Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman in his latest op-ed piece for The New York Times attacks what seems to be another witch-hunt - and a virulent and toxic one to boot - afoot in the US:
"The last time a Democrat sat in the White House, he faced a nonstop witch hunt by his political opponents. Prominent figures on the right accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from drug smuggling to murder. And once Republicans took control of Congress, they subjected the Clinton administration to unrelenting harassment — at one point taking 140 hours of sworn testimony over accusations that the White House had misused its Christmas card list.
Now it’s happening again — except that this time it’s even worse. Let’s turn the floor over to Rush Limbaugh: “Imam Hussein Obama,” he recently declared, is “probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.”
To get a sense of how much it matters when people like Mr. Limbaugh talk like this, bear in mind that he’s an utterly mainstream figure within the Republican Party; bear in mind, too, that unless something changes the political dynamics, Republicans will soon control at least one house of Congress. This is going to be very, very ugly.
So where is this rage coming from? Why is it flourishing? What will it do to America?"
Continue reading here.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Leave out the main players = unsuccessful outcome
Ali Abunimah is not only the author of “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse", but also the editor of and commentator in the much-respected Electronic Intifada.
With the upcoming so-called resumed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, in an op-ed piece "Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us" in The New York Times, he examines why the failure to include Hamas in the discussions is most likely to doom the talks.
"George J. Mitchell, the United States Middle East envoy, tried to counter low expectations for renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by harking back to his experience as a mediator in Northern Ireland.
At an Aug. 20 news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, announcing the talks that will begin this week, Mr. Mitchell reminded journalists that during difficult negotiations in Northern Ireland, “We had about 700 days of failure and one day of success” — the day in 1998 that the Belfast Agreement instituting power-sharing between pro-British unionists and Irish nationalists was signed.
Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy."
And:
"The resumption of peace talks without any Israeli commitment to freeze settlements is another significant victory for the Israel lobby and the Israeli government. It allows Israel to pose as a willing peacemaker while carrying on with business as usual.
As for Mr. Mitchell, since he was appointed Middle East envoy, he has so far enjoyed almost 600 days of failure. As long as the United States maintains the same hopeless approach, he can expect many more."
With the upcoming so-called resumed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, in an op-ed piece "Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us" in The New York Times, he examines why the failure to include Hamas in the discussions is most likely to doom the talks.
"George J. Mitchell, the United States Middle East envoy, tried to counter low expectations for renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by harking back to his experience as a mediator in Northern Ireland.
At an Aug. 20 news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, announcing the talks that will begin this week, Mr. Mitchell reminded journalists that during difficult negotiations in Northern Ireland, “We had about 700 days of failure and one day of success” — the day in 1998 that the Belfast Agreement instituting power-sharing between pro-British unionists and Irish nationalists was signed.
Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy."
And:
"The resumption of peace talks without any Israeli commitment to freeze settlements is another significant victory for the Israel lobby and the Israeli government. It allows Israel to pose as a willing peacemaker while carrying on with business as usual.
As for Mr. Mitchell, since he was appointed Middle East envoy, he has so far enjoyed almost 600 days of failure. As long as the United States maintains the same hopeless approach, he can expect many more."
Paper v eBook
The tussle between the conventional book and the new ebooks is on. It is more than likely to shape the way in which we read books and how much we pay for them. And then there is the new intrusion advertisements into ebooks.
So, how are people responding to ebooks? The Wall Street Journal takes up the question in "The ABCs of E-Reading":
"People who buy e-readers tend to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book, preliminary research shows.
A study of 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. found that 40% said they now read more than they did with print books. Of those surveyed, 58% said they read about the same as before while 2% said they read less than before. And 55% of the respondents in the May study, paid for by e-reader maker Sony Corp., thought they'd use the device to read even more books in the future. The study looked at owners of three devices: Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle, Apple Inc.'s iPad and the Sony Reader.
While e-readers are still a niche product just beginning to spread beyond early adopters, these new reading experiences are a big departure from the direction U.S. reading habits have been heading. A 2007 study by the National Endowment for the Arts caused a furor when it reported Americans are spending less time reading books. About half of all Americans ages 18 to 24 read no books for pleasure, it found."
So, how are people responding to ebooks? The Wall Street Journal takes up the question in "The ABCs of E-Reading":
"People who buy e-readers tend to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book, preliminary research shows.
A study of 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. found that 40% said they now read more than they did with print books. Of those surveyed, 58% said they read about the same as before while 2% said they read less than before. And 55% of the respondents in the May study, paid for by e-reader maker Sony Corp., thought they'd use the device to read even more books in the future. The study looked at owners of three devices: Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle, Apple Inc.'s iPad and the Sony Reader.
While e-readers are still a niche product just beginning to spread beyond early adopters, these new reading experiences are a big departure from the direction U.S. reading habits have been heading. A 2007 study by the National Endowment for the Arts caused a furor when it reported Americans are spending less time reading books. About half of all Americans ages 18 to 24 read no books for pleasure, it found."
Monday, August 30, 2010
That was one hell of a BBQ
Scott Horton writes in Harper's Magazine on what surely be the most expensive BBQ this century - or probably ever!
"It was the most expensive barbecue in all history, writes Berlin’s Tageszeitung today about a fete arranged by German Chancellor Angela Merkel for George W. Bush and his entourage in 2006.
On a warm summer evening four years ago, helicopters set down on the Trinwillershagen athletic field and one of the most powerful men of the world walked into the little village with 700 inhabitants. Chancellor Angela Merkel had invited George W. Bush to her home electoral district in Western Pomerania—she planned to offer him a hearty meal of barbecued wild boar and to send the world many harmonious photographs of the gathering. But hardly had the proprietor of the Gasthof zu den Linden removed the boar meat from the skewers when a controversy began in Germany about this “most expensive barbecue in history.” The event did not bring only politicians to Merkel’s constituency. A force of 12,225 policemen from throughout Germany were also deployed to provide security for the state visitors in the region between Rostock and Stralsund.
Who footed the bill? The taxpayers, of course. An administrative court is now dealing with a request for information on the total bill for the event. The security bill alone seems to amount to €5.7 million, while the total approaches €8.7 million ($11 million). And this doesn’t include any of the costs absorbed by the American taxpayers, who of course paid for the small army of Secret Service agents also deployed to the event. The national security state hardly pauses a second over a decision to drop $11 million for a nice barbeque. Security, of course, forms the main course."
"It was the most expensive barbecue in all history, writes Berlin’s Tageszeitung today about a fete arranged by German Chancellor Angela Merkel for George W. Bush and his entourage in 2006.
On a warm summer evening four years ago, helicopters set down on the Trinwillershagen athletic field and one of the most powerful men of the world walked into the little village with 700 inhabitants. Chancellor Angela Merkel had invited George W. Bush to her home electoral district in Western Pomerania—she planned to offer him a hearty meal of barbecued wild boar and to send the world many harmonious photographs of the gathering. But hardly had the proprietor of the Gasthof zu den Linden removed the boar meat from the skewers when a controversy began in Germany about this “most expensive barbecue in history.” The event did not bring only politicians to Merkel’s constituency. A force of 12,225 policemen from throughout Germany were also deployed to provide security for the state visitors in the region between Rostock and Stralsund.
Who footed the bill? The taxpayers, of course. An administrative court is now dealing with a request for information on the total bill for the event. The security bill alone seems to amount to €5.7 million, while the total approaches €8.7 million ($11 million). And this doesn’t include any of the costs absorbed by the American taxpayers, who of course paid for the small army of Secret Service agents also deployed to the event. The national security state hardly pauses a second over a decision to drop $11 million for a nice barbeque. Security, of course, forms the main course."
Sunday, August 29, 2010
How lampooning cost a General his job
Oh dear, those types who take themselves so seriously.
In this case a general pored scorn on the military hierarchy using Powerpoint. Salon explains:
"An Army reserve colonel on his second Afghanistan tour has been kicked out of that country for writing an editorial about how much he hates PowerPoint.
Col. Lawrence Sellin was on the staff of the International Security Assistance Force’s Joint Command, the organization that, according to Spencer Ackerman, "formed last year to oversee the war’s day-to-day operations." PowerPoint enthusiast and Afghanistan war commander David Petraeus loves the IJC. Sellin thinks it's a pointless bureaucratic nightmare that accomplishes nothing.
So he wrote a hilarious editorial about the IJC, which was published by UPI. An excerpt:
In this case a general pored scorn on the military hierarchy using Powerpoint. Salon explains:
"An Army reserve colonel on his second Afghanistan tour has been kicked out of that country for writing an editorial about how much he hates PowerPoint.
Col. Lawrence Sellin was on the staff of the International Security Assistance Force’s Joint Command, the organization that, according to Spencer Ackerman, "formed last year to oversee the war’s day-to-day operations." PowerPoint enthusiast and Afghanistan war commander David Petraeus loves the IJC. Sellin thinks it's a pointless bureaucratic nightmare that accomplishes nothing.
So he wrote a hilarious editorial about the IJC, which was published by UPI. An excerpt:
'For headquarters staff, war consists largely of the endless tinkering with PowerPoint slides to conform with the idiosyncrasies of cognitively challenged generals in order to spoon-feed them information. Even one tiny flaw in a slide can halt a general's thought processes as abruptly as a computer system's blue screen of death.'"
Hearing the other side
The Western press rarely publishes any articles with the viewpoint of Arabs in the Middle East, let alone Palestinians or Israeli Arabs.
Haneen Zoabi is an Arab Palestinian and member of the Israeli Knesset. She has been under constant personal villification especially since she was a member of the flotilla back in May which sought to get through to Gaza and was then attacked by the Israeli military.
NewStatesman has interviewed Zoabi - which can be read here.
An example of the Q & A:
"What is it like being a Palestinian in Israel?
Israel did everything it could to make us forget our history: controlling education and the media, putting us in a ghetto, preventing us from having normal relations with the Arab world and visiting our families in Syria and Lebanon."
Haneen Zoabi is an Arab Palestinian and member of the Israeli Knesset. She has been under constant personal villification especially since she was a member of the flotilla back in May which sought to get through to Gaza and was then attacked by the Israeli military.
NewStatesman has interviewed Zoabi - which can be read here.
An example of the Q & A:
"What is it like being a Palestinian in Israel?
Israel did everything it could to make us forget our history: controlling education and the media, putting us in a ghetto, preventing us from having normal relations with the Arab world and visiting our families in Syria and Lebanon."
Afghanistan: Nine Years Later Looks it's Much the Same: A Mess
It is hard to believe that 9 years have passed since the West moved / invaded / charged into Afghanistan - to eradicate those terrible terrorists, we were all told, responsible for all manner of things.
9 years on and what do we have? A mess, as this piece from CommonDreams makes so very clear:
"OK. The roads are impressive. Specifically, the fact that they exist. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, more than two decades of civil conflict had left the country bereft of basic infrastructure. Roads, bridges and tunnels had been bombed and mined. What didn't blow up got ground down by tanks. Maintenance? Don't be funny.
It took them too long to get started, but U.S. occupation forces deserve credit for slapping down asphalt. Brutal, bone-crushing ordeals that used to take four days can be measured in smooth, endless-grey-ribboned hours. Bridges have been replaced. Tunnels have been shored up. Most major highways and major city streets have been paved.
But that's about it.
As of 2008 the U.S. claimed to have spent $1.3 billion on construction projects in Afghanistan. Where'd it all go? Roads don't cost that much.
That's the Big Question here. As far as anyone can tell, the only sign of economic improvement is a building boomlet: green and pink Arab-style glass-and-marble McMansions, guarded by AK-47-toting guards and owned by politically connected goons, are going up on the outskirts of every Afghan city. Most Afghans still live in squalor that compares unfavorably to places like Mumbai and Karachi. Beggars are everywhere. Most people haven't gotten any help."
Read on here.
9 years on and what do we have? A mess, as this piece from CommonDreams makes so very clear:
"OK. The roads are impressive. Specifically, the fact that they exist. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, more than two decades of civil conflict had left the country bereft of basic infrastructure. Roads, bridges and tunnels had been bombed and mined. What didn't blow up got ground down by tanks. Maintenance? Don't be funny.
It took them too long to get started, but U.S. occupation forces deserve credit for slapping down asphalt. Brutal, bone-crushing ordeals that used to take four days can be measured in smooth, endless-grey-ribboned hours. Bridges have been replaced. Tunnels have been shored up. Most major highways and major city streets have been paved.
But that's about it.
As of 2008 the U.S. claimed to have spent $1.3 billion on construction projects in Afghanistan. Where'd it all go? Roads don't cost that much.
That's the Big Question here. As far as anyone can tell, the only sign of economic improvement is a building boomlet: green and pink Arab-style glass-and-marble McMansions, guarded by AK-47-toting guards and owned by politically connected goons, are going up on the outskirts of every Afghan city. Most Afghans still live in squalor that compares unfavorably to places like Mumbai and Karachi. Beggars are everywhere. Most people haven't gotten any help."
Read on here.
Dot Earth
Dot Earth? It's a new section in The New York Times. The Times explains:
"By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, which recently moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section, Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Conceived in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Dot Earth tracks relevant developments from suburbia to Siberia. The blog is an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts."
Go to Dot Earth here.
"By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, which recently moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section, Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Conceived in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Dot Earth tracks relevant developments from suburbia to Siberia. The blog is an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts."
Go to Dot Earth here.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The US an exporter of terrorism?
The notion of the US exporting terrorism will take many aback. But, the latest Wikileaked documents confirm the fact. Surprising? Perhaps not when one reflects on the matter.
Paul Pillar, writing in the column Argument on FP, considers what the latest Wikileak revelations reveal from the CIA's Red Cell:
"Partly because the deadliest attack in the history of modern international terrorism was against the United States, Americans tend to see their own country as the center of the counterterrorist universe. It was a U.S. president who declared a "war on terror," led by the United States. Although U.S. officials have said a lot about international cooperation, the cooperation they have had in mind has been mostly a matter of the United States leading, pushing, or insisting, and other countries conforming or complying. The same U.S. president summarized his standard for other countries' counterterrorist performance with the phrase "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" -- the "us" of course being the United States -- and the United States has shown a tendency to lord that standard over its foreign counterterrorist partners. The transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama has softened these hard edges, but Americans still take a very U.S.-centric approach to the subject."
And:
"The Red Cell assessment notes that some pushing back already has occurred, probably spurred by annoyance over the asymmetry in how the United States handles renditions and information sharing. It cites the example of Italy issuing criminal warrants in 2005 for the arrest of U.S. officials involved in the abduction and rendering to Egypt of an Egyptian cleric. Again, think of the roles being reversed: It would be a subject of great outrage, to put it mildly, in the United States if Italian officers were found to have secretly abducted someone from U.S. soil and flown him out to be locked up in someone else's prison. The assessment correctly observes that the price of contretemps arising from such disagreements includes damage to bilateral relations as well as more specific damage to counterterrorist cooperation."
Paul Pillar, writing in the column Argument on FP, considers what the latest Wikileak revelations reveal from the CIA's Red Cell:
"Partly because the deadliest attack in the history of modern international terrorism was against the United States, Americans tend to see their own country as the center of the counterterrorist universe. It was a U.S. president who declared a "war on terror," led by the United States. Although U.S. officials have said a lot about international cooperation, the cooperation they have had in mind has been mostly a matter of the United States leading, pushing, or insisting, and other countries conforming or complying. The same U.S. president summarized his standard for other countries' counterterrorist performance with the phrase "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" -- the "us" of course being the United States -- and the United States has shown a tendency to lord that standard over its foreign counterterrorist partners. The transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama has softened these hard edges, but Americans still take a very U.S.-centric approach to the subject."
And:
"The Red Cell assessment notes that some pushing back already has occurred, probably spurred by annoyance over the asymmetry in how the United States handles renditions and information sharing. It cites the example of Italy issuing criminal warrants in 2005 for the arrest of U.S. officials involved in the abduction and rendering to Egypt of an Egyptian cleric. Again, think of the roles being reversed: It would be a subject of great outrage, to put it mildly, in the United States if Italian officers were found to have secretly abducted someone from U.S. soil and flown him out to be locked up in someone else's prison. The assessment correctly observes that the price of contretemps arising from such disagreements includes damage to bilateral relations as well as more specific damage to counterterrorist cooperation."
People?.....or Politics?
Pakistan is a bit on the nose with the international community......but does that mean that its people need to suffer without aid from the rest of the world, as they literally fight to survive those horrendous floods?
The floods which have devastated Pakistan are so extensive so as to defy comprehension. A third of the population affected in a area the size of Great Britain. 6 million children alone.
Read one of the latest reports from Australia's ABC reporter on the ground here. Meanwhile, whatever charity you favour, give generously. It's the people we are helping, not the Government of Pakistan.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
How to use US$100 million in right wing causes against Obama
Money knows no bounds.....as this piece "Covert Operations" from the The New Yorker amply demonstrates.
Introducing the Koch brothers...
"With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus."
Introducing the Koch brothers...
"With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus."
Maybe we are all headed to dieting
Food is the stuff of life! But perhaps there won't be enough to go around for all the people of the world.
It's an issue taken up by Mark Bitman in a piece "Seeing a Time (Soon) When We’ll All Be Dieting" in The New York Times:
"Fifty years ago, a billion people were undernourished or starving; the number is about the same today. That’s actually progress, since a billion represented a third of the human race then, and “only” a sixth now.
Today we have another worry: roughly the same number of people eat too much. But, says Julian Cribb, a veteran science journalist from Australia, “The era of cheap, abundant food is over.”
Like many other experts, he argues that we have passed the peak of oil production, and it’s all downhill from now on. He then presents evidence that we have passed the peaks for water, fertilizer and land, and that we will all soon be made painfully aware that we have passed it for food, as wealthy nations experience shortages and rising prices, and poorer ones starve.
Much of “The Coming Famine” builds an argument that we’ve jumped off a cliff and that global chaos — a tidal wave of people fleeing their own countries for wherever they can find food — is all but guaranteed. The rest of the book concentrates on catching an outcropping of rock with a finger and scrambling back up. The writing is neither personality-filled nor especially fluid, but the sheer number of terrifying facts makes the book gripping."
It's an issue taken up by Mark Bitman in a piece "Seeing a Time (Soon) When We’ll All Be Dieting" in The New York Times:
"Fifty years ago, a billion people were undernourished or starving; the number is about the same today. That’s actually progress, since a billion represented a third of the human race then, and “only” a sixth now.
Today we have another worry: roughly the same number of people eat too much. But, says Julian Cribb, a veteran science journalist from Australia, “The era of cheap, abundant food is over.”
Like many other experts, he argues that we have passed the peak of oil production, and it’s all downhill from now on. He then presents evidence that we have passed the peaks for water, fertilizer and land, and that we will all soon be made painfully aware that we have passed it for food, as wealthy nations experience shortages and rising prices, and poorer ones starve.
Much of “The Coming Famine” builds an argument that we’ve jumped off a cliff and that global chaos — a tidal wave of people fleeing their own countries for wherever they can find food — is all but guaranteed. The rest of the book concentrates on catching an outcropping of rock with a finger and scrambling back up. The writing is neither personality-filled nor especially fluid, but the sheer number of terrifying facts makes the book gripping."
If anyone is fanatic it's Sarah Palin
The battle-lines are well and truly drawn in relation to the so-called building of a mosque on Ground Zero. The debate has brought out rabid racists and highlighted the prejudices and intolerances of people like Sarah Palin and various TV commentators, notably on the Sun King's Fox News.
Mark Steel, op-ed writer for Britain's The Independent in " If anyone is fanatic it's Sarah Palin" has a take on the controversy - written with more than a dose of irony and tongue-in-cheek:
"To give yourself a stressful and futile day, try telling people there are no plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. You'll get nowhere, although the truth is there are plans to build an Islamic centre, with a swimming pool open to everyone, two blocks away from Ground Zero. So if this is a continuation of the terrorist agenda as claimed, it's been a peculiar plan, and Bin Laden must have started by telling his followers "First we will destroy their buildings – and then, oo it's so deliciously evil, we will get people to swim near to where the buildings were... mwaHAHAHAHAHA."
The centre will include a memorial to victims of the attack on the towers, but even so Sarah Palin has called upon "peaceful Muslims" to reject the building. So, as she's asking Muslims to oppose a centre open to everyone, and that commemorates the victims of 9/11, it seems likely she's a militant Jihadist who thinks the building will be a betrayal of true radical Islam. She's certainly got experience of being filmed with rifles so she's probably sat by one while making a video up a mountain right now, leaning into the camera and booming "The front crawl is the agenda of the infidel, my friends."
The centre will also include a basketball court, but that doesn't convince these people because it won't be proper basketball, it will be Muslim basketball, and there's bound to have been some senator on Fox News howling "We've got to ask ourselves why these guys want to learn an American sport like this. Now, you imagine you've got the tallest Muslims learning to jump up high, next time you want to bring down a tower you don't have to fly planes to do it, you just get these guys to jump up with whatever bomb they've smuggled in through Mexico and whack, you've got five million dead."
Mark Steel, op-ed writer for Britain's The Independent in " If anyone is fanatic it's Sarah Palin" has a take on the controversy - written with more than a dose of irony and tongue-in-cheek:
"To give yourself a stressful and futile day, try telling people there are no plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. You'll get nowhere, although the truth is there are plans to build an Islamic centre, with a swimming pool open to everyone, two blocks away from Ground Zero. So if this is a continuation of the terrorist agenda as claimed, it's been a peculiar plan, and Bin Laden must have started by telling his followers "First we will destroy their buildings – and then, oo it's so deliciously evil, we will get people to swim near to where the buildings were... mwaHAHAHAHAHA."
The centre will include a memorial to victims of the attack on the towers, but even so Sarah Palin has called upon "peaceful Muslims" to reject the building. So, as she's asking Muslims to oppose a centre open to everyone, and that commemorates the victims of 9/11, it seems likely she's a militant Jihadist who thinks the building will be a betrayal of true radical Islam. She's certainly got experience of being filmed with rifles so she's probably sat by one while making a video up a mountain right now, leaning into the camera and booming "The front crawl is the agenda of the infidel, my friends."
The centre will also include a basketball court, but that doesn't convince these people because it won't be proper basketball, it will be Muslim basketball, and there's bound to have been some senator on Fox News howling "We've got to ask ourselves why these guys want to learn an American sport like this. Now, you imagine you've got the tallest Muslims learning to jump up high, next time you want to bring down a tower you don't have to fly planes to do it, you just get these guys to jump up with whatever bomb they've smuggled in through Mexico and whack, you've got five million dead."
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Why foodbills are sky-rocketing
From Spiegel International OnLine:
"Financial speculators have discovered agricultural commodities, and the result has been skyrocketing prices for wheat, barley and other grains. SPIEGEL spoke with agricultural economist Joachim von Braun about how to curb such speculation and the dangers for the world's poor."
Joachim von Braun, 60, is one of the world's leading agricultural economists. He has been the director of the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn since May. Before that, he spent seven years as head of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC.
Read the Q & A here.
"Financial speculators have discovered agricultural commodities, and the result has been skyrocketing prices for wheat, barley and other grains. SPIEGEL spoke with agricultural economist Joachim von Braun about how to curb such speculation and the dangers for the world's poor."
Joachim von Braun, 60, is one of the world's leading agricultural economists. He has been the director of the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn since May. Before that, he spent seven years as head of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC.
Read the Q & A here.
Why bother about the small matter of evidence!
The case of Death Row inmate Troy Davis has, justifiably, attracted world-wide interest. By any objective yardstick the man appears innocent.
The US justice "system" at work, would seem to suggest otherwise. As you read the piece below from CommonDreams reflect on the fact of how many prosecution witnesses have recanted their evidence:
"A federal judge has ruled that Death Row inmate Troy Davis failed to prove his innocence during this summer's extraordinary Supreme Court hearing on his conviction for the 1989 killing of a Georgia police officer – that, despite no physical evidence, 7 of 9 prosecution witnesses recanting their testimony, and other witnesses naming another man as the killer. The judge called the new evidence "smoke and mirrors," which seems almost as cruel as Davis' fate"
The US justice "system" at work, would seem to suggest otherwise. As you read the piece below from CommonDreams reflect on the fact of how many prosecution witnesses have recanted their evidence:
"A federal judge has ruled that Death Row inmate Troy Davis failed to prove his innocence during this summer's extraordinary Supreme Court hearing on his conviction for the 1989 killing of a Georgia police officer – that, despite no physical evidence, 7 of 9 prosecution witnesses recanting their testimony, and other witnesses naming another man as the killer. The judge called the new evidence "smoke and mirrors," which seems almost as cruel as Davis' fate"
Yuck!
If you were sceptical about former Brit PM Tony Blair but did not totally regard him with disdain, then this piece "Tony Blair's new book 'is like a love letter to George Bush'" from the MailOnline about the forthcoming Blair book suggest to you that Blair, if nothing else, lacks any character:
"Tony Blair's forthcoming memoirs will read like a 'love letter' to George W Bush, insiders claim.
The autobiography will praise the former U.S. president, with whom Mr Blair launched the controversial invasion of Iraq in 2003, as 'highly intelligent' and 'visionary'.
The former prime minister is wheeling out his wife Cherie and their four children to publicise the book, entitled A Journey, across the Atlantic.
They will appear at a glitzy awards ceremony in the U.S. at which Mr Blair, who led Britain into four wars, will receive a medal to celebrate his efforts towards peace.
It will be the first time the whole family have been seen together since he left office in 2007.
News of the publicity efforts comes as agreed to give the profits from his book – expected to be almost £5million – to the Royal British Legion simply to ensure it is not a flop.
There had been fears that many would refuse to buy the memoirs rather than line the pockets of a man they accuse of having started an illegal war.
Insiders who have seen drafts of the autobiography say it showers praise on Mr Bush as the only politician in the world with the 'courage and commitment' to take on Al Qaeda.
A source said: 'It is basically an extended love letter. Tony says he was wowed by Bush's strength, courage and conviction and saw him as a highly intelligent and visionary friend.
'It's the biggest and most unapologetic defence of Bush and his ideas ever written.'"
"Tony Blair's forthcoming memoirs will read like a 'love letter' to George W Bush, insiders claim.
The autobiography will praise the former U.S. president, with whom Mr Blair launched the controversial invasion of Iraq in 2003, as 'highly intelligent' and 'visionary'.
The former prime minister is wheeling out his wife Cherie and their four children to publicise the book, entitled A Journey, across the Atlantic.
They will appear at a glitzy awards ceremony in the U.S. at which Mr Blair, who led Britain into four wars, will receive a medal to celebrate his efforts towards peace.
It will be the first time the whole family have been seen together since he left office in 2007.
News of the publicity efforts comes as agreed to give the profits from his book – expected to be almost £5million – to the Royal British Legion simply to ensure it is not a flop.
There had been fears that many would refuse to buy the memoirs rather than line the pockets of a man they accuse of having started an illegal war.
Insiders who have seen drafts of the autobiography say it showers praise on Mr Bush as the only politician in the world with the 'courage and commitment' to take on Al Qaeda.
A source said: 'It is basically an extended love letter. Tony says he was wowed by Bush's strength, courage and conviction and saw him as a highly intelligent and visionary friend.
'It's the biggest and most unapologetic defence of Bush and his ideas ever written.'"
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Celebrating a namesake's 150 anniversary
This blog, as readers know all too well, is called Mahler's Prodigal Son.
The affinity to and love of Mahler's music is considerable. One could say that this blogger is a Mahler junky.
This being the 150 anniversary of Mahler's birth imagine the joy of discovering a web site - with recordings of Mahler's music.
Check it out here.
The affinity to and love of Mahler's music is considerable. One could say that this blogger is a Mahler junky.
This being the 150 anniversary of Mahler's birth imagine the joy of discovering a web site - with recordings of Mahler's music.
Check it out here.
Despite all the hype, those "settlement" negotiations will come to nought
The news sounds good. After a long stalemate, direct peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are to resume in a few weeks time.
Stephen Walt, professor of International Relations at Harvard, in his blog on FP, suggests its all hype and nothing will really happen:
"Why do I say this? Three reasons.
1. There is no sign that the Palestinians are willing to accept less than a viable, territorially contiguous state in the West Bank (and eventually, Gaza), including a capital in East Jerusalem and some sort of political formula (i.e., fig-leaf) on the refugee issue. By the way, this outcome supposedly what the Clinton and Bush adminstrations favored, and what Obama supposedly supports as well.
2. There is no sign that Israel's government is willing to accept anything more than a symbolic Palestinian "state" consisting of a set of disconnected Bantustans, with Israel in full control of the borders, air space, water supplies, electromagnetic spectrum. etc. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that this is what he means by a "two-state solution," and he has repeatedly declared that Israel intends to keep all of Jerusalem and maybe a long-term military presence in the Jordan River valley. There are now roughly 500,000 Israeli Jews living outside the 1967 borders, and it is hard to imagine any Israeli government evacuating a significant fraction of them. Even if Netanyahu wanted to be more forthcoming, his coalition wouldn't let him make any meaningful concessions. And while the talks drag on, the illegal settlements will continue to expand.
3. There is no sign that the U.S. government is willing to put meaningful pressure on Israel. We're clearly willing to twist Mahmoud Abbas' arm to the breaking point (which is why he's agreed to talks, even as Israel continues to nibble away at the territory of the future Palestinian state), but Obama and his Middle East team have long since abandoned any pretense of bringing even modest pressure to bear on Netanyahu. Absent that, why should anyone expect Bibi to change his position?"
Continue reading here.
Stephen Walt, professor of International Relations at Harvard, in his blog on FP, suggests its all hype and nothing will really happen:
"Why do I say this? Three reasons.
1. There is no sign that the Palestinians are willing to accept less than a viable, territorially contiguous state in the West Bank (and eventually, Gaza), including a capital in East Jerusalem and some sort of political formula (i.e., fig-leaf) on the refugee issue. By the way, this outcome supposedly what the Clinton and Bush adminstrations favored, and what Obama supposedly supports as well.
2. There is no sign that Israel's government is willing to accept anything more than a symbolic Palestinian "state" consisting of a set of disconnected Bantustans, with Israel in full control of the borders, air space, water supplies, electromagnetic spectrum. etc. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that this is what he means by a "two-state solution," and he has repeatedly declared that Israel intends to keep all of Jerusalem and maybe a long-term military presence in the Jordan River valley. There are now roughly 500,000 Israeli Jews living outside the 1967 borders, and it is hard to imagine any Israeli government evacuating a significant fraction of them. Even if Netanyahu wanted to be more forthcoming, his coalition wouldn't let him make any meaningful concessions. And while the talks drag on, the illegal settlements will continue to expand.
3. There is no sign that the U.S. government is willing to put meaningful pressure on Israel. We're clearly willing to twist Mahmoud Abbas' arm to the breaking point (which is why he's agreed to talks, even as Israel continues to nibble away at the territory of the future Palestinian state), but Obama and his Middle East team have long since abandoned any pretense of bringing even modest pressure to bear on Netanyahu. Absent that, why should anyone expect Bibi to change his position?"
Continue reading here.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Afghanistan: Get the "mafia-like groups" out!
If there was ever a slap in the face for the NATO forces in Afghanistan, and especially the countless private contractors being paid by various governments, it comes from no lesser person than President Karzai. Get 'em out he says! - in the strongest and most direct language.
The Huffington Post reports:
"Afghanistan's embattled president Hamid Karzai said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers were indirectly funding "mafia-like groups" and terrorist activities with the American government's support of private contractors inside his country.
In a rare U.S. media appearance, Karzai continued to press for the removal of the vast majority of U.S. private contractors by the end of this year. He argued that their continued presence inside Afghanistan was "an obstruction and impediment" to the country's growth, a massive waste of money, and a catalyst for corruption among Afghan officials.
"The more we wait the more we lose," Karzai said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "Therefore we have decided as an Afghan government to bring an end to the presence of these security companies... who are not only causing corruption in this country but who are looting and stealing from the Afghan people."
The Huffington Post reports:
"Afghanistan's embattled president Hamid Karzai said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers were indirectly funding "mafia-like groups" and terrorist activities with the American government's support of private contractors inside his country.
In a rare U.S. media appearance, Karzai continued to press for the removal of the vast majority of U.S. private contractors by the end of this year. He argued that their continued presence inside Afghanistan was "an obstruction and impediment" to the country's growth, a massive waste of money, and a catalyst for corruption among Afghan officials.
"The more we wait the more we lose," Karzai said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "Therefore we have decided as an Afghan government to bring an end to the presence of these security companies... who are not only causing corruption in this country but who are looting and stealing from the Afghan people."
'Yoga Wars' where there ought to be Karma
'War' in the world of yoga? No peace where there ought to be karma?
The Washington Post reports on something which probably slipped under the radar of most people in the yoga world:
"Heard of Naked Yoga? Kosher Yoga? Yoga for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?
More than 30 million Americans practice some sort of yoga in an ever-expanding industry generating an estimated $6 billion in the United States alone.
But in the birthplace of yoga, an Indian government agency is fighting what it calls "yoga theft" after several U.S. companies said they wanted to copyright or patent their versions. Yoga is a part of humanity's shared knowledge, the agency says, and any business claiming the postures as its own is violating the very spirit of the ancient practice.
India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library has gathered a team of yogis from nine schools and 200 scientists to scan ancient texts, including the writings of Patanjali, thought to be the original compiler of yoga sutras. The group is documenting more than 900 yoga postures and making a video catalogue of 250 of the most popular ones, from sun salutation to downward-facing dog.
The catalogue will be released next month and given to the international patent system, which yoga gurus in India say is essential in an age when cultural traditions can cross borders instantaneously.
"Yoga is collective knowledge and is available for use by everybody no matter what the interpretation," said V.K. Gupta, head of the digital library, which was set up by the ministries of health and science. "It would be very inappropriate if some companies try to prevent others from any yoga practice, even if they call it some other name. So we wanted to ensure that, in the future, nobody will be able to claim that he has created a yoga posture which was actually already created in 2500 B.C. in India.
The library has documented other traditional Indian knowledge, including ayurvedic treatments and homeopathy. Tens of thousands of yoga postures have been compiled, but many are not widely practiced."
The Washington Post reports on something which probably slipped under the radar of most people in the yoga world:
"Heard of Naked Yoga? Kosher Yoga? Yoga for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?
More than 30 million Americans practice some sort of yoga in an ever-expanding industry generating an estimated $6 billion in the United States alone.
But in the birthplace of yoga, an Indian government agency is fighting what it calls "yoga theft" after several U.S. companies said they wanted to copyright or patent their versions. Yoga is a part of humanity's shared knowledge, the agency says, and any business claiming the postures as its own is violating the very spirit of the ancient practice.
India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library has gathered a team of yogis from nine schools and 200 scientists to scan ancient texts, including the writings of Patanjali, thought to be the original compiler of yoga sutras. The group is documenting more than 900 yoga postures and making a video catalogue of 250 of the most popular ones, from sun salutation to downward-facing dog.
The catalogue will be released next month and given to the international patent system, which yoga gurus in India say is essential in an age when cultural traditions can cross borders instantaneously.
"Yoga is collective knowledge and is available for use by everybody no matter what the interpretation," said V.K. Gupta, head of the digital library, which was set up by the ministries of health and science. "It would be very inappropriate if some companies try to prevent others from any yoga practice, even if they call it some other name. So we wanted to ensure that, in the future, nobody will be able to claim that he has created a yoga posture which was actually already created in 2500 B.C. in India.
The library has documented other traditional Indian knowledge, including ayurvedic treatments and homeopathy. Tens of thousands of yoga postures have been compiled, but many are not widely practiced."
What isn't being reported about Iraq
All the hype surrounding the so-called withdrawal of American "combat" troops from Iraq fails to report on the terrible state in which the war-ravaged country has been left.
Foreign Policy in Focus in "What You Will Not Hear about Iraq" reports on the sad state of affairs in Iraq:
"Iraq has between 25 and 50 percent unemployment, a dysfunctional parliament, rampant disease, an epidemic of mental illness, and sprawling slums. The killing of innocent people has become part of daily life. What a havoc the United States has wreaked in Iraq.
UN-HABITAT, an agency of the United Nations, recently published a 218-page report entitled State of the World’s Cities, 2010-2011. The report is full of statistics on the status of cities around the world and their demographics. It defines slum dwellers as those living in urban centers without one of the following: durable structures to protect them from climate, sufficient living area, sufficient access to water, access to sanitation facilities, and freedom from eviction.
Almost intentionally hidden in these statistics is one shocking fact about urban Iraqi populations. For the past few decades, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the percentage of the urban population living in slums in Iraq hovered just below 20 percent. Today, that percentage has risen to 53 percent: 11 million of the 19 million total urban dwellers. In the past decade, most countries have made progress toward reducing slum dwellers. But Iraq has gone rapidly and dangerously in the opposite direction.
According to the U.S. Census of 2000, 80 percent of the 285 million people living in the United States are urban dwellers. Those living in slums are well below 5 percent. If we translate the Iraqi statistic into the U.S. context, 121 million people in the United States would be living in slums.
If the United States had an unemployment rate of 25-50 percent and 121 million people living in slums, riots would ensue, the military would take over, and democracy would evaporate. So why are people in the United States not concerned and saddened by the conditions in Iraq? Because most people in the United States do not know what happened in Iraq and what is happening there now. Our government, including the current administration, looks the other way and perpetuates the myth that life has improved in post-invasion Iraq. Our major news media reinforces this message.
I had high hopes that the new administration would tell the truth to its citizens about why we invaded Iraq and what we are doing currently in the country. President Obama promised to move forward and not look to the past. However problematic this refusal to examine on the past — particularly for historians — the president should at least inform the U.S. public of the current conditions in Iraq. How else can we expect our government to formulate appropriate policy?
More extensive congressional hearings on Iraq might have allowed us to learn about the myths propagated about Iraq prior to the invasion and the extent of the damage and destruction our invasion brought on Iraq. We would have learned about the tremendous increase in urban poverty and the expansion of city slums. Such facts about the current conditions of Iraq would help U.S. citizens to better understand the impact of the quick U.S. withdraw and what are our moral responsibilities in Iraq should be."
Foreign Policy in Focus in "What You Will Not Hear about Iraq" reports on the sad state of affairs in Iraq:
"Iraq has between 25 and 50 percent unemployment, a dysfunctional parliament, rampant disease, an epidemic of mental illness, and sprawling slums. The killing of innocent people has become part of daily life. What a havoc the United States has wreaked in Iraq.
UN-HABITAT, an agency of the United Nations, recently published a 218-page report entitled State of the World’s Cities, 2010-2011. The report is full of statistics on the status of cities around the world and their demographics. It defines slum dwellers as those living in urban centers without one of the following: durable structures to protect them from climate, sufficient living area, sufficient access to water, access to sanitation facilities, and freedom from eviction.
Almost intentionally hidden in these statistics is one shocking fact about urban Iraqi populations. For the past few decades, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the percentage of the urban population living in slums in Iraq hovered just below 20 percent. Today, that percentage has risen to 53 percent: 11 million of the 19 million total urban dwellers. In the past decade, most countries have made progress toward reducing slum dwellers. But Iraq has gone rapidly and dangerously in the opposite direction.
According to the U.S. Census of 2000, 80 percent of the 285 million people living in the United States are urban dwellers. Those living in slums are well below 5 percent. If we translate the Iraqi statistic into the U.S. context, 121 million people in the United States would be living in slums.
If the United States had an unemployment rate of 25-50 percent and 121 million people living in slums, riots would ensue, the military would take over, and democracy would evaporate. So why are people in the United States not concerned and saddened by the conditions in Iraq? Because most people in the United States do not know what happened in Iraq and what is happening there now. Our government, including the current administration, looks the other way and perpetuates the myth that life has improved in post-invasion Iraq. Our major news media reinforces this message.
I had high hopes that the new administration would tell the truth to its citizens about why we invaded Iraq and what we are doing currently in the country. President Obama promised to move forward and not look to the past. However problematic this refusal to examine on the past — particularly for historians — the president should at least inform the U.S. public of the current conditions in Iraq. How else can we expect our government to formulate appropriate policy?
More extensive congressional hearings on Iraq might have allowed us to learn about the myths propagated about Iraq prior to the invasion and the extent of the damage and destruction our invasion brought on Iraq. We would have learned about the tremendous increase in urban poverty and the expansion of city slums. Such facts about the current conditions of Iraq would help U.S. citizens to better understand the impact of the quick U.S. withdraw and what are our moral responsibilities in Iraq should be."
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Going off message and hope
Obama rode high as he entered the White House post a rather amazing election-campaign.
But the man, with little experience in any sort of position in government, has proven a disappointment on many levels. His latest foray into the controversy surrounding a supposed mosque at Ground Zero has only shown up what a political dilettante he is.
In her latest op-ed piece in The New York Times Maureen Dowd reflects on where Obama is at:
"Many people still have a confused view of Muslims, and the president seems unable to help navigate the country through its Islamophobia.
It is a prejudice stoked by Rush Limbaugh, who mocks “Imam Obama” as “America’s first Muslim president,” and by the evangelist Franklin Graham, who bizarrely told CNN’s John King: “I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father, like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother.”
Graham added: “The teaching of Islam is to hate the Jew, to hate the Christian, to kill them. Their goal is world domination.”
And:
"The president who is always talking about wanting to be perfectly clear is ever more opaque. The One, who owes his presidency to the intense feeling he stirred up, turns out to be a practical guy who can’t deal with intense feeling.
He ran as a man apart — Joe Biden was enlisted to folksy him up — and now he must deal with the fact that many see him as a man apart.
Too lofty to pay heed to the daily bump and grind of politics, Obama has failed to present himself as someone with the common touch. And to the extent that people don’t know him or don’t get him, he becomes easier to demonize.
Obama is the victim of the elevated expectations he so skillfully created in 2008.
He came as a redeemer and then — tied up in W.’s Gordian knots, dragged down by an economy leeched by wars and Wall Street charlatans — didn’t redeem. And nothing bums out a nation that blows with the wind like a self-appointed messiah who disappoints.
If we’re not the ones we’ve been waiting for, who are we?"
But the man, with little experience in any sort of position in government, has proven a disappointment on many levels. His latest foray into the controversy surrounding a supposed mosque at Ground Zero has only shown up what a political dilettante he is.
In her latest op-ed piece in The New York Times Maureen Dowd reflects on where Obama is at:
"Many people still have a confused view of Muslims, and the president seems unable to help navigate the country through its Islamophobia.
It is a prejudice stoked by Rush Limbaugh, who mocks “Imam Obama” as “America’s first Muslim president,” and by the evangelist Franklin Graham, who bizarrely told CNN’s John King: “I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father, like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother.”
Graham added: “The teaching of Islam is to hate the Jew, to hate the Christian, to kill them. Their goal is world domination.”
And:
"The president who is always talking about wanting to be perfectly clear is ever more opaque. The One, who owes his presidency to the intense feeling he stirred up, turns out to be a practical guy who can’t deal with intense feeling.
He ran as a man apart — Joe Biden was enlisted to folksy him up — and now he must deal with the fact that many see him as a man apart.
Too lofty to pay heed to the daily bump and grind of politics, Obama has failed to present himself as someone with the common touch. And to the extent that people don’t know him or don’t get him, he becomes easier to demonize.
Obama is the victim of the elevated expectations he so skillfully created in 2008.
He came as a redeemer and then — tied up in W.’s Gordian knots, dragged down by an economy leeched by wars and Wall Street charlatans — didn’t redeem. And nothing bums out a nation that blows with the wind like a self-appointed messiah who disappoints.
If we’re not the ones we’ve been waiting for, who are we?"
Economists: Yes, why should anyone believe them anymore?
Now, everyone recognises that economics isn't an exact science - but economists consistently cannot agree with one another, let alone get their prognosis and assessments right. So, with such a poor track record, why believe anything they say ?
It's a subject and question taken up by author Stephen Hill in a piece "Shorting Economists: The ‘Experts’ Keep Getting it Wrong" in The Nation:
"Based on such a miserable track record, I’m shorting economists and financial experts of all stripes. Most of them are wrong more than they are right. But that doesn’t prevent them from pontificating like an order of self-righteous priests. Considering how much damage they have caused, how many economic experts have lost their jobs or been otherwise defrocked? Indeed, many of the same people who caused the disaster—Fed chief Ben Bernanke, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, the latter two being Clinton treasury secretaries who got deregulation done, then split for Harvard and Citigroup, respectively—are still calling the shots. Summers, of course, is President Obama’s top economic adviser. Their economic priesthood protects its own, no matter how offending they have been, relocating them to another university or think tank, another government job or talking-head show.
So when the authorities say “a recovery is under way” or “stimulus rather than deficit reduction” or “deficit reduction instead of stimulus,” remember: These are the same experts who are unsure of how to measure, who too often substitute ideology and partisanship for broken theory, and usually have been flat wrong in their assessments. It is critically important that we find better measuring sticks and employ saner values for assessing what a successful economy looks like. Until then, we are flying in uncharted territory, without compass or radar, surrounded by fog. Heaven help us."
It's a subject and question taken up by author Stephen Hill in a piece "Shorting Economists: The ‘Experts’ Keep Getting it Wrong" in The Nation:
"Based on such a miserable track record, I’m shorting economists and financial experts of all stripes. Most of them are wrong more than they are right. But that doesn’t prevent them from pontificating like an order of self-righteous priests. Considering how much damage they have caused, how many economic experts have lost their jobs or been otherwise defrocked? Indeed, many of the same people who caused the disaster—Fed chief Ben Bernanke, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, the latter two being Clinton treasury secretaries who got deregulation done, then split for Harvard and Citigroup, respectively—are still calling the shots. Summers, of course, is President Obama’s top economic adviser. Their economic priesthood protects its own, no matter how offending they have been, relocating them to another university or think tank, another government job or talking-head show.
So when the authorities say “a recovery is under way” or “stimulus rather than deficit reduction” or “deficit reduction instead of stimulus,” remember: These are the same experts who are unsure of how to measure, who too often substitute ideology and partisanship for broken theory, and usually have been flat wrong in their assessments. It is critically important that we find better measuring sticks and employ saner values for assessing what a successful economy looks like. Until then, we are flying in uncharted territory, without compass or radar, surrounded by fog. Heaven help us."
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Talk,talk....and yet more talk - with scant hope in the air
The US has announced that the Israelis and Palestinians are to resume direct peace-talks next month. One might have been encouraged by the move, but a news analysis "In Mideast Talks, Scant Hopes From the Beginning" by The New York Times' Jerusalem Bureau Chief, gives one little hope that, once again, little will come of these new talks:
"The American invitation on Friday to the Israelis and Palestinians to start direct peace talks in two weeks in Washington was immediately accepted by both governments. But just below the surface there was an almost audible shrug. There is little confidence — close to none — on either side that the Obama administration’s goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.
An Israeli soldier marks a block on a concrete barrier near the Jewish settlement of Gilo.
Instead, there is a resigned fatalism in the air. Most analysts view the talks as pairing the unwilling with the unable — a strong right-wing Israeli coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with no desire to reach an agreement against a relatively moderate Palestinian leadership that is too weak and divided to do so.
“These direct negotiations are the option of the crippled and the helpless,” remarked Zakaria al-Qaq, vice president of Al Quds University and a Palestinian moderate, when asked his view of the development. “It is an act of self-deception that will lead nowhere.”
And Nahum Barnea, Israel’s pre-eminent political columnist, said in a phone interview: “Most Israelis have decided that nothing is going to come out of it, that it will have no bearing on their lives. So why should they care?”
That such a dismissive tone comes not from the known rejectionists — the Islamists of Hamas who rule in Gaza and the leadership of the Israeli settler community in the West Bank — but from mainstream thinkers is telling of the mood."
"The American invitation on Friday to the Israelis and Palestinians to start direct peace talks in two weeks in Washington was immediately accepted by both governments. But just below the surface there was an almost audible shrug. There is little confidence — close to none — on either side that the Obama administration’s goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.
An Israeli soldier marks a block on a concrete barrier near the Jewish settlement of Gilo.
Instead, there is a resigned fatalism in the air. Most analysts view the talks as pairing the unwilling with the unable — a strong right-wing Israeli coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with no desire to reach an agreement against a relatively moderate Palestinian leadership that is too weak and divided to do so.
“These direct negotiations are the option of the crippled and the helpless,” remarked Zakaria al-Qaq, vice president of Al Quds University and a Palestinian moderate, when asked his view of the development. “It is an act of self-deception that will lead nowhere.”
And Nahum Barnea, Israel’s pre-eminent political columnist, said in a phone interview: “Most Israelis have decided that nothing is going to come out of it, that it will have no bearing on their lives. So why should they care?”
That such a dismissive tone comes not from the known rejectionists — the Islamists of Hamas who rule in Gaza and the leadership of the Israeli settler community in the West Bank — but from mainstream thinkers is telling of the mood."
Tony Judt [1948-2010]
Tony Judt was an intellectual giant in the truest sense of the word.
The New York Review of Books - to which Judt was a regular contributor - has a wonderful reflection and tribute to the man and his work:
"Tony Judt was a very public intellectual but a very private man. He had a rich, close family life. In the last months of his illness, his wife, Jennifer Homans, and their sons, Daniel and Nicholas, set up for him a screensaver slideshow on his desktop monitor. Besides happy moments from family holidays, it showed a lot of mountains (particularly the Alps) and railway stations—trains and mountains being two of his private passions.
Tony had a couple of characteristic gestures. There was a motion of the hand, as if cooling it down after touching a hot saucepan or shaking off water. This denoted that something was silly, toe-curling, inauthentic. And there was a sideways inclination of the head, accompanied by a quick, wry lifting of one end of the mouth and a twinkle in the eye. This had multiple applications, ranging from satire and self-deprecation to an attitude that might inadequately be verbalized as c’est la vie. As motor neuron disease (ALS) relentlessly immobilized him, he could no longer make these characteristic gestures; but somehow he still managed to convey them with his eyes.
Tony was a fighter, and he fought this illness with all his strength and will. Not for him the consolations of imagined eternity or Kübler-Rossish “acceptance.” We laughed at the great line that the English playwright John Mortimer reported coming from the mouth of his dying father: “I’m always angry when I’m dying.” He was a clear-sighted realist about what was happening to him, and what would or would not come after. Less than three weeks before he died, I said something to the effect that I knew he was going through hell. “Yes,” he said, with the eye equivalent of that no longer possible shake of the head, “but hell is a nontransferable experience.” So better to talk of other things: friends, bêtes noires, politics, books."
The New York Review of Books - to which Judt was a regular contributor - has a wonderful reflection and tribute to the man and his work:
"Tony Judt was a very public intellectual but a very private man. He had a rich, close family life. In the last months of his illness, his wife, Jennifer Homans, and their sons, Daniel and Nicholas, set up for him a screensaver slideshow on his desktop monitor. Besides happy moments from family holidays, it showed a lot of mountains (particularly the Alps) and railway stations—trains and mountains being two of his private passions.
Tony had a couple of characteristic gestures. There was a motion of the hand, as if cooling it down after touching a hot saucepan or shaking off water. This denoted that something was silly, toe-curling, inauthentic. And there was a sideways inclination of the head, accompanied by a quick, wry lifting of one end of the mouth and a twinkle in the eye. This had multiple applications, ranging from satire and self-deprecation to an attitude that might inadequately be verbalized as c’est la vie. As motor neuron disease (ALS) relentlessly immobilized him, he could no longer make these characteristic gestures; but somehow he still managed to convey them with his eyes.
Tony was a fighter, and he fought this illness with all his strength and will. Not for him the consolations of imagined eternity or Kübler-Rossish “acceptance.” We laughed at the great line that the English playwright John Mortimer reported coming from the mouth of his dying father: “I’m always angry when I’m dying.” He was a clear-sighted realist about what was happening to him, and what would or would not come after. Less than three weeks before he died, I said something to the effect that I knew he was going through hell. “Yes,” he said, with the eye equivalent of that no longer possible shake of the head, “but hell is a nontransferable experience.” So better to talk of other things: friends, bêtes noires, politics, books."
Meet the knuckleheads .......
Fox News in the US has rightly been condemned for the overt racism most of its commentators exhibit - and no less for their rabid criticism of Obama and the more than nudge-nudge-wink-wink that Obama is Muslim. Add to that heady mix the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his like-minded toxic criticism of Obama and a Muslim "connection".
Result? As Slate reports in "Greetings, 18 Percenters! Let's meet the knucklehead Americans who think Barack Obama is a Muslim."
"Shall we set ourselves on fire at the news spat out by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life today that 18 percent of Americans recently polled believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim? Shall we pour gasoline over our heads before torching ourselves because the number of those who think he's a Muslim is up from 11 percent, recorded in March 2009, and up from 12 percent in March 2008, when the average American couldn't spell his name let alone name his religion?
I've got a book of matches and a gallon can of gasoline here, if you want to go first.
You probably do because you probably have a higher opinion of your fellow citizens than I do. But before you strike that match, I've got some more bad news. The Pew poll's other finding is that while 47 percent of Americans thought Obama was a Christian in 2008, 34 percent thought so this summer.
Maybe you'd like to drink some of that gasoline before you commence incineration.
It probably won't come as a surprise to you that the percentage of Republicans who think that Obama is a follower of Allah has risen from 17 percent to 31 percent between March 2009 and August 2010. But who among you are prepared for the news that the percentage of Democrats who think the same of Obama has risen from 7 percent to 10 percent? Or that this falsehood is also gaining currency among independents! Yes, 10 percent of independents thought Obama kicked with that foot in March 2009. In August 2010, 18 percent held that mistaken view.
Advertisement
Don't these people read newspapers or watch TV? As a matter of fact, many do. According to the poll, 60 percent (PDF) of those who believe Obama is a Muslim also told the pollsters that they learned it from the media. Seeing as I can recall no major or minor media report that presented proof that would convince any sentient creature over the age of 10 that Obama is a Muslim, I'm starting to feel better. The 18 percenters are imagining things. Non-media sources cited by the poll's respondents include Obama's behaviors or own words (11 percent), nonspecific things they've heard or read (7 percent), the Internet (7 percent), things heard or read during the presidential campaign (6 percent), Obama's ancestry (4 percent), and so on."
Result? As Slate reports in "Greetings, 18 Percenters! Let's meet the knucklehead Americans who think Barack Obama is a Muslim."
"Shall we set ourselves on fire at the news spat out by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life today that 18 percent of Americans recently polled believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim? Shall we pour gasoline over our heads before torching ourselves because the number of those who think he's a Muslim is up from 11 percent, recorded in March 2009, and up from 12 percent in March 2008, when the average American couldn't spell his name let alone name his religion?
I've got a book of matches and a gallon can of gasoline here, if you want to go first.
You probably do because you probably have a higher opinion of your fellow citizens than I do. But before you strike that match, I've got some more bad news. The Pew poll's other finding is that while 47 percent of Americans thought Obama was a Christian in 2008, 34 percent thought so this summer.
Maybe you'd like to drink some of that gasoline before you commence incineration.
It probably won't come as a surprise to you that the percentage of Republicans who think that Obama is a follower of Allah has risen from 17 percent to 31 percent between March 2009 and August 2010. But who among you are prepared for the news that the percentage of Democrats who think the same of Obama has risen from 7 percent to 10 percent? Or that this falsehood is also gaining currency among independents! Yes, 10 percent of independents thought Obama kicked with that foot in March 2009. In August 2010, 18 percent held that mistaken view.
Advertisement
Don't these people read newspapers or watch TV? As a matter of fact, many do. According to the poll, 60 percent (PDF) of those who believe Obama is a Muslim also told the pollsters that they learned it from the media. Seeing as I can recall no major or minor media report that presented proof that would convince any sentient creature over the age of 10 that Obama is a Muslim, I'm starting to feel better. The 18 percenters are imagining things. Non-media sources cited by the poll's respondents include Obama's behaviors or own words (11 percent), nonspecific things they've heard or read (7 percent), the Internet (7 percent), things heard or read during the presidential campaign (6 percent), Obama's ancestry (4 percent), and so on."
Friday, August 20, 2010
"Living" with a noose around one's neck
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has delivered a Report, in cooperation with the World Food Program (WFP), on the situation in Gaza.
Haaretz reports:
"According to the report, since 2008 the IDF has prevented access to land up to 1,500 meters outside the Green Line, and to naval zones up to 4.5 kilometers from the shore. All in all the IDF restricts access to 17 percent of Gaza's territory. At sea, the fishermen are completely barred from 85 percent of the naval territory to which they are entitled under the Oslo Accords.
The report estimates that some 178,000 individuals are directly affected by these access restrictions.
According to OCHA, the IDF enforces uses life fire on individuals who enter restricted zones. Though in most cases the troops fire warning shots, 22 people have been killed and 146 have been wounded in such incidents since the end of Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. The report further argues that this method of enforcement violates international humanitarian law, and that the local Palestinian population was never informed by Israel of the exact nature of the restrictions.
The research conducted by OCHA also suggested that the IDF has leveled farmland and destroyed personal property situated in restricted areas in efforts to keep Palestinians out. The farmers who own the lands have tried to make up the lost income with alternate forms of farming, the report argues, but their ability to harvest their crops is limited and the profits from the alternate methods comprise a fraction of the income generated on the original land. OCHA estimated some $308 million in losses as a direct result of the Israeli restrictions."
Haaretz reports:
"According to the report, since 2008 the IDF has prevented access to land up to 1,500 meters outside the Green Line, and to naval zones up to 4.5 kilometers from the shore. All in all the IDF restricts access to 17 percent of Gaza's territory. At sea, the fishermen are completely barred from 85 percent of the naval territory to which they are entitled under the Oslo Accords.
The report estimates that some 178,000 individuals are directly affected by these access restrictions.
According to OCHA, the IDF enforces uses life fire on individuals who enter restricted zones. Though in most cases the troops fire warning shots, 22 people have been killed and 146 have been wounded in such incidents since the end of Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. The report further argues that this method of enforcement violates international humanitarian law, and that the local Palestinian population was never informed by Israel of the exact nature of the restrictions.
The research conducted by OCHA also suggested that the IDF has leveled farmland and destroyed personal property situated in restricted areas in efforts to keep Palestinians out. The farmers who own the lands have tried to make up the lost income with alternate forms of farming, the report argues, but their ability to harvest their crops is limited and the profits from the alternate methods comprise a fraction of the income generated on the original land. OCHA estimated some $308 million in losses as a direct result of the Israeli restrictions."
Iceland - The World's Premier Press Have?
An interesting dimension to Iceland's economic woes and accommodating Wikileaks in the process. A kinda marriage made in heaven to satisfy two parties!
RTE News reports:
"After Iceland's near-economic collapse laid bare deep-seated corruption, the country aims to become a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers from around the globe by creating the world's most far-reaching freedom of information legislation.
The project is being developed with the help of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
It flies in the face of a growing tendency of governments trying to stifle a barrage of secret and sometimes embarrassing information made readily available by the internet.
Advertisement
On 16 June a unanimous parliament voted in favour of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a resolution aimed at protecting investigative journalists and their sources.
'We took all the best laws from around the world and pulled them together, just like tax havens do, in order to create freedom of information and expression, a transparency haven,' Birgitta Jonsdottir, the member of parliament behind the initiative, said."
RTE News reports:
"After Iceland's near-economic collapse laid bare deep-seated corruption, the country aims to become a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers from around the globe by creating the world's most far-reaching freedom of information legislation.
The project is being developed with the help of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
It flies in the face of a growing tendency of governments trying to stifle a barrage of secret and sometimes embarrassing information made readily available by the internet.
Advertisement
On 16 June a unanimous parliament voted in favour of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a resolution aimed at protecting investigative journalists and their sources.
'We took all the best laws from around the world and pulled them together, just like tax havens do, in order to create freedom of information and expression, a transparency haven,' Birgitta Jonsdottir, the member of parliament behind the initiative, said."
Robert Fisk: US troops say goodbye to Iraq - and leaves its mark of torture, corruption and civil war.
No journalist, author and commentator knows the Middle East like veteran of 30 years plus, Robert Fisk.
In his latest column for The Independent he provides a sober picture of what the Americans have left behind with their departure of "combat" troops from Iraq:
"When you invade someone else's country, there has to be a first soldier – just as there has to be a last."
And:
"So we should not be taken in by the tomfoolery on the Kuwaiti border in the last few hours, the departure of the last "combat" troops from Iraq two weeks ahead of schedule. Nor by the infantile cries of "We won" from teenage soldiers, some of whom must have been 12-years-old when George W Bush sent his army off on this catastrophic Iraqi adventure. They are leaving behind 50,000 men and women – a third of the entire US occupation force – who will be attacked and who will still have to fight against the insurgency.
Yes, officially they are there to train the gunmen and militiamen and the poorest of the poor who have joined the new Iraqi army, whose own commander does not believe they will be ready to defend their country until 2020. But they will still be in occupation – for surely one of the the "American interests" they must defend is their own presence – along with the thousands of armed and indisciplined mercenaries, western and eastern, who are shooting their way around Iraq to safeguard our precious western diplomats and businessmen. So say it out loud: we are not leaving.
Instead, the millions of American soldiers who have passed through Iraq have brought the Iraqis a plague. From Afghanistan – in which they showed as much interest after 2001 as they will show when they start "leaving" that country next year – they brought the infection of al-Qa'ida. They brought the disease of civil war. They injected Iraq with corruption on a grand scale. They stamped the seal of torture on Abu Ghraib – a worthy successor to the same prison under Saddam's vile rule – after stamping the seal of torture on Bagram and the black prisons of Afghanistan. They sectarianised a country that, for all its Saddamite brutality and corruption, had hitherto held its Sunnis and Shias together."
Radio Free Europe's Radio Liberty also reflects on the American withdrawal in a piece
"U.S. Iraq Troop Withdrawal 'In Name Only' As Country Faces Uncertain Future"
In his latest column for The Independent he provides a sober picture of what the Americans have left behind with their departure of "combat" troops from Iraq:
"When you invade someone else's country, there has to be a first soldier – just as there has to be a last."
And:
"So we should not be taken in by the tomfoolery on the Kuwaiti border in the last few hours, the departure of the last "combat" troops from Iraq two weeks ahead of schedule. Nor by the infantile cries of "We won" from teenage soldiers, some of whom must have been 12-years-old when George W Bush sent his army off on this catastrophic Iraqi adventure. They are leaving behind 50,000 men and women – a third of the entire US occupation force – who will be attacked and who will still have to fight against the insurgency.
Yes, officially they are there to train the gunmen and militiamen and the poorest of the poor who have joined the new Iraqi army, whose own commander does not believe they will be ready to defend their country until 2020. But they will still be in occupation – for surely one of the the "American interests" they must defend is their own presence – along with the thousands of armed and indisciplined mercenaries, western and eastern, who are shooting their way around Iraq to safeguard our precious western diplomats and businessmen. So say it out loud: we are not leaving.
Instead, the millions of American soldiers who have passed through Iraq have brought the Iraqis a plague. From Afghanistan – in which they showed as much interest after 2001 as they will show when they start "leaving" that country next year – they brought the infection of al-Qa'ida. They brought the disease of civil war. They injected Iraq with corruption on a grand scale. They stamped the seal of torture on Abu Ghraib – a worthy successor to the same prison under Saddam's vile rule – after stamping the seal of torture on Bagram and the black prisons of Afghanistan. They sectarianised a country that, for all its Saddamite brutality and corruption, had hitherto held its Sunnis and Shias together."
Radio Free Europe's Radio Liberty also reflects on the American withdrawal in a piece
"U.S. Iraq Troop Withdrawal 'In Name Only' As Country Faces Uncertain Future"
Thursday, August 19, 2010
No "mission accomplished" here
This short piece from CommonDreams says it all - and speaks for itself:
"After seven-plus years, one trillion dollars, the loss of 4,400 American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, the U. S. media widely reported the "last" U.S. combat brigade left that devastated country last night. Some media were astute enough to use the far more accurate "drawdown" to a mere, still heavily armed 50,000 troops. Some also noted the move came a day after a suicide bomber killed 59 people, and Iraq's two main political parties failed to reach agreement on forming a government. Or that private contractors will now double there. Or that huge uncertainties about Iraq's future remain, including its capacity to provide even basic services - like electricity - to its ravaged population. Most alarmingly, even federal officials were more conscientious than the media about calling it what it was - a "historic moment," with a whole lot of "but"s. Shiny new moniker notwithstanding, we'd add: It's one long-overdue step in a grievous process that should never have begun.
"This is a transition. This is not the end of something. It's a transition to something different. We have a long-term commitment to Iraq." - US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley"
"This is a transition. This is not the end of something. It's a transition to something different. We have a long-term commitment to Iraq." - US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley"
Be damned if you publish?....or publish and be damned!
The perennial debate. Publish and be damned or otherwise. The issue has become a very live one, as it should be, as a result of the Wikileaks of recent times.
The most awarded journalist in the world - apart from being a commentator and film-maker - John Pilger, writing for Information Clearing House, says:
"In one sense, the WikiLeaks revelations shame the dominant section of journalism devoted merely to taking down what cynical and malign power tells it. This is state stenography, not journalism. Look on the WikiLeaks site and read a Ministry of Defense document that describes the "threat" of real journalism. And so it should be a threat. Having published skillfully the WikiLeaks expose of a fraudulent war, the Guardian should now give its most powerful and unreserved editorial support to the protection of Julian Assange and his colleagues, whose truth-telling is as important as any in my lifetime."
Read the complete piece here.
The most awarded journalist in the world - apart from being a commentator and film-maker - John Pilger, writing for Information Clearing House, says:
"In one sense, the WikiLeaks revelations shame the dominant section of journalism devoted merely to taking down what cynical and malign power tells it. This is state stenography, not journalism. Look on the WikiLeaks site and read a Ministry of Defense document that describes the "threat" of real journalism. And so it should be a threat. Having published skillfully the WikiLeaks expose of a fraudulent war, the Guardian should now give its most powerful and unreserved editorial support to the protection of Julian Assange and his colleagues, whose truth-telling is as important as any in my lifetime."
Read the complete piece here.
Climate Change: At the frontline of the real thing
Credited to Getty ImagesThe real world in relation to climate change and how it effects people on the ground is addressed from 2 different sources.
First, from The Independent:
"Irrigated by one of the world's mightiest river systems, the Murray-Darling Basin yields nearly half of Australia's fresh produce. But the basin is ailing, and scientists fear that as climate change grips the driest inhabited continent, its main foodbowl could become a global warming ground zero.
The signs are already ominous: in the Riverland, one of the nation's major horticulture areas, dying vines and parched lemon trees attest to critical water shortages. Farmers have had their water allocations slashed during the recent crippling drought; 200 sold up, and many of those who hung on are struggling.
In Renmark, the region's oldest town, tales of hardship abound. Some families have spent their life savings; others are drowning in debt."
Secondly, John Nichols, writing for The Nation, in Australia, to report on the upcoming election [this Saturday]:
"Australia will hold national elections this week and there is no question that climate change is a front-and-center issue. I've appeared on a number of panels to discuss the election, and the matter of global warming has come up every time.
First off, it's a serious issue.
Second, the fight over how to address it has forced leadership changes in both major parties here.
Third, and most important, tens of thousands of Australians—including Bob Brown, the leader of the Green Party that could hold the balance of power in the Australian Senate after the voting is done—took to the streets for mass demonstrations demanding action".
Mindset in the slow [and non-existent] lane
Read this piece "Feeling old? Mindset university study shows how times have changed" from The Australian - and ponder on the "education"of today's young. The future, certainly on some levels, doesn't look all that encouraging.
"Most young Americans entering university this year can't write in cursive, think email is too slow, that Beethoven's a dog and Michelangelo a computer virus, according to an annual list compiled by two academics at a US college.
To students who will get their bachelor's degrees in 2014, Czechoslovakia has never existed, Fergie is a pop singer, not a duchess; Clint Eastwood is a sensitive movie director, not Dirty Harry; and John McEnroe stars in TV ads, not on the tennis court, Beloit College's “Mindset” list says.
The Mindset list was first compiled in 1998, for the class of 2002, by Beloit humanities professor Tom McBride and former public affairs director Ron Nief."
Continue reading here.
"Most young Americans entering university this year can't write in cursive, think email is too slow, that Beethoven's a dog and Michelangelo a computer virus, according to an annual list compiled by two academics at a US college.
To students who will get their bachelor's degrees in 2014, Czechoslovakia has never existed, Fergie is a pop singer, not a duchess; Clint Eastwood is a sensitive movie director, not Dirty Harry; and John McEnroe stars in TV ads, not on the tennis court, Beloit College's “Mindset” list says.
The Mindset list was first compiled in 1998, for the class of 2002, by Beloit humanities professor Tom McBride and former public affairs director Ron Nief."
Continue reading here.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Shameful Blair - yet again!
An op-ed piece in The Independent reflects on Tony Blair's donation of the proceeds of his memoir, to be published shortly, to a charity aiding those wounded in the Iraq War - which he was instrumental in starting in the first place.
"Some people have suggested the donation is Blair's conscience money, and the Catholic Church he's joined certainly has provisions for that. In the 18th century the Vatican even had a menu, listing the price to be paid to the Pope for redemption from each sin. For example "A nun who had given herself to several men" had to find 131 livres for absolution. So allowing for inflation, helping to start a catastrophic war by telling a pack of lies must be somewhere around £4.6m.
But there doesn't appear to be a sign of penance. Blair still says, when asked if he regrets going to war, "I have no regrets about overthrowing Saddam," which slightly skirts round the issue of the million others who got killed as well. It's as if Harold Shipman had been asked if he regretted his actions and said "I don't regret victim number 59, he was a right bastard", then gave the advance for his memoirs to an old people's home.
So there must be some other motivation, and for that perhaps you have to remember Blair is no longer an individual, he's a brand. He's a global business, like Kylie Minogue or Tiger Woods. He has a maze of corporations in his name, earning £11.7m in 2009 from the only two listed in this country. He earned a million from the Kuwaitis, he has houses worth £13m, a staff of 130, he doesn't say or do things because he thinks or feels them, he does what's decided by his financial and public relations advisors. You might as well say ,"I see the people of Daz have announced their latest powder astro-cleanses to literally demolish stains leaving linen fluffier than ever ever before. I wonder why they've said that." Blair makes decisions based on what's good for business.
And business isn't helped when you're tarnished with Iraq. Everyone associated with the war is backing away from it, so even Prescott now claims he doubted the evidence all along. Soon Bush will say, "I knew we should never have invaded Iraq but would anyone listen?"
So Blair has to repair his image, and this gesture could be part of that plan. Some people have suggested the motivation is irrelevant because the money will be so useful, but to test that theory, imagine if the British Legion announced "You'll never guess what. Today we got another donation of £4m, from sales of the latest DVD by Osama Bin Laden. It really has been our lucky week."
But there's only one thing we can know for certain. Cherie will be bloody furious. She probably sat at the meeting going "Give it away? The lot? Aaaaagh. What if instead we let some of the wounded live in one of our flats for a bit, at a reduced rent, as long as they keep the garden tidy?"
More damning "torture" photos
Breaking the Silence has revealed more photos which show the way in which Israelis treat Palestinians. Not a pretty picture - for a military which the Israeli Government claims is the most moral in the world.
CommonDreams reports:
"The Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence has posted more pictures of IDF soldiers abusing or humiliating Palestinian prisoners to prove what many of us suspected - that similar Facebook photos posted earlier this week are the norm, not the exception. Israeli activists say such pictures reflect the inevitable dehumanization wrought by the Occupation. More "trophy" pictures here. Graphic.
"It encapsulates precisely the feeling among soldiers serving in the territories. At some point, they stop seeing these handcuffed people as human beings." - Yehuda Shaul, founder of Breaking the Silence."
CommonDreams reports:
"The Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence has posted more pictures of IDF soldiers abusing or humiliating Palestinian prisoners to prove what many of us suspected - that similar Facebook photos posted earlier this week are the norm, not the exception. Israeli activists say such pictures reflect the inevitable dehumanization wrought by the Occupation. More "trophy" pictures here. Graphic.
"It encapsulates precisely the feeling among soldiers serving in the territories. At some point, they stop seeing these handcuffed people as human beings." - Yehuda Shaul, founder of Breaking the Silence."
The politics and ire about a mosque
The heat generated by the approval granted by the New York authorities to build a "mosque" on Ground Zero continues to ramp up. Much of what is being said is plain racism and ugly. The President has been drawn into the issue as have both political parties and the people of The Tea Party.
Stephen Walt, in his blog in "Why America is going to regret the Cordoba House controversy" on FP, writes:
"It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going on here: All you really need to do is look at how the critics of the community center project keep describing it. In their rhetoric it is always the "Mosque at Ground Zero," a label that conjures up mental images of a soaring minaret on the site of the 9/11 attacks. Never mind that the building in question isn't primarily a mosque (it's a community center that will house an array of activities, including a gym, pool, auditorium, and oh yes, a prayer room). Never mind that it isn't at "Ground Zero": it's two blocks away and will not even be visible from the site. (And exactly why does it matter if it was?) You know that someone is engaged in demagoguery when they keep using demonstrably false but alarmist phrases over and over again.
What I don't understand is why critics of this project don't realize where this form of intolerance can lead. As a host of commentators have already noted, critics of the project are in effect holding American Muslims -- and in this particular case, a moderate Muslim cleric who has been a noted advocate of inter-faith tolerance -- responsible for a heinous act that they did not commit and that they have repeatedly condemned. It is view of surpassing ignorance, and precisely the same sort of prejudice that was once practiced against Catholics, against Jews, and against any number of other religious minorities. Virtually all religious traditions have committed violent and unseemly acts in recent memory, and we would not hold Protestants, Catholics, or Jews responsible for the heinous acts of a few of their adherents."
And perhaps the punch-line:
"And finally, let's not lose sight of the foreign policy implications. It's hardly headline news to observe that the United States has an abysmal image in the Arab and Muslim world (for a variety of reasons), but the xenophobic and cynical posturing of the community center's opponents is a free gift to extremists who are eager to portray the United States as inherently hostile to the entire Islamic tradition. The controversy itself has probably taken a toll already; if the critics win, then we should hardly be surprised if moderates elsewhere begin to have even more doubts about America's ability to live up to the principles that we like to boast about to others."
Meanwhile, well-known author William Dalyrmple, writing an op-ed piece in The New York Times, tries to put the whole thing into some sort of context:
"President Obama's eloquent endorsement on Friday of a planned Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center, followed by his apparent retreat the next day, was just one of many paradoxes at the heart of the increasingly impassioned controversy.
We have seen the Anti-Defamation League, an organization dedicated to ending “unjust and unfair discrimination,” seek to discriminate against American Muslims. We have seen Newt Gingrich depict the organization behind the center — the Cordoba Initiative, which is dedicated to “improving Muslim-West relations” and interfaith dialogue — as a “deliberately insulting” and triumphalist force attempting to built a monument to Muslim victory near the site of the twin towers.
Most laughably, we have seen politicians like Rick Lazio, a Republican candidate for New York governor, question whether Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the principal figure behind the project, might have links to “radical organizations.”
The problem with such claims goes far beyond the fate of a mosque in downtown Manhattan. They show a dangerously inadequate understanding of the many divisions, complexities and nuances within the Islamic world — a failure that hugely hampers Western efforts to fight violent Islamic extremism and to reconcile Americans with peaceful adherents of the world’s second-largest religion."
Stephen Walt, in his blog in "Why America is going to regret the Cordoba House controversy" on FP, writes:
"It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going on here: All you really need to do is look at how the critics of the community center project keep describing it. In their rhetoric it is always the "Mosque at Ground Zero," a label that conjures up mental images of a soaring minaret on the site of the 9/11 attacks. Never mind that the building in question isn't primarily a mosque (it's a community center that will house an array of activities, including a gym, pool, auditorium, and oh yes, a prayer room). Never mind that it isn't at "Ground Zero": it's two blocks away and will not even be visible from the site. (And exactly why does it matter if it was?) You know that someone is engaged in demagoguery when they keep using demonstrably false but alarmist phrases over and over again.
What I don't understand is why critics of this project don't realize where this form of intolerance can lead. As a host of commentators have already noted, critics of the project are in effect holding American Muslims -- and in this particular case, a moderate Muslim cleric who has been a noted advocate of inter-faith tolerance -- responsible for a heinous act that they did not commit and that they have repeatedly condemned. It is view of surpassing ignorance, and precisely the same sort of prejudice that was once practiced against Catholics, against Jews, and against any number of other religious minorities. Virtually all religious traditions have committed violent and unseemly acts in recent memory, and we would not hold Protestants, Catholics, or Jews responsible for the heinous acts of a few of their adherents."
And perhaps the punch-line:
"And finally, let's not lose sight of the foreign policy implications. It's hardly headline news to observe that the United States has an abysmal image in the Arab and Muslim world (for a variety of reasons), but the xenophobic and cynical posturing of the community center's opponents is a free gift to extremists who are eager to portray the United States as inherently hostile to the entire Islamic tradition. The controversy itself has probably taken a toll already; if the critics win, then we should hardly be surprised if moderates elsewhere begin to have even more doubts about America's ability to live up to the principles that we like to boast about to others."
Meanwhile, well-known author William Dalyrmple, writing an op-ed piece in The New York Times, tries to put the whole thing into some sort of context:
"President Obama's eloquent endorsement on Friday of a planned Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center, followed by his apparent retreat the next day, was just one of many paradoxes at the heart of the increasingly impassioned controversy.
We have seen the Anti-Defamation League, an organization dedicated to ending “unjust and unfair discrimination,” seek to discriminate against American Muslims. We have seen Newt Gingrich depict the organization behind the center — the Cordoba Initiative, which is dedicated to “improving Muslim-West relations” and interfaith dialogue — as a “deliberately insulting” and triumphalist force attempting to built a monument to Muslim victory near the site of the twin towers.
Most laughably, we have seen politicians like Rick Lazio, a Republican candidate for New York governor, question whether Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the principal figure behind the project, might have links to “radical organizations.”
The problem with such claims goes far beyond the fate of a mosque in downtown Manhattan. They show a dangerously inadequate understanding of the many divisions, complexities and nuances within the Islamic world — a failure that hugely hampers Western efforts to fight violent Islamic extremism and to reconcile Americans with peaceful adherents of the world’s second-largest religion."
"Army...the most beautiful time of my life"
What to say other than shake one's head......From GAWKER - and now making news around the world - "Israel's Own Military Prisoner Photo Scandal, on Facebook"
"Well, this was inevitable, what with Israel's political situation, and the existence of Facebook: a former Israeli soldier has posted some photos of herself posing with blindfolded Palestinians, for kicks. Mini-Abu Ghraib?
Eden Abergil got out of the Israeli Defense Forces a year ago, but of course it's never too late for her to post funny photos of her time in the Army, guarding blindfolded prisoners (the name of the album: "Army.. the most beautiful time of my life :)"). Now the photos are all over the Israeli (and world) media, and the Israeli government is decrying them, but they can't stop Abergil, legally. She's handling her own PR, apparently:
Israeli blogger Lisa Goldman contacted the former soldier via Facebook, who replied: "I don't speak to leftists."
Okay! This will play well in Palestine. As always when young soldiers put up idiotic pictures of evil actions, let's just take a moment to remember who put the soldiers there in the first place."
Hardly surprisingly, Al Jazeera covers the same subject here.
Afghan Women Have Already Been Abandoned
As the Afghanistan war grinds on - with an increasing loss of life - and seemingly no end in sight, the plight of the country's women is often overlooked. As a rule it's the Taliban who are demonised as those evil people who are out to restrict the women of Afghanistan in all manner of ways.
But is it only the Taliban? Ann Jones, the author of Kabul in Winter, does humanitarian work in post conflict zones with NGOs and the United Nations, writing in "Afghan Women Have Already Been Abandoned" on The Nation says the Karzai Government isn't all that great in its approach to women:
"The Taliban do terrible things. Yet the problem with demonizing them is that it diverts attention away from other, equally unpleasant and threatening facts. Let's not make the common mistake of thinking that the devil we see is the only one.
Consider the creeping Talibanization of Afghan life under the Karzai government. Restrictions on women's freedom of movement, access to work and rights within the family have steadily tightened as the result of a confluence of factors, including the neglect of legal and judicial reform and the obligations of international human rights conventions; legislation typified by the infamous Shia Personal Status Law (SPSL), gazetted in 2009 by President Karzai himself despite women's protests and international furor; intimidation; and violence. Women legislators told the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) last year that they have come to fear the fundamentalist warlords who control the Parliament. One said, "Most of the time women don't dare even say a word about sensitive Islamic issues, because they are afraid of being labeled as blasphemous." (Blasphemy is a capital offense.) Women journalists also told UNAMA that they "refrain from criticizing warlords and other power brokers, or covering topics that are deemed contentious such as women's rights." A series of assassinations of prominent women, beginning in 2005, have driven many women from work and public life. Women working in women's organizations in Kabul regularly receive threatening letters and, recently, high-tech videos on their mobile phones showing women being raped.
The Taliban claim responsibility for some, but not all, of the assassinations and threats, while most members of the Karzai government maintain a complicit silence. These developments have sent into reverse what little progress women in the cities had made since 2001, while most women in the countryside have seen no progress at all, and untold thousands have been harmed and displaced by warfare. All this has taken place on Karzai's watch and much of it with his connivance. Our government complains that the Karzai administration is corrupt, but the greater problem—never mentioned—is that it is fundamentalist. The cabinet, courts and Parliament are all largely controlled by men who differ from the Taliban chiefly in their choice of turbans."
But is it only the Taliban? Ann Jones, the author of Kabul in Winter, does humanitarian work in post conflict zones with NGOs and the United Nations, writing in "Afghan Women Have Already Been Abandoned" on The Nation says the Karzai Government isn't all that great in its approach to women:
"The Taliban do terrible things. Yet the problem with demonizing them is that it diverts attention away from other, equally unpleasant and threatening facts. Let's not make the common mistake of thinking that the devil we see is the only one.
Consider the creeping Talibanization of Afghan life under the Karzai government. Restrictions on women's freedom of movement, access to work and rights within the family have steadily tightened as the result of a confluence of factors, including the neglect of legal and judicial reform and the obligations of international human rights conventions; legislation typified by the infamous Shia Personal Status Law (SPSL), gazetted in 2009 by President Karzai himself despite women's protests and international furor; intimidation; and violence. Women legislators told the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) last year that they have come to fear the fundamentalist warlords who control the Parliament. One said, "Most of the time women don't dare even say a word about sensitive Islamic issues, because they are afraid of being labeled as blasphemous." (Blasphemy is a capital offense.) Women journalists also told UNAMA that they "refrain from criticizing warlords and other power brokers, or covering topics that are deemed contentious such as women's rights." A series of assassinations of prominent women, beginning in 2005, have driven many women from work and public life. Women working in women's organizations in Kabul regularly receive threatening letters and, recently, high-tech videos on their mobile phones showing women being raped.
The Taliban claim responsibility for some, but not all, of the assassinations and threats, while most members of the Karzai government maintain a complicit silence. These developments have sent into reverse what little progress women in the cities had made since 2001, while most women in the countryside have seen no progress at all, and untold thousands have been harmed and displaced by warfare. All this has taken place on Karzai's watch and much of it with his connivance. Our government complains that the Karzai administration is corrupt, but the greater problem—never mentioned—is that it is fundamentalist. The cabinet, courts and Parliament are all largely controlled by men who differ from the Taliban chiefly in their choice of turbans."
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Chomsky: On the US and Israel
Like him or not Noam Chomsky internationally recognized as one of America’s most critically-engaged public intellectuals today.
Chomsky spoke with Kathleen Wells on race-talk about Israel and its interplay with the United States:
Example :
"........simply ask, where are the strongest sources of support for Israeli actions? Well, pick the newspapers. By far the most rabid pro-Israel newspaper in the country is the Wall Street Journal. That's the journal of the business community, and it reflects the support of the business world for Israel, which is quite strong. There's a lot of high-tech investment in Israel. [Our] military industry is very close to Israeli military industry. There's a whole network
of interactions. Intel, for example, is building its next facility for construct development of the next generation of chips in Israel. But, altogether, the relations are very tight, very intimate, quite natural. And it's not surprising that the main business journal in the country would be supporting Israeli expansion and power.
Take a look at the two political parties. Most Jewish money goes to Democrats and most Jews vote Democratic. But the Republican Party is much more strongly supportive of Israeli power and atrocities than the Democrats are. Then again, I think that reflects their closer relations to the business world and to the military system.
There is, of course, also a Jewish lobby – an Israeli lobby -- APAC, which is a very influential lobby. And so there are many... and there's Christian Zionism, which is a huge element. Well, you know, all of these combined to provide a background for U.S. support for Israel, and they're facing virtually no opposition."
A rare unvarnished insight into Iran
Unfortunately we in the West rarely get to read an unvarnished and moderate article about modern-day Iran.
Thankfully Australia's ABC in its The Drum has a an article by Scott Bridges, a Melbourne-based writer, teacher and film-maker:
"What is your idea about Iran?"
I was asked this question countless times during my month travelling through the Islamic Republic, and my answer was always the same: "I love it; it's an amazing country full of beautiful, friendly and generous people." But I was always more interested to know what Iranians' ideas about Iran were, and I didn't need to do much asking because their opinions were usually forthcoming."
Continue reading here.
Thankfully Australia's ABC in its The Drum has a an article by Scott Bridges, a Melbourne-based writer, teacher and film-maker:
"What is your idea about Iran?"
I was asked this question countless times during my month travelling through the Islamic Republic, and my answer was always the same: "I love it; it's an amazing country full of beautiful, friendly and generous people." But I was always more interested to know what Iranians' ideas about Iran were, and I didn't need to do much asking because their opinions were usually forthcoming."
Continue reading here.
Monday, August 16, 2010
No end of salesmanship will make the Afghanistan war a success-story
General Petraeus, the golden-haired "boy", now the man in charge in Afghanistan, is off around the US selling the Afghanistan War. It's a lost cause, of course, as anyone even remotely familiar with what is happening in the war-torn country knows all too well.
A sober voice in "Why Petraeus Can't Make The Sale" from The Huffington Post:
"As Gen. David Petraeus kicks off an extended media blitz intended to make Americans feel better about the war in Afghanistan -- or at least give him some more time to fight it -- he faces a foe more implacable than al Qaeda, or even the Taliban: Reality.
That reality, increasingly obvious to national security experts and the general public alike, is that no amount of good intentions or firepower is going to advance our fundamental interests in Afghanistan -- and that as much as Petraeus might be able to achieve in the next six months, or a year, little to none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even worse, counterproductive.
U.S. taxpayers are spending vast amounts of money on the war -- over $200 million a day for military operations alone. Our troops work tirelessly, fight and die to protect and build up the people and institutions of Afghanistan.
But how that turns into success remains wildly unclear. And even more importantly, the relationship between what we're doing on a day to day basis and our ostensible goal -- keeping America safe from al Qaeda -- seems increasingly tenuous."
A sober voice in "Why Petraeus Can't Make The Sale" from The Huffington Post:
"As Gen. David Petraeus kicks off an extended media blitz intended to make Americans feel better about the war in Afghanistan -- or at least give him some more time to fight it -- he faces a foe more implacable than al Qaeda, or even the Taliban: Reality.
That reality, increasingly obvious to national security experts and the general public alike, is that no amount of good intentions or firepower is going to advance our fundamental interests in Afghanistan -- and that as much as Petraeus might be able to achieve in the next six months, or a year, little to none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even worse, counterproductive.
U.S. taxpayers are spending vast amounts of money on the war -- over $200 million a day for military operations alone. Our troops work tirelessly, fight and die to protect and build up the people and institutions of Afghanistan.
But how that turns into success remains wildly unclear. And even more importantly, the relationship between what we're doing on a day to day basis and our ostensible goal -- keeping America safe from al Qaeda -- seems increasingly tenuous."
Justice? What Justice? What Rule of Law?
The ACLU's Blog of Rights explains it all. Just bear in mind that what is being done here is all under the aegis of America's repeatedly beaten drum that it adheres to the rule of law and justice for all.
"Yesterday was a stark reminder that instead of closing the book on the Bush-era military commissions, President Obama is adding another sad chapter to that history. Although President Obama promised transparency and sharp limits on the use of tortured and coerced statements against the accused, at Guantánamo today one military judge ordered that a sentence be kept secret from the public and another military judge allowed statements obtained by abuse and coercion of a 15-year-old to be used at trial."
And:
"But in an unprecedented move, military judge Air Force Lt. Col. Nancy Paul ordered today that al-Qosi's true sentence will be kept secret until he's released. The judge said the government requested that the sentence be kept secret."
And:
"A final pretrial hearing also took place Monday in the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who will start trial today as the first test trial of the military commissions under President Obama. In a summary decision of only a few words, and with no explanation, the military judge in Omar Khadr's case, Col. Patrick Parrish, denied defense motions to exclude self-incriminating statements Khadr made to interrogators because of torture and other abuse. The judge will issue a written decision, certainly after the trial begins and possibly after it's ended, but for now he's offered no explanation.
It boggles the mind that the military judge could find that Khadr was not coerced and gave these statements to interrogators voluntarily. Khadr, then 15 years old, was taken to Bagram near death, after being shot twice in the back, blinded by shrapnel, and buried in rubble from a bomb blast. He was interrogated within hours, while sedated and handcuffed to a stretcher. He was threatened with gang rape and death if he didn't cooperate with interrogators. He was hooded and chained with his arms suspended in a cage-like cell, and his primary interrogator was later court-martialed for detainee abuse leading to the death of a detainee. During his subsequent eight-year (so far) detention at Guantánamo, Khadr was subjected to the "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation program and he says he was used as a human mop after he was forced to urinate on himself."
"Yesterday was a stark reminder that instead of closing the book on the Bush-era military commissions, President Obama is adding another sad chapter to that history. Although President Obama promised transparency and sharp limits on the use of tortured and coerced statements against the accused, at Guantánamo today one military judge ordered that a sentence be kept secret from the public and another military judge allowed statements obtained by abuse and coercion of a 15-year-old to be used at trial."
And:
"But in an unprecedented move, military judge Air Force Lt. Col. Nancy Paul ordered today that al-Qosi's true sentence will be kept secret until he's released. The judge said the government requested that the sentence be kept secret."
And:
"A final pretrial hearing also took place Monday in the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who will start trial today as the first test trial of the military commissions under President Obama. In a summary decision of only a few words, and with no explanation, the military judge in Omar Khadr's case, Col. Patrick Parrish, denied defense motions to exclude self-incriminating statements Khadr made to interrogators because of torture and other abuse. The judge will issue a written decision, certainly after the trial begins and possibly after it's ended, but for now he's offered no explanation.
It boggles the mind that the military judge could find that Khadr was not coerced and gave these statements to interrogators voluntarily. Khadr, then 15 years old, was taken to Bagram near death, after being shot twice in the back, blinded by shrapnel, and buried in rubble from a bomb blast. He was interrogated within hours, while sedated and handcuffed to a stretcher. He was threatened with gang rape and death if he didn't cooperate with interrogators. He was hooded and chained with his arms suspended in a cage-like cell, and his primary interrogator was later court-martialed for detainee abuse leading to the death of a detainee. During his subsequent eight-year (so far) detention at Guantánamo, Khadr was subjected to the "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation program and he says he was used as a human mop after he was forced to urinate on himself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)