet. Our energy storage and distribution systems would have to be radically redesigned and rebuilt. And all of this comes just as we recognize the impacts of declining net energy from fossil fuels; those fuels being needed to subsidize the building of all that energy infrastructure. The root cause of humanity's impending impasse, however, is not his lack of will, or cleverness, or even sufficient energy resources. The root cause is his lack of wisdom. Catton points to this on page 190, speaking about his great-grandson: ...by the time surviving members of his generation have emerged from the coming bottleneck, when he may himself have somewhere a great-grandson he will wish to visit, somehow his contemporaries will have attained the wisdom Linneus implied was characteristic of our species when he named us Homo sapiens. For several years now I have been pursuing a quest to understand better why our species is not, on average, wiser than it is, apparently. With all of the history we have experienced, with all of the science we have learned, with all the cleverness our kind has for solving local (in time and space) problems, you would think that we would have developed greater wisdom than we have in fact. Why haven?t we been able to learn from our mistakes and develop a society that reflects individual and collective wisdom? What I came to realize was that the brain capacity for wisdom (which I have boiled down to: good judgment in complex social issues, strategic thinking, highly developed systems thinking, and strong moral sentiment, coordinated by the most recently evolved patch of prefrontal cortex) was a relatively new emergent capacity coupled with symbolic thinking and language and second order consciousness (conscious of being conscious) for early Homo sapiens. But it was evolved, as Catton notes, to meet the needs of the late Pleistocene existence of our small group-oriented species. It is not, on average, up to the task of modern complex society. One of my main conclusions is that our species is simply not sufficiently wise (or I prefer the term ?sapient? to differentiate between a native capacity and an actualized capability) to deal with the world we have created. For a more in-depth treatment of this subject, readers are directed to my working papers at: http://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus/Background/seriesIndex.html. It is this lack of inherent wisdom that will keep us, has kept us, from doing the right things to prevent the impending impasse. Catton's 'Prognosis for Humanity', page 206, is alarming. ...with great reluctance and regret, I am compelled to doubt that we can confidently hope to avoid a serious "crash" as the focal human experience of the 21st century?envisioned also as our species having to pass through an ecological "bottleneck". This is by far the most explicit statement of what we would call doom of any author in the popular book trade. There have been many writers, especially in the blogosphere, who have expressed similar conclusions. But I have yet to see a writer of some eminence such as Catton go all out and claim that the end is near. Unfortunately, I happen to agree with him. The question for me is: Will humanity come through this bottleneck with a gene pool competent to meet the challenges of a changed world AND have a stronger native capacity for sapience, for wisdom? Assuming some remnant of humanity does survive, that is no guarantee that our descendants will go on to evolve a better ability to make good, long-term judgments in that future world. Nor are we guaranteed that they will be able to reconstruct anything like modern technology-based society in order to re-achieve a species fitness allowing them to survive and thrive in the very long run. My only complaint with Catton's thesis is that he didn't go far enough in suggesting what those of us who see this coming might do now to save our genus from extinction or, in the case of my concern, to increase the likelihood that our descendants will inherit genetic components leading to higher sapience. He assumes that some humans may survive and the future environment may select for greater wisdom. I'm not so sure that will be the case. His parting words simply express thankfulness that he lived during the epitome of human achievements in science and understanding as well as freedoms to travel the world. My question is: Now what do we do? I have to applaud Catton for writing so honestly about what he has concluded. I have contemplated writing a book on the evolution of what I call eusapience, true sapience, as the future of the genus Homo ? Homo eusapiens. Necessarily, the species sapiens must go extinct to allow the rise of a new, wiser, species of humans. And an evolutionary bottleneck would be the most likely mechanism for this to happen. But I have hesitated, realizing this is a message no one wants to hear! Every other author of books on end-of-the-world scenarios at least offers that if we would only come to our senses... the world won't end. William Catton does not do this. Sorry for the spoiler but you should know in advance. Thus this probably isn't a book easily digested by everyone, even though I think everyone who believes themselves to be a critical thinker should read it. The reviewer is an Associate Professor of Computing and Software Systems at the University of Washington Tacoma. He is currently on sabbatical leave studying biophysical economics and energy-related issues at the State University of New York, Environmental Sciences and Forestry in Syracuse NY. His blog is Question Everything at: http://questioneverything.typepad.com From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 25 12:00:11 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:00:11 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Honduras] COMPA: Maintain the Alert! Message-ID: Esteban Bartlett Misiones Agricolas-COMPA Estadounidense ((((((((((((((((==================)))))))))))))))))) COMPA: Convergence of Movements of Organizations of the Peoples of the Americas *COMPA, MAINTAIN THE ALERT!* *Alert No.4* *Military Dictatorship arms itself with weapons and munitions of death and declares war on the National Front of Non-Violent Resistance.* The military-political-corporate Dictatorship, by means of Roberto Micheletti, has moved its shadowy web to arm itself to the teeth, coming into possession in recent days of equipment and munitions of war, to turn the electoral process into a war scene and confront the imaginary enemy represented by the National Front of Resistance against the Coup D?Etat. The Committee of Relatives of Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH) has confirmed information that demonstrates these facts: In a communication circulated November 9, 2009, by the Secretary of Finance of the de facto regime to the authorities of the Customs in the Port of Cortes, there was ordered the import free of taxes of an armored truck for control of street disturbances, based on the Ford truck model F750, with a Cummins diesel motor with six speed transmission, with all the accessories, at a cost of $11,990,000.00 USD ($11 million 990 thousand dollars), coming from the United States, through intermediary of the representative company, Commercio e Inversiones S. de R.L. of C.V. and co-signed by the Secretary of Security. This death machine is equipped with a mounted water canon with 300 pounds of pressure and 150 gallons per minute capacity, 4 armored cameras with 360 degree vision, operated from a video recording stations within the truck. In addition, the heavy machine is equipped with doors for the placement of weapons, a barricade remover in front, rotation devices in all the tires in the case of flats, sirens, police lights, LCD monitors on console and rear station platform, protected by armor on the floor, in the windows, motor, radiator, fuel tank and battery. The scandalous cost invested in mortal weapons registered in purchase Order SDES-0584-2009 is signed by the Secretary of Security, Jorge Rodas Gamero, who switched taking instructions from his commander Manuel Zelaya Rosales and now fulfills the whims of Roberto Micheletti. Elsewhere the General Secretary of Finance, Rafael Antonio Trejo sent a note to the customs authorities in the La Mesa in San Pedro Sula to authorize the entry at official expense of 10,000 tear gas hand grenades valued at 12,800,000 lempiras and 5,000 tear gas projectiles of 37 mm each valued at 4,950,000 lempiras for a total value of 17,750,000 lempiras, detailed in request number 003534. The squandering of millions utilized in the purchase of munitions and urban combat units, added to the communications circulated to the mayors asking them to identify members of the Resistance against the Coup d'Etat, in addition to the order to vacate the rooms in the hospital centers of the country, reaffirms the vision that we are confronting terrible signs on the eve of the implementation of the spurious act that will take place on November 29. COFADEH has denounced the fact that the public school teachers are being considered as military and police targets, many of whose members have been assassinated for condemning the coup d?etat and demanding the return of the constitutional order, and hundreds of teachers have been victims of brutal repression. In maneuvers never before seen, the cities of Nacaome and San Lorenzo in the department of Valle are militarized for pursuit of the resistance in these places. Yesterday November 23 we learned of the kidnapped by paramilitaries of Professor Luis Gradis Espinal (56 years of age), Coordinator of the Resistance in the southern zone, and today his lifeless body was found feet and hands tied on a dirt road in the hamlet Las Casitas, southwest of the capital, near an area where various military units are located. Professor Gradis Espinal left his house last Sunday, November 22 for the capital with the objective of meeting with one of his sons. Confirmed versions have it that Gradis Espinal was driving his vehicle when he was intercepted by a motorized patrol in the periphery loop road of the capital. The teacher was captured and taken to an unknown place. The teachers are being persecuted, some of them have been obliged to leave the country temporarily. In the same way our concern is needed in the case of professor Marco Tulio Valdez, leader of the Resistance in San Lorenzo, Valle, since he is being strongly threatened by the military authorities who have taken absolute control of the department; from this moment we hold responsible this body, especially Commander Mendoza, for any attempts on the life of Valdez. COFADEH energetically condemns the assassination of Luis Gradis Espinal, whose death is added to that of Roger Vallejo, Mario Contreras and Felix Murillo. We exhort the national and international community to condemn these attacks to which the Honduran people are falling victim by the military dictatorship and once again we reiterate that the public act that will take place on November 29 is a military, police and paramilitary action. *Of the deeds and the deed doers!* *Neither forgetfulness nor forgiveness* *COFADEH* Martes 24 de noviembre de 2009 -- Gustavo Castro Soto, OTROS MUNDOS A.C., Francisco I. Madero 49 Barrio de Guadalupe, 29230 San Crist?bal de las Casas, Chiapas, M?xico www.otrosmundoschiapas.org From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 26 08:10:10 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:10:10 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] On Making Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" Message-ID: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hillcoat/on-making-ithe-roadi_b_370477.html John Hillcoat Director of "The Road" Posted: November 25, 2009 10:55 AM On Making 'The Road' Making 'The Road' has been a unique and incredible experience for me. The film opens on Wednesday and so I have been reading some advanced reviews despite myself. I'm both relieved and pleased to read Mr. Reed's beautiful words and the many other critics struck by the movie's emotion and brave ambition and success in translating such a loaded landmark of contemporary literature. I have personally been most pleased by both Cormac McCarthy and the fans of the book's reaction. However, I've seen a few reviews that see the film purely as dark or bleak which I found somewhat perplexing. I know that everyone involved in the making of the film and Cormac, himself, who dedicated the book to his son, set out to tell a life-affirming and strangely uplifting story. In fact McCarthy describes the book being at its core about human goodness, human kindness. I think that this positive message is obviously why this book has become one of the most translated of the modern era and why Oprah picked The Road for her prestigious book club. It is a great adventure between a father and a son, where they are tested and their love drives them forward. It is primarily a celebration of family and mankind, made all the more special when pitted against such odds. Luck is such a big part of life and of moviemaking. To have the manuscript of Cormac McCarthy's The Road fall into my lap before it was published was a case in point. I had no idea that the book would go on to win the Pulitzer Prize and become so influential and popular. It so profoundly moved me that I knew back then it was a great gift carrying a huge responsibility. My last movie, The Proposition was actually inspired by McCarthy's Blood Meridian. But with The Road Cormac surpassed even my expectations. It is the most poignant love story between a father and son that I know of, so I wanted, above all, to respect the book and his work, to be authentic and not 'Hollywoodize' it, to use great restraint and focus upon its core qualities. The Road is also about civilization's slow death where disaster is made to feel physically and spiritually real -- it's literally apocalypse now. I feel that Cormac's immense talent lies not only in his poetic language but also in his insightful and unflinching view of humanity when stripped bare, of how people behave under extreme pressure revealing the worst and best in humanity with the precision of a scientist -- grace under pressure via great characters, great dialogue and great story telling. Above all, this is why I'm personally so attracted to his work as a filmmaker. To me the book felt uncomfortably familiar and uncomfortably real which is why we pursued a naked realism -- we thought that was in the spirit of the novel. The film can be viewed as a more mythic metaphoric journey of the soul -- a fable, an adult fairytale about the passing of one generation to another -- that inescapable reality of mortality and the archetypal parent's greatest fear, guilt and heartbreak in leaving the child behind and by extension everyone's fear of being left behind utterly alone. On another level is the morality tale, an urgent wake-up call to us all where kindness, trust, hope and faith must prevail against all odds in the face of debased human behavior amongst impending destruction and horror. As we all bear witness to a new age of violent global conflict, together with the specter of apocalyptic environmental catastrophe, The Road manages to tap into our collective psyche as a universal nightmare. It evokes our deepest and darkest fears -- and with prescience and lucidity looks at what matters most -- family, kindness, and love. Cormac McCarthy has spoken about how people have connected with the novel saying, "I have the same letter from about six different people. One from Australia, one from Germany, one from England, but they all said the same thing. They said, 'I started reading your book after dinner and I finished it 3:45 the next morning, and I got up and went upstairs and I got my kids up and I just sat there in the bed and held them.'" Viggo Mortensen and I also have boys and I think this strong emotional response in a family that the book evokes is what drew us to this project. In fact, it is in the humanity of The Boy in this story where the most uplifting message lies. The Boy has been born into a world where morals and ethics are at their lowest point ever, but he remains the most moral character which is a testament to mankind's more extraordinary innate values. He even becomes the teacher by handing back to The Man his own humanity. The specific reviews that just focus on the film bleakness seem to have missed the point. In fact, the film is quite the opposite. Yes, there are dark and horrifying moments in the film, just like there are tough times in everyone's life. However, what McCarthy's novel and this film display is that it is what you do under real pressure in those hard times -- when your world is turned upside down, when everything is taken from you -- that makes you the person that you really are. Some people choose to live selfishly and their morals slide down to the base levels of humanity, while others choose to do the opposite. In this case, the Man and the Boy, choose to "carry the fire" -- to forge onward with the same moral code and values that they would uphold in the most comfortable of times. Their love for each other and for fellow mankind is what keeps them alive and hence our future burning bright. The Road is the kind of film that challenges, excites, thrills, and gets your blood racing. They're the kind of movies I love. I hope that you will experience the film so you can be moved by this more significant and ultimately beautiful message at the heart of the journey in much the same way that the millions of readers of Cormac McCarthy's beloved book have been, myself included. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 26 09:35:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:35:55 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The Third Reich in Jerusalem Message-ID: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/11/third-reich-in-jerusalem.html Thursday, November 26, 2009 The Third Reich in Jerusalem posted by lenin The belief that we live in Enlightened times, that the prevailing cosmovision is scientific and rational, is itself a component of an irrational and violent ideology. We do not live in such a time, and the intelligentsia do not produce work reflecting such commitments. Rather, the great bulk of intellectual production is a labour of fabulation. Histories are aesthetic products, stimulating narratives for those bored with the novel, morality tales for those disenchanted with religion, improving sentiments and axioms for those who don't want to spend their tube journey deflecting anxiety about work with a copy of the Metro. The efficacy of these works as aesthetic productions, dealing in irony, allusion and juxtaposition, and using tragic, romantic or comedic modes of emplotment, is part of their proof, part of their ability to persuade. So, in the interminable era of the 'war on terror', we have been fed a slurry of literature rehearsing the apocalyptic dramaturgy of Oswald Spengler and his epigones. The key actor, the hero, is the corporative entity known as 'The West'. It is locked in a mortal combat, a fight to the death, with the villain, a relentless and tyrannical opponent, known as 'radical Islam' or 'Islamo-fascism' or 'totalitarianism', tout court. The ideas of 'totalitarianism' constitute the deux ex machina, the animating spirit that subjectivates an otherwise inert substrata of humanity, and sends it rushing, ululating, en masse, toward Jerusalem or New York. The latest installment of this narrative is provided by the American Eustonite, Jeffrey Herf (criticised by Richard Wolin here, resulting in a debate here). Disinterring, once again, the collusion between Haj Amin al-Husseini, the British-imposed Mufti of Jerusalem, and Adolf Hitler, Herf sets out make the case that 'radical Islam' constitutes the third wave of 'totalitarianism' in the world, following communism and fascism. Stop me if you've heard this one before. Can a gripping narrative be concocted from such hackneyed materials? Not by Herf, it can't. His efforts to add panache and colour to an utterly forlorn parable revolve around the single narrative conceit of 'Hate Radio', in which pro-Nazi broadcasts in Arab countries during WWII, to some extent facilitated by al-Husseini, are 'hate radio with a vengeance'. The sparsity of evidence for the larger case he wants to make is compensated for with tenuous extrapolations and sensational quotations. The denouement involves one particularly bestial broadcast, inciting the massacre of the Jews in the Arab countries, just as the Nazis were embarking on the final solution. Such viciousness, Herf maintains, found a receptive audience. His evidence doesn't permit too much extrapolation - he can refer to 'elements' in the Egyptian officer corps and the Muslim Brothers whom Berlin thought might be willing to act on such ideas. Herf writes: Two German historians, Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin C?ppers, recently uncovered evidence that German intelligence agents were reporting back to Berlin that if Rommel succeeded in reaching Cairo and Palestine, the Axis powers could count on support from some elements in the Egyptian officer corps as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Mallmann and C?ppers also show that an SS division was preparing to fly to Egypt to extend the Final Solution to the Middle East. The British and Australian defeat of Rommel at the Battle of El 'Alamein prevented that from happening. I assume that Herf is referring to an article by Mallmann and C?ppers in the journal Yad Vashem Studies, vol 36, in which the two historians outline a plan to send a unit under SS-Obsturmbannfuhrer Walter Rauth to conquer Egypt, and then proceed to Palestine where, the authors write, "it undoubtedly would see action directed primarily against the Jewish population there". This 'undoubtedly' is not warranted by any evidence cited, but even if it were, I am not persuaded that this amounts to evidence of a plan to "extend the Final Solution to the Middle East". Nor is it obvious that the "elements" identified by the Nazis would have proven amenable to such a programme. For, as Herf's case proceeds, the connections become all the more tenuous. He asks: "How was Nazi propaganda received by Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East?" He cites an evaluation from the OSS referring to 'apathy' in the Middle East regarding the trial of Nazis, and 'sympathy' for those who aided the Axis due to their hostility to the imperialists. This isn't particularly compelling as evidence, nor would it be surprising if it contained some truth, given the jackbooted behaviour of the colonial powers. It explains and demonstrates precious little. An interesting question would be, how did Arab public opinion receive the vicious exterminationist broadcast inciting genocide against the Jews, the one that Herf is at pains to quote at length? Did anyone actually carry out this genocide, or attempt to? Herf demonstrates no such conspiracy. Nor does he demonstrate that antisemitic ideas had much popular traction. Instead, what he does is show that Hassan al-Banna of the Muslim Brothers celebrated al-Husseini as a "hero" who "challenged an empire and fought Zionism" through his alliance with the Nazis. Now, al-Banna was both an antisemite and and anti-Zionist. His analysis, in common with many variants of Islamism, was that Western imperialism had destroyed and dislocated Islamic forms of sociability, and that this was being driven by a disintegrative Jewish minority. This has to be registered. But in Herf's polemic, anti-Zionism is uncomplicatedly conflated with antisemitism. Obviously, the two are related, but Herf wants to assert a unidirectional causality: Islamists were anti-Zionist because they were antisemitic - not the other way around, and not because Zionism was itself a colonizing movement that posed a grave menace not just to Palestinians but to other Arab countries in their struggle against colonialism. As Herf indicates in his debate with Wolin, he considers the 'totalitarian' ideas of 'radical Islam' to be responsible for the majority of problems in the Middle East, denying that it is in any sense a response to external aggression. Here, he relies on a red herring, pointing out that Western interventions since 1945 cannot have substantially caused the rise of Islamism, whose key doctrines were in place before that point. As if 'Western interventions' did not include the construction of the Suez canal, the subsequent colonization of Egypt, the scramble for Africa, the Mandates, etc etc. Might it not be of some interest that Mawdudi and al-Banna, two key figures in the founding of modern Islamism, operated in two countries (India and Egypt) which experienced a particularly savage form of colonial domination from quite early on? Does the doctrine of Islamic restoration espoused by Mawdudi have anything to do with the seige mentality created by British rule and its impact on traditional forms of life? Does his success in attracting post-Partition migrants to the Jamaat-e-Islami have anything to do with a cynical 'divide and quit' policy pursued by the British? If one wants to discuss and anatomise the ideas of these movements, it is not possible to do so without discussing the colonial labyrinth in which they fermented, not to mention the post-colonial systems of domination in which they expanded. But that is not the kind of history that Herf is interested in. He wants to establish a precarious genealogy of ideas, no matter how tenuous and slender the interconnecting branches are. Thus, he notes that Qutb, an intellectual source for that brand of salafism purveyed by 'Al Qaeda', was an antisemite who claimed that Hitler had been sent by Allah to punish the Jews. This stands as one, utterly frail, limb connecting the Third Reich to the 9/11 attacks. He then recites the antisemitism of the Hamas 'charter', having also previously reminded readers of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denial, noting that these are forms of antisemitism which originate in Europe. This is, of course, true, but it does not establish a direct channel from the Third Reich to the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Yet this is how, through a series of metonymic substitutions, we get from Nazi broadcasts and al-Husseini to Qutb and Banna, to the Islamic revolution in Iran, to Hamas and, ultimately, to Al Qaeda - an extremely diverse range of groups, movements and individuals, who appear to share nothing more than that they have espoused antisemitism and that they want to establish some form of Islamic polity. This isn't so much a narrative as a montage of fragments, quotes, anecdotes, particles of forensic evidence, and extravagant claims. In fact, this kind of allusion and juxtaposition is central to the case. As Wolin points out, the vectors of 'totalitarian' influence allegedly extend not just through 'radical Islamists', but also through the "Arab radicals" referred to in the original article. Thus, it is pointed out that Nasser recruited a former Nazi to work for his information ministry. This is, Wolin adds, not much of a case for anything given that the CIA recruited many, many Nazis for its global counterrevolutionary programmes. It isn't even particularly germane to the case. A secular anticolonial nationalist who tortured his Islamist opponents, Nasser can neither be considered a promulgator of Nazism or of any variant of 'political Islam'. But, as with previous incarnations of 'antitotalitarian' history, notably that vulgar treatise by Paul Berman written to justify the Iraq war, the point about 'totalitarianism' is that 'Arab radicals', 'Islamists', communists and fascists are all fungible. Or rather, in the puree of 'totalitarianism', they are indistinguishable. Thus, Berman had no scruple about describing Ba'athism as a variant of 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' 'totalitarianism'. Only through such pedestrian narrative devices is it possible to assert that there is at this time a movement against 'the West' that is comparable in its ideas, its coherency, scope and threat, to the Third Reich. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 26 10:01:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:43 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] German politicians, media warn about the next global financial crisis Message-ID: http://wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/fina-n26.shtml German politicians, media warn about the next global financial crisis By Peter Schwarz 26 November 2009 Within Germany?s top political circles fear is growing of a second international financial crash exceeding in intensity and impact that of autumn 2008. At the weekend, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Finance Minister Wolfgang Sch?uble (both Christian Democratic Union?CDU) warned that the economic crisis was far from over. ?We have initially succeeded in limiting the effects of the crisis on people, but difficulties remain in front of us,? Merkel told a CDU meeting. Sch?uble compared the present financial crisis with the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years earlier. ?The financial crisis will change the world as powerfully as did the fall of the [Berlin] Wall. The balance between America, Asia and Europe is shifting dramatically,? he told Bild am Sonntag. He also appealed to bankers to exercise restraint when it came to their bonus payments. Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, expressed fears about a social collapse if there is a new round of bank failures. ?It is surely too early to say the crisis is over,? he told a European congress of bankers in Frankfurt, adding the warning: ?Our democracies will not accept twice giving such extensive support to the financial sector with taxpayers? money.? The enormous stock market bubble that has formed over the past eight months is seen as the biggest source of danger of another crash. The most important share indices?the Dow Jones, the Japanese Nikkei and the German DAX?have risen by around 50 to 60 percent since March. The prices of crude oil, copper and other raw materials have also more than doubled. These enormous increases are not based upon any corresponding economic growth. On the contrary, economic activity has fallen in numerous countries and many firms are still posting losses. The rally in stock prices is due to the enormous liquidity that governments and central banks have pumped into the economy. Financial establishments are able to borrow unlimited sums of money from the central banks at virtually zero interest, and thus make high profits from their speculative deals. The trillions in taxpayers? money that are being spent to revive the economy do not flow into investments, but into speculative deals, high payouts to shareholders, and exorbitant bonus payments for the bankers. ?The stock markets are rising because so much money has to go somewhere?because shares per se are valued attractively,? writes Wirtschaftswoche, the German business weekly, in an analysis of the current stock exchange boom. According to the magazine, the price-earnings ratio?comparing the market value per share to the annual earnings per share of the respective enterprise?has reached a historic maximum of 133. A price-earnings ratio of 14 or more is considered to mean shares are valued excessively. As a consequence of the crisis, hundreds of thousands of workers in the US alone are losing their jobs each month, workers are being forced to forgo wages, and social programs are being cut on a massive scale. At the same time, the orgy of enrichment of those at the top of society has reached the same level as prior to the crisis, or even higher. The large investment banks and hedge funds will this year disburse over $100 billion in bonuses to their staff. Goldman Sachs, the US bank, has set aside $17 billion for this purpose. In Germany, the 30 largest enterprises listed on the DAX plan to transfer over 20 billion euros to their shareholders in the spring of 2010. That is 71 percent of their net profits. In the previous record year, 2007, the corresponding figure was only 45 percent. Proportionately less will be available for new investment. This is the background to the warnings of Merkel, Sch?uble and Trichet. They fear that the shameless enrichment of the financial oligarchy, linked with a new crisis on the financial markets, could unleash an uncontrollable social rebellion. Many experts consider another financial crash to be inevitable. This week?s edition of Der Spiegel, the weekly newsmagazine, ran the following sensationalized headline, comic book-style, on its front page: ?The trillion-bomb.? The 12-page accompanying article begins by asserting that the question is not whether the present stock market bubble bursts, but when? There follows a devastating picture of the present state of capitalist society: ?In the midst of a world economy still gripped by crisis, the financial elite is again accumulating billions,? the article states. ?The old greed is there again, and the old hubris too.? Never before in modern economic history has ?the finance industry had such unfettered access to the finances of the state.? Der Spiegel warns expressly of the ?risk of hyperinflation?a breakneck rapidly progressing monetary depreciation, as Germany experienced at the beginning of the 1920s.? At the same time, citing Adair Turner, chair of Britain?s Financial Services Authority, the article points to the ideological effects of the crisis. It not only involves a crisis of individual banks, but also a crisis of ?intellectual thought?: ?Our conception that prices bear important information, that markets behave rationally and correct themselves in cases of irrationality, all that has been placed in question.? In other words, capitalism and the free-market economy are thoroughly discredited. Der Spiegel directs its principal fire against the US government. ?The finance industry in the US is regulated by the finance industry, not by the finance minister [treasury secretary],? it notes disapprovingly, and lists the numerous individuals whose careers have extended from the executive offices of banks such as Goldman Sachs to the offices of the treasury department, or to the close environs of President Barack Obama, and back again. ?If one looked at the US with the same analytic coolness as [one looks at] Russia,? observes the American economist James Galbraith, cited in the article, ?one could not avoid speaking of the rule of an oligopoly comprised of politicians and bankers. The powerful individuals on Wall Street and in Washington are no less closely interlinked than Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and the magnates controlling Russia?s raw material empire.? Der Spiegel speaks for that section of the German ruling elite that wants to end the state-financed reflationary measures and the policy of cheap money as quickly as possible, pleading instead for a lowering of business taxes and severe budget cuts. Although that would entail a substantial dismantling of social programs and a short-term increase in bankruptcies and job cuts, this is considered the lesser evil compared to a sudden economic collapse with incalculable social consequences. The attitude of Der Spiegel essentially corresponds to that of the government in Berlin. The outgoing coalition of the Christian Democrats and the Social Democratic Party had already enshrined a ?debt brake? in the constitution shortly before September?s parliamentary elections, which now forces the new government onto a drastic austerity course. New state debt must be reduced from the present 86 billion euros to 10 billion in 2016 . Finance Minister Sch?uble has repeatedly insisted that he will keep applying the debt brake and adhere to the European Union stability pact, which limits new debt to three percent of Gross Domestic Product. But taking into account various internal and external political pressures means this austerity course is to be delayed by about one year. Chancellor Merkel fears a further erosion of support for the CDU and the loss of her government majority in the Bundesrat (upper house of parliament) if, immediately after the elections, she were to begin implementing social cuts. On an international level, there are sharp differences with Washington and London over financial policy, which already led to conflicts before the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. The US and Britain, which have sacrificed a large part of their industrial base to the financial sector, have far fewer interests in a restrictive monetary policy than Germany, whose export trade and industry rank among the strongest in the world, and which fears the effects of a weak dollar on its competitive position. The vehemence with which Der Spiegel now attacks the American finance sector expresses the acuteness of the mutual tensions that are seldom openly addressed. This must all be seen as a warning for working people. The global crisis of capitalism has reached a point where social and political compromise is no longer possible. Workers must prepare for fierce social struggles. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 26 11:37:40 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:37:40 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Honduras: The unequivocal signs of what is coming Message-ID: Original Spanish: ======== http://dianabarahona.blogspot.com/2009/11/honduras-unequivocal-signs-of-what-is.html Monday, November 23, 2009 Honduras: The unequivocal signs of what is coming Nov. 21, 2009 Cubadebate by Ricardo Salgado The events in Honduras during the last ten days oblige us to act immediately to ensure the safety of as many of our people as possible from the repressive onslaught that the fascists are preparing, the unequivocal signs of which increase day by day. The virulent selective repression against members of the resistance recently has become a constant. They have moved beyond the bombs of "lies" in the commercial centers and on the properties of wealthy putschists to murder attempts against civilians that they have profiled during more than 140 days of struggle. Added to this there is a formidable military deployment throughout the country. The military checkpoints on the highways where they stop vehicles, especially public transportation, to carry out searches without any explanation, are part of a brazen campaign of intimidation that they are executing with U.S. complicity. The principal cities, accustomed since the coup to the "reappearance" of the sinister military actor, have noted the growing presence of diverse army units. One can visit any establishment and they are there, like guardians of the transnational fortune, but also like customers. Yesterday as I was buying a coffee, my attention was drawn to a military man who doing the same, dressed in his combat uniform, which identified his unit as "sharpshooter." Sharpshooters buying coffee during working hours?that is an uncommon scene in today's societies. They have become the terrifying part of the daily scenery of Hondurans. Furthermore, it doesn't take much for them to change into their role of repressive beasts. There have been several murder attempts against members of the resistance in Olancho, Tegucigalpa and Santa Barbara. A police spokesman recently announced with vehemence but without concern that they had become aware of an escalation of violence by drug trafficking groups during the days leading up to the elections. It is surprising how a police force that until six months ago was a model of ineptitude is now capable of solving cases within hours and even announcing ahead of time the plans of drug traffickers whom they have never been able to control. The Honduran Air Force has been carrying out low altitude flights over villages in several regions of the country. They do this during daytime hours as if to demonstrate their presence to populations that otherwise have been permanently forgotten and rarely see an airplane. At night the activity changes, and around the Toncont?n airport during the past four months there has been intense activity EVERY DAY by NON COMMERCIAL flights. We don't know if this activity is the same in Palmerola [the U.S. air base], or at the San Pedro Sula or La Ceiba airports. What they do is more difficult to prove even though everything seems to indicate a process of accumulating military supplies, and probably the complementary activity of other items. In Tegucigalpa this activity has not diminished for one single day in these months. The brazenness?or the stupidity?grow when the secretary of public health makes an order suspending vital services at all of the public hospitals in the country. Every surgery set for between Nov. 19 and Dec. 4 must be cancelled. As many beds as possible must be freed. Furthermore each hospital administrator is ordered to prepare a contingency plan as soon as possible. Of course the gringos are not on the margins of this. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly gave an unusual statement on Thursday: "The United States is concerned about the violations of human rights in Honduras; we are following this closely and it will have a lot of weight on our decision on whether to recognize the elections or not." Kelly's statement seems more like a prophecy than a concern. They, the gringos, are the architects of the whole conspiracy, and they are likewise complicit in this part of the plan. To put it simply, as in all of their convenient evaluations of the facts they will categorize the violence in accordance with their best interest. It is possible they will end up saying that the violence caused by the action of the resistance provoked the repressors, who were defending public order. All of the actions described are not isolated occurrences. They are part of a strategy, of a single plan of action, which has been elaborated by military intelligence with the respective advice of Zionist terrorists, Colombian paramilitaries and the classic wise men of the CIA and the Pentagon. The report of the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Honduras, CODEH, about one of the plans to carry out a massacre during the days leading up to and on the day of the elections, is not an idea without support. By accident I was made aware of the information that a high official of the armed forces warned a close relative, "If you are going to go out to vote, do it early; at 11:00 in the morning the shit will start." During a radio appearance yesterday, Andr?s Pav?n, president of the CODEH, and Rafael Alegr?a, leader of V?a Campesina and of the National Resistance Front, laid out this plan in detail. But in spite of having been made public, it does not seem to have been aborted. As a complementary action, they have decreed a general disarmament of the population beginning Monday, Nov. 23. They will surely carry out aggressive operations against popular urban neighborhoods and rural communities in resistance. They seem to have left no loose ends. The only option remaining is to accelerate a process of popular preparation regarding the measures to take for the coming wave of repression. Until now the population has been advised to not go out to vote in order to maintain security. I have not yet seen a consistent plan preparing the population for the possible repression in the poor zones of the most important cities and in key areas of the resistance in the interior of the country. An additional ingredient of this plan is the closing of the media that are aligned with the resistance. Yesterday they took Cholusat Sur off the air, and it is not irrational to think that Radio Globo will be closed under any pretext in the beginning of the week. These closures are aimed not only at silencing the voices against the fraudulent process of the 29th but also at avoiding the dissemination of instructions and recommendations to the population. At this stage we should be preparing a campaign to organize the people, as if we were dealing with a catastrophic phenomenon. Many critics will say that I am paranoid, and that I am falling victim to my phobias. But even if the military and paramilitaries ended up doing nothing, the signs that we receive indicate that we should move in the direction of prevention and denunciation. No action will be superfluous. It will be much worse to adopt a passive attitude and regret it later on. If it is true that the multinational and putschist media will say nothing, at least until they can verify the bodies, the prisoners and the wounded, the alternative media will surely support us in the cause of denunciation. From the so-called international community (UN, OAS and others) we should expect nothing, except possibly a condemnatory resolution, as useless as all of the rest. We are the only ones who can work on prevention. We should prepare our people responsibly to face everything. Let us recall that the panic that these military are creating also impacts the bourgeois and the misnamed middle class; these normally react by compulsively stockpiling food, water, fuel and other items, causing a disorganized shortage of food and necessary goods. A plan should be produced and disseminated immediately in order to safeguard the physical integrity of the people, but also to guarantee that it does not enter a situation of calamity. In this, organization and solidarity play an extremely important role. There is still much to do; the hours are limited, we need organization. This mobilization will give a clear demonstration of our capacity for the future struggle. We should be efficient, disciplined, tenacious, valiant. Nothing less is required now. We cannot give ourselves the luxury of making mistakes at this moment; the signs are very clear and the macabre plan of the putschist assassins may turn into a great popular triumph. It all depends on us. URL: http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2009/11/21/honduras-senales-inequivocas-viene/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 26 11:48:44 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:48:44 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Manuel Zelaya: A Letter to the Presidents of the Hemisphere Message-ID: original in Spanish: http://www.narconews.com/Issue62/articulo3950.html ============ A Letter to the Presidents of the Hemisphere By Manuel Zelaya Rosales President of Honduras November 22, 2009 Honorable Presidents Nations of Am?rica Dear Presidents, I write you in my role as President of Honduras, valuing the excellent relations between our countries and in defense of the democracy violated in Honduras as consequence of the Military Coup d?Etat perpetrated June 28 of this year, when soldiers invaded my home and at gunpoint kidnapped and took me to Costa Rica. The National Congress forged my resignation letter and, abusing its power, emitted an illegal decree which ?separated me from the charge of Constitutional President? without Constitutional backing to do so. The same was the case for the arrest order that the Court had emitted without having received any legal complain and without my having been cited to appear before any tribunal or trial. It has been condemned and described by all the countries of the world as a violent and surprising rupture of democratic order, a Military Coup d?Etat. At this moment in Honduras we are in a de facto State. There is no Constitution. Nor are there Constitutional powers because they have been destroyed by force by the military Coup d?Etat on that ominous day of June 28, 2009. The Constitution of the Republic establishes in Article 3: ?No one owes obedience to an usurper government, nor to those who occupy public positions or jobs by the force of weapons or using means or procedures that bankrupt or fail to recognize what the Constitution and the law establishes. Those actions by so-called authorities are null and void. The people have the right to insurrection to defend the Constitutional order.? In reading that article, you can understand that the Honduran people are legally empowered to act using all means, styles and forms that they consider necessary to restore democracy. We have consciously taken the path of peaceful resistance, with the goal of establishing noncooperation and nonviolence like methods of civil disobedience and twenty-first century popular struggle against the rise of military force. We thank the entire international community for your support for our labor to reconstruct the State of Law, that being the last effort of the poorly reached Tegucigalpa-San Jos? Accord, backed by the OAS and the US Department of State. Its letter and spirit has as its proposal the ?return of the title the executive branch to what it was prior to June 28.? And it was openly violated by the de facto regime which in which Mr. Micheletti pretends to head a government of reconciliation, refusing to convene the National Congress, in definitive noncompliance of the timeline and text. Now, unilaterally, he seeks to utilize the aborted accord by convening the National Congress on December 2, a date upon which the political actors of the accord will have been substantially modified, in the sense that by then they will have already been submitted to the opinion ofthe voters without having restored Constitutional order. The elections of November 29 and their use of public funds under a de facto regime, without having previously restored democracy and the State of Law as OAS and UN resolutions demand, without even having installed the government of unity and reconciliation, are illegal, illegitimate, and constitute a criminal act. At the moment that the de facto regime with its soldiers convenes a spurious electoral process under repression, without legal guarantees, and without a political agreement, in which the military dictatorship is the guarantor of the law, it only strengthens its actions of force and impunity. Precisely today, Channel 36, property of journalist Esdras Amado L?pez, the only television chain that has opposed the regime, has had its signal blocked and taken off the air by the dictatorship. The de facto regime has frontally disregarded the resolutions of the OAS, the UN and the European Union. It has also violated the Democratic Charter of the OAS and its resolutions while some of Honduras? friends among countries demonstrate ambiguity and support for the electoral process without having restored democratic order and without political dialogue. That permits the de facto regime to impose its will by force. As President of Honduras, I communicate with you to say that below these conditions I will not back the electoral process and will proceed to challenge it legally in the name of the men and women of my country and of hundreds of community leaders that suffer the loss of democracy, the repression, the unfair circumstances and the suppression of freedom. These elections have to be annulled and rescheduled to when the sovereign will of the people is respected. In these difficult moments for our brother countries of Am?rica, we ask for your solidarity with Honduras. - That you accompany us based on the facts that you know, reiterating the position of not supporting a unilateral intent to give validity to an accord that was quickly rescinded by the violations consummated by the dictatorship. - Reaffirming the condemnation of the coup d?etat of the military State and not supporting a de facto regime whose existence today shames all the peoples of Latin Am?rica Latina, that after all the attempts by the international community to reverse the coup d?etat have ended in a total failure for everyone. - Appealing to maintain your firmness in the execution of the resolutions passed by the OAS and the UN and not adopting ambiguous and imprecise positions like those displayed today by the government of the United States of America, with whose final posture has weakened the process of reversing the coup d?etat, demonstrating division in the international community. By feeding this coup d?etat the democratic security in the hemisphere and the stability of the Presidents of Am?rica is put at risk, with the resurgence of military castes over civil authority. Legitimizing coups d?etat by means of spurious electoral processes divides and does not contribute to the unity of the nations of Am?rica. - I ask for your cooperation so that this Military Coup d?Etat its bloody violations of human rights do not go unpunished. Already, the International Criminal Court has received complaints and allowed them to proceed to trial to obtain justice for our people and apply the corresponding sanctions to those who committed treason to the Nation and crimes against humanity in Honduras. - We voice our energetic rejection of those who support the maneuvers to launder the coup d?etat, covering up for the golpistas to leave their crimes protected. - With our full attention, we invite all the nations to recognize our government and that they abstain from supporting the actions of the illegal regime that usurped power by force of weapons. - We cordially demand and exhort your representatives to the OAS and the UN to continue defending and supporting the rights of the people and of the legitimately elected governments, since when one of our nations suffers an assault it is an affront to all Am?rica; and, each time a government elected by the peoples of Am?rica is toppled, violence and terrorism win and Democracy suffers a defeat. In wait of your response, I appreciate the invaluable support demonstrated until now for these principles and I send you greetings reiterating my esteem and my highest consideration. JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES President of the Republic of Honduras cc: Sr. Jos? Miguel Insulza, Secretario General de la OEA Sr. Ban Ki Moon, Secretario General de la ONU Sr. Jos? Barroso, Comisi?n Uni?n Europea From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 26 16:23:31 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:23:31 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] [Review] Future of Water in the West Message-ID: Dead Pool: Lake Powell, Global Warming and the Future of Water in the West by James Lawrence Powell California, 283 pp ?19.95 January 2010 ISBN 978 0 520 25477 0 London Review of Books Vol. 31 No. 23 ? 26 NOVEMBER 2009 Dry Lands Rebecca Solnit: The Water?s Running Out The Colorado River no longer reaches the sea. Its dams and reservoirs are failing, silting up while the water level drops. It?s too cold for many of its species of endangered fish. It isn?t even red any more. Yet it?s less than 150 years since the first white men floated down the Colorado. They were led by Major John Lesley Powell, who saw that there wasn?t enough water to irrigate the vast agricultural society that people wanted to build in the American south-west, but whenever he tried to point this out he was shouted down or ignored. As Rebecca Solnit writes in the latest issue of the LRB, ?ignoring Powell has been the basis of almost everything that has come since.? A lot of what Solnit calls ?junk science? was conjured up to justify the building of unsustainable cities and the sowing of thirsty crops in the desert, and vast engineering products were undertaken to make it, briefly, possible. ?Building those dams and reservoirs ? was a big-government project for the benefit of Westerners who for the most part considered themselves individualists and independents. This delusion of self-sufficiency, along with the fantasy that enough water could be found to supply the region, launched the eco-tragedy now unfolding.? And yet, Solnit writes, ?the waters that are insufficient for this desert civilisation will continue to flow anyway. The river that carved a canyon a mile deep will eventually remove all the concrete in its way and scour out the massive piles of silt built up behind both megadams. The process will be catastrophic at some point, but in geological time it will mean restoration of the live, continuous river.? More: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n23/rebecca-solnit/dry-lands?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3123 From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 02:30:16 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:30:16 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Amy Goodman: Hungering for a True Thanksgiving Message-ID: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hungering_for_a_true_thanksgiving_20091117/ Truthdig November 19, 2009 Hungering for a True Thanksgiving By Amy Goodman "In the next 60 seconds, 10 children will die of hunger," says a United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) online video. It continues, "For the first time in humanity, over 1 billion people are chronically hungry." The WFP launched the Billion for a Billion campaign this week, urging the 1 billion people who use the Internet to help the billion who are hungry. But if you think that hunger is far from our shores, here is some food for thought ... and action: The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report Monday stating that in 2008 one in six households in the U.S. was "food insecure," the highest number since the figures were first gathered in 1995. Economist Raj Patel, author of "Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World's Food System," told me he was "gobsmacked" by the U.S. hunger numbers, which he finds appalling: "The reason that we have this huge increase in hunger in the United States, as around the world, isn't because there isn't enough food around. Actually, we produced a pretty reliable solid crop last year. ... The reason people go hungry is because of poverty." In addition to the online campaign, the United Nations is hosting the World Summit on Food Security in Rome this week, hoping to unite world leaders on the cause of eliminating hunger. Patel remarked on the U.N. summit, "They're making all the right sounds about hunger around the world, but as some of the activists outside that summit are saying, poor people can't eat promises." Almost 700 people from 93 countries, many of whom are small-scale food producers, have gathered outside the U.N. summit. They are there in behalf of the People's Food Sovereignty Forum, and they are pushing for small- scale, organic, sustainable food-sovereignty and food- security programs, as opposed to large-scale agribusiness with its dependence on genetically modified organisms and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Michelle Obama said last March when planting the White House's organic kitchen garden, "It is so important for them [children] to get regular fruits and vegetables in their diets, because it does have nutrients, it does make you strong, it is all brain food." The first lady of the U.S. made the point that a homegrown, organic garden is a sustainable and affordable way to strengthen family food security. This has led some to wonder, then, why her husband has appointed Islam Siddiqui to be the U.S. chief agricultural negotiator. Siddiqui is currently vice president for science and regulatory affairs for CropLife America, the main pesticide industry trade association. According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America, "This position will enable him to keep pushing chemical pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies, and unfair trade arrangements on nations that do not want and can least afford them." It was CropLife's mid-America division that circulated an e-mail to industry members after Michelle Obama's garden announcement, saying, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador Coordinator, and I shudder." Jacques Diouf, director-general of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, engaged in a 24-hour hunger strike over the weekend, before the food security summit kicked off. He said in a statement, "We have the technical means and the resources to eradicate hunger from the world so it is now a matter of political will, and political will is influenced by public opinion." Diouf has estimated that it would take $44 billion per year to end hunger globally, compared with the less than $8 billion pledged recently to that goal. Juxtapose those numbers with the amount being spent by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non- Proliferation, the U.S. has spent on average about $265 million per day in Afghanistan since the invasion of that country in 2001 (which is a much lower estimate than that provided by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others). Even at that rate, five months of military spending by the U.S. would meet Diouf's goal, and that would be if the U.S. were the sole contributor. Consider pausing this Thanksgiving, which for many in the U.S. is a major feast, to reflect on the 10 children who die of hunger every minute, and how your elected officials are spending hundreds of billions in public funds on war. Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column. _______________ Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 800 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback. c 2009 Amy Goodman =========== Fresh Ink is an alternative online news service. To subscribe or view previous postings: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink. You can support us by forwarding this article (with our subscribe link) to a friend. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 03:36:58 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:36:58 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Amy goodman grilled at Canada Border Crossing Message-ID: Amy goodman grilled at Canada Border Crossing: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/26/bc-amy-goodman-border-incident.html From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 05:30:57 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:30:57 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Are the Climate Skeptics Right? Message-ID: www.motherjones.com MOTHER JONES November 27, 2009 THIS WEEK IN THE BLOGOSPHERE Kevin drum Are the Climate Skeptics Right? I got an email this week from an old high school buddy. I haven't seen him in years, but after he left Pacifica High School a year ahead of me he went off to Princeton and then to UC San Diego, where he got his doctorate in earth sciences. For the last 20 years he's been a geology professor at Yale University. Smart guy. His name is Jeffrey Park, and he wanted to alert me to his latest paper, published Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters. The subject of his paper is atmospheric CO2, which, as we all know, is the major greenhouse gas that drives global warming. But that's in the long term. In the short term, it's the other way around: Changes in temperature drive changes in the amount of CO2. The strength of this change was last calculated 20 years ago, so Jeff decided it was time for an update. His results were grim: In the past there used to be a five-month lag between short-term temperature changes and the resulting changes in CO2 levels. Today it's at least 15 months. So what is it that's keeping CO2 in the atmosphere so long these days? In the dry language of science, his paper explains: "Our hypothesis implies that human activities have lately outpaced the ocean's capacity for absorbing carbon." Here's the less technical version: "Think of the oceans like soda," he says. "Warm cola holds less fizz. The same thing happens as the oceans warm up." By itself, that's unsurprising, but the magnitude of the change was much bigger than he expected. Like a lot of other recent results, it suggests, ironically, that climate skeptics are right: Our models of climate change really are wrong. Unfortunately, they're wrong in the wrong direction. It's not that global warming isn't happening, it's that it's happening even faster than anyone ever imagined. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 11:27:16 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:27:16 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry Message-ID: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5AH3JQ20091118?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+(News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry Wed Nov 18, 2009 By Jon Hurdle PERKASIE, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Carin Froehlich pegs her laundry to three clotheslines strung between trees outside her 18th-century farmhouse, knowing that her actions annoy local officials who have asked her to stop. Froehlich is among the growing number of people across America fighting for the right to dry their laundry outside against a rising tide of housing associations who oppose the practice despite its energy-saving green appeal. Although there are no formal laws in this southeast Pennsylvania town against drying laundry outside, a town official called Froehlich to ask her to stop drying clothes in the sun. And she received two anonymous notes from neighbors saying they did not want to see her underwear flapping about. "They said it made the place look like trailer trash," she said, in her yard across the street from a row of neat, suburban houses. "They said they didn't want to look at my 'unmentionables.'" Froehlich says she hangs her underwear inside. The effervescent 54-year-old is one of a growing number of Americans demanding the right to dry laundry on clotheslines despite local rules and a culture that frowns on it. Their interests are represented by Project Laundry List, a group that argues people can save money and reduce carbon emissions by not using their electric or gas dryers, according to the group's executive director, Alexander Lee. Widespread adoption of clotheslines could significantly reduce U.S. energy consumption, argued Lee, who said dryer use accounts for about 6 percent of U.S. residential electricity use. Florida, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Colorado, and Hawaii have passed laws restricting the rights of local authorities to stop residents using clotheslines. Another five states are considering similar measures, said Lee, 35, a former lawyer who quit to run the non-profit group. 'RIGHT TO HANG' His principal opponents are the housing associations such as condominiums and townhouse communities that are home to an estimated 60 million Americans, or about 20 percent of the population. About half of those organizations have 'no hanging' rules, Lee said, and enforce them with fines. Carl Weiner, a lawyer for about 50 homeowners associations in suburban Philadelphia, said the no-hanging rules are usually included by the communities' developers along with regulations such as a ban on sheds or commercial vehicles. The no-hanging rules are an aesthetic issue, Weiner said. "The consensus in most communities is that people don't want to see everybody else's laundry." He said opposition to clotheslines may ease as more people understand it can save energy and reduce greenhouse gases. "There is more awareness of impact on the environment," he said. "I would not be surprised to see people questioning these restrictions." For Froehlich, the "right to hang" is the embodiment of the American tradition of freedom. "If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry," said Froehlich, who is writing a book on the subject. Besides, it saves money. Line-drying laundry for a family of five saves $83 a month in electric bills, she said. Kevin Firth, who owns a two-bedroom condominium in a Dublin, Pennsylvania housing association, said he was fined $100 by the association for putting up a clothesline in a common area. "It made me angry and upset," said Firth, a 27-year-old carpenter. "I like having the laundry drying in the sun. It's something I have always done since I was a little kid." (Editing by Mark Egan and Paul Simao) From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 11:38:40 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:38:40 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] The Economic Crisis . . . Message-ID: . . . and What Must Be Done http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/2840 futurefastforward.com November 25 2009 by Richard C Cook The United States does not control its own destiny. Rather it is controlled by an international financial elite, of which the American branch works out of big New York banks like J P Morgan Chase, Wall Street investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, and the Federal Reserve System. They in turn control the White House, Congress, the military, the mass media, the intelligence agencies, both political parties, the universities, et cetera. No one can rise to the top in any of these institutions without the elite's stamp of approval. This elite has been around since the nation began, becoming increasingly dominant as the 19th century progressed. A key date was passage of the National Banking Act of 1863, when the system was put into place whereby federal government debt was used to collateralize bank lending. Since then we've paid the freight through our taxes for bank control of the economy. The final nails in the coffin came with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. In 1929 the bankers plunged the nation into the Great Depression by constricting the money supply. With Franklin D Roosevelt as president, the nation struggled through the decade of the 1930s but did not pull out of the Depression until the industrial explosion during World War Two. After the war came the Golden Age of the US economy, when the working man, protected by strong labor unions, became a true partner in the prosperity of the industrial age. That era lasted a full generation. The bankers were largely spectators as Americans led the world in exports, standard of living, science and space exploration, and every measure of health, longevity, and culture. Roosevelt had kept the bankers subservient to the interests of the economy at large. The Federal Reserve was part of the New Deal team, and interest rates were held at historic lows despite a large federal deficit. One main impact was the huge increase in home ownership. After World War Two, the GI Bill allowed home ownership to grow further and millions of veterans to attend college. The influx of educated graduates led to productivity growth and the emergence of new high-tech industries. But the bankers were laying their plans. In the early 1950s they got the government to agree to allow the Federal Reserve to escape its subservience to the US Treasury Department and set interest rates on its own. Rates rose throughout the 1950s and 1960s. By the time of the interest rate hikes of 1968, the economy was slowing down. Both federal budget and trade deficits were beginning to replace the post-war surpluses. High interest rates were the likely cause. In 1971, President Richard Nixon removed the dollar's gold peg, allowing the huge inflation resulting from oil price increases that the international bankers engineered through control of US foreign policy when Henry Kissinger was national security adviser and secretary of state. Nixon's opening to China resulted in early agreements, also overseen by banking interests, to begin to transfer US industry to overseas producers like China which had cheap labor costs. By the mid-1970s, the US had been taken over by a behind the scenes coup-d'etat that included events in 1963 when President John F Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy that could only have been instigated by the highest levels of world financial control. In the election of 1976, David Rockefeller succeeded in placing fellow Trilateral Commission member Jimmy Carter in the White House, but Carter upset the banking community, thoroughly Zionist in orientation, by working toward peace in the Middle East and elsewhere. I was working in the Carter White House in 1979-80. Unbeknownst to the president, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, another Rockefeller protege, suddenly raised interest rates to fight the inflation the bankers had caused by the OPEC oil price deals, and plunged the nation into recession. Carter was made to look weak and uninformed and was defeated in the election of 1980 by Republican candidate Ronald Reagan. It was through the "Reagan Revolution" that the regulatory controls over the banking industry were lifted, mainly in allowing the banks to use their fractional reserve privileges in making mortgage loans. Volcker's recession shattered American manufacturing and hastened the flight of jobs abroad. Under the "Reagan Doctrine", the US military embarked on an unprecedented mission of world conquest by attacking one small nation at a time, starting with Nicaragua. Global capitalism was also on the march, with the US armed forces its own private police force. With the invasion of Iraq under George H W Bush in 1991, mainland Asia was revealed as the principle target. The economy was floated by productivity gains through computer automation and a huge sell-off of assets through the merger-acquisition bubble of the late 1980s which ended in a recession. This resulted in the defeat of Bush by Bill Clinton in the election of 1992. Clinton was able to create another bubble through a strong dollar policy that attracted foreign capital. The dot-com bubble that resulted lasted all the way through to the crash of December 2000. Meanwhile, the US Air Force led the way in the destruction of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, whereby the international bankers took over the resource wealth of the entire Balkan region, and the US military gained forward bases for further incursions into Asia. Do we need to say that none of this was ever voted on by the American electorate? But they bought into it nevertheless, both with their silence and through participation in a generally favorable job market in the emerging service occupations, particularly finance. By the time George W Bush was inaugurated president in January 2001, the US was facing a disaster. $4 trillion in wealth had vanished when the dot.com bubble collapsed. NAFTA caused even more American manufacturing jobs to disappear abroad. The Neocons who were moving into key jobs in the Pentagon knew they would soon have new wars to fight in the Middle East, with invasion plans for Afghanistan and Iraq ready to be pulled off the shelf. But the US had no economic engine available to generate the tax revenues Bush would need for the planned wars. At this moment Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve stepped in. Over a two year period from 2001 to 2003 the Fed lowered interest rates by over 500 basis points. Meanwhile, the federal government removed all regulatory controls on mortgage lending, and the housing bubble was on. $4 trillion in new home loans were pumped into the economy, much of it through subprime loans borrowers could not afford. The Fed began to put on the brakes in 2003, but the mighty work of re-floating a moribund economy had been accomplished. By late 2006 another recession loomed, but it would take two more years before the crisis of October 2008 brought the entire system down. The impact on the job market was immediate and profound. By the time Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, the US was mired in seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the worst recession since the Great Depression was picking up speed. In order to prevent total disaster, the Bush administration ended its eight years of catastrophic misrule with a flourish, by allocating over $700 billion in financial system bailouts to cover the bad loans the banks had been making since Greenspan gave the housing bubble the green light. It is now November 2009. Since Barack Obama was inaugurated in January, unemployment has soared from 7.9 percent to 10.2 percent. A few hundred billion dollars were allocated for "stimulus" purposes, but most of that went to pay unemployment benefits and to keep state and local governments from laying off more employees. A fraction has been distributed for highway improvements, but largely through the bank bailouts the federal deficit has been running at an annual rate of $1.5 trillion, by far the largest in history, with the national debt now topping $12 trillion. Ironically, those Americans who still have productive jobs continue to grow in efficiency, with productivity up over five percent in the last year. So much federal money has been spent that the Obama administration has been struggling to make its health care proposals budget-neutral through a raft of new taxes, fees, and penalties, and by announcing in recent days that the government's first priority must now shift to deficit reduction. The word "austerity" has been mentioned for the first time since the Carter administration. Yet Congress voted $655 billion in military expenditures to continue fighting in the Middle East. A US military attack on Iran, possibly in conjunction with Israel, would surprise no one. So where do we now stand? At present, the Federal Reserve is trying to prevent a total economic collapse. Interest rates are near-zero, to the chagrin of foreign investors in US Treasury securities, and close to half of new Treasury debt instruments have been bought by the Federal Reserve itself as a way of providing free money for federal government expenditures. But the US economy shows no signs of coming back, with no economic driver emerging that could bring it back. For all the talk about alternative energy, there has been no significant growth of any home-grown industry that could possibly make up so much lost ground in either the short or the long-term. The industries in the US that are holding up are the military, including arms exports, universities that are attracting large numbers of students from abroad, especially China, and health care, especially for the aging baby boomer population. But the war industry produces nothing with a long-term economic benefit, and health care exists mainly to treat sick people, not produce anything new. None of this provides a foundation that can bring about a restoration of prosperity to 300 million people when the jobs of making articles of consumption are increasingly scarce. On top of everything else, since government inevitably looks to its own requirements first, the total tax burden continues to increase to the point where the average employee now pays close to fifty percent of his or her income on taxes of all types, including federal and state income taxes, real estate taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, government fees, et cetera. Plus the cost of utilities continues to rise steadily and threatens to skyrocket if cap-and-trade legislation is passed. The Obama administration has no plans to deal with any of this. They have projected a budget for fifteen years hence that shows the budget deficit decreasing and tax revenues going way up, but it is all lies. They have no roadmap for getting us there and no plans for following the roadmap if it portrayed a realistic goal. And yet the US military is still trying to conquer Asia. It is madness. And it is madness because the big decisions are not made by the US, by Congress, or by the Obama administration. The US has, for half-a-century, been marching to the tune played by the international financial elite, and this fact did not change with the election of 2008. The financiers have put the people of this nation $57 trillion in debt, according to the latest reports, counting debt at the federal, state, business, and household levels. Interest alone on this debt is over $3 trillion of a GDP of $14 trillion. Failure of our political leadership to deal with this tragedy over the past three decades is nothing less than treason. But then again, at some point the decision was made that the US and its population would be discarded by history, the economic status of the nation reduced to a shadow of what it once was, but that its military machine would be used for the financial elite's takeover of the world until it is replaced by that of some other nation. All indications are that the next country up to bat as military enforcer for the financiers is China. There you have it. That, in my opinion, is the past, present, and future of this nation in a nutshell. Great evils have been done in the world in the last century, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Except ... and that's what each person caught up in these travesties must decide. What are you going to do about it? In mulling over this question, it would be wise to recognize that the dominance of the financial elite has largely been exercised through their control of the international monetary system based on bank lending and government debt. Therefore it's through the monetary system that change can and must be made. The progressives are wrong to think the government should go deeper in debt to create more jobs. This will just create an even deeper hole of debt future generations will have to crawl out of. Rather the key is monetary reform, whether at the local or national levels. People have lost control of their ability to earn a living. But change could be accomplished through sovereign control by people and nations of the monetary means of exchange. This control has been stolen. It is time to take it back. One way would be for the federal government to make a relief payment to each adult of $1,000 a month until the crisis lifted. This money could be earmarked for goods and services produced within the US and used to capitalize a new series of community development banks. I have called this the "Cook Plan". The plan could be funded through direct payment from a Treasury relief account without new taxes or government borrowing. The payments would be balanced on the credit side by GDP growth or be used by individuals to pay off debt. It would be direct government spending as was done with Greenbacks before and after the Civil War without significant inflation. Another method increasingly being used within the US today is local and regional credit clearing exchanges and the use of local currencies or "scrip". Use of such currencies could be enhanced by legislation at the state and federal levels allowing these currencies to be used for payment of taxes and government fees as well as payment of mortgages and other forms of bank debt. The credit clearing exchanges could be organized as private non-profit regional currency co-operatives similar to credit unions. These would be immediate emergency measures. In the longer run, sovereign control of money and credit must be returned to the public commons and treated as public utilities. This does not mean exclusive government control to replace bank control. As stated previously, it would be done in partnership between government and private trade exchanges. Nor does it mean government takeover of business, industry, or the banking system, though all should be regulated for the common good and fairly taxed. This program would lead to a new monetary paradigm where money and credit would be available by, as, when, and where needed, to facilitate trade between and among legitimate producers of goods and services. In this way trade and commerce will come to serve human freedom, not diminish it as is done with today's dysfunctional partnership between big government trillions of dollars in debt and big finance with the entire world in hock. Such a change would be a true populist revolution. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 11:50:01 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:50:01 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] No Fair Election In Honduras Under Military Occupation Message-ID: <> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-frank/no-fair-election-in-hondu_b_371669.html Dana Frank Posted: November 26, 2009 No Fair Election In Honduras Under Military Occupation As the Honduran election approaches this Sunday, let's be clear about the conditions under which it is taking place. Human rights abuses are rampant, freedom of speech is under attack, and the election process is in the hands of the very people who perpetrated the coup. Clearly, no free and fair election is possible under the repressive thumb of the military coup that has been in place for five months. While the 23 nations of the Rio Group from Latin America and the Caribbean have condemned the election and announced they will not recognize its outcome, the Obama administration still insists it will recognize the results -- once again isolating the United States from those who are upholding democracy in the hemisphere. President Obama should join the rest of the world and immediately declare the elections fraudulent and demand the immediate restoration of President Manuel Zelaya, the withdrawal of the Honduran military, and a delay of the election until three months after Zelaya has been full reinstated. Imagine a "free and fair election" under the conditions in Honduras today (and imagine if this were taking place in the United States): The same Honduran military,which perpetrated the June 28 coup forcing President Manuel Zelaya out of the country, and which has brutally occupied the country for five months, physically controls the ballots, the ballot boxes, the computers that tabulate the results, and the dissemination of the outcome. The legitimate President of the country is being held captive in the Brazilian Embassy under draconian circumstances, and has denounced the elections as fraudulent. The leading opposition candidate, the independent Carlos H. Reyes--who has a real chance of winning a free and fair election--has withdrawn his name from the ballot in protest. Throughout the country, hundreds of candidates for congress and municipal office, including those from the mainstream parties, have announced they are withdrawing from the election. They include the mayor of San Pedro Sula, the nation's second largest city. All three trade union federations, the leading human rights organization, women's groups, organizations of indigenous and African-descent peoples, the gay and lesbian movement, and the campesino movement--united in the National Front Against the Coup d'Etat--have denounced the election as fraudulent. The coup government has made it illegal to advocate not voting. Peaceful demonstrations are routinely teargassed. As the Committee of Families of the Disappeared (COFADEH) has documented, dozens of people have been killed, over 600 beaten, and over 3,500 illegally detained, including lawyers who have shown up to secure the release of detainees. Opponents of the coup continue be threatened, illegally arrested, and beaten in their homes. The military has recently instructed all mayors in the country to compile a list of persons in their jurisdiction who oppose the coup. The two presidential candidates remaining in the election from the traditional parties of the oligarchy, Elvin Santos from the right wing of the Liberal Party, and Porfirio Lobo Sosa from the National Party, both initially supported the coup. No free and fair election can take place under these circumstances. Only when the legitimate President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, has been fully restored to office for three months, only when the military has been pushed back into its barracks, and only when civil liberties are completely restored can an orderly transfer of power to a new administration take place. By persuading coup leader Roberto Micheletti to briefly step aside in the week before the election, the U.S. State Department has tried to whitewash the election at the last minute. But that doesn't change the fact that the Honduran military and the oligarchs, who perpetrated the coup and who have dictated the nation's politics for decades, are still brutally repressing the people of Honduras. The vast majority of Hondurans aren't fooled. After five months of military repression, they know the difference between a fraudulent cover for the continuation of the coup regime, and a truly free and fair election under the rule of law. So does the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the Rio Group. They understand well the dangerous precedent the Honduran coup represents. President Obama should refuse to recognize the results of the election and bring an end to the embarrassing isolation of the United States from the rest of the world. From menecraj at shaw.ca Fri Nov 27 13:38:23 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:38:23 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Al-Jazeera English gets CRTC approval Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East Subject: Thanks for your response in support of Al-Jazeera English / Merci de votre soutien envers Al-Jazeera English Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:56:18 -0500 (EST) Size: 34832 URL: From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 28 02:02:08 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:02:08 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending! Message-ID: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/story/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2009/11/27/colbert_conservatism Salon.com Nov 27, 2009 How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending! So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again By David Sirota Pop quiz -- name the political leader who said the following: "We must be willing to pull the plug before sinking more dollars into weapons that do not provide what our warriors need." Now name the leader who said this: "(W)e cannot track $2.3 trillion in (Pentagon spending) ... We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion ... There are those who will oppose every effort to save taxpayers' money ... Well, fine, if there's to be a struggle, so be it." I'm willing to bet many self-described "conservatives" guessed Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I would make that wager based on the enraged response to my recent column about government data showing that our waste-ridden, $600-billion-a-year defense budget will cost about seven times more than the healthcare legislation currently before Congress. In e-mails, letters and Web site comments, right-wingers didn't vent anger at Pentagon profligacy, but at the criticism of Pentagon profligacy -- as if brazenly throwing away billions on outdated weapons systems and obsolete military programs is now a "conservative" value. Notably, the vitriol didn't include contrary numbers disproving the figures I referenced (none exists) -- the responses just used Fox News-ish slogans like "the cost of freedom" to deride all criticism of Pentagon spending as unpatriotic ultraliberalism. Of course, if that's true, then Stephen Colbert's refrain that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" is now less a laugh line than a devastatingly accurate commentary on the deranged terms of America's political discourse. I say that because here are some objective, nonpartisan, non-ideological facts: - The 2010 Pentagon budget means "every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100." - "(The Pentagon budget) dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike," reports Hearst Newspapers. - "President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II," reports National Journal's Government Executive magazine. - In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal healthcare for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal healthcare plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package. Obviously -- obviously! -- these points are no cause for alarm and certainly no cause for defense spending reductions, right? All they must prove is that the archconservative Cato Institute, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper chain, National Journal employees and Pentagon officials are secretly America-hating liberals. And -- obviously! -- so are two of the most aggressive neoconservative hawks ever to hold government office, Sen. John McCain and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. After all, they?re the ones who issued those scathing statements about wasteful defense spending in the pop quiz above. That means they?re actually terrorist-appeasing lefties, right? Really, how could anyone other than traitorous communists see the data and then consider backing the mildest Pentagon spending cuts? I mean, come on -- in a country whose paranoid conservative movement now makes a dead-serious ideology out of Stephen Colbert wisecracks, how dare any red-blooded American even think of pondering basic budgetary facts? ? 2009 Creators.com David J. Sirota is the editor of the Progress Report at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. Additional research was provided by Christy Harvey and Judd Legum. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 28 02:53:38 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:53:38 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Climate Scientists: Commonwealth Should Suspend Canada Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/26/canada-criticised-over-climate-change guardian.co.uk 26 November 2009 Scientists target Canada over climate change Damian Carrington Prominent campaigners, politicians and scientists have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies. The coalition's demand came before this weekend's Commonwealth heads of government summit in Trinidad and Tobago, at which global warming will top the agenda, and next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Despite criticism of Canada's environmental policies, the prime minister, Stephen Harper, is to attend the Copenhagen summit. His spokesman said today: "We will be attending the Copenhagen meeting ? a critical mass of world leaders will be attending." Canada's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the world's highest and it will not meet the cut required under the Kyoto protocol: by 2007 its emissions were 34% above its reduction target. It is exploiting its vast tar sands reserves to produce oil, a process said to cause at least three times the emissions of conventional oil extraction. The coalition claims Canada is contributing to droughts, floods and sea level rises in Commonwealth countries such as Bangladesh, the Maldives and Mozambique. Clare Short, the former international development secretary, said: "Countries that fail to help [tackle global warming] should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights." The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace are among the organisations supporting the plan. Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately." Canada's environment department refused to comment on the call for it to be suspended. The Commonwealth comprises 53 states representing 2 billion people. In the past it has suspended Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa for electoral or human rights reasons. Speaking earlier this week, its secretary general, Kamalesh Sharma, said: "I would like to think that our definition of serious violations could embrace much more than it does now." From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 28 03:23:09 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:23:09 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable? Message-ID: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/27/civil_liberties Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution? Friday, Nov 27, 2009 Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable? By Glenn Greenwald Earlier this week, Kevin Drum said that "nine times out of ten" Obama's policies are "pretty much what [he] expected" but that "the biggest one-time-out-of-ten where he's not doing what [he] expected is in the area of detainee and civil liberties issues." Similarly, Andrew Sullivan cited "accountability for war crimes and civil rights" as among the very few issues on which he finds fault with Obama. Matt Yglesias objects to those observations as follows: Both Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan say they think most people are too hard on Obama, but express disappointment at his record on civil liberties issues. I agree that the civil liberties record hasn?t been exactly what I would have wanted, but I'm continually surprised that people are disappointed in this turn. Of all the things for an incumbent President of the United States to take political risks fighting for, obviously reducing the power of the executive branch is going to be dead last on the list. If you want to see civil liberties championed, that?s going to have to come from congress. It's interesting how what was once lambasted as "Constitution-shredding" under George Bush is now nothing more than: Obama's "civil liberties record hasn?t been exactly what I would have wanted." Also, the premise implicitly embedded in Matt's argument is the standard Beltway dogma that there would be serious political costs from reversing the Bush/Cheney abuses of the Constitution and civil liberties. The success of Obama's campaign -- which emphatically and repeatedly vowed to do exactly that -- ought to have permanently retired that excuse. Even more important, Matt seems to be implying that he knew all along that Obama never really intended to fulfill his multiple campaign promises to restore civil liberties and dismantle the Bush/Cheney war on the Constitution. So all of those righteous speeches and commitments and campaign positions were nothing more than dishonest instruments for manipulating and placating the people who supported his campaign? I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment. I neither believed nor disbelieved what Obama said during the campaign, but instead intended to wait for the evidence before deciding. And particularly once I watched Obama -- once his party's nomination was secure -- flagrantly violate his pledge to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity, I had no expectations that he'd feel at all compelled to adhere to his other promises. But is it really that surprising that many people did believe that Obama actually meant what he said, given that the entire campaign was predicated on his self-proclaimed uniqueness as a candidate and his over-arching intent to rid our political culture of corroding cynicism and to restore hope and faith in the political process? If Obama ran a campaign which purposely elevated the hopes of so many people -- particularly younger and new voters -- while secretly harboring the knowledge that he did not feel at all bound by what he was promising, isn't that a fairly serious indictment of his character, as well as a dangerous game to play for the Democratic Party? And during the time he was vigorously supporting Obama's candidacy last year, did Matt ever point out that Obama didn't really mean what he was saying when he spoke about these matters -- a fairly significant point to make when commenting on the election? If Obama had no intention of "reducing the power of the executive branch," why did he repeatedly proclaim that he would? But what strikes me as the most significant aspect of Matt's commentary is that this mitigating analysis was rarely, if ever, applied to Bush. I've been reading many arguments from Obama supporters over the last couple of weeks insisting that Obama can't possibly give civilian trials to all Terrorism suspects because having to free detainees whom they can't convict in court would be politically catastrophic; but doesn't that same reasoning justify Bush's decision to open Guantanamo and hold terrorist suspects without charges? After all, how could Bush afford to risk acquittals any more than Obama? Similarly, if Matt's argument is true that it's natural and inevitable that Presidents will try to maximize their own power -- and that it's Congress' responsibility to check that -- doesn't that mean that Bush and Cheney got a bad rap all these years for their so-called "Constitution-shredding," and that the ultimate responsibility for their abuses lies not with Bush, Cheney David Addington and John Yoo, but rather with Tom Daschle, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi? If it's the responsibility of Congress to check presidential abuses -- since, as Matt argues, no rational person would ever expect the President to voluntarily impose or even accept limits on his own power -- then the real controversy should be about why Nancy Pelosi and company didn't do more to publicize Bush/Cheney extremism and impose limits on what they were doing. Matt, however, seemed to argue the opposite in the past -- as he when he insisted that the controversy over what Pelosi knew about torture was irrelevant because she was just a "bit player" in the whole affair. If complaints about Obama's civil liberties abuses are overheated because it's unreasonable to expect him to do anything different, shouldn't the same be said of Bush and Cheney? I agree with Matt's explicit point that Congress has an important role to play in checking presidential abuses -- a role they've clearly abdicated no matter which party was in control. He's also right that Presidents don't easily relinquish power. But it's hardly unreasonable to object when someone runs for high political office based on clear and repeated promises that they have squarely violated. Whatever else is true, watching Obama embrace extremist policies can still be "disappointing" even if one isn't surprised that he's doing it. I could understand and accept a lot more easily this blithe acquiescence to Obama's record if it weren't for the fact that progressives and Democrats spent so many years screaming bloody murder over Bush's use of indefinite detention, military commissions, state secrets, renditions, and extreme secrecy -- policies Obama has largely and/or completely adopted as his own. One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain. From may at applebybooks.net Sat Nov 28 11:38:35 2009 From: may at applebybooks.net (May at Appleby Books) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:38:35 -0800 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Political Pransters The Yes Men Message-ID: <4B11601B.9010202@applebybooks.net> http://theyesmen.org/ A humorous/serious movie (2003) by the same name is available, as well as a new movie: The Yes Men Fix the World. The Yes Men were detained this year in connection with their SurvivaBall stunt in NY and later released. CNN footage: http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/25/survivaballs-take-manhattan-and-pittsburgh/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 29 01:18:17 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:18:17 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Climate change's impact in Arctic worse than thought Message-ID: http://myuminfo.umanitoba.ca/index.asp?sec=2&too=100&eve=8&dat=11/27/2009&npa=21066 University of Manitoba November 27, 2009 Climate change's impact in Arctic worse than thought Arctic sea ice has duped satellites into reporting thick multiyear sea ice where in fact none exists, a new study by University of Manitoba researcher David Barber has found. In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing. But after sailing an ice breaker to the southern Beaufort Sea this past September Dr. Barber and his colleagues found something unexpected: thin, ?rotten? ice can electromagnetically masquerade as thick, multiyear sea ice. And contrary to what satellites recently suggested, we are actually speeding up the loss of the remaining, healthy, multiyear sea ice. The results of the study have now been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, of the American Geophysical Union. ?These are very significant findings since the scientists and public all thought that sea ice was recovering since the minimum extent in 2007,? says Barber, a professor of Environment and Geography and Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science. In September 2009 Barber and others went to various points in the southern Beaufort Sea aboard the research vessel (NGCC) Amundsen. They discovered the multiyear sea icescape was not as ubiquitous as it appeared in satellite remote sensing data. And much of the multiyear ice, which is integral to maintaining the ecosystem and its inhabitants, was so heavily decayed the Amundsen easily broke through floes six to eight meters thick. Indeed, through most of the journey the Amundsen sailed at an average speed of 24km/h; its open water cruising speed is about 25km/h. ?Ship navigation across the pole is imminent as the type of ice which resides there is no longer a barrier to ships in the late summer and fall,? Barber says. So why have satellites been fooled? When studying sea ice, satellites shoot microwaves at the icescape and, among other things, record how they scatter. Each variety of ice was thought to have its own unique scattering characteristics which researchers could read to determine where certain species of ice reside. But Barber and his colleagues discovered that multiyear ice and the ?rotten? ice have similar near-surface temperatures, similar near-surface salinities, and both have similar open water and new sea ice fractions at the surface. So when satellites try to identify who?s who, the microwaves behave similar enough that cases of mistaken identity abound. ?Our results are consistent with ice age estimates that show the amount of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009 suggesting that multiyear sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even though 2009 aerial extent increased over that of 2007 and 2009,? the paper concludes. ?This has significant implications for assessment of the speed of global climate change impacts in the Arctic and for increased shipping and industrial development in the Arctic,? says Barber. To watch Dr. Barber speak about his experience and the study, click 'play' below: [YouTube] For more information, contact: Sean Moore Communications Officer Public Affairs sean_moore at umanitoba.ca Phone: (204) 474-7963 From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Nov 29 06:35:00 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:35:00 -0600 Subject: [Fresh Ink] Across U.S., Food Stamp Use Soars and Stigma Fades Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=1&hp The New York Times November 28, 2009 Across U.S., Food Stamp Use Soars and Stigma Fades By JASON DePARLE and ROBERT GEBELOFF MARTINSVILLE, Ohio ? With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children. It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs. Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare. While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program?s stigma, calling food stamps ?nutritional aid? instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away. >From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day. There are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps, according to an analysis of local data collected by The New York Times. The counties are as big as the Bronx and Philadelphia and as small as Owsley County in Kentucky, a patch of Appalachian distress where half of the 4,600 residents receive food stamps. In more than 750 counties, the program helps feed one in three blacks. In more than 800 counties, it helps feed one in three children. In the Mississippi River cities of St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, half of the children or more receive food stamps. Even in Peoria, Ill. ? Everytown, U.S.A. ? nearly 40 percent of children receive aid. While use is greatest where poverty runs deep, the growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust. There are about 50 small counties and a dozen sizable ones where the rolls have doubled in the last two years. In another 205 counties, they have risen by at least two-thirds. These places with soaring rolls include populous Riverside County, Calif., most of greater Phoenix and Las Vegas, a ring of affluent Atlanta suburbs, and a 150-mile stretch of southwest Florida from Bradenton to the Everglades. Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster. ?I think the response of the program has been tremendous,? said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, ?but we?re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.? Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible, with rates ranging from an estimated 50 percent in California to 98 percent in Missouri. Mr. Concannon urged lagging states to do more to enroll the needy, citing a recent government report that found a sharp rise in Americans with inconsistent access to adequate food. ?This is the most urgent time for our feeding programs in our lifetime, with the exception of the Depression,? he said. ?It?s time for us to face up to the fact that in this country of plenty, there are hungry people.? The program?s growing reach can be seen in a corner of southwestern Ohio where red state politics reign and blue-collar workers have often called food stamps a sign of laziness. But unemployment has soared, and food stamp use in a six-county area outside Cincinnati has risen more than 50 percent. With most of his co-workers laid off, Greg Dawson, a third-generation electrician in rural Martinsville, considers himself lucky to still have a job. He works the night shift for a contracting firm, installing freezer lights in a chain of grocery stores. But when his overtime income vanished and his expenses went up, Mr. Dawson started skimping on meals to feed his wife and five children. He tried to fill up on cereal and eggs. He ate a lot of Spam. Then he went to work with a grumbling stomach to shine lights on food he could not afford. When an outreach worker appeared at his son?s Head Start program, Mr. Dawson gave in. ?It?s embarrassing,? said Mr. Dawson, 29, a taciturn man with a wispy goatee who is so uneasy about the monthly benefit of $300 that he has not told his parents. ?I always thought it was people trying to milk the system. But we just felt like we really needed the help right now.? The outreach worker is a telltale sign. Like many states, Ohio has campaigned hard to raise the share of eligible people collecting benefits, which are financed entirely by the federal government and brought the state about $2.2 billion last year. By contrast, in the federal cash welfare program, states until recently bore the entire cost of caseload growth, and nationally the rolls have stayed virtually flat. Unemployment insurance, despite rapid growth, reaches about only half the jobless (and replaces about half their income), making food stamps the only aid many people can get ? the safety net?s safety net. Support for the food stamp program reached a nadir in the mid-1990s when critics, likening the benefit to cash welfare, won significant restrictions and sought even more. But after use plunged for several years, President Bill Clinton began promoting the program, in part as a way to help the working poor. President George W. Bush expanded that effort, a strategy Mr. Obama has embraced. The revival was crowned last year with an upbeat change of name. What most people still call food stamps is technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. By the time the recession began, in December 2007, ?the whole message around this program had changed,? said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that has supported food stamp expansions. ?The general pitch was, ?This program is here to help you.? ? Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid ? 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs. In the promotion of the program, critics see a sleight of hand. ?Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it?s really not different from cash welfare,? said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. ?Food stamps is quasi money.? Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. ?The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,? he said. Suburbs Are Hit Hard Across the country, the food stamp rolls can be read like a scan of a sick economy. The counties of northwest Ohio, where car parts are made, take sick when Detroit falls ill. Food stamp use is up by about 60 percent in Erie County (vibration controls), 77 percent in Wood County (floor mats) and 84 percent in hard-hit Van Wert (shifting components and cooling fans). Just west, in Indiana, Elkhart County makes the majority of the nation?s recreational vehicles. Sales have fallen more than half during the recession, and nearly 30 percent of the county?s children are receiving food stamps. The pox in southwest Florida is the housing bust, with foreclosure rates in Fort Myers often leading the nation in the last two years. Across six contiguous counties from Manatee to Monroe, the food stamp rolls have more than doubled. In sheer numbers, growth has come about equally from places where food stamp use was common and places where it was rare. Since 2007, the 600 counties with the highest percentage of people on the rolls added 1.3 million new recipients. So did the 600 counties where use was lowest. The richest counties are often where aid is growing fastest, although from a small base. In 2007, Forsyth County, outside Atlanta, had the highest household income in the South. (One author dubbed it ?Whitopia.?) Food stamp use there has more than doubled. This is the first recession in which a majority of the poor in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, giving food stamps new prominence there. Use has grown by half or more in dozens of suburban counties from Boston to Seattle, including such bulwarks of modern conservatism as California?s Orange County, where the rolls are up more than 50 percent. While food stamp use is still the exception in places like Orange County (where 4 percent of the population get food aid), the program reaches deep in places of chronic poverty. It feeds half the people in stretches of white Appalachia, in a Yupik-speaking region of Alaska and on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Across the 10 core counties of the Mississippi Delta, 45 percent of black residents receive aid. In a city as big as St. Louis, the share is 60 percent. Use among children is especially high. A third of the children in Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee receive food aid. In the Bronx, the rate is 46 percent. In East Carroll Parish, La., three-quarters of the children receive food stamps. A recent