Writing on Business Spectator, well-regarded financial commentator Alan Kohler reports on a new book which details the real cost of the Iraq War [aka the Iraq Debacle]. The figures are truly astounding and the ramifications, both now and into the future, extraordinary.
"A new book by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-prize winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank, makes a persuasive case that the credit crisis and US economic downturn is, at heart, a result of the Iraq war.
Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes, have estimated the cost of the war at $3 trillion – more than 50 times the original estimate.
They point out that most of this money has been borrowed, since President George W Bush cut taxes at the same time, and assert that it was the hidden cause of the credit crisis because the Alan Greenspan Federal Reserve colluded with the Bush Administration by flooding the US with cheap credit to keep interest rates down."
And.....whew!!!:
"In their book, Stiglitz and Bilmes list what just one of those three trillions could have paid for: eight million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or healthcare for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students. The $US3 trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for half a century."
Read the complete piece here and let it take your breath away - as well as ponder the idiocy of George W, Dick Cheney and those neocons and other "advisors".
Friday, February 29, 2008
Something bad is happening to us
As "history" has shown over the last years, any criticism of Israel - in particular in relation to the occupation, with all that entails - is an almost inevitable invitation to be labelled anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or even anti-semitic.
So, what to make of an editorial in Haaretz "Something bad is happening to us"
"Perfectly ordinary people, as the American psychologist said of the Abu Ghraib abusers, are capable of behaving like monsters when they receive a message from the top that it is permissible to abuse, beat, choke, burn, make people miserable and generally do anything that man's evil genius is capable of inventing to others who are under their control. Something bad is happening to us, they are saying in the Kfir Brigade. That "something" is the occupation."
Meanwhile, coincidentally, Haaretz also reports on this:
"A prominent Israeli human rights group on Wednesday criticized an Israel Defense Forces probe that decided not to press charges in an errant artillery attack that killed 21 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip in November 2006.
The Military Advocate General announced late Tuesday that it was closing the case after its investigation determined the deaths were the result of a "rare and severe" technical malfunction.
In a statement, the human rights group B'Tselem questioned whether the inquiry met proper legal standards: an investigation which is independent, effective, open to review and timely.
The group also called on the IDF to take measures that would prevent similar incidents in the future, and urged it to compensate relatives of the dead."
So, what to make of an editorial in Haaretz "Something bad is happening to us"
"Perfectly ordinary people, as the American psychologist said of the Abu Ghraib abusers, are capable of behaving like monsters when they receive a message from the top that it is permissible to abuse, beat, choke, burn, make people miserable and generally do anything that man's evil genius is capable of inventing to others who are under their control. Something bad is happening to us, they are saying in the Kfir Brigade. That "something" is the occupation."
Meanwhile, coincidentally, Haaretz also reports on this:
"A prominent Israeli human rights group on Wednesday criticized an Israel Defense Forces probe that decided not to press charges in an errant artillery attack that killed 21 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip in November 2006.
The Military Advocate General announced late Tuesday that it was closing the case after its investigation determined the deaths were the result of a "rare and severe" technical malfunction.
In a statement, the human rights group B'Tselem questioned whether the inquiry met proper legal standards: an investigation which is independent, effective, open to review and timely.
The group also called on the IDF to take measures that would prevent similar incidents in the future, and urged it to compensate relatives of the dead."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Noam Chomsky, Terrorists Wanted the World Over
"One of Noam Chomsky's latest books -- a conversation with David Barsamian -- is entitled What We Say Goes. It catches a powerful theme of Chomsky's: that we have long been living on a one-way planet and that the language we regularly wield to describe the realities of our world is tailored to Washington's interests."
So begins a piece in tomdispatch.com "Noam Chomsky, Terrorists Wanted the World Over" reproduced on AlterNet.
"Of course, the minute you try to turn the Washington norm (in word or act) around, as Chomsky did in a piece entitled What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?, you've already entered the theater of the absurd. "Terror" is a particularly good example of this. "Terror" is something that, by (recent) definition, is committed by free-floating groups or movements against innocent civilians and is utterly reprehensible (unless the group turns out to be the CIA running car bombs into Baghdad or car and camel bombs into Afghanistan, in which case it's not a topic that's either much discussed, or condemned in our world). On the other hand, that weapon of terror, air power, which is at the heart of the American way of war, simply doesn't qualify under the category of "terror" at all -- no matter how terrifying it may be to innocent civilians who find themselves underneath the missiles and bombs."
So begins a piece in tomdispatch.com "Noam Chomsky, Terrorists Wanted the World Over" reproduced on AlterNet.
"Of course, the minute you try to turn the Washington norm (in word or act) around, as Chomsky did in a piece entitled What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?, you've already entered the theater of the absurd. "Terror" is a particularly good example of this. "Terror" is something that, by (recent) definition, is committed by free-floating groups or movements against innocent civilians and is utterly reprehensible (unless the group turns out to be the CIA running car bombs into Baghdad or car and camel bombs into Afghanistan, in which case it's not a topic that's either much discussed, or condemned in our world). On the other hand, that weapon of terror, air power, which is at the heart of the American way of war, simply doesn't qualify under the category of "terror" at all -- no matter how terrifying it may be to innocent civilians who find themselves underneath the missiles and bombs."
News flash! It's now official!
The New Statesman now confirms what has been known all along:
"It's official: Blair's government set out to deceive us about Iraq".
Read the piece here.
"It's official: Blair's government set out to deceive us about Iraq".
Read the piece here.
Iraq: The Calm Before the Conflagration
Former NY Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Chris Hedges, writing in truthdig.com "The Calm Before the Conflagration":
"The U.S. is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pay the monthly salaries of some 600,000 armed fighters in the three rival ethnic camps in Iraq. These fighters—Shiite, Kurd and Sunni Arab—are not only antagonistic but deeply unreliable allies. The Sunni Arab militias have replaced central government officials, including police, and taken over local administration and security in the pockets of Iraq under their control. They have no loyalty outside of their own ethnic community. Once the money runs out, or once they feel strong enough to make a thrust for power, the civil war in Iraq will accelerate with deadly speed. The tactic of money-for-peace failed in Afghanistan. The U.S. doled out funds and weapons to tribal groups in Afghanistan to buy their loyalty, but when the payments and weapons shipments ceased, the tribal groups headed back into the embrace of the Taliban."
Read the full piece here.
"The U.S. is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pay the monthly salaries of some 600,000 armed fighters in the three rival ethnic camps in Iraq. These fighters—Shiite, Kurd and Sunni Arab—are not only antagonistic but deeply unreliable allies. The Sunni Arab militias have replaced central government officials, including police, and taken over local administration and security in the pockets of Iraq under their control. They have no loyalty outside of their own ethnic community. Once the money runs out, or once they feel strong enough to make a thrust for power, the civil war in Iraq will accelerate with deadly speed. The tactic of money-for-peace failed in Afghanistan. The U.S. doled out funds and weapons to tribal groups in Afghanistan to buy their loyalty, but when the payments and weapons shipments ceased, the tribal groups headed back into the embrace of the Taliban."
Read the full piece here.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Forget about freedom of speech in Russia
The BBC reports on a Report by Amnesty International on freedom of speech in Russia - that is, the lack of it:
"Russian freedom of speech is "shrinking alarmingly" under President Vladimir Putin, says Amnesty International.
The murders of outspoken journalists go unsolved, independent media outlets have been shut and police have attacked opposition protesters, said the report.
It also said "arbitrary" laws were curbing the right to express opinion and silencing NGOs deemed to be a threat by the authorities.
The report comes ahead of Russian's presidential elections on 2 March.
The director of Amnesty International UK, Kate Allen, said: "The space for freedom of speech is shrinking alarmingly in Russia and it's now imperative that the Russian authorities reverse this trend."
A related piece on BBC News "KGB old boys tightening grip on Russia" by the BBC's former Moscow correspondent makes for interesting reading. It looks like nothing has changed all that much in Russia.
"Russian freedom of speech is "shrinking alarmingly" under President Vladimir Putin, says Amnesty International.
The murders of outspoken journalists go unsolved, independent media outlets have been shut and police have attacked opposition protesters, said the report.
It also said "arbitrary" laws were curbing the right to express opinion and silencing NGOs deemed to be a threat by the authorities.
The report comes ahead of Russian's presidential elections on 2 March.
The director of Amnesty International UK, Kate Allen, said: "The space for freedom of speech is shrinking alarmingly in Russia and it's now imperative that the Russian authorities reverse this trend."
A related piece on BBC News "KGB old boys tightening grip on Russia" by the BBC's former Moscow correspondent makes for interesting reading. It looks like nothing has changed all that much in Russia.
URL Not Available
With the Olympics looming in August, China is very much in the spotlight. It may not like it but actions such as those of Steven Spielberg in withdrawing from working for the Chinese on the Olympics does not find favor in Beijing.
All too sadly human rights, especially as it relates to access to the internet and its use, are more than wanting.
A piece in New Matilda, "URL Not Available" explains - and highlights how some Western companies are complicit.
All too sadly human rights, especially as it relates to access to the internet and its use, are more than wanting.
A piece in New Matilda, "URL Not Available" explains - and highlights how some Western companies are complicit.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Afghanistan: And that's progress?
What is there to say, other than despair, when one reads this truly sad and tragic piece in The Independent on the women of Afghanistan and what the world holds in store for them?
"Grinding poverty and the escalating war is driving an increasing number of Afghan families to sell their daughters into forced marriages.
Girls as young as six are being married into a life of slavery and rape, often by multiple members of their new relatives. Banned from seeing their own parents or siblings, they are also prohibited from going to school. With little recognition of the illegality of the situation or any effective recourse, many of the victims are driven to self-immolation – burning themselves to death – or severe self-harm.
Six years after the US and Britain "freed" Afghan women from the oppressive Taliban regime, a new report proves that life is just as bad for most, and worse in some cases.
Projects started in the optimistic days of 2002 have begun to wane as the UK and its Nato allies fail to treat women's rights as a priority, workers in the country insist.
The statistics in the report from Womankind, Afghan Women and Girls Seven Years On, make shocking reading. Violent attacks against females, usually domestic, are at epidemic proportions with 87 per cent of females complaining of such abuse – half of it sexual. More than 60 per cent of marriages are forced.
Despite a new law banning the practice, 57 per cent of brides are under the age of 16. The illiteracy rate among women is 88 per cent with just 5 per cent of girls attending secondary school."
"Grinding poverty and the escalating war is driving an increasing number of Afghan families to sell their daughters into forced marriages.
Girls as young as six are being married into a life of slavery and rape, often by multiple members of their new relatives. Banned from seeing their own parents or siblings, they are also prohibited from going to school. With little recognition of the illegality of the situation or any effective recourse, many of the victims are driven to self-immolation – burning themselves to death – or severe self-harm.
Six years after the US and Britain "freed" Afghan women from the oppressive Taliban regime, a new report proves that life is just as bad for most, and worse in some cases.
Projects started in the optimistic days of 2002 have begun to wane as the UK and its Nato allies fail to treat women's rights as a priority, workers in the country insist.
The statistics in the report from Womankind, Afghan Women and Girls Seven Years On, make shocking reading. Violent attacks against females, usually domestic, are at epidemic proportions with 87 per cent of females complaining of such abuse – half of it sexual. More than 60 per cent of marriages are forced.
Despite a new law banning the practice, 57 per cent of brides are under the age of 16. The illiteracy rate among women is 88 per cent with just 5 per cent of girls attending secondary school."
Food for Thought
Yes, sharemarkets around the world are down substantially and there is even talk of recession in some countries, like the USA. That said, there are still many "rich" countries around the globe - and countries like the USA, Australia, the UK and those in the EU are spending money on all manner of things including on the military. Just think of the ongoing cost of the war in Iraq and the military intervention in Afghanistan.
It therefore more than disturbing to read of a possible worldwide shortage of food and the inability of the UN World Food Programme to adequately meet the needs of those it supports.
FT reports in "High food prices may force aid rationing":
"The United Nation’s agency responsible for relieving hunger is drawing up plans to ration food aid in response to the spiralling cost of agricultural commodities.
The World Food Programme is holding crisis talks to decide what aid to halt if new donations do not arrive in the short term.
Why are food prices rising?
View our multimedia feature on the factors that contribute to global food price inflation
Josette Sheeran, WFP executive director, told the Financial Times that the agency would look at “cutting the food rations or even the number or people reached” if donors did not provide more money.
“Our ability to reach people is going down just as the needs go up,” she said.
WFP officials hope the cuts can be avoided, but warned that the agency’s budget requirements were rising by several million dollars a week because of climbing food prices.
The WFP crisis talks come as the body sees the emergence of a “new area of hunger” in developing countries where even middle-class, urban people are being “priced out of the food market” because of rising food prices.
The warning suggests that the price jump in agricultural commodities – such as wheat, corn, rice and soyabeans – is having a wider impact than thought, hitting countries that have previously largely escaped hunger.
“We are seeing a new face of hunger in which people are being priced out of the food market,” said Ms Sheeran."
It therefore more than disturbing to read of a possible worldwide shortage of food and the inability of the UN World Food Programme to adequately meet the needs of those it supports.
FT reports in "High food prices may force aid rationing":
"The United Nation’s agency responsible for relieving hunger is drawing up plans to ration food aid in response to the spiralling cost of agricultural commodities.
The World Food Programme is holding crisis talks to decide what aid to halt if new donations do not arrive in the short term.
Why are food prices rising?
View our multimedia feature on the factors that contribute to global food price inflation
Josette Sheeran, WFP executive director, told the Financial Times that the agency would look at “cutting the food rations or even the number or people reached” if donors did not provide more money.
“Our ability to reach people is going down just as the needs go up,” she said.
WFP officials hope the cuts can be avoided, but warned that the agency’s budget requirements were rising by several million dollars a week because of climbing food prices.
The WFP crisis talks come as the body sees the emergence of a “new area of hunger” in developing countries where even middle-class, urban people are being “priced out of the food market” because of rising food prices.
The warning suggests that the price jump in agricultural commodities – such as wheat, corn, rice and soyabeans – is having a wider impact than thought, hitting countries that have previously largely escaped hunger.
“We are seeing a new face of hunger in which people are being priced out of the food market,” said Ms Sheeran."
Monday, February 25, 2008
Bush vs. Africa's Women
Yifat Susskind is a communications director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization. She is the author of a book on US foreign policy and women's human rights and a report on US culpability for violence against women in Iraq, both forthcoming.
Last week George W returned to the US from a swing through some carefully selected African countries. It was a photo-op if nothing else. However, reading a piece "Bush vs. Africa's Women" by Yifat Susskind on counterpunch Bushs' trip had more serious, widespread and troubling consequences:
"President Bush headed home on Thursday from his five-day, five-country tour of Africa. Not since Thanksgiving 2003, when he showed up at the Baghdad Airport with a fake turkey for US troops have we seen such saccharine Presidential photo ops. And most of the media can't get enough. The New York Times describes Bush in Africa as "a little like Santa Claus, a benevolent figure from another land handing out gifts - American foreign aid - and generating smiles wherever he goes."
Among the goodies that Bush offered Africans this week was renewal of his flagship international AIDS initiative, PEPFAR. Named for none other than Bush himself, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is hardly a benevolent gift. Like all US aid, it comes with strings attached. To put it bluntly, Bush's AIDS program prioritizes Christian fundamentalist dogma over African lives.
PEPFAR poses a particular danger to African women, who were a majority of the 1.7 million sub-Saharan Africans infected with HIV last year. With the program set to expire in 2008, Bush made use of images of HIV-positive African babies to demand that federal AIDS policy continue to devote one-third of all AIDS prevention funding to programs that promote abstinence.
This is Bush's ill-conceived "ABC" strategy: "Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms." But abstinence is not a choice for women who are raped or coerced into sex, like the millions of women in the war-zones of Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, and Congo. Faithfulness is irrelevant for women whose husbands have multiple partners (for African women, marriage is actually a risk factor for contracting HIV). And condoms depend on men's willingness to use them and both partners' willingness to forgo having children. Of course, promoting condoms at least acknowledges a basic fact that the rest of Bush's strategy denies, namely, that people have sex. Maybe that's why Bush considers condoms to be a "last resort" in the fight against AIDS."
Last week George W returned to the US from a swing through some carefully selected African countries. It was a photo-op if nothing else. However, reading a piece "Bush vs. Africa's Women" by Yifat Susskind on counterpunch Bushs' trip had more serious, widespread and troubling consequences:
"President Bush headed home on Thursday from his five-day, five-country tour of Africa. Not since Thanksgiving 2003, when he showed up at the Baghdad Airport with a fake turkey for US troops have we seen such saccharine Presidential photo ops. And most of the media can't get enough. The New York Times describes Bush in Africa as "a little like Santa Claus, a benevolent figure from another land handing out gifts - American foreign aid - and generating smiles wherever he goes."
Among the goodies that Bush offered Africans this week was renewal of his flagship international AIDS initiative, PEPFAR. Named for none other than Bush himself, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is hardly a benevolent gift. Like all US aid, it comes with strings attached. To put it bluntly, Bush's AIDS program prioritizes Christian fundamentalist dogma over African lives.
PEPFAR poses a particular danger to African women, who were a majority of the 1.7 million sub-Saharan Africans infected with HIV last year. With the program set to expire in 2008, Bush made use of images of HIV-positive African babies to demand that federal AIDS policy continue to devote one-third of all AIDS prevention funding to programs that promote abstinence.
This is Bush's ill-conceived "ABC" strategy: "Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms." But abstinence is not a choice for women who are raped or coerced into sex, like the millions of women in the war-zones of Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, and Congo. Faithfulness is irrelevant for women whose husbands have multiple partners (for African women, marriage is actually a risk factor for contracting HIV). And condoms depend on men's willingness to use them and both partners' willingness to forgo having children. Of course, promoting condoms at least acknowledges a basic fact that the rest of Bush's strategy denies, namely, that people have sex. Maybe that's why Bush considers condoms to be a "last resort" in the fight against AIDS."
A Landmark for Bloggers -- and the Future of Journalism
You probably haven't heard of the George Polk Awards, so read on. This piece reproduced on Alternet, not only explains what the Awards are but also about blogging and journalism generally:
"The George Polk Awards are kind of like the Golden Globes of American journalism . Not as well known as those Oscars of the news business, the Pulitzer Prize, the Polk Awards are nevertheless probably a close second in terms of prestige, and this year I am especially blown away by the quality of the work they honor.
The winners include Leila Fadel, the Baghdad bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, a 26-year-old woman who reports from some of the most dangerous regions of Iraq, as well as journalists who peeked under Vice President Cheney's veil of secrecy, toxic river pollution in China, unsafe cribs, infant mortality in Mississippi, the Blackwater scandal, human rights abuses in Burma, healthcare scams, and the courageous work of Oakland's Chauncey Bailey, who was slain as he investigated drug dealers in his hometown.
All these remarkable stories were produced in a year when the very ecomomic model for the news business was under assault, and as business pressures to scale back the kind of original reporting highlighted here continue to rise. These Polk Awards should be a powerful reminder of what society will lose if and when the business model of investigative journalism collapses completely.
But I want to highlight one Polk Award that shows there are emerging models for using the very tool at the root of the turmoil of the news business -- the Internet -- as a newfangled way to re-invent investigative reporting -- by using new techniques that emphasize collaboration over competition and by working with readers and through collective weight of many news sources to expose government misconduct.
It would have seemed incredible a couple of years ago, but a George Polk Award was given to a blogger this year."
"The George Polk Awards are kind of like the Golden Globes of American journalism . Not as well known as those Oscars of the news business, the Pulitzer Prize, the Polk Awards are nevertheless probably a close second in terms of prestige, and this year I am especially blown away by the quality of the work they honor.
The winners include Leila Fadel, the Baghdad bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, a 26-year-old woman who reports from some of the most dangerous regions of Iraq, as well as journalists who peeked under Vice President Cheney's veil of secrecy, toxic river pollution in China, unsafe cribs, infant mortality in Mississippi, the Blackwater scandal, human rights abuses in Burma, healthcare scams, and the courageous work of Oakland's Chauncey Bailey, who was slain as he investigated drug dealers in his hometown.
All these remarkable stories were produced in a year when the very ecomomic model for the news business was under assault, and as business pressures to scale back the kind of original reporting highlighted here continue to rise. These Polk Awards should be a powerful reminder of what society will lose if and when the business model of investigative journalism collapses completely.
But I want to highlight one Polk Award that shows there are emerging models for using the very tool at the root of the turmoil of the news business -- the Internet -- as a newfangled way to re-invent investigative reporting -- by using new techniques that emphasize collaboration over competition and by working with readers and through collective weight of many news sources to expose government misconduct.
It would have seemed incredible a couple of years ago, but a George Polk Award was given to a blogger this year."
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Fidel's Children
We all know that Fidel Castro is going to depart the scene - as much, too, that the US will doubtlessly continue it idiotic policy toward the island-State. In fact, many say that the parlous economic state of Cuba can be laid at the door of the Americans.
But now what? Newsweek reports in "Fidel's Children":
"For years, Fidel Castro has been a living anachronism. A stalwart communist in an age of free markets and democracy, he ruled a Cuba largely cut off from a world prospering through international trade. By the end he was out of touch at home as well, both metaphorically and literally. For 19 months, the ailing 81-year-old leader had stayed out of sight, too sick to venture out, reduced to publishing ponderous "reflections" on the front page of the Cuban Communist Party's organ, Granma. By the time he resigned last week, there was something almost anticlimactic about it. Cubans—including émigrés in Miami and elsewhere—have waited so long for a change they barely knew what to make of the abrupt announcement. The streets of Havana remained quiet.
But even before Castro's resignation, things had started to shift under the surface. A new generation of Cubans had started to give voice to their anger and frustration in ways unthinkable just a few years ago. [See León Krauze's column on the Castro myth.] According to some estimates, more than half of Cuba's population are between 15 and 45 years of age, and to them it hardly matters whether Fidel's brother, Raúl, is formally chosen as his successor this week, or whether another aging communist gets the nod. Young Cubans are starting to publicly demand that the regime make tangible improvements in their lives. Their wish lists are decidedly apolitical. Instead of pining for democracy, most are focused on things foreign peers take for granted: the freedom to travel abroad, unrestricted Internet access, enough disposable income to buy a cell phone or an iPod. "These young students are asking, 'Why are things banned, why are we not allowed to leave the island?'" notes Miriam Leiva, a dissident who once held a high-level post in the Cuban Foreign Ministry."
But now what? Newsweek reports in "Fidel's Children":
"For years, Fidel Castro has been a living anachronism. A stalwart communist in an age of free markets and democracy, he ruled a Cuba largely cut off from a world prospering through international trade. By the end he was out of touch at home as well, both metaphorically and literally. For 19 months, the ailing 81-year-old leader had stayed out of sight, too sick to venture out, reduced to publishing ponderous "reflections" on the front page of the Cuban Communist Party's organ, Granma. By the time he resigned last week, there was something almost anticlimactic about it. Cubans—including émigrés in Miami and elsewhere—have waited so long for a change they barely knew what to make of the abrupt announcement. The streets of Havana remained quiet.
But even before Castro's resignation, things had started to shift under the surface. A new generation of Cubans had started to give voice to their anger and frustration in ways unthinkable just a few years ago. [See León Krauze's column on the Castro myth.] According to some estimates, more than half of Cuba's population are between 15 and 45 years of age, and to them it hardly matters whether Fidel's brother, Raúl, is formally chosen as his successor this week, or whether another aging communist gets the nod. Young Cubans are starting to publicly demand that the regime make tangible improvements in their lives. Their wish lists are decidedly apolitical. Instead of pining for democracy, most are focused on things foreign peers take for granted: the freedom to travel abroad, unrestricted Internet access, enough disposable income to buy a cell phone or an iPod. "These young students are asking, 'Why are things banned, why are we not allowed to leave the island?'" notes Miriam Leiva, a dissident who once held a high-level post in the Cuban Foreign Ministry."
Wanton destruction..vandalism...disgraceful
That Israel continues to thumb its nose at the world, and certainly the Palestinians, is yet again shown in this report [in The Age] of the outrageous and illegal actions of the Israelis:
"The farmers of Beit Ula spent two years preparing their new groves of fruit, nut and olive trees, clearing rocks, building stone terraces and digging deep cisterns to catch the scarce rain.
The Israeli army destroyed it all in less than a day.
"We heard they were here at 6.30 in the morning, when it was still dark," said Sami al-Adam, one of eight farmers whose terraces were bulldozed on January 15.
"There must have been dozens of soldiers with jeep and bulldozers, and they brought a lot of Filipino workers, or maybe they were Thai, who pulled up the trees and cut them and buried them so we wouldn't be able to plant them again."
When the soldiers and police left the site, in the low hills on the West Bank's border with Israel, 6.4 hectares of trees and terraces had been uprooted and bulldozed. The concrete cisterns were broken open and choked with rubble. Two years' work and an investment of more than 100,000 euros ($160,000) had gone to waste.
The Israeli military department that controls the occupied West Bank, confusingly called "the Civil Administration", said it demolished the terraces because they were built illegally on state land belonging to Israel.
This came as a surprise to the West Bank farmers, who brandish documents with Palestinian, Israeli and even Turkish stamps that, they say, prove their title to the land. It came as an even bigger surprise to the European Union, which provided 64,000 euros to the project as part of a program to improve "food security" for Palestinians."
"The farmers of Beit Ula spent two years preparing their new groves of fruit, nut and olive trees, clearing rocks, building stone terraces and digging deep cisterns to catch the scarce rain.
The Israeli army destroyed it all in less than a day.
"We heard they were here at 6.30 in the morning, when it was still dark," said Sami al-Adam, one of eight farmers whose terraces were bulldozed on January 15.
"There must have been dozens of soldiers with jeep and bulldozers, and they brought a lot of Filipino workers, or maybe they were Thai, who pulled up the trees and cut them and buried them so we wouldn't be able to plant them again."
When the soldiers and police left the site, in the low hills on the West Bank's border with Israel, 6.4 hectares of trees and terraces had been uprooted and bulldozed. The concrete cisterns were broken open and choked with rubble. Two years' work and an investment of more than 100,000 euros ($160,000) had gone to waste.
The Israeli military department that controls the occupied West Bank, confusingly called "the Civil Administration", said it demolished the terraces because they were built illegally on state land belonging to Israel.
This came as a surprise to the West Bank farmers, who brandish documents with Palestinian, Israeli and even Turkish stamps that, they say, prove their title to the land. It came as an even bigger surprise to the European Union, which provided 64,000 euros to the project as part of a program to improve "food security" for Palestinians."
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fruitloop Award of the Week
What can one say?.....
A member of Israel’s parliament has an unusual explanation for the recent spate of earthquakes in his country: It’s the gays! Specifically, says Orthodox lawmaker Shlomo Benizri, the Israeli government’s acceptance of and tolerance toward homosexuals have incurred God’s wrath in the form of tectonic rumblers.
BBC:
Mr Benizri made his comments while addressing a committee of the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, about the country’s readiness for earthquakes.
He called on lawmakers to stop “passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the state of Israel, which anyway brings about earthquakes”.
Israeli court rulings in recent years have granted inheritance rights to gay couples and recognised same-sex marriages performed abroad.
A member of Israel’s parliament has an unusual explanation for the recent spate of earthquakes in his country: It’s the gays! Specifically, says Orthodox lawmaker Shlomo Benizri, the Israeli government’s acceptance of and tolerance toward homosexuals have incurred God’s wrath in the form of tectonic rumblers.
BBC:
Mr Benizri made his comments while addressing a committee of the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, about the country’s readiness for earthquakes.
He called on lawmakers to stop “passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the state of Israel, which anyway brings about earthquakes”.
Israeli court rulings in recent years have granted inheritance rights to gay couples and recognised same-sex marriages performed abroad.
Gitmo trials rigged
The revelation won't really come as a surprise to anyone, but a piece in The Nation "Rigged Trials at Gitmo" - stemming from former Chief Prosecutor at Gitmo "talking" - is more than revealing.
"Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials have been rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.
Colonel Davis's criticism of the commissions has been escalating since he resigned in October, telling the Washington Post that he had been pressured by politically appointed senior Defense officials to pursue cases deemed "sexy" and of "high interest" (such as the 9/11 cases now being pursued) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Davis, once a staunch defender of the commissions process, elaborated on his reasons in a December 10, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed. "I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system," he wrote. "I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively."
It might be remembered by some that Davis was the prosecutor in the David Hicks trial - well, if it is capable of even remotely being described as such.
Read the full piece here.
"Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials have been rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.
Colonel Davis's criticism of the commissions has been escalating since he resigned in October, telling the Washington Post that he had been pressured by politically appointed senior Defense officials to pursue cases deemed "sexy" and of "high interest" (such as the 9/11 cases now being pursued) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Davis, once a staunch defender of the commissions process, elaborated on his reasons in a December 10, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed. "I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system," he wrote. "I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively."
It might be remembered by some that Davis was the prosecutor in the David Hicks trial - well, if it is capable of even remotely being described as such.
Read the full piece here.
Is it torture? Try it
Mort Rosenblum is former editor of the International Herald Tribune, is the author, most recently, of "Escaping Plato's Cave: How America's Blindness to the Rest of the World Threatens Our Survival."
Writing an op-ed piece in the IHT "Is it torture? Try it" Rosenblum says:
"George W. Bush denies that we torture, which adds hypocrisy to our sins. His attorney general refuses to call waterboarding torture and won't rule out its use.
Whatever Americans may think, judgment elsewhere is plain. When our highest authorities excuse torture - even applaud it - it is no surprise that terrorist ranks swell, and so many people loathe us.
Even if torture did provide useful information, what is the longer term cost? By employing such terror ourselves, we lose claim to a higher moral plane.
Not long ago, I was on a Tufts University panel with a retired white South African police colonel and an African National Congress leader he used to torture. Both agreed: brutal methods eroded the policeman's humanity while it fortified the activist's resolve. The torturers lost in the end.
The debate goes on and on. I just heard Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court on National Public Radio evoke the ticking-bomb conundrum. What if a suspect has knowledge that could save many lives? Extreme methods might help in specific cases.
That's fine for a law school hypothesis, others argued, but it does not work that way. Police don't know what a suspect can tell them - or whether he is lying to escape torture.
Authorities insist that exceptional measures are reserved for very specific instances. But once torture is permitted, it becomes generalized.
For anyone not clear whether something is torture, here is a simple test: Try it. Not under controlled circumstances, when you know that it will stop. Try it for real. Find some sadist accountable to no one. Stick with it long enough to see the irrelevance of sterile debate at a safe distance. Does water actually enter the lungs? Does it matter?
What defines torture is the inner damage it causes - the indelible mark on mental circuitry.
Terrorists are out there, and we have to thwart them. This takes intelligence in all of its meanings. We need police work and tough punishment when justified. But we also must understand human reality.
If we act blindly, brushing aside perceived injustices that underpin terrorism, we face growing ranks of enemies desperate to make us pay in some dramatic fashion. If we fight evil with inhumanity, what does that make us?"
Writing an op-ed piece in the IHT "Is it torture? Try it" Rosenblum says:
"George W. Bush denies that we torture, which adds hypocrisy to our sins. His attorney general refuses to call waterboarding torture and won't rule out its use.
Whatever Americans may think, judgment elsewhere is plain. When our highest authorities excuse torture - even applaud it - it is no surprise that terrorist ranks swell, and so many people loathe us.
Even if torture did provide useful information, what is the longer term cost? By employing such terror ourselves, we lose claim to a higher moral plane.
Not long ago, I was on a Tufts University panel with a retired white South African police colonel and an African National Congress leader he used to torture. Both agreed: brutal methods eroded the policeman's humanity while it fortified the activist's resolve. The torturers lost in the end.
The debate goes on and on. I just heard Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court on National Public Radio evoke the ticking-bomb conundrum. What if a suspect has knowledge that could save many lives? Extreme methods might help in specific cases.
That's fine for a law school hypothesis, others argued, but it does not work that way. Police don't know what a suspect can tell them - or whether he is lying to escape torture.
Authorities insist that exceptional measures are reserved for very specific instances. But once torture is permitted, it becomes generalized.
For anyone not clear whether something is torture, here is a simple test: Try it. Not under controlled circumstances, when you know that it will stop. Try it for real. Find some sadist accountable to no one. Stick with it long enough to see the irrelevance of sterile debate at a safe distance. Does water actually enter the lungs? Does it matter?
What defines torture is the inner damage it causes - the indelible mark on mental circuitry.
Terrorists are out there, and we have to thwart them. This takes intelligence in all of its meanings. We need police work and tough punishment when justified. But we also must understand human reality.
If we act blindly, brushing aside perceived injustices that underpin terrorism, we face growing ranks of enemies desperate to make us pay in some dramatic fashion. If we fight evil with inhumanity, what does that make us?"
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Keeping it secret to protect relations
The Guardian reports on what must be seen as an extraordinary story "How Labour used the law to keep criticism of Israel secret - Concern over nuclear arsenal removed from Iraq dossier":
"The full extent of government anxiety about the state of British-Israel relations can be exposed for the first time today in a secret document seen by the Guardian.
The document reveals how the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq weapons dossier. At the heart of it was nervousness at the top of government about any mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal in an official paper accusing Iraq of flouting the UN's authority on weapons of mass destruction.
The dossier was made public this week, but the Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having the handwritten mention of Israel kept secret."
Read the complete piece here.
"The full extent of government anxiety about the state of British-Israel relations can be exposed for the first time today in a secret document seen by the Guardian.
The document reveals how the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq weapons dossier. At the heart of it was nervousness at the top of government about any mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal in an official paper accusing Iraq of flouting the UN's authority on weapons of mass destruction.
The dossier was made public this week, but the Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having the handwritten mention of Israel kept secret."
Read the complete piece here.
Breathtaking, ignorant and probably wrong legally
That judges still don't seem to understand what the internet means and how it works and that the law hasn't caught up with this now not so new "medium" is clearly shown by an extraordinary decision by a judge in San Francisco. The decision has caused ripples around the world and is almost certainly against the US First Amendment.
The NY Times reports :
"In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing confidential information.
The site, Wikileaks.org, invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. It has posted documents said to show the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for the operation of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.
The case in San Francisco was brought by a Cayman Islands bank, Julius Baer Bank and Trust. In court papers, the bank said that “a disgruntled ex-employee who has engaged in a harassment and terror campaign” provided stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality agreement and banking laws. According to Wikileaks, “the documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.”
The NY Times reports :
"In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing confidential information.
The site, Wikileaks.org, invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. It has posted documents said to show the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for the operation of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.
The case in San Francisco was brought by a Cayman Islands bank, Julius Baer Bank and Trust. In court papers, the bank said that “a disgruntled ex-employee who has engaged in a harassment and terror campaign” provided stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality agreement and banking laws. According to Wikileaks, “the documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.”
Saying sorry?.......Impossible?
Last week Australian PM Rudd make history when he apologised to Australia's indigenous people for the treatment meted out to them, especially to those who have become known as the "Stolen Generation".
Author and journalist Antony Loewenstein [see My Israel Question - published by MUP] in a piece in Haaretz "The hardest word" raises the critical question of why it is that Australia's Jewish leaders seem to feel empathy toward Australia's indigenous people but cannot, nor will not, apologise to or even extend any sympathy to the plight of the Palestinians. In his criticism he equally condemns Jewish leaders world- wide.
"Many Australian Jews resist recognising the suffering of the Palestinians. "Pounding the enemy only makes the enemy want to pound you back", Forward editorialised in early February. The fact that Hamas has offered a long-term ceasefire to the Israelis is not mentioned. "Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal?" asked Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery. "Simple: to make such a deal, we must speak to Hamas. It is more important to boycott Hamas than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot."
The Zionist leadership in Australia and across the Diaspora prefers a state of war to a state of peace because they have not yet acquired the moral standing to take responsibility for Israeli actions. As Aboriginal leader Patrick Dodson said last week: "It takes courage to apologise. It takes courage to forgive."It was a far cry from the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman, who last year equivocated over using the term 'genocide' to describe the massacres perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians because he feared upsetting the Turks.
How much longer must we wait for the worldwide Jewish community to understand the dispossession and dislocation of 1948 and 1967? And when will the global Zionist leadership realise that Israeli policies in the occupied territories is leading to the country's destruction? America will not forever provide the moral, financial and military blanket for the Jewish state's behaviour. A recent survey by B'nai B'rith World Centre in Jerusalem found a majority of Israelis believed that Diaspora Jews had no right to publicly criticise the Israeli government. However, some Jews recognise that they have a special moral responsibility not to remain mute over Israeli crimes committed in their name and on which they may have some clear effect."
Author and journalist Antony Loewenstein [see My Israel Question - published by MUP] in a piece in Haaretz "The hardest word" raises the critical question of why it is that Australia's Jewish leaders seem to feel empathy toward Australia's indigenous people but cannot, nor will not, apologise to or even extend any sympathy to the plight of the Palestinians. In his criticism he equally condemns Jewish leaders world- wide.
"Many Australian Jews resist recognising the suffering of the Palestinians. "Pounding the enemy only makes the enemy want to pound you back", Forward editorialised in early February. The fact that Hamas has offered a long-term ceasefire to the Israelis is not mentioned. "Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal?" asked Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery. "Simple: to make such a deal, we must speak to Hamas. It is more important to boycott Hamas than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot."
The Zionist leadership in Australia and across the Diaspora prefers a state of war to a state of peace because they have not yet acquired the moral standing to take responsibility for Israeli actions. As Aboriginal leader Patrick Dodson said last week: "It takes courage to apologise. It takes courage to forgive."It was a far cry from the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman, who last year equivocated over using the term 'genocide' to describe the massacres perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians because he feared upsetting the Turks.
How much longer must we wait for the worldwide Jewish community to understand the dispossession and dislocation of 1948 and 1967? And when will the global Zionist leadership realise that Israeli policies in the occupied territories is leading to the country's destruction? America will not forever provide the moral, financial and military blanket for the Jewish state's behaviour. A recent survey by B'nai B'rith World Centre in Jerusalem found a majority of Israelis believed that Diaspora Jews had no right to publicly criticise the Israeli government. However, some Jews recognise that they have a special moral responsibility not to remain mute over Israeli crimes committed in their name and on which they may have some clear effect."
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Imagine 50 million American refugees
Tom Engelhardt writing in The Nation:
"I'm an innumerate, but the figures on this -- the saddest story of our Iraq debacle -- are so large that even I can do the necessary computations. The population of the United States is now just over 300,000,000. The population of Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion was perhaps in the 26-27 million range. Between March 2003 and today, a number of reputable sources place the total of Iraqis who have fled their homes -- those who have been displaced internally and those who have gone abroad -- at between 4.5 million and 5 million individuals. If you take that still staggering lower figure, approximately one in six Iraqis is either a refugee in another country or an internally displaced person.
Now, consider the equivalent in terms of the U.S. population. If Iraq had invaded the United States in March 2003 with similar results, in less than five years approximately 50 million Americans would have fled their homes, assumedly flooding across the Mexican and Canadian borders, desperately burdening weaker neighboring economies. It would be an unparalleled, even unimaginable, catastrophe. Consider, then, what we would think if, back in Baghdad, politicians and the media were hailing, or at least discussing positively, the "success" of the prime minister's recent "surge strategy" in the U.S., even though it had probably been instrumental in creating at least one out of every ten of those refugees, 5 million displaced Americans in all. Imagine what our reaction would be to such blithe barbarism."
"I'm an innumerate, but the figures on this -- the saddest story of our Iraq debacle -- are so large that even I can do the necessary computations. The population of the United States is now just over 300,000,000. The population of Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion was perhaps in the 26-27 million range. Between March 2003 and today, a number of reputable sources place the total of Iraqis who have fled their homes -- those who have been displaced internally and those who have gone abroad -- at between 4.5 million and 5 million individuals. If you take that still staggering lower figure, approximately one in six Iraqis is either a refugee in another country or an internally displaced person.
Now, consider the equivalent in terms of the U.S. population. If Iraq had invaded the United States in March 2003 with similar results, in less than five years approximately 50 million Americans would have fled their homes, assumedly flooding across the Mexican and Canadian borders, desperately burdening weaker neighboring economies. It would be an unparalleled, even unimaginable, catastrophe. Consider, then, what we would think if, back in Baghdad, politicians and the media were hailing, or at least discussing positively, the "success" of the prime minister's recent "surge strategy" in the U.S., even though it had probably been instrumental in creating at least one out of every ten of those refugees, 5 million displaced Americans in all. Imagine what our reaction would be to such blithe barbarism."
Criticism a no-no
With the Olympics looming in August, one might have thought that the Chinese Government would try and put a good face out there in its attitude to any of its critics. Not so! To the contrary, the authorities are relentlessly cracking down, in many ways, on any dissent or indeed anything which might be seen as showing the Chinese, or its cities, in a bad light.
The Independent reports:
"A Chinese activist who dared to criticise the Olympics while lobbying for farmers' rights goes on trial tomorrow for subversion, a sign of growing official intolerance of any dissent over the Games.
Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker from Jiamusi city in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang, faces charges of subverting state power for his activism, which has involved petitions, denouncing government corruption and seeking democratic reform of the one-party state.
Last year he helped organise a petition, which was signed by 10,000 villagers, over a land dispute. It declared: "We don't want the Olympics, we want human rights."
Mr Yang's timing couldn't be worse, as sensitivities about the Games are high. He could face several years in jail for criticising the Olympics, which are seen as a crucial way for the government to highlight China's economic prosperity, social cohesion and the economic fruits of its 30 years of opening up and reforms."
The Independent reports:
"A Chinese activist who dared to criticise the Olympics while lobbying for farmers' rights goes on trial tomorrow for subversion, a sign of growing official intolerance of any dissent over the Games.
Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker from Jiamusi city in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang, faces charges of subverting state power for his activism, which has involved petitions, denouncing government corruption and seeking democratic reform of the one-party state.
Last year he helped organise a petition, which was signed by 10,000 villagers, over a land dispute. It declared: "We don't want the Olympics, we want human rights."
Mr Yang's timing couldn't be worse, as sensitivities about the Games are high. He could face several years in jail for criticising the Olympics, which are seen as a crucial way for the government to highlight China's economic prosperity, social cohesion and the economic fruits of its 30 years of opening up and reforms."
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Howard's End
ABC TV's Four Corners program last night on the demise of PM Howard and his government entitled "Howard's End" was in many respects an eye-opener.
As Crikey comments today:
"Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive.
Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says."
Other things the Howard Cabinet didn't understand:
That innocent people might die if we helped invade Iraq.
That putting asylum seekers in high security detention could be construed as harsh and inhuman treatment.
That the Australian Wheat Board was giving lots of money to Saddam Hussein.
That there would never, ever, be a GST.
That we could say sorry to black people.
That the Australian flag was not a party political symbol.
That climate change was a bit of a worry really and quite possibly our fault.
That Don Bradman couldn't help.
As Crikey comments today:
"Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive.
Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says."
Other things the Howard Cabinet didn't understand:
That innocent people might die if we helped invade Iraq.
That putting asylum seekers in high security detention could be construed as harsh and inhuman treatment.
That the Australian Wheat Board was giving lots of money to Saddam Hussein.
That there would never, ever, be a GST.
That we could say sorry to black people.
That the Australian flag was not a party political symbol.
That climate change was a bit of a worry really and quite possibly our fault.
That Don Bradman couldn't help.
But could he deliver?
As the Barack Obama juggernaut roles on leaving Hilary Clinton in his wake, it has to be said that all one reads or sees of him on TV is reflective of mouthing platitudes. The rhetoric might be persuasive, but what does the relatively untried Senator stand for? What are his policies, etc?
It is a question The Economist tries to answer in a piece "But could he deliver?"
"That question is partly answered by Obama the phenomenon. His immediate effect on international relations could be dramatic: a black president, partly brought up in a Muslim country, would transform America's image. And his youthful optimism could work at home too. After the bitterness of the Bush years, America needs a dose of unity: Mr Obama has a rare ability to deliver it. And the power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.
But what policies exactly? Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.
And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president's second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so. Indeed, something like that has already happened in his campaign. The post-racial candidate has ended up relying heavily on black votes (and in some places even highlighting the divide between Latinos and blacks).
None of this is to take away from Mr Obama's achievement—or to imply that he could not rise to the challenges of the job in hand. But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have. For America's sake (and the world's), that bar should now be raised—or all kinds of brutal disappointment could follow."
It is a question The Economist tries to answer in a piece "But could he deliver?"
"That question is partly answered by Obama the phenomenon. His immediate effect on international relations could be dramatic: a black president, partly brought up in a Muslim country, would transform America's image. And his youthful optimism could work at home too. After the bitterness of the Bush years, America needs a dose of unity: Mr Obama has a rare ability to deliver it. And the power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.
But what policies exactly? Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.
And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president's second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so. Indeed, something like that has already happened in his campaign. The post-racial candidate has ended up relying heavily on black votes (and in some places even highlighting the divide between Latinos and blacks).
None of this is to take away from Mr Obama's achievement—or to imply that he could not rise to the challenges of the job in hand. But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have. For America's sake (and the world's), that bar should now be raised—or all kinds of brutal disappointment could follow."
Liquidation Sale
Gideon Levy writing in Haaretz:
"It was like an especially wild orgy: First the great intoxication of the senses, then the bitter sobering up the next morning. Within a few hours, Israel went from celebrating the assassination of Imad Mughniyah to the fear of what would follow. The "great feat of intelligence," the "perfect execution," the "humiliation of Bashar Assad" were replaced in the blink of an eye with a spate of fear-inducing "travel advisories" by the Counterterrorism Office - don't travel, don't identify yourself, don't congregate, be careful, take every precaution - and with states of high alert on the northern border, and at all of Israel's embassies and consulates, and Jewish community centers worldwide. If these are the dangers that lie in wait for us, one has to ask: What did we need this assassination for?
Whoever killed Mughniyah was once again playing with the most dangerous fire of all: He undermined Israel's security. If it was Israel, one has to ask whether there was any shred of sense in this move. If it was not Israel, our famed intelligence agencies would do well to prove this quickly, before the next disaster. Was the security of Israel's citizens improved? Was terror dealt a permanent blow? History, with its multitude of previous assassinations, teaches that the answer is no. The chain of "terrorist chieftains" liquidated by Israel, from Ali Salameh and Abu Jihad through Abbas Mussawi and Yihyeh Ayash to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi - all "operations" that we celebrated with great pomp and circumstance for one sweet and intoxicating moment - have thus far brought only harsh and painful revenge attacks against Israel and Jews throughout the world, as well as infinite replacements no less effective than their predecessors, and sometimes more so. From assassination to assassination, terror has only increased and become more sophisticated."
And the situation on the ground in Gaza? Grim, as this piece in Inter Press Service [reproduced on Common Dreams] clearly shows:
"Human remains mix with debris following the latest Israeli assault Friday on Bureij Camp in Gaza Strip. Early reports listed nine dead and more than 50 injured.A targeted leader was killed, but many others were killed too.
“It’s very hard for us to rescue, or even locate bodies beneath the building,” said a medical relief worker from the local Bureij hospital.
Israel has not confirmed responsibility for the missile attack by F-16 aircraft.
“This is a barbaric crime,” said Dr. Hassan Khalaf, head of the local al-Shifa hospital. “They bombed residential areas where people were sleeping in their houses.”
The attack apparently targeted the house of a top leader of the al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad party. The leader, Ayman al-Fayed, 42, was reported killed, along with two of his children and his wife. Other victims were from the Bureij camp.
Palestinian sources said seven houses were destroyed, and about 100 others damaged. According to hospital sources, many of the casualties were children under the age of 12, and included a baby only a few months old.
Fire and ambulance crews continued to fight several fires that erupted after the bombing.
In military language, the loss of civilian lives was “collateral damage”. And not for the first time."
"It was like an especially wild orgy: First the great intoxication of the senses, then the bitter sobering up the next morning. Within a few hours, Israel went from celebrating the assassination of Imad Mughniyah to the fear of what would follow. The "great feat of intelligence," the "perfect execution," the "humiliation of Bashar Assad" were replaced in the blink of an eye with a spate of fear-inducing "travel advisories" by the Counterterrorism Office - don't travel, don't identify yourself, don't congregate, be careful, take every precaution - and with states of high alert on the northern border, and at all of Israel's embassies and consulates, and Jewish community centers worldwide. If these are the dangers that lie in wait for us, one has to ask: What did we need this assassination for?
Whoever killed Mughniyah was once again playing with the most dangerous fire of all: He undermined Israel's security. If it was Israel, one has to ask whether there was any shred of sense in this move. If it was not Israel, our famed intelligence agencies would do well to prove this quickly, before the next disaster. Was the security of Israel's citizens improved? Was terror dealt a permanent blow? History, with its multitude of previous assassinations, teaches that the answer is no. The chain of "terrorist chieftains" liquidated by Israel, from Ali Salameh and Abu Jihad through Abbas Mussawi and Yihyeh Ayash to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi - all "operations" that we celebrated with great pomp and circumstance for one sweet and intoxicating moment - have thus far brought only harsh and painful revenge attacks against Israel and Jews throughout the world, as well as infinite replacements no less effective than their predecessors, and sometimes more so. From assassination to assassination, terror has only increased and become more sophisticated."
And the situation on the ground in Gaza? Grim, as this piece in Inter Press Service [reproduced on Common Dreams] clearly shows:
"Human remains mix with debris following the latest Israeli assault Friday on Bureij Camp in Gaza Strip. Early reports listed nine dead and more than 50 injured.A targeted leader was killed, but many others were killed too.
“It’s very hard for us to rescue, or even locate bodies beneath the building,” said a medical relief worker from the local Bureij hospital.
Israel has not confirmed responsibility for the missile attack by F-16 aircraft.
“This is a barbaric crime,” said Dr. Hassan Khalaf, head of the local al-Shifa hospital. “They bombed residential areas where people were sleeping in their houses.”
The attack apparently targeted the house of a top leader of the al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad party. The leader, Ayman al-Fayed, 42, was reported killed, along with two of his children and his wife. Other victims were from the Bureij camp.
Palestinian sources said seven houses were destroyed, and about 100 others damaged. According to hospital sources, many of the casualties were children under the age of 12, and included a baby only a few months old.
Fire and ambulance crews continued to fight several fires that erupted after the bombing.
In military language, the loss of civilian lives was “collateral damage”. And not for the first time."
Kissinger, the War Criminal
As author and commentator Christopher Hitchins showed so clearly in his book on Henry Kissinger- based on documents - Kissinger can only be described as a duplicitous individual and a war criminal. It is said that Kissinger fears travelling overseas lest he be arrested for his actions as Secretary of State during the Nixon years. Think Chile and Laos where Kissinger can be shown as singularly responsible for what happened to and in those two countries.
Now, Information Clearing House has a video on Kissinger under the banner "The Making of a War Criminal".
"A fascinating, bombshell documentary that should shame Americans, regardless of whether or not ultimate blame finally lies with Kissinger. Should be required viewing for civics classes and would-be public servants alike." -- Brent Simon, Entertainment Today".
View the video here.
Now, Information Clearing House has a video on Kissinger under the banner "The Making of a War Criminal".
"A fascinating, bombshell documentary that should shame Americans, regardless of whether or not ultimate blame finally lies with Kissinger. Should be required viewing for civics classes and would-be public servants alike." -- Brent Simon, Entertainment Today".
View the video here.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Valentine's Day Torture Trifecta
Scott Horton, writing in Harpers' Magazine:
"On Valentine’s Day the Bush Administration was out on a mission, straight from the Orwellian Ministry of Love. That ministry of course served in Nineteen Eighty-Four as the center for torture. And as the shortest month reached its middle point, three apologists appeared on behalf of the administration to explain to the American public that they needed to relax and start getting comfortable with torture. It’s the new American Way, after all."
Read a fascinating piece "The Valentine’s Day Torture Trifecta" on how George W and his cohorts see themselves and the US take the moral high ground - yet justify torture. Bizarre! And the US wonders why its standing around the world is so poor.
"On Valentine’s Day the Bush Administration was out on a mission, straight from the Orwellian Ministry of Love. That ministry of course served in Nineteen Eighty-Four as the center for torture. And as the shortest month reached its middle point, three apologists appeared on behalf of the administration to explain to the American public that they needed to relax and start getting comfortable with torture. It’s the new American Way, after all."
Read a fascinating piece "The Valentine’s Day Torture Trifecta" on how George W and his cohorts see themselves and the US take the moral high ground - yet justify torture. Bizarre! And the US wonders why its standing around the world is so poor.
Critical issues and questions
We all know that people around the world like things American. Think McDonalds, movies, clothing, etc. However, it also probably undeniable that the standing and reputation of the US around the world since George W took office has never been worse.
The NY Times editorialises:
"How the next president plans to handle the disastrous Iraq war is the most important foreign policy question of this year’s campaign. But it is not the only foreign policy question that voters need answered.
President Bush’s mismanagement reaches far beyond Iraq. He has torn up international treaties, bullied and alienated old friends, and enabled old and new enemies. Before Americans choose a president they will need to know how he or she plans to rebuild America’s military strength and its moral standing and address a host of difficult challenges around the world."
The NY Times' questions can be read here.
The NY Times editorialises:
"How the next president plans to handle the disastrous Iraq war is the most important foreign policy question of this year’s campaign. But it is not the only foreign policy question that voters need answered.
President Bush’s mismanagement reaches far beyond Iraq. He has torn up international treaties, bullied and alienated old friends, and enabled old and new enemies. Before Americans choose a president they will need to know how he or she plans to rebuild America’s military strength and its moral standing and address a host of difficult challenges around the world."
The NY Times' questions can be read here.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Soul for Sale
Arianna Huffington in The Huffington Post puts the seemingly unstoppable GOP presidential candidate John McCain under the blowtorch in how he has sold his soul for political expediency:
"Has there ever been a more repugnant example of political pandering than John McCain's decision to vote against a bill banning waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?
That's right, John McCain, the former POW who has long been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's disturbing embrace of extreme interrogation techniques.
But that was before his desperate attempt to win over the lunatic fringe that is running the Grand Old Party.
Earlier this week, I showed how outdated the image of McCain as an independent-thinking maverick had become -- and called on the media and independent voters to snap out of their 2000 reverie and see the 2008 McCain for what he has turned into: a Rove-embracing Bush clone, willing to jettison his principles in his hunger for the presidency.
And now comes this latest unconscionable capitulation, which should drive a stake through the heart of the McCain-as-straight-talker meme once and for all.
McCain the maverick had been unequivocal in his condemnation of torture, and eloquent in expressing why. "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," he said at an Oval Office appearance in December 2005, after he had forced the president to endorse an earlier torture ban McCain had authored and pushed through (a ban the president quickly subverted with a signing statement). "What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."
"Has there ever been a more repugnant example of political pandering than John McCain's decision to vote against a bill banning waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?
That's right, John McCain, the former POW who has long been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's disturbing embrace of extreme interrogation techniques.
But that was before his desperate attempt to win over the lunatic fringe that is running the Grand Old Party.
Earlier this week, I showed how outdated the image of McCain as an independent-thinking maverick had become -- and called on the media and independent voters to snap out of their 2000 reverie and see the 2008 McCain for what he has turned into: a Rove-embracing Bush clone, willing to jettison his principles in his hunger for the presidency.
And now comes this latest unconscionable capitulation, which should drive a stake through the heart of the McCain-as-straight-talker meme once and for all.
McCain the maverick had been unequivocal in his condemnation of torture, and eloquent in expressing why. "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," he said at an Oval Office appearance in December 2005, after he had forced the president to endorse an earlier torture ban McCain had authored and pushed through (a ban the president quickly subverted with a signing statement). "What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."
Gaza: UN official shocked
No surprise here! The BBC reports - and all too sadly most other media outlets won't - on the response by a top UN official to a 4 day visit toGaza:
"The UN's top humanitarian affairs official has said he was shocked by the "grim and miserable" situation he witnessed on a visit to the Gaza Strip.
Undersecretary General John Holmes said it was the result of Israel closing its border crossings and the "limited food and other materials" allowed in.
Mr Holmes said 80% of Gaza's 1.5m population now depended on food aid."
And:
"As part of a four-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, Mr Holmes toured the Shifa Hospital, the largest in the Gaza Strip, and the Karni industrial zone near the closed cargo crossing on the Israeli border.
"I have been shocked by the grim and miserable things I have seen and heard about during the day," he told reporters at the main UN compound in Gaza City."
Meanwhile, over at counterpunch, a piece "Palestine in the Mind of America" by 2 former CIA political analysts:
"You would think that showing maps clearly delineating the truncated, obviously non-viable area available for a possible Palestinian state and showing pictures that define Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories would have some kind of impact on an audience of astute but, on this issue, generally uninformed Americans. We recently spoke to a small foreign affairs discussion group and devoted much of our presentation to these images of oppression -- images that never appear in the U.S. media -- in the probably naïve hope of making some kind of dent in the impassive American attitude toward Israel's 40-year occupation of Palestinian territory."
"The UN's top humanitarian affairs official has said he was shocked by the "grim and miserable" situation he witnessed on a visit to the Gaza Strip.
Undersecretary General John Holmes said it was the result of Israel closing its border crossings and the "limited food and other materials" allowed in.
Mr Holmes said 80% of Gaza's 1.5m population now depended on food aid."
And:
"As part of a four-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, Mr Holmes toured the Shifa Hospital, the largest in the Gaza Strip, and the Karni industrial zone near the closed cargo crossing on the Israeli border.
"I have been shocked by the grim and miserable things I have seen and heard about during the day," he told reporters at the main UN compound in Gaza City."
Meanwhile, over at counterpunch, a piece "Palestine in the Mind of America" by 2 former CIA political analysts:
"You would think that showing maps clearly delineating the truncated, obviously non-viable area available for a possible Palestinian state and showing pictures that define Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories would have some kind of impact on an audience of astute but, on this issue, generally uninformed Americans. We recently spoke to a small foreign affairs discussion group and devoted much of our presentation to these images of oppression -- images that never appear in the U.S. media -- in the probably naïve hope of making some kind of dent in the impassive American attitude toward Israel's 40-year occupation of Palestinian territory."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The Great Wall of Indifference
2 days ago, The Independent announced a global campaign to shame China into doing more to help Darfur. And the reaction from those who could actually change things? President Bush rules out boycott and says 'I'm going to the Olympics'. Major Games sponsors refuse to raise the issue with the Chinese.
So much for principles.....
The Independent writes in "The great wall of indifference":
"An international coalition of human rights activists has urged corporate sponsors of the Beijing Olympics to call the Chinese government to account over its support for Sudan or face a series of protests and consumer boycotts in the approach to this summer's Games.
As international condemnation mounted over China's reluctance to censure Khartoum for its conduct in Darfur, campaigners pressured multinational companies including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Adidas, to end their "silent complicity" with the regime.
The new focus came after a letter that demanded China to use its extensive links with oil-exporting Sudan to press for peace in Darfur was sent to President Hu Jintao by a coalition of Nobel laureates, athletes, celebrities and politicians. The trenchant text, printed on the front page of The Independent, yesterday made further headlines around the world but received a cold welcome among those leaders best positioned to act on its message.
President Bush distanced himself from the letter, as well as the decision of the film director Steven Spielberg to stand down in his role as the Games' artistic director. Mr Bush said he regarded the Olympics as a "sporting event"."
So much for principles.....
The Independent writes in "The great wall of indifference":
"An international coalition of human rights activists has urged corporate sponsors of the Beijing Olympics to call the Chinese government to account over its support for Sudan or face a series of protests and consumer boycotts in the approach to this summer's Games.
As international condemnation mounted over China's reluctance to censure Khartoum for its conduct in Darfur, campaigners pressured multinational companies including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Adidas, to end their "silent complicity" with the regime.
The new focus came after a letter that demanded China to use its extensive links with oil-exporting Sudan to press for peace in Darfur was sent to President Hu Jintao by a coalition of Nobel laureates, athletes, celebrities and politicians. The trenchant text, printed on the front page of The Independent, yesterday made further headlines around the world but received a cold welcome among those leaders best positioned to act on its message.
President Bush distanced himself from the letter, as well as the decision of the film director Steven Spielberg to stand down in his role as the Games' artistic director. Mr Bush said he regarded the Olympics as a "sporting event"."
Reflecting on a week of sorry....
The "sorry" to Australia's indigenous people by PM Rudd has attracted world-wide attention. Deservedly so.
In the days since the world has moved on....and there are, amongst other things, reflections on the day and all that it involved, including the main players.
Mike Carlton, writing in the SMH:
"For 10 long years, the Howard government trod ever more heavily upon the downtrodden. Obsessed with crushing its ideological enemies, real or imagined, it was, in Manning Clark's memorable phrase, a government of "straiteners and punishers".
At last, the Australian people have embraced a return to fairness and decency in our national life. The week was all about just that. What the hermit of Wollstonecraft made of it, I cannot imagine. Perhaps he warms himself with thoughts of the Queen offering him the garter."
In the same newspaper, Adele Horin writes:
"Brendan Nelson's mean, meandering speech on sorry day could not spoil the moving and historic occasion. But it showed him up as a weak leader lacking judgment, and generosity, and like the man he succeeded, missing the point.
Thanks to the amazing grace and forbearance of Aboriginal Australia, the worst response he suffered was that some turned their backs or turned off the television. Many were simply grateful he had brought the Liberal Party to the sorry word. It could have been so much more.
Great speeches can be defining moments in a nation's history, and a window into the soul of those who write or deliver them. Amazingly, Kevin Rudd redeemed himself after having delivered such a boring speech on election night that it shut down victory parties across the nation and sent deflated guests home regretting their vote. He delivered a moving sorry speech, right in tone and content. His sorry was without qualification, as the occasion, and a genuine apology, demands. Rudd's speech enhanced his leadership credentials.
Nelson's sorry was so pinched and qualified it was not an apology at all. Rather than focusing on past government policy, as the day required, he sought to rationalise and excuse the myriad bit players who had put the policy into effect. He missed the point.
On this historic occasion, the speech was totally inappropriate: convoluted, tortured and snidely racist."
Over at the Murdoch press, The Australian has a roundup of opinions on the apology from around the world - including in The Guardian where Geoffrey Robertson QC says that Britain should say sorry for its role in degrading the Aboriginal race.
In the days since the world has moved on....and there are, amongst other things, reflections on the day and all that it involved, including the main players.
Mike Carlton, writing in the SMH:
"For 10 long years, the Howard government trod ever more heavily upon the downtrodden. Obsessed with crushing its ideological enemies, real or imagined, it was, in Manning Clark's memorable phrase, a government of "straiteners and punishers".
At last, the Australian people have embraced a return to fairness and decency in our national life. The week was all about just that. What the hermit of Wollstonecraft made of it, I cannot imagine. Perhaps he warms himself with thoughts of the Queen offering him the garter."
In the same newspaper, Adele Horin writes:
"Brendan Nelson's mean, meandering speech on sorry day could not spoil the moving and historic occasion. But it showed him up as a weak leader lacking judgment, and generosity, and like the man he succeeded, missing the point.
Thanks to the amazing grace and forbearance of Aboriginal Australia, the worst response he suffered was that some turned their backs or turned off the television. Many were simply grateful he had brought the Liberal Party to the sorry word. It could have been so much more.
Great speeches can be defining moments in a nation's history, and a window into the soul of those who write or deliver them. Amazingly, Kevin Rudd redeemed himself after having delivered such a boring speech on election night that it shut down victory parties across the nation and sent deflated guests home regretting their vote. He delivered a moving sorry speech, right in tone and content. His sorry was without qualification, as the occasion, and a genuine apology, demands. Rudd's speech enhanced his leadership credentials.
Nelson's sorry was so pinched and qualified it was not an apology at all. Rather than focusing on past government policy, as the day required, he sought to rationalise and excuse the myriad bit players who had put the policy into effect. He missed the point.
On this historic occasion, the speech was totally inappropriate: convoluted, tortured and snidely racist."
Over at the Murdoch press, The Australian has a roundup of opinions on the apology from around the world - including in The Guardian where Geoffrey Robertson QC says that Britain should say sorry for its role in degrading the Aboriginal race.
The architects of War: Where are they now?
As the candidates for the US presidency dance around the issue of America's involvement in the Iraq War - and what the US is going to do, if anything, to withdraw from the war-torn country - Think Progressive raises the interesting question of what has happened to the architects of what has turned out to be a "venture" doomed from inception.
"President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence."
Read the piece here.
On the subject of that "surge" in Iraq which the politicians and some of the media are touting as having had positve results, well-known journalist, Patrick Cockburn, who writes for The Independent, has the following report from Baghdad:
"Life in Iraq, the Pentagon boasts, is returning to normal. But the truth is a very different story."
Meanwhile, over at truthdig.com Robert Scheer reflects on, in America, who has actually benefited from the Iraq War:
"Ever since "we" invaded Iraq, most of us have gotten nothing to show for it other than an enormously increased national debt that we will be paying off for decades to come and an economy that is sputtering into recession. Oil sold for $22.81 the year before the war was launched against a country with the world's second-largest holding, and the average price last year was almost three times that, at $64.20.
With oil bouncing up to $100 in the fourth quarter, Exxon recorded the highest corporate quarterly return ever. Chevron, the country's second-biggest oil company, saw profits rise 29 percent that quarter, contributing to an enviable profit of $18.7 billion for 2007. Clearly, what's good for big oil is not good for most Americans, few of whom would look back on 2007 with favor.
It's easy for the Bush big shots to equate the fortunes of big oil with that of the nation. After all, George W. got to be president only because his failed career in the Texas oil industry exposed his charms to the big energy guys, who then bankrolled his political career. Dick Cheney was an out-of-work defense secretary when picked to be CEO of Halliburton, which has profited mightily from its dealings with Exxon, not to mention running the Iraq franchise."
"President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence."
Read the piece here.
On the subject of that "surge" in Iraq which the politicians and some of the media are touting as having had positve results, well-known journalist, Patrick Cockburn, who writes for The Independent, has the following report from Baghdad:
"Life in Iraq, the Pentagon boasts, is returning to normal. But the truth is a very different story."
Meanwhile, over at truthdig.com Robert Scheer reflects on, in America, who has actually benefited from the Iraq War:
"Ever since "we" invaded Iraq, most of us have gotten nothing to show for it other than an enormously increased national debt that we will be paying off for decades to come and an economy that is sputtering into recession. Oil sold for $22.81 the year before the war was launched against a country with the world's second-largest holding, and the average price last year was almost three times that, at $64.20.
With oil bouncing up to $100 in the fourth quarter, Exxon recorded the highest corporate quarterly return ever. Chevron, the country's second-biggest oil company, saw profits rise 29 percent that quarter, contributing to an enviable profit of $18.7 billion for 2007. Clearly, what's good for big oil is not good for most Americans, few of whom would look back on 2007 with favor.
It's easy for the Bush big shots to equate the fortunes of big oil with that of the nation. After all, George W. got to be president only because his failed career in the Texas oil industry exposed his charms to the big energy guys, who then bankrolled his political career. Dick Cheney was an out-of-work defense secretary when picked to be CEO of Halliburton, which has profited mightily from its dealings with Exxon, not to mention running the Iraq franchise."
Friday, February 15, 2008
McCain & Condi?
Now here is a possible dimension to the US presidential race - McCain with Condi as his VP.
The Nation in a piece "Vice President Rice?" reflects on the possibility and how such a scenario might play out and the impact on the Democrat ticket.
"Democrats who think it's going to be a cakewalk into the White House next November had best remember one name: Condoleezza Rice.
John McCain is a formidable candidate in his own right, but if he has the political imagination to do it, he can cause the party of Jefferson and Jackson indescribable angst with Rice as his vice-presidential pick."
The Nation in a piece "Vice President Rice?" reflects on the possibility and how such a scenario might play out and the impact on the Democrat ticket.
"Democrats who think it's going to be a cakewalk into the White House next November had best remember one name: Condoleezza Rice.
John McCain is a formidable candidate in his own right, but if he has the political imagination to do it, he can cause the party of Jefferson and Jackson indescribable angst with Rice as his vice-presidential pick."
Ah yes, they are human!
Whilst Israel continues pursuing its policies in battening down Gaza and the West Bank - making life for the Palestinians extremely difficult - a call by former Israelis generals to remove West Bank roadblocks should be welcomed by all fair and decent-minded people.
syracuse.com reports:
"A group of retired Israeli generals has launched a campaign urging the army to remove West Bank roadblocks, warning on Wednesday that the travel restrictions sow Palestinian hatred of Israel and stymie the peace process.
The 12 top former commanders say the hundreds of checkpoints dotting the West Bank are excessive and other military means can be used to prevent suicide bombings in Israel.
The Palestinians have long demanded that Israel remove the roadblocks as a way to build faith in recently renewed peace talks."
Meanwhile, Israel snubs the supposed peace process initiated by the Americans, as the LA Times reports:
"Israel on Tuesday unveiled plans to build 1,120 apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem, a move Palestinians called a setback for U.S.-backed peace negotiations.
The announcement by Housing Minister Zeev Boim appeared to be aimed at placating the Shas religious party, which had vowed to quit the coalition government if it conceded anything to the Palestinians on Jerusalem.
Shas had criticized a government freeze on approval of new Jewish housing projects in territory claimed by the Palestinians. Jerusalem's city manager said Monday that the freeze was blocking needed construction in East Jerusalem, but Boim insisted that it applied only in the West Bank beyond the city limits.
"We are building all over Jerusalem within its municipal borders," he told Israel Radio. "What people call delays are in fact final stages of coordination with City Hall."
Boim said construction bids were being prepared for Jewish homes in two eastern neighborhoods, 750 in Pisgat Zeev and 370 in Har Homa."
syracuse.com reports:
"A group of retired Israeli generals has launched a campaign urging the army to remove West Bank roadblocks, warning on Wednesday that the travel restrictions sow Palestinian hatred of Israel and stymie the peace process.
The 12 top former commanders say the hundreds of checkpoints dotting the West Bank are excessive and other military means can be used to prevent suicide bombings in Israel.
The Palestinians have long demanded that Israel remove the roadblocks as a way to build faith in recently renewed peace talks."
Meanwhile, Israel snubs the supposed peace process initiated by the Americans, as the LA Times reports:
"Israel on Tuesday unveiled plans to build 1,120 apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem, a move Palestinians called a setback for U.S.-backed peace negotiations.
The announcement by Housing Minister Zeev Boim appeared to be aimed at placating the Shas religious party, which had vowed to quit the coalition government if it conceded anything to the Palestinians on Jerusalem.
Shas had criticized a government freeze on approval of new Jewish housing projects in territory claimed by the Palestinians. Jerusalem's city manager said Monday that the freeze was blocking needed construction in East Jerusalem, but Boim insisted that it applied only in the West Bank beyond the city limits.
"We are building all over Jerusalem within its municipal borders," he told Israel Radio. "What people call delays are in fact final stages of coordination with City Hall."
Boim said construction bids were being prepared for Jewish homes in two eastern neighborhoods, 750 in Pisgat Zeev and 370 in Har Homa."
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Johnny Howard's apology - and Note from Mum
Yesterday PM Rudd said "sorry" for all the wrongs done to Australia's indigenous people. In attendance in the Federal Parliament were ex-PMs Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating. John Howard was absent. Silence from Howard.
Crikey's take on Howard's absence and the note Howard's Mum wrote about why Howard wasn't there can be found here......
Crikey's take on Howard's absence and the note Howard's Mum wrote about why Howard wasn't there can be found here......
Torture first, "cleanse" later
AlterNet reports on the upcoming trial of 6 detainees at Gitmo. Already a lot has been said that the trial [s] have all the hallmarks of show trials in this election-year in the US. Of course there that small matter of torturing the detainees! Now that might cause some "problems!". No, given what is now reported on AlterNet on how the Pentagon has sought to "deal" with the issue:
"Timing is everything. Yesterday the Pentagon announced that it will seek the death penalty against six men accused of masterminding the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Arriving at the heels of CIA Director Michael Hayden's admission last week that three detainees at Gitmo -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is among the defendants -- were waterboarded, the announcement sparked immediate questions about the viability of the evidence against the defendants, who are said to have undergone other forms of "harsh interrogation." As one reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino: "Is the White House at all concerned that some of the evidence of the confessions by many of these men may not be admissible because they were obtained through waterboarding, which the administration admitted to last week?"
Perino skirted the question, but I would guess 'no.' That's because the Pentagon has deployed a novel strategy to legitimize the process and make it respectable again: take defendants imprisoned in an endless legal limbo and whose confessions have been tortured out of them and interrogate them again, this time asking nicely and without violence, to obtain the same evidence. A few months later, voila: You have a clean trial."
Read on here.
"Timing is everything. Yesterday the Pentagon announced that it will seek the death penalty against six men accused of masterminding the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Arriving at the heels of CIA Director Michael Hayden's admission last week that three detainees at Gitmo -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is among the defendants -- were waterboarded, the announcement sparked immediate questions about the viability of the evidence against the defendants, who are said to have undergone other forms of "harsh interrogation." As one reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino: "Is the White House at all concerned that some of the evidence of the confessions by many of these men may not be admissible because they were obtained through waterboarding, which the administration admitted to last week?"
Perino skirted the question, but I would guess 'no.' That's because the Pentagon has deployed a novel strategy to legitimize the process and make it respectable again: take defendants imprisoned in an endless legal limbo and whose confessions have been tortured out of them and interrogate them again, this time asking nicely and without violence, to obtain the same evidence. A few months later, voila: You have a clean trial."
Read on here.
A Saudi Valentine?
As Valentine's Day is "celebrated" around the world on 14 February - largely commercially driven on many levels - the NY Times publishes a piece in which a Saudi woman, now living in the US for 2 years, reflects on dating in Saudi Arabia.
"Tomorrow will be my second Valentine’s Day in the United States. As I’ve discovered, the celebration here bears little resemblance to the one I know from growing up in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, there are dates. But in Saudi Arabia, we eat them. As for the other kind of dating — the kind that will fill restaurants here tomorrow night — don’t count on it.
Where I come from, dating in the Western sense is not acceptable, either socially or religiously. Though most Saudis sympathized with “the Qatif girl” — a young woman who was gang-raped while in a car with a male friend, then sentenced to 200 lashes for “mingling” — and relieved when King Abdullah pardoned her last year, that does not mean that sitting with a strange guy in his car is considered appropriate.
Some daredevils do meet in coffee shops or restaurants that have partitions to separate the tables so nobody can see the illicit couples. After all, being a Saudi means knowing what the rules are — and how to sidestep them without getting in trouble. But most young women prefer to get to know the guy through accepted channels like the Internet, friends, family or the phone.
These days, Saudi relationships start on Facebook or through Bluetooth. We “date” over the phone or by instant messaging, and we enjoy exchanging gifts — through our chauffeurs or housemaids."
"Tomorrow will be my second Valentine’s Day in the United States. As I’ve discovered, the celebration here bears little resemblance to the one I know from growing up in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, there are dates. But in Saudi Arabia, we eat them. As for the other kind of dating — the kind that will fill restaurants here tomorrow night — don’t count on it.
Where I come from, dating in the Western sense is not acceptable, either socially or religiously. Though most Saudis sympathized with “the Qatif girl” — a young woman who was gang-raped while in a car with a male friend, then sentenced to 200 lashes for “mingling” — and relieved when King Abdullah pardoned her last year, that does not mean that sitting with a strange guy in his car is considered appropriate.
Some daredevils do meet in coffee shops or restaurants that have partitions to separate the tables so nobody can see the illicit couples. After all, being a Saudi means knowing what the rules are — and how to sidestep them without getting in trouble. But most young women prefer to get to know the guy through accepted channels like the Internet, friends, family or the phone.
These days, Saudi relationships start on Facebook or through Bluetooth. We “date” over the phone or by instant messaging, and we enjoy exchanging gifts — through our chauffeurs or housemaids."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Watch history.....
As a follow on from the previous posting on MPS, the Australian Parliament has now seen and heard the apology given to the indigenous people of Australia.
The day is a historic one......and to see and feel the effect of it make it your business, and take the time, to view or listen to the event.
The day is a historic one......and to see and feel the effect of it make it your business, and take the time, to view or listen to the event.
A momentous and memorable day for Australia
Today sees the PM, Kevin Rudd, make his apology to the stolen [indigenous] people of Australia in the Australian Parliament.
By any measure it is a historic day on many levels. The apology is long, long overdue. So, how does the apology read? Read it here.
Meanwhile, the last days has once again brought to light stories of the tragedy wrought about by the policy of removing children from their parents.
Read, or better still, listen to just one of the stories - as heard on the ABC's "The World Today" radio program yesterday.
By any measure it is a historic day on many levels. The apology is long, long overdue. So, how does the apology read? Read it here.
Meanwhile, the last days has once again brought to light stories of the tragedy wrought about by the policy of removing children from their parents.
Read, or better still, listen to just one of the stories - as heard on the ABC's "The World Today" radio program yesterday.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Iraqis returning home: Propoganda v the facts
Patrick Cockburn has been reporting for The Independent from Iraq for many years now. His reports can be considered more accurate than the PR pumped out by what is left of the Coalition of the Willing - now a rag-tag collection of countries apart from the US.
In his latest piece from Baghdad, Cockburn reports on the reluctance of Iraqis, who left the country mainly for Syria, to return to their former war-torn homeland:
"To show that Iraq was safe enough for the two million Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan to return, the Iraqi government organised a bus convoy last November from Damascus to Baghdad carrying 800 Iraqis home for free.
As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired.
There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq. The latest figures from the UN High Commission for Refugees show that, on the contrary, the number of people entering Syria from Iraq was 1,200 a day in late January "while an average of 700 are going back to Iraq from Syria".
The reasons people are not going back, despite new stringent visa regulations in Syria, are that they know Baghdad is very dangerous, the chances of making a living are small and there is a continuing lack of electricity and water."
In his latest piece from Baghdad, Cockburn reports on the reluctance of Iraqis, who left the country mainly for Syria, to return to their former war-torn homeland:
"To show that Iraq was safe enough for the two million Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan to return, the Iraqi government organised a bus convoy last November from Damascus to Baghdad carrying 800 Iraqis home for free.
As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired.
There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq. The latest figures from the UN High Commission for Refugees show that, on the contrary, the number of people entering Syria from Iraq was 1,200 a day in late January "while an average of 700 are going back to Iraq from Syria".
The reasons people are not going back, despite new stringent visa regulations in Syria, are that they know Baghdad is very dangerous, the chances of making a living are small and there is a continuing lack of electricity and water."
60 years on......to celebrate or not
Authors David Grossman and Daniel Gavron offer competing portraits — one sad, one happy — of where Israel stands as it prepares for its 60th birthday.
Grossman, writing in Salon, paints a gloomy picture, arguing that the Jewish state has yet to truly confront that alarming existential lessons of the war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
On the other hand, Gavron strikes entirely different, more optimistic chord in the NY Times – which reads almost like a direct response to Grossman’s angst.
Read the different perspectives, on The Telegraph, here.
Meanwhile, over at Al Jazeera:
"Norman Finkelstein is one of Israel's fiercest academic critics and a vocal supporter of the Palestinians.
He is urging the Palestinians to break down the "segregation" wall built across the Israeli-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The son of Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein was an assistant professor of Political Science at Chicago's De Paul University for six years until he was denied tenure there in June 2007.
Known for his critical investigations of other scholarly works on Israel - notably his ongoing feud with Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and Israel supporter - he has published six books on the occupation and the issue of Palestine.
Finkelstein's works have earned him both praise and condemnation.
Finkelstein is working on his seventh book - A Farewell to Israel: The Coming Break-up of American Zionism - postulating that American Jewish support for Israel is beginning to wane.
Currently on an international speaking tour of Venezuela, The Netherlands, Turkey, Lebanon, Japan, the UK, Canada and the US, Finkelstein spoke with Al Jazeera about the siege on Gaza and what options Palestinians there faced."
Read the Q & A here.
Grossman, writing in Salon, paints a gloomy picture, arguing that the Jewish state has yet to truly confront that alarming existential lessons of the war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
On the other hand, Gavron strikes entirely different, more optimistic chord in the NY Times – which reads almost like a direct response to Grossman’s angst.
Read the different perspectives, on The Telegraph, here.
Meanwhile, over at Al Jazeera:
"Norman Finkelstein is one of Israel's fiercest academic critics and a vocal supporter of the Palestinians.
He is urging the Palestinians to break down the "segregation" wall built across the Israeli-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The son of Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein was an assistant professor of Political Science at Chicago's De Paul University for six years until he was denied tenure there in June 2007.
Known for his critical investigations of other scholarly works on Israel - notably his ongoing feud with Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and Israel supporter - he has published six books on the occupation and the issue of Palestine.
Finkelstein's works have earned him both praise and condemnation.
Finkelstein is working on his seventh book - A Farewell to Israel: The Coming Break-up of American Zionism - postulating that American Jewish support for Israel is beginning to wane.
Currently on an international speaking tour of Venezuela, The Netherlands, Turkey, Lebanon, Japan, the UK, Canada and the US, Finkelstein spoke with Al Jazeera about the siege on Gaza and what options Palestinians there faced."
Read the Q & A here.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Obama unmasked
The Barack Obama bandwagon seems to roll on - much to the annoyance of the Clinton camp.
To an outsider - that is an non-American, and probably even to Americans themselves - the present primary elections underway in the US are more than puzzling. On one view it looks like grassroots level electioneering, yet it really isn't. At the end of the day it will be the heavyweights, certainly in the Democratic Party, who will decide who its candidate for the presidency will be.
All that aside, who is this Obama? What does he stand for? - other than the oft-repeated platitudes of pronouncing that he will bring "change" to Washington. It is a question Andrew Stephen, who was appointed US Editor of the New Statesman in 2001, having been its Washington correspondent and weekly columnist since 1998, has asked. Stephen is a regular contributor to BBC news programs and to The Sunday Times Magazine. He has also written for a variety of US newspapers including The New York Times Op-Ed pages. He came to the US in 1989 to be Washington Bureau Chief of The Observer and in 1992 was made Foreign Correspondent of the Year by the American Overseas Press Club for his coverage.
"Politically, there is remarkably little difference between the three leading Democrats - Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and did not therefore vote for the resolution that authorised the invasion of Iraq. But he has not been the sainted man of peace his supporters portray, either. In his three years in the Senate he has kept his head safely below the parapet, leaving two congressional colleagues - Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania - to spearhead opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war.
Most recently, he said he would not hesitate to send US troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission to hunt down terrorists, and he insists that the US must not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs". He wants the military to "stay on the offensive, from Djibouti to Kandahar" and to increase defence expenditure. Like most identikit US mainstream politicians, he talks of "rogue nations" and "hostile dictators", and says the US must maintain "a strong nuclear deterrent" and be ready to "seize" the "American moment". He appeared to support Israel's attack on Lebanon, but then said "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" - which, in turn, he denied saying."
Read the complete piece here.
To an outsider - that is an non-American, and probably even to Americans themselves - the present primary elections underway in the US are more than puzzling. On one view it looks like grassroots level electioneering, yet it really isn't. At the end of the day it will be the heavyweights, certainly in the Democratic Party, who will decide who its candidate for the presidency will be.
All that aside, who is this Obama? What does he stand for? - other than the oft-repeated platitudes of pronouncing that he will bring "change" to Washington. It is a question Andrew Stephen, who was appointed US Editor of the New Statesman in 2001, having been its Washington correspondent and weekly columnist since 1998, has asked. Stephen is a regular contributor to BBC news programs and to The Sunday Times Magazine. He has also written for a variety of US newspapers including The New York Times Op-Ed pages. He came to the US in 1989 to be Washington Bureau Chief of The Observer and in 1992 was made Foreign Correspondent of the Year by the American Overseas Press Club for his coverage.
"Politically, there is remarkably little difference between the three leading Democrats - Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and did not therefore vote for the resolution that authorised the invasion of Iraq. But he has not been the sainted man of peace his supporters portray, either. In his three years in the Senate he has kept his head safely below the parapet, leaving two congressional colleagues - Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania - to spearhead opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war.
Most recently, he said he would not hesitate to send US troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission to hunt down terrorists, and he insists that the US must not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs". He wants the military to "stay on the offensive, from Djibouti to Kandahar" and to increase defence expenditure. Like most identikit US mainstream politicians, he talks of "rogue nations" and "hostile dictators", and says the US must maintain "a strong nuclear deterrent" and be ready to "seize" the "American moment". He appeared to support Israel's attack on Lebanon, but then said "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" - which, in turn, he denied saying."
Read the complete piece here.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Howard: Not deserving of any honor!
The SMH reports the following today:
"Former prime minister John Howard could be in line to join one of Britain's most prestigious orders.
Speculation is mounting that Mr Howard has been personally selected by Queen Elizabeth to receive the Order of the Garter, the most senior and oldest British Order of Chivalry"
The idea of awarding Howard anything should give rise to concern that such an undeserving person - who led the Government he did - should be even considered for any sort of honor let alone be invited as a speaker as an ex-PM [no doubt against payment of some outlandish fee!] anywhere in the world.
The inhumane and racist policies of the Howard Government - as reflected in its policy in relation to the so-called "Pacific Solution" and the treatment of refugees, generally, and the absolute refusal to deal with the "Stolen Generation" let alone offer any sort of apology to Australia's indiginous people - only highlights that Howard and his Ministers were, and remain, disgraceful inhumane people.
Only yesterday The Age published a feature article on the devastating effect the Pacific Solution and the treatment of refugees in Australia has had on those caught up in the terrible policies. Read the sad piece here.
With the Rudd Government about to offer an apology to the "Stolen Generation" in Canberra next Wednesday, the only former PM not attending the event is, you guessed it, John Winston Howard.
And he deserves to be honored?
"Former prime minister John Howard could be in line to join one of Britain's most prestigious orders.
Speculation is mounting that Mr Howard has been personally selected by Queen Elizabeth to receive the Order of the Garter, the most senior and oldest British Order of Chivalry"
The idea of awarding Howard anything should give rise to concern that such an undeserving person - who led the Government he did - should be even considered for any sort of honor let alone be invited as a speaker as an ex-PM [no doubt against payment of some outlandish fee!] anywhere in the world.
The inhumane and racist policies of the Howard Government - as reflected in its policy in relation to the so-called "Pacific Solution" and the treatment of refugees, generally, and the absolute refusal to deal with the "Stolen Generation" let alone offer any sort of apology to Australia's indiginous people - only highlights that Howard and his Ministers were, and remain, disgraceful inhumane people.
Only yesterday The Age published a feature article on the devastating effect the Pacific Solution and the treatment of refugees in Australia has had on those caught up in the terrible policies. Read the sad piece here.
With the Rudd Government about to offer an apology to the "Stolen Generation" in Canberra next Wednesday, the only former PM not attending the event is, you guessed it, John Winston Howard.
And he deserves to be honored?
Beyond the Green Zone
"Dahr Jamail has spent more time reporting from Iraq than almost any other US journalist. His new book, Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, is a chronicle of his experiences there. He recently sat down with Nation correspondent Jeremy Scahill to talk about the supposed "success" of Bush's troop surge, what would happen if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins the White House and why he believes an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is the only way to peace."
Go here for an edited transcript of the interview.
Go here for an edited transcript of the interview.
Climate Change: Nine Tipping Points
"Nine ways in which the Earth could be tipped into a potentially dangerous state that could last for many centuries have been identified by scientists investigating how quickly global warming could run out of control.
A major international investigation by dozens of leading climate scientists has found that the "tipping points" for all nine scenarios -- such as the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest -- could occur within the next 100 years.
The scientists warn that climate change is likely to result in sudden and dramatic changes to some of the major geophysical elements of the Earth if global average temperatures continue to rise as a result of the predicted increase in emissions of man-made greenhouse gases."
So writes Steve Connor in a piece in The Independent [republished on AlterNet].
"A tipping point is defined as the point where a small increase in temperature or other change in the climate could trigger a disproportionately larger change in the future. Although there are many potential tipping points that could occur this century, it is still possible to avoid them with cuts in greenhouse gases, said Professor Lenton.
He added: "But we should be prepared to adapt ... and to design an early-warning system that alerts us to them in time."
Irreversible changes:
* Arctic sea ice: some scientists believe that the tipping point for the total loss of summer sea ice is imminent.
* Greenland ice sheet: total melting could take 300 years or more but the tipping point that could see irreversible change might occur within 50 years.
* West Antarctic ice sheet: scientists believe it could unexpectedly collapse if it slips into the sea at its warming edges.
* Gulf Stream: few scientists believe it could be switched off completely this century but its collapse is a possibility.
* El Niño: the southern Pacific current may be affected by warmer seas, resulting in far-reaching climate change.
* Indian monsoon: relies on temperature difference between land and sea, which could be tipped off-balance by pollutants that cause localised cooling.
* West African monsoon: in the past it has changed, causing the greening of the Sahara, but in the future it could cause droughts.
* Amazon rainforest: a warmer world and further deforestation may cause a collapse of the rain supporting this ecosystem.
* Boreal forests: cold-adapted trees of Siberia and Canada are dying as temperatures rise."
A major international investigation by dozens of leading climate scientists has found that the "tipping points" for all nine scenarios -- such as the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest -- could occur within the next 100 years.
The scientists warn that climate change is likely to result in sudden and dramatic changes to some of the major geophysical elements of the Earth if global average temperatures continue to rise as a result of the predicted increase in emissions of man-made greenhouse gases."
So writes Steve Connor in a piece in The Independent [republished on AlterNet].
"A tipping point is defined as the point where a small increase in temperature or other change in the climate could trigger a disproportionately larger change in the future. Although there are many potential tipping points that could occur this century, it is still possible to avoid them with cuts in greenhouse gases, said Professor Lenton.
He added: "But we should be prepared to adapt ... and to design an early-warning system that alerts us to them in time."
Irreversible changes:
* Arctic sea ice: some scientists believe that the tipping point for the total loss of summer sea ice is imminent.
* Greenland ice sheet: total melting could take 300 years or more but the tipping point that could see irreversible change might occur within 50 years.
* West Antarctic ice sheet: scientists believe it could unexpectedly collapse if it slips into the sea at its warming edges.
* Gulf Stream: few scientists believe it could be switched off completely this century but its collapse is a possibility.
* El Niño: the southern Pacific current may be affected by warmer seas, resulting in far-reaching climate change.
* Indian monsoon: relies on temperature difference between land and sea, which could be tipped off-balance by pollutants that cause localised cooling.
* West African monsoon: in the past it has changed, causing the greening of the Sahara, but in the future it could cause droughts.
* Amazon rainforest: a warmer world and further deforestation may cause a collapse of the rain supporting this ecosystem.
* Boreal forests: cold-adapted trees of Siberia and Canada are dying as temperatures rise."
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Hamas: Journey to the Secret Heart
The Spectator has a piece on a rare and unprecedented insight into Hamas, aka as a terrorist organisation by the West, by film-maker Mike Chaberlain:
"This was it: as soon as I stepped through the door of the offices of Khaled Mishal I held out my flimsy plastic folder and jabbered away in English to the four slick-suited men who were my reception committee, trying desperately to make clear that, yes, there was a potentially lethal weapon in there. I smiled and pointed sheepishly to the scissors, and they were confiscated before my cameraman and I were allowed to pass through the airport-style security portal.
It was hardly surprising we were tense: it was the autumn of last year and we were making a film about Hamas for Channel 4. Khaled Mishal, the unofficial leader of Hamas, was in some ways a dangerous man to be talking to. Indeed, the reason he was unofficial leader was that his two predecessors had been assassinated by the Israelis and he himself had almost been killed in Jordan when a Mossad agent sprayed poison into his left ear.
When Mishal arrived in his office — which doubled as a TV studio — the first thing I noticed was that he looks surprisingly like George Clooney in Syriana. That calmed me a bit, but all the same I was nervous as I started to interview him. He was, and is, the leader of what much of the world calls a terrorist organisation — and he’s probably still high up on the Israeli hit list. In the event everything went smoothly.
"I was here, in this small office in Damascus, because a couple of years earlier I had become interested in the mechanism of how an armed guerrilla or ‘terrorist’ group can make the transition to a non-armed political organisation, and had been looking into the possibility of making a film about Hamas. At a conference on terrorism in London, I had been directed by Conciliation Resources, a brilliant but underfunded peacemaking group, to a man who knew Hamas intimately and might be able to facilitate access to this organisation. The man was Alastair Crooke, an ex-MI6 officer, who personally negotiated a number of Israel–Palestinian ceasefires while serving as a special adviser to the EU’s Javier Solana. He was instrumental, for example, in the negotiations that ended the siege of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem. He is also charming and extremely intelligent and — crucially for my purposes — Hamas seemed to trust him."
"This was it: as soon as I stepped through the door of the offices of Khaled Mishal I held out my flimsy plastic folder and jabbered away in English to the four slick-suited men who were my reception committee, trying desperately to make clear that, yes, there was a potentially lethal weapon in there. I smiled and pointed sheepishly to the scissors, and they were confiscated before my cameraman and I were allowed to pass through the airport-style security portal.
It was hardly surprising we were tense: it was the autumn of last year and we were making a film about Hamas for Channel 4. Khaled Mishal, the unofficial leader of Hamas, was in some ways a dangerous man to be talking to. Indeed, the reason he was unofficial leader was that his two predecessors had been assassinated by the Israelis and he himself had almost been killed in Jordan when a Mossad agent sprayed poison into his left ear.
When Mishal arrived in his office — which doubled as a TV studio — the first thing I noticed was that he looks surprisingly like George Clooney in Syriana. That calmed me a bit, but all the same I was nervous as I started to interview him. He was, and is, the leader of what much of the world calls a terrorist organisation — and he’s probably still high up on the Israeli hit list. In the event everything went smoothly.
"I was here, in this small office in Damascus, because a couple of years earlier I had become interested in the mechanism of how an armed guerrilla or ‘terrorist’ group can make the transition to a non-armed political organisation, and had been looking into the possibility of making a film about Hamas. At a conference on terrorism in London, I had been directed by Conciliation Resources, a brilliant but underfunded peacemaking group, to a man who knew Hamas intimately and might be able to facilitate access to this organisation. The man was Alastair Crooke, an ex-MI6 officer, who personally negotiated a number of Israel–Palestinian ceasefires while serving as a special adviser to the EU’s Javier Solana. He was instrumental, for example, in the negotiations that ended the siege of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem. He is also charming and extremely intelligent and — crucially for my purposes — Hamas seemed to trust him."
The Economics of Obesity: A QQ & A With the Author of The Fattening of America
The NY Times reports:
"We’ve blogged about obesity at length here at Freakonomics. The health economist Eric Finkelstein has been studying the subject for years, and, along with co-author Laurie Zuckerman, has just published a book, The Fattening of America, which analyzes the causes and consequences of obesity in the U.S. Finkelstein agreed to answer our questions about the book.
Q: You state that the factors contributing to the dramatic rise in American (and worldwide) obesity, from air conditioning to restaurant portions to modern medications, are all fundamentally economic issues. What are the most significant ways modern society has made it easier to be obese?
A: Modern society is giving Americans many more incentives to gain weight than to lose it. We are, in fact, victims of our success as a nation. The two most obvious factors are: 1) the abundance of cheap, tasty foods; and 2) the new technologies that allow us to be increasingly more productive at work and at home while burning fewer calories. For example, between 1980 and 2005, the price of food fell 14 percent relative to non-food items, so it is thus not surprising that we are eating more food.
And what kind of foods are we eating? Well, consider the French fry. Fries, if made from scratch, take about 40 minutes to prepare, complete with peeling, slicing, and messy, splattering oil. Frozen French fries? Ready to eat in under 14 minutes. And that’s still a lot of work compared to just stopping at a drive-through on the way home from work. To an economist, then, it is no shocker that the average American now consumes almost 60 pounds of frozen potato products per year, more than triple the amount consumed per person in 1965.
And at the same time, we’re burning less calories. No surprise here. We all know that we are spending more time watching TV, but there are also less obvious culprits that are keeping us ensconced in our chairs. One example is that I recently had an inexpensive printer installed in my office. So now I don’t even have to walk the 100 steps to the community printer down the hall a few times a day.
But technology hasn’t just made our jobs and our lives easier; we can also pop some pills or get out clogged arteries cleaned out with relative ease, thus lowering the health costs of obesity. In fact, research by the Center for Disease Control reveals that today’s obese population has better blood pressure and cholesterol values than normal-weight adults did 30 years ago. As any economist worth his weight will tell you, if the costs of being obese go down, and there are people who like to eat and don’t like to exercise, we are bound to see obesity rates go up."
Read on here.
"We’ve blogged about obesity at length here at Freakonomics. The health economist Eric Finkelstein has been studying the subject for years, and, along with co-author Laurie Zuckerman, has just published a book, The Fattening of America, which analyzes the causes and consequences of obesity in the U.S. Finkelstein agreed to answer our questions about the book.
Q: You state that the factors contributing to the dramatic rise in American (and worldwide) obesity, from air conditioning to restaurant portions to modern medications, are all fundamentally economic issues. What are the most significant ways modern society has made it easier to be obese?
A: Modern society is giving Americans many more incentives to gain weight than to lose it. We are, in fact, victims of our success as a nation. The two most obvious factors are: 1) the abundance of cheap, tasty foods; and 2) the new technologies that allow us to be increasingly more productive at work and at home while burning fewer calories. For example, between 1980 and 2005, the price of food fell 14 percent relative to non-food items, so it is thus not surprising that we are eating more food.
And what kind of foods are we eating? Well, consider the French fry. Fries, if made from scratch, take about 40 minutes to prepare, complete with peeling, slicing, and messy, splattering oil. Frozen French fries? Ready to eat in under 14 minutes. And that’s still a lot of work compared to just stopping at a drive-through on the way home from work. To an economist, then, it is no shocker that the average American now consumes almost 60 pounds of frozen potato products per year, more than triple the amount consumed per person in 1965.
And at the same time, we’re burning less calories. No surprise here. We all know that we are spending more time watching TV, but there are also less obvious culprits that are keeping us ensconced in our chairs. One example is that I recently had an inexpensive printer installed in my office. So now I don’t even have to walk the 100 steps to the community printer down the hall a few times a day.
But technology hasn’t just made our jobs and our lives easier; we can also pop some pills or get out clogged arteries cleaned out with relative ease, thus lowering the health costs of obesity. In fact, research by the Center for Disease Control reveals that today’s obese population has better blood pressure and cholesterol values than normal-weight adults did 30 years ago. As any economist worth his weight will tell you, if the costs of being obese go down, and there are people who like to eat and don’t like to exercise, we are bound to see obesity rates go up."
Read on here.
Reporting on the Iraq War. How accurate?
A new book takes a close look at the triumphs, challenges and regrets of reporters working to cover the first three years of the Iraq war.
There seems little doubt, now, that the way the Iraq War has been reported has been less than either accurate or fully truthful. Just the practice of embedding journalists with the army has seen a less than objective reporting of what has been happening on the ground. And then there is the valid criticism made by people like Robert Fisk that those reporting from Baghdad do so from the confines and safety of a hotel room.
As Alternet reports in a piece "Reporting Iraq: Journalists' Coverage of a Censored War":
"The late British journalist James Cameron, known for his coverage of the Vietnam War, said of his journalism, "I may not have always been satisfactorily balanced; I always tended to argue that objectivity was of less importance than truth." Perhaps in times of peace, objectivity naturally hews closer to truth. But when leadership misleads (or, euphemisms be damned, lies to) the public, journalists bear a greater responsibility. "Reporting" can all too easily translate into providing a megaphone for intentionally misleading information.
It is these issues that are at the forefront of Reporting Iraq: An Oral History of the War by the Journalists Who Covered It. Comprised mainly of interviews with over 40 journalists who covered the war, Reporting Iraq offers a candid view of the difficulties and complexities of working in an environment so hostile to reporters.
In one episode Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post recalls the difficulty of getting any relevant information from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA): "Well, off the record," CPA advisor Dan Senor told him, "Paris is burning, but on the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq." Such double-speak motivated reporters to take great risks to find the facts -- and spurred a wartime environment where journalists have now come to rely heavily on Iraqi stringers who, unlike western reporters, are able move more freely around the country. Reporting Iraq takes a close look at the triumphs, challenges and regrets of reporters working to cover the first three years of the occupation of Iraq."
There seems little doubt, now, that the way the Iraq War has been reported has been less than either accurate or fully truthful. Just the practice of embedding journalists with the army has seen a less than objective reporting of what has been happening on the ground. And then there is the valid criticism made by people like Robert Fisk that those reporting from Baghdad do so from the confines and safety of a hotel room.
As Alternet reports in a piece "Reporting Iraq: Journalists' Coverage of a Censored War":
"The late British journalist James Cameron, known for his coverage of the Vietnam War, said of his journalism, "I may not have always been satisfactorily balanced; I always tended to argue that objectivity was of less importance than truth." Perhaps in times of peace, objectivity naturally hews closer to truth. But when leadership misleads (or, euphemisms be damned, lies to) the public, journalists bear a greater responsibility. "Reporting" can all too easily translate into providing a megaphone for intentionally misleading information.
It is these issues that are at the forefront of Reporting Iraq: An Oral History of the War by the Journalists Who Covered It. Comprised mainly of interviews with over 40 journalists who covered the war, Reporting Iraq offers a candid view of the difficulties and complexities of working in an environment so hostile to reporters.
In one episode Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post recalls the difficulty of getting any relevant information from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA): "Well, off the record," CPA advisor Dan Senor told him, "Paris is burning, but on the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq." Such double-speak motivated reporters to take great risks to find the facts -- and spurred a wartime environment where journalists have now come to rely heavily on Iraqi stringers who, unlike western reporters, are able move more freely around the country. Reporting Iraq takes a close look at the triumphs, challenges and regrets of reporters working to cover the first three years of the occupation of Iraq."
Thursday, February 07, 2008
A call for freedom
So much for freedom in Afghanistan....... For Westerners to see someone sentenced to death for downloading material about women rights from the internet comes as amazing news. But the execution of an Afghani for doing just that is astounding and drawn condemnation from around the world. That freedom and democracy being brought to Afghanistan doesn't seem to be working!
The Independent reports:
"The world's most powerful woman has added her voice to the campaign to save the life of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the Afghan student journalist sentenced to death for downloading material on women's rights from the internet.
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, promised yesterday to raise his case personally with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, which would significantly raise the international pressure for his release.
Ms Rice, who was in London for talks with Gordon Brown and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, on the West's Afghanistan strategy said: "I do think that the Afghans understand that there are some international norms that need to be respected. Of course, one has national laws and they're national laws that are in accordance with traditions and religious practice. But there are international norms, and I'll certainly talk to President Karzai about this case."
You can read the complete piece here - and also sign The Independent's petition.
The Independent reports:
"The world's most powerful woman has added her voice to the campaign to save the life of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the Afghan student journalist sentenced to death for downloading material on women's rights from the internet.
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, promised yesterday to raise his case personally with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, which would significantly raise the international pressure for his release.
Ms Rice, who was in London for talks with Gordon Brown and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, on the West's Afghanistan strategy said: "I do think that the Afghans understand that there are some international norms that need to be respected. Of course, one has national laws and they're national laws that are in accordance with traditions and religious practice. But there are international norms, and I'll certainly talk to President Karzai about this case."
You can read the complete piece here - and also sign The Independent's petition.
Turning off the lights
Veteran writer Gideon Levy on Haaretz in a piece "The lights have been turned off" reflects on Israel's collective punishment of the people of Gaza - and questions why the Israelis too ought not be subjected to "punishment" for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank:
"One after another, the final lights are being turned off, and a moral gloom is falling upon us as we stand at the edge of an abyss. Just last week, three more lights were turned off. The Winograd Report did not come out clearly against the fact that Israel embarked on a pointless war; the Supreme Court authorized collective punishment and the attorney general concluded that the killing of 12 Israeli citizens and someone from the territories by the police does not warrant a trial. The final keepers of order, the lighthouses of justice and law, are reconciling themselves with the most serious injustices of the institutions of authority and no one so much as utters a word about it. The upsetting and depressing crop of a single week has drawn the moral portrait of the country.
As expected, the Winograd Committee became irrelevant. It avoided dealing with the first question that should have been on its agenda: Was there any justification for embarking on the war? A committee that says nothing about a country that declares war on its neighbor, kills a thousand of its citizens, causes mass destruction, makes use of horrific munitions and continues to kill dozens of innocents to this day - is a derelict committee.
If the committee didn't delve into these key issues, then who will? A single, circuitous remark exposed the game: "We do not conclude, and have not concluded, that the decision to embark on war following the abduction [of the two reservists] was not justified." Well, what did it conclude? Despite what it said, this is what you really hear: It is legitimate in the eyes of the committee to go to war over two abducted soldiers. It is legitimate to utilize the tool of war, to kill indiscriminately, to disproportionately bomb and destroy - all as the preferred first response. No negotiations, no limited military operation - just war - and on such dubious grounds, and of course with such pathetic results. Not a word on the killing and the destruction that we caused in vain. The dignified-looking committee conducted itself like a public information office and supported what many around the world have described as war crimes. A golden opportunity to say something ethical about the language of force that we are always eager to use, was missed. The Winograd Committee is therefore a panel lacking a moral backbone, which avoided coming to terms with substantive questions.
On the same day that the committee released its final report, the Supreme Court, that same institution to which all eyes are turned, and over whose influence there is a bitter, ongoing battle, authorized another bug in the works. A panel of justices headed by Court President Dorit Beinisch ruled that Israel is authorized to limit the supply of electricity, gasoline and diesel to the Gaza Strip, "since even these diminished quantities sufficiently meet humanitarian needs."
"One after another, the final lights are being turned off, and a moral gloom is falling upon us as we stand at the edge of an abyss. Just last week, three more lights were turned off. The Winograd Report did not come out clearly against the fact that Israel embarked on a pointless war; the Supreme Court authorized collective punishment and the attorney general concluded that the killing of 12 Israeli citizens and someone from the territories by the police does not warrant a trial. The final keepers of order, the lighthouses of justice and law, are reconciling themselves with the most serious injustices of the institutions of authority and no one so much as utters a word about it. The upsetting and depressing crop of a single week has drawn the moral portrait of the country.
As expected, the Winograd Committee became irrelevant. It avoided dealing with the first question that should have been on its agenda: Was there any justification for embarking on the war? A committee that says nothing about a country that declares war on its neighbor, kills a thousand of its citizens, causes mass destruction, makes use of horrific munitions and continues to kill dozens of innocents to this day - is a derelict committee.
If the committee didn't delve into these key issues, then who will? A single, circuitous remark exposed the game: "We do not conclude, and have not concluded, that the decision to embark on war following the abduction [of the two reservists] was not justified." Well, what did it conclude? Despite what it said, this is what you really hear: It is legitimate in the eyes of the committee to go to war over two abducted soldiers. It is legitimate to utilize the tool of war, to kill indiscriminately, to disproportionately bomb and destroy - all as the preferred first response. No negotiations, no limited military operation - just war - and on such dubious grounds, and of course with such pathetic results. Not a word on the killing and the destruction that we caused in vain. The dignified-looking committee conducted itself like a public information office and supported what many around the world have described as war crimes. A golden opportunity to say something ethical about the language of force that we are always eager to use, was missed. The Winograd Committee is therefore a panel lacking a moral backbone, which avoided coming to terms with substantive questions.
On the same day that the committee released its final report, the Supreme Court, that same institution to which all eyes are turned, and over whose influence there is a bitter, ongoing battle, authorized another bug in the works. A panel of justices headed by Court President Dorit Beinisch ruled that Israel is authorized to limit the supply of electricity, gasoline and diesel to the Gaza Strip, "since even these diminished quantities sufficiently meet humanitarian needs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)