Obama, with an eye on the electorate and more particularly the Israel Lobby in the US, has spoken on the American position on the Middle East. It's basically the usual platitudes and empty rhetoric - just better "packaged" than George Bush would have.
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent, suggests that where it matters, in the Middle East, Obama's words have basically meant naught.
"This month, in the Middle East, has seen the unmaking of the President of the United States. More than that, it has witnessed the lowest prestige of America in the region since Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945.
While Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu played out their farce in Washington – Obama grovelling as usual – the Arabs got on with the serious business of changing their world, demonstrating and fighting and dying for freedoms they have never possessed. Obama waffled on about change in the Middle East – and about America's new role in the region. It was pathetic. "What is this 'role' thing?" an Egyptian friend asked me at the weekend. "Do they still believe we care about what they think?"
And it is true. Obama's failure to support the Arab revolutions until they were all but over lost the US most of its surviving credit in the region. Obama was silent on the overthrow of Ben Ali, only joined in the chorus of contempt for Mubarak two days before his flight, condemned the Syrian regime – which has killed more of its people than any other dynasty in this Arab "spring", save for the frightful Gaddafi – but makes it clear that he would be happy to see Assad survive, waves his puny fist at puny Bahrain's cruelty and remains absolutely, stunningly silent over Saudi Arabia. And he goes on his knees before Israel. Is it any wonder, then, that Arabs are turning their backs on America, not out of fury or anger, nor with threats or violence, but with contempt? It is the Arabs and their fellow Muslims of the Middle East who are themselves now making the decisions."
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The (record) figures for carbon emissions in 2010 are in
Germany has just announced that it will shut down its nuclear power plants by 2022. Meanwhile, debate rages around the world about carbon emissions, climate change, the increased severity of tornadoes and weather conditions and the cost of curtailing damage to the environment.
Now The Guardian reports:
"Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.
"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."
Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.
"Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."
Monday, May 30, 2011
Being up there as #1....well, at least for the time-being
Professor Stephen Walt reflects in a piece "Why American leaders like being #1" on his blog on FP on the seemingly endless desire of America's leaders to be #1 - but for how long?
"All told, this has not been a good month for war criminals, international terrorists, and tyrannical despots. To be specific: Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, Ratko Mladic has been captured in Serbia, Muammar Qaddafi's forces are gradually wilting (and it's hard to imagine that the Qaddafi family will ever be regarded as legitimate again), and the protests against the Assad regime in Syria continue despite repeated acts of repression.
Which tells you why it's nice to be the leader(s) of a great power. When you're the head of a relatively weak group like Al Qaeda, you have to stay hidden and hope you don't get found. If you're a fugitive from justice from a weak country like Serbia, you don't have much choice but to hide out. And if you're the ruler of an oil-rich but otherwise weak country like Libya, you have to worry that stronger powers might suddenly decide that it's time to overthrow you.
But if you're the leader of a great power like the United States (or some others), you can order the illegal invasion of other countries, torture suspected terrorists, conduct drone attacks and targeted assassinations on the territory of other sovereign nations, and cause -- directly or indirectly -- the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. And when you leave office, nobody will investigate you for possible war crimes, or interfere with your leisure time (though you might have to alter your travel plans occasionally). You can kick back, write your memoirs, and make the occasional snarky speech criticizing your successors. Being the dominant world power has certain downsides to it, but it's pretty easy to understand why nobody ever campaigns for president saying their goal is to make America #2.
I just worry that we'll keep doing things that will take us there anyway."
"All told, this has not been a good month for war criminals, international terrorists, and tyrannical despots. To be specific: Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, Ratko Mladic has been captured in Serbia, Muammar Qaddafi's forces are gradually wilting (and it's hard to imagine that the Qaddafi family will ever be regarded as legitimate again), and the protests against the Assad regime in Syria continue despite repeated acts of repression.
Which tells you why it's nice to be the leader(s) of a great power. When you're the head of a relatively weak group like Al Qaeda, you have to stay hidden and hope you don't get found. If you're a fugitive from justice from a weak country like Serbia, you don't have much choice but to hide out. And if you're the ruler of an oil-rich but otherwise weak country like Libya, you have to worry that stronger powers might suddenly decide that it's time to overthrow you.
But if you're the leader of a great power like the United States (or some others), you can order the illegal invasion of other countries, torture suspected terrorists, conduct drone attacks and targeted assassinations on the territory of other sovereign nations, and cause -- directly or indirectly -- the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. And when you leave office, nobody will investigate you for possible war crimes, or interfere with your leisure time (though you might have to alter your travel plans occasionally). You can kick back, write your memoirs, and make the occasional snarky speech criticizing your successors. Being the dominant world power has certain downsides to it, but it's pretty easy to understand why nobody ever campaigns for president saying their goal is to make America #2.
I just worry that we'll keep doing things that will take us there anyway."
Brits in the Arab Spring: Talk about being on both sides!
Hard to believe, but here are the British on both sides of what has become as known as the Arab Spring.
"Britain is training Saudi Arabia's national guard – the elite security force deployed during the recent protests in Bahrain – in public order enforcement measures and the use of sniper rifles. The revelation has outraged human rights groups, which point out that the Foreign Office recognises that the kingdom's human rights record is "a major concern".
In response to questions made under the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that British personnel regularly run courses for the national guard in "weapons, fieldcraft and general military skills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training". The courses are organised through the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, an obscure unit that consists of 11 British army personnel under the command of a brigadier.
The MoD response, obtained yesterday by the Observer, reveals that Britain sends up to 20 training teams to the kingdom a year. Saudi Arabia pays for "all BMM personnel, as well as support costs such as accommodation and transport".
"Britain is training Saudi Arabia's national guard – the elite security force deployed during the recent protests in Bahrain – in public order enforcement measures and the use of sniper rifles. The revelation has outraged human rights groups, which point out that the Foreign Office recognises that the kingdom's human rights record is "a major concern".
In response to questions made under the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that British personnel regularly run courses for the national guard in "weapons, fieldcraft and general military skills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training". The courses are organised through the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, an obscure unit that consists of 11 British army personnel under the command of a brigadier.
The MoD response, obtained yesterday by the Observer, reveals that Britain sends up to 20 training teams to the kingdom a year. Saudi Arabia pays for "all BMM personnel, as well as support costs such as accommodation and transport".
Salad Slaves
As those in Europe eat their vegetables and fruit they might wish to pause and consider the slaves - yes, slaves! - who have toiled to get that food to the supermarkets in Europe.
"Supermarkets all over the world are always keen to promote the wholesome healthy image of fruit and vegetables.
But an investigation on this Sunday’s Dateline reveals an unwholesome story of virtual slavery for the people processing the crops for European supermarkets.
They’re migrants from Africa and Eastern Europe, many of them illegal, who are being exploited just a short distance away from the popular tourist area of the Costa del Sol in Spain."
Go here to view a doco on SBS Australia and an additional FactFile.
"Supermarkets all over the world are always keen to promote the wholesome healthy image of fruit and vegetables.
But an investigation on this Sunday’s Dateline reveals an unwholesome story of virtual slavery for the people processing the crops for European supermarkets.
They’re migrants from Africa and Eastern Europe, many of them illegal, who are being exploited just a short distance away from the popular tourist area of the Costa del Sol in Spain."
Go here to view a doco on SBS Australia and an additional FactFile.
One brave Oz MP stands up and speaks out
From Hansard [the official transcript of the Australian Parliament] one member of Parliament (Ms Parke) addresses the Chamber on something where most others fear to tread or won't even speak up at all.
"While the death of Osama Bin Laden brought an understandable analysis of its effect on Islamic extremism, there continues to be inadequate recognition of the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, now in its 63rd year, remains both a powerful rallying cause for such extremist groups and the source of general grievance for Muslims worldwide. In recent years, the Pentagon and US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates have noted that the absence of Middle East peace is having a negative effect on US national security interests in the region.
The failure to resolve the long-running conflict also impacts on Australia’s national security, from its relevance to our military involvement in Afghanistan to the reality of its impact on our near neighbour Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. I have recently returned from a study tour of Palestine together with my parliamentary colleagues, the members for Calwell, Farrer and Shortland. This was the first time I had been back in the region since I worked for the UN refugee agency UNRWA in Gaza from 2002 to 2004.
I stand here tonight as someone who has lived and worked in the region and seen both sides of the conflict. I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine but pro-reconciliation, pro-peace and pro-justice. It is the policy of Australia’s major political parties and it is Australian government policy to support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This necessarily means independent states of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. There must be a win-win outcome for the two sides or there will be no resolution of the conflict. There must be a commitment to non-violence on the part of both sides and all forms of violence against civilians are to be condemned in the strongest terms. However, too often the conflict is spoken of as if it is only the Palestinians who need to change their behaviour. The frequent rocket fire from Gaza into Israel by militant groups is a clear violation of international law. But so too is the disproportionate use of force by Israel against civilians that was evident in the war on Gaza. Also contrary to international law is the blockade on Gaza, which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population, which has crippled the economy and left thousands of young people without any prospect of work or of leading lives of dignity and which has left 80 per cent of the Gaza population dependent on aid. So too is the program of establishing Israeli cities, roads and the wall in the occupied territory.
In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, almost every aspect of Palestinian life and the economy is controlled by checkpoints, closures, settlements and their buffer zones, and by Israeli-exclusive roads, the wall, house demolitions and an opaque administrative system of permits—required for building, residency, driving, work, access to agricultural land et cetera—that severely restricts freedom of movement, access to health and education services and the capacity of Christians and Muslims to access holy places. It is this context of occupation that is often missing in discussions about the conflict, which usually centre around the issue of security alone.
Security for both Israelis and Palestinians is a legitimate issue, but it should be understood that there is no parity of power in this equation. Israel is one of the largest military powers in the world and the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It has militarily occupied Palestine for 44 years. Last week US President Barack Obama called for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. He noted:
The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected the 1967 borders as ‘indefensible’. Yet the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are an ongoing poke in the eye to the peace process and to a two-state solution because these so-called ‘facts on the ground’ form physical obstacles that may foreclose the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
Despite the challenges presented by the occupation, the Palestinian authority has been advancing peaceful resolution of the conflict, and the relative peace experienced by Israeli citizens in recent years is a direct result of these efforts. This is more than the peace that existed at the time of the Northern Ireland agreement brokered by George Mitchell. And, instead of being seen as a threat, the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas should be regarded as a positive step towards the possibility of peace. Earlier this month Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper, reported that the Israeli foreign ministry had advised the government to see the reconciliation as a strategic opportunity and to refrain from attacking it. The Haaretz editorial said:
It would be correct for Israel to recognize the Palestinian unity government in order to conduct a dialogue and neighbourly relations with the Palestinian state in the future.
Israelis and Palestinians alike are entitled to live in peace with dignity and freedom, and to choose their own governments. It is not sustainable to require Palestinians to be stateless persons under the control of another country forever. On our visit we saw Palestinians drawing renewed hope from the Arab spring unfolding in the region around them. Australia, as a respected middle power country, is in a position to play a constructive role to help ensure a balanced outcome for both sides and to act as a living bridge between despair and hope. (Time expired)"
"While the death of Osama Bin Laden brought an understandable analysis of its effect on Islamic extremism, there continues to be inadequate recognition of the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, now in its 63rd year, remains both a powerful rallying cause for such extremist groups and the source of general grievance for Muslims worldwide. In recent years, the Pentagon and US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates have noted that the absence of Middle East peace is having a negative effect on US national security interests in the region.
The failure to resolve the long-running conflict also impacts on Australia’s national security, from its relevance to our military involvement in Afghanistan to the reality of its impact on our near neighbour Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. I have recently returned from a study tour of Palestine together with my parliamentary colleagues, the members for Calwell, Farrer and Shortland. This was the first time I had been back in the region since I worked for the UN refugee agency UNRWA in Gaza from 2002 to 2004.
I stand here tonight as someone who has lived and worked in the region and seen both sides of the conflict. I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine but pro-reconciliation, pro-peace and pro-justice. It is the policy of Australia’s major political parties and it is Australian government policy to support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This necessarily means independent states of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. There must be a win-win outcome for the two sides or there will be no resolution of the conflict. There must be a commitment to non-violence on the part of both sides and all forms of violence against civilians are to be condemned in the strongest terms. However, too often the conflict is spoken of as if it is only the Palestinians who need to change their behaviour. The frequent rocket fire from Gaza into Israel by militant groups is a clear violation of international law. But so too is the disproportionate use of force by Israel against civilians that was evident in the war on Gaza. Also contrary to international law is the blockade on Gaza, which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population, which has crippled the economy and left thousands of young people without any prospect of work or of leading lives of dignity and which has left 80 per cent of the Gaza population dependent on aid. So too is the program of establishing Israeli cities, roads and the wall in the occupied territory.
In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, almost every aspect of Palestinian life and the economy is controlled by checkpoints, closures, settlements and their buffer zones, and by Israeli-exclusive roads, the wall, house demolitions and an opaque administrative system of permits—required for building, residency, driving, work, access to agricultural land et cetera—that severely restricts freedom of movement, access to health and education services and the capacity of Christians and Muslims to access holy places. It is this context of occupation that is often missing in discussions about the conflict, which usually centre around the issue of security alone.
Security for both Israelis and Palestinians is a legitimate issue, but it should be understood that there is no parity of power in this equation. Israel is one of the largest military powers in the world and the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It has militarily occupied Palestine for 44 years. Last week US President Barack Obama called for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. He noted:
The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected the 1967 borders as ‘indefensible’. Yet the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are an ongoing poke in the eye to the peace process and to a two-state solution because these so-called ‘facts on the ground’ form physical obstacles that may foreclose the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
Despite the challenges presented by the occupation, the Palestinian authority has been advancing peaceful resolution of the conflict, and the relative peace experienced by Israeli citizens in recent years is a direct result of these efforts. This is more than the peace that existed at the time of the Northern Ireland agreement brokered by George Mitchell. And, instead of being seen as a threat, the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas should be regarded as a positive step towards the possibility of peace. Earlier this month Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper, reported that the Israeli foreign ministry had advised the government to see the reconciliation as a strategic opportunity and to refrain from attacking it. The Haaretz editorial said:
It would be correct for Israel to recognize the Palestinian unity government in order to conduct a dialogue and neighbourly relations with the Palestinian state in the future.
Israelis and Palestinians alike are entitled to live in peace with dignity and freedom, and to choose their own governments. It is not sustainable to require Palestinians to be stateless persons under the control of another country forever. On our visit we saw Palestinians drawing renewed hope from the Arab spring unfolding in the region around them. Australia, as a respected middle power country, is in a position to play a constructive role to help ensure a balanced outcome for both sides and to act as a living bridge between despair and hope. (Time expired)"
No wonder they want [er, need?] to let them out
If a picture says a 1000 words this one does. This a prison in California - so overcrowded that even the US Supreme Court has intervened."On May 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled that conditions in California's prisons violated the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" and affirmed a lower court's order that the state drastically reduce its inmate population.
Writing on behalf of the court's five-vote majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that this unprecedented measure had become the only way to remedy the "serious" and "uncorrected" constiutional violations against inmates in the state's correctional facilities, particularly the sick and mentally ill. "For years the medical and mental health care provided by California’s prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and has failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs. Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result," he wrote. "Short term gains in the provision of care have been eroded by the long-term effects of severe and pervasive overcrowding." His decision included vivid examples of the problem, from open dorms so packed they can't be effectively monitored, to suicidal inmates "held for prolonged periods in telephone-booth sized cages without toilets."
More than 162,000 inmates currently reside in California's prison system. For years, many facilities have held nearly twice the number of prisoners they were built for."
A brave and humane act to follow
Haaretz has an editorial Israel's PM and his Government ought to heed.
"Egypt's decision to open the Rafah crossing to people raised great apprehension in Israel, as expected. The immediate concern is that the opening of the crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt will allow Hamas and other groups to bring in an unlimited supply of weapons.
Ostensibly, that's a persuasive claim, though four years of closure haven't prevented the passage of weapons into Gaza or the manufacture of missiles there, nor have they prevented terror attacks on Israel. Reports by defense officials that Hamas has amassed large quantities of advanced missiles are proof of that. Meanwhile, Cairo has hastened to make clear that goods will not be allowed through the crossing, and it may be assumed that Egypt is not encouraging the stockpiling of weapons in Gaza.
Along with security concerns, Israel's fury seems to stem from the fact that the opening of the crossing scuttles its vengeful and cruel closure policy. That policy did nothing at all to free captured soldier Gilad Shalit, nor has it encouraged a Palestinian uprising against Hamas, as Israel had hoped. Rather, it has turned Gaza into the world's biggest prison, led to terrible human tragedies and sowed deep desperation among the people.
That policy created the deep divide with Turkey and pulverized Israel's image worldwide. Egypt's cooperation with the closure created the false impression that Israel's policy had Arab support. But Egyptian citizens frequently protested the closure, and the opening of the crossing reflects the new regime's desire, if only temporarily, to draw a line between itself and the previous ruler, Hosni Mubarak, and to respond positively to the new wind blowing in Egyptian society.
The opening of the Rafah crossing is above all an important humanitarian gesture. As such, Israel should follow suit and open the crossings from the West Bank to Israel. The return of normal life to Gaza might encourage its citizens to put the brakes on terror. More importantly, the opening of the crossing will clearly show that Israel has decided to disengage from Gaza and abandon its all-but-direct occupation. But even without these strategic calculations, it's the human aspect that should guide the Israeli government."
"Egypt's decision to open the Rafah crossing to people raised great apprehension in Israel, as expected. The immediate concern is that the opening of the crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt will allow Hamas and other groups to bring in an unlimited supply of weapons.
Ostensibly, that's a persuasive claim, though four years of closure haven't prevented the passage of weapons into Gaza or the manufacture of missiles there, nor have they prevented terror attacks on Israel. Reports by defense officials that Hamas has amassed large quantities of advanced missiles are proof of that. Meanwhile, Cairo has hastened to make clear that goods will not be allowed through the crossing, and it may be assumed that Egypt is not encouraging the stockpiling of weapons in Gaza.
Along with security concerns, Israel's fury seems to stem from the fact that the opening of the crossing scuttles its vengeful and cruel closure policy. That policy did nothing at all to free captured soldier Gilad Shalit, nor has it encouraged a Palestinian uprising against Hamas, as Israel had hoped. Rather, it has turned Gaza into the world's biggest prison, led to terrible human tragedies and sowed deep desperation among the people.
That policy created the deep divide with Turkey and pulverized Israel's image worldwide. Egypt's cooperation with the closure created the false impression that Israel's policy had Arab support. But Egyptian citizens frequently protested the closure, and the opening of the crossing reflects the new regime's desire, if only temporarily, to draw a line between itself and the previous ruler, Hosni Mubarak, and to respond positively to the new wind blowing in Egyptian society.
The opening of the Rafah crossing is above all an important humanitarian gesture. As such, Israel should follow suit and open the crossings from the West Bank to Israel. The return of normal life to Gaza might encourage its citizens to put the brakes on terror. More importantly, the opening of the crossing will clearly show that Israel has decided to disengage from Gaza and abandon its all-but-direct occupation. But even without these strategic calculations, it's the human aspect that should guide the Israeli government."
Sunday, May 29, 2011
A 50th birthday worthy of celebration
"Amnesty International is marking its 50th anniversary with the launch of a Global Call to Action designed to help tip the scales against repression and injustice, with events held in almost 60 countries in every region of the world.
The anniversary comes against the backdrop of a changing human rights landscape, as people across the Middle East and North Africa courageously confront oppression, tyranny and corruption – often in the face of bloodshed and state violence.
With these protests dramatically demonstrating the need for international solidarity on human rights, Amnesty International’s new Global Call to Action includes a digital “Earth Candle” – a significant online breakthrough that allows activists for the first time to see an overview of the organization’s worldwide actions, and how their own actions add to this force for change.
This is accompanied by a new drive – “Be one more, ask one more, act once more” – that aims to achieve a huge collective impact worldwide. It urges everyone – including Amnesty International’s three million members and supporters in more than 150 countries and territories – to encourage at least one other person to take action for human rights.
The launch of the global initiative will see, dozens of countries from Argentina to Ghana to Turkey to New Zealand holding a symbolic toast to freedom. This global event pays tribute to the tale of two Portuguese students imprisoned for raising their glasses to liberty – an injustice that so outraged British lawyer Peter Benenson that he launched Amnesty International on 28 May 1961.
“Since the Amnesty International candle first shone a light on the world’s hellholes, there has been a human rights revolution. The call for freedom, justice and dignity has moved from the margins and is now a truly global demand,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International Secretary General.
But despite progress, human rights violations are at the heart of key challenges facing the world today.
Governments are failing to uphold the promises of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and are fuelling or ignoring violations. Almost two-thirds of humanity lacks access to justice; abuses are driving and deepening poverty; discrimination against women is rife; and in the last year alone Amnesty International has documented torture and ill-treatment in at least 98 countries.
Salil Shetty said that activism is a powerful force for change, as shown by the brave protestors in the Arab Spring.
“We can offer something that the forces of repression can never contain or silence: people united in common action; the sharp and powerful rallying of public opinion; the lighting of one candle at a time until millions of candles expose injustice, and create pressure for change,” he said.
Amnesty International will this year focus on six areas where people power can create real improvements: freedom of expression, abolition of the death penalty, reproductive rights for women and girls in Nicaragua, ensuring international justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo, corporate accountability in the Niger Delta, and ending injustice and oppression in the Middle East and North Africa.
For half a century Amnesty International – the world’s largest human rights organization – has borne witness to abuses and atrocities, has offered hope to the oppressed and forgotten, and has campaigned with innovation and determination for justice.
It has played a leading role in making torturers international outlaws, in ending the untouchable status of leaders accused of human rights crimes, in the creation of the International Criminal Court and in achieving unstoppable momentum towards a death penalty-free world.
In 1977, Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Throughout its history, Amnesty International has evolved and adapted to meet the challenges presented by a rapidly changing world. Its on-going work for prisoners of conscience – tens of thousands of whom have been released since 1961 – is now accompanied by action to uphold the whole spectrum of rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“Today people worldwide are increasingly expressing their desire for both political and economic rights – showing that despite the claims of some governments, rights cannot be ranked or traded. All rights – whether socio-economic or political – must be respected together if we are to achieve freedom from fear and want,” said Salil Shetty.
The challenge remains above all to hold states – which have ultimate responsibility for delivering human rights – accountable. But corporations and armed groups must also fully respect human rights and be held accountable for their actions.
“50 years of standing up to tyranny and injustice has shown that change is possible and that people united in common action across borders and beliefs can achieve extraordinary things. Every individual can make a difference, but millions standing together and uniting against injustice can change the world,” said Salil Shetty."
The anniversary comes against the backdrop of a changing human rights landscape, as people across the Middle East and North Africa courageously confront oppression, tyranny and corruption – often in the face of bloodshed and state violence.
With these protests dramatically demonstrating the need for international solidarity on human rights, Amnesty International’s new Global Call to Action includes a digital “Earth Candle” – a significant online breakthrough that allows activists for the first time to see an overview of the organization’s worldwide actions, and how their own actions add to this force for change.
This is accompanied by a new drive – “Be one more, ask one more, act once more” – that aims to achieve a huge collective impact worldwide. It urges everyone – including Amnesty International’s three million members and supporters in more than 150 countries and territories – to encourage at least one other person to take action for human rights.
The launch of the global initiative will see, dozens of countries from Argentina to Ghana to Turkey to New Zealand holding a symbolic toast to freedom. This global event pays tribute to the tale of two Portuguese students imprisoned for raising their glasses to liberty – an injustice that so outraged British lawyer Peter Benenson that he launched Amnesty International on 28 May 1961.
“Since the Amnesty International candle first shone a light on the world’s hellholes, there has been a human rights revolution. The call for freedom, justice and dignity has moved from the margins and is now a truly global demand,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International Secretary General.
But despite progress, human rights violations are at the heart of key challenges facing the world today.
Governments are failing to uphold the promises of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and are fuelling or ignoring violations. Almost two-thirds of humanity lacks access to justice; abuses are driving and deepening poverty; discrimination against women is rife; and in the last year alone Amnesty International has documented torture and ill-treatment in at least 98 countries.
Salil Shetty said that activism is a powerful force for change, as shown by the brave protestors in the Arab Spring.
“We can offer something that the forces of repression can never contain or silence: people united in common action; the sharp and powerful rallying of public opinion; the lighting of one candle at a time until millions of candles expose injustice, and create pressure for change,” he said.
Amnesty International will this year focus on six areas where people power can create real improvements: freedom of expression, abolition of the death penalty, reproductive rights for women and girls in Nicaragua, ensuring international justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo, corporate accountability in the Niger Delta, and ending injustice and oppression in the Middle East and North Africa.
For half a century Amnesty International – the world’s largest human rights organization – has borne witness to abuses and atrocities, has offered hope to the oppressed and forgotten, and has campaigned with innovation and determination for justice.
It has played a leading role in making torturers international outlaws, in ending the untouchable status of leaders accused of human rights crimes, in the creation of the International Criminal Court and in achieving unstoppable momentum towards a death penalty-free world.
In 1977, Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Throughout its history, Amnesty International has evolved and adapted to meet the challenges presented by a rapidly changing world. Its on-going work for prisoners of conscience – tens of thousands of whom have been released since 1961 – is now accompanied by action to uphold the whole spectrum of rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“Today people worldwide are increasingly expressing their desire for both political and economic rights – showing that despite the claims of some governments, rights cannot be ranked or traded. All rights – whether socio-economic or political – must be respected together if we are to achieve freedom from fear and want,” said Salil Shetty.
The challenge remains above all to hold states – which have ultimate responsibility for delivering human rights – accountable. But corporations and armed groups must also fully respect human rights and be held accountable for their actions.
“50 years of standing up to tyranny and injustice has shown that change is possible and that people united in common action across borders and beliefs can achieve extraordinary things. Every individual can make a difference, but millions standing together and uniting against injustice can change the world,” said Salil Shetty."
Tobacco companies: Time to stop these parasites
Troubling but not surprising - the shenanigans and miscreant conduct of the tobacco companies.
"More than half a century after scientists uncovered the link between smoking and cancer – triggering a war between health campaigners and the cigarette industry – big tobacco is thriving.
Despite the known catastrophic effects on health of smoking, profits from tobacco continue to soar and sales of cigarettes have increased: they have risen from 5,000 billion sticks a year in the 1990s to 5,900 billion a year in 2009. They now kill more people annually than alcohol, Aids, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined.
On Tuesday, people around the globe will mark World No Tobacco Day – a distant hope.
The West now consumes fewer and fewer of the world's cigarettes: richer countries have changed – from smoking 38 per cent of the world total in 1990, they cut down to 24 per cent in 2009. Meanwhile, the developing world's share in global cigarette sales has increased sharply, rising to 76 per cent in 2009.
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday reveals that tobacco firms have taken advantage of lax marketing rules in developing countries by aggressively promoting cigarettes to new, young consumers, while using lawyers, lobby groups and carefully selected statistics to bully governments that attempt to quash the industry in the West.
In 2010, the big four tobacco companies – Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco – made more than £27bn profit, up from £26bn in 2009.
The price of their profits will be measured in human lives. In the 20th century, some 100 million people were killed by tobacco use. If current trends continue, tobacco will kill a billion people in the 21st century.
In striving for greater profits, the big tobacco firms have pushed the average price of cigarettes up in rich countries such as Britain – where 20 cigarettes now cost more than £6 a pack – while hammering down the price paid to tobacco growers in poorer countries such as India and Malawi. Although around 77 per cent of the price of a pack is tax, the amount charged by tobacco companies has also increased."
"More than half a century after scientists uncovered the link between smoking and cancer – triggering a war between health campaigners and the cigarette industry – big tobacco is thriving.
Despite the known catastrophic effects on health of smoking, profits from tobacco continue to soar and sales of cigarettes have increased: they have risen from 5,000 billion sticks a year in the 1990s to 5,900 billion a year in 2009. They now kill more people annually than alcohol, Aids, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined.
On Tuesday, people around the globe will mark World No Tobacco Day – a distant hope.
The West now consumes fewer and fewer of the world's cigarettes: richer countries have changed – from smoking 38 per cent of the world total in 1990, they cut down to 24 per cent in 2009. Meanwhile, the developing world's share in global cigarette sales has increased sharply, rising to 76 per cent in 2009.
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday reveals that tobacco firms have taken advantage of lax marketing rules in developing countries by aggressively promoting cigarettes to new, young consumers, while using lawyers, lobby groups and carefully selected statistics to bully governments that attempt to quash the industry in the West.
In 2010, the big four tobacco companies – Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco – made more than £27bn profit, up from £26bn in 2009.
The price of their profits will be measured in human lives. In the 20th century, some 100 million people were killed by tobacco use. If current trends continue, tobacco will kill a billion people in the 21st century.
In striving for greater profits, the big tobacco firms have pushed the average price of cigarettes up in rich countries such as Britain – where 20 cigarettes now cost more than £6 a pack – while hammering down the price paid to tobacco growers in poorer countries such as India and Malawi. Although around 77 per cent of the price of a pack is tax, the amount charged by tobacco companies has also increased."
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Significant winds of change in Egypt
It is hard not to remember all the demonstrations in Egypt earlier this year - especially all those people massed around the clock, for days at an end, in Tahrir Square.
So, where are things at months later? The Independent has an update "New dawn, same old problems: Egypt wakes up to fresh uprising".
"Egypt opens its border with the Gaza Strip today in a radical move that upends the 30-year-old alliance between the US, Israel and Egypt under the rule of President Hosni Mubarak.
The Egyptian foreign minister has described the blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza as "disgusting". Soon Egypt will reopen diplomatic links with Iran.
Unprecedented changes are also happening at home. Last week the Egyptian prosecutor charged Mr Mubarak with the premeditated killing of protesters, corruptly accepting as a gift a palace and four villas at Sharm el-Sheikh, and involvement in promoting a corrupt deal supplying gas to Israel. The once all-powerful Mr Mubarak has become such a pariah that businessmen in Sharm el-Sheikh, where he once hosted world leaders, want him moved from a hospital there because he is deterring tourists from visiting the resort.
But for hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who demonstrated in Cairo, Alexandria yesterday these developments, inconceivable at the start of the year, are not radical enough. Many saw the rallies and marches as the moment to launch a "Second Egyptian Revolution" to shatter the status quo. They say Egypt was a military dictatorship before the 25 January revolution and so it largely still is. Orders are given by the shadowy Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) without any consultation or explanation. Many leading protagonists and cronies of the old regime are still in place. But hundreds of pro-democracy protesters have been sentenced to five years in prison after a 30-minute trial by military tribunals. Torture continues with some female political detainees subjected to humiliating "virginity tests"."
So, where are things at months later? The Independent has an update "New dawn, same old problems: Egypt wakes up to fresh uprising".
"Egypt opens its border with the Gaza Strip today in a radical move that upends the 30-year-old alliance between the US, Israel and Egypt under the rule of President Hosni Mubarak.
The Egyptian foreign minister has described the blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza as "disgusting". Soon Egypt will reopen diplomatic links with Iran.
Unprecedented changes are also happening at home. Last week the Egyptian prosecutor charged Mr Mubarak with the premeditated killing of protesters, corruptly accepting as a gift a palace and four villas at Sharm el-Sheikh, and involvement in promoting a corrupt deal supplying gas to Israel. The once all-powerful Mr Mubarak has become such a pariah that businessmen in Sharm el-Sheikh, where he once hosted world leaders, want him moved from a hospital there because he is deterring tourists from visiting the resort.
But for hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who demonstrated in Cairo, Alexandria yesterday these developments, inconceivable at the start of the year, are not radical enough. Many saw the rallies and marches as the moment to launch a "Second Egyptian Revolution" to shatter the status quo. They say Egypt was a military dictatorship before the 25 January revolution and so it largely still is. Orders are given by the shadowy Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) without any consultation or explanation. Many leading protagonists and cronies of the old regime are still in place. But hundreds of pro-democracy protesters have been sentenced to five years in prison after a 30-minute trial by military tribunals. Torture continues with some female political detainees subjected to humiliating "virginity tests"."
A big yawn....and it's too late
Whilst the last week has seen acres of analysis of the Obama and Netanyahu speeches on Israel and the conflict with Israel it would appear that it evoked little interest in the Arab world.
Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University and the author of six books on Middle Eastern history, including "Palestinian Identity", and "Resurrecting Empire". Khalidi is a former advisor to Palestinian negotiators at the Madrid and Washington peace talks and is the editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies.
He writes on Salon in "How Obama enables Israel's worst impulses" -
"The old Arabic proverb has it that the dogs bark but the caravan goes on. President Obama's comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his speeches last week at the State Department and then at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) produced a great deal of sound and fury in Washington. However, the sense I had being in Beirut and the Gulf when they were delivered was that they meant much less to Arabs than they did in Washington or in Israel. There is little sense in the Arab world or among Palestinians that the United States has a constructive role to play in resolving this conflict. Indeed, if anything, it has only succeeded in making itself even more of a roadblock to progress than it was before."
****
"Given the ongoing revolutionary changes in the Arab world, and their profound impact on the Palestinians, as could be seen in the inter-Palestinian reconciliation, and the march of Palestinians to the borders of Israel from five directions on May 15, events in the Middle East have in any case passed President Obama by. This is not only because his hands are tied by the onset of the presidential election campaign. He is also the victim of the bad advice of veterans like Dennis Ross, who have helped steer administrations since that of Ronald Reagan in the wrong direction.
In view of these factors, there should be no surprise that where actual peacemaking is concerned, Washington is a day late and a dollar short."
Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University and the author of six books on Middle Eastern history, including "Palestinian Identity", and "Resurrecting Empire". Khalidi is a former advisor to Palestinian negotiators at the Madrid and Washington peace talks and is the editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies.
He writes on Salon in "How Obama enables Israel's worst impulses" -
"The old Arabic proverb has it that the dogs bark but the caravan goes on. President Obama's comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his speeches last week at the State Department and then at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) produced a great deal of sound and fury in Washington. However, the sense I had being in Beirut and the Gulf when they were delivered was that they meant much less to Arabs than they did in Washington or in Israel. There is little sense in the Arab world or among Palestinians that the United States has a constructive role to play in resolving this conflict. Indeed, if anything, it has only succeeded in making itself even more of a roadblock to progress than it was before."
****
"Given the ongoing revolutionary changes in the Arab world, and their profound impact on the Palestinians, as could be seen in the inter-Palestinian reconciliation, and the march of Palestinians to the borders of Israel from five directions on May 15, events in the Middle East have in any case passed President Obama by. This is not only because his hands are tied by the onset of the presidential election campaign. He is also the victim of the bad advice of veterans like Dennis Ross, who have helped steer administrations since that of Ronald Reagan in the wrong direction.
In view of these factors, there should be no surprise that where actual peacemaking is concerned, Washington is a day late and a dollar short."
Arab Spring: Women at the forefront
From "Women Rise to the Challenge in the Arab Spring" on Ms.blog:
"The scene would have had most Americans readjusting their television sets—or their preconceived notions about Arab society. In the April sun, throngs of protesters washed over the streets of the southern Yemeni city Taiz, most clad head-to-toe in black, their eyes steely with determination. The crowd was festooned with bright baseball caps and signs bearing English slogans such as, “We want a new Yemen without Saleh” in seeming defiance both of the autocratic regime and of society’s expectations.
It was only a few months ago that demonstrations exploded across the Maghreb and the Middle East. If you trace the sweep of the revolutionary contagion, a trendline emerges: The seedbed of the revolt, Tunisia, may have lacked democracy but was fairly advanced in providing equal rights for women. The next domino to fall, Egypt, could not have toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak without the support of women activists who took the helm at Tahrir Square. And now Yemen, a relatively conservative and impoverished country, has seen women gathering in a groundswell of resistance–paralleled by increasingly tense uprisings in Syria and Libya".
The BBC recently reported on one of the figureheads of the Yemeni uprising, Tawakul Karman, a former stay-at-home mother whose political passion was galvanized when her husband became a political prisoner:
'In the last three months, Mrs Karman has been imprisoned, beaten and humiliated in the state media. As a result, she is a household name in Yemen and an inspiration to many women here. ‘This goes beyond the wildest dream I have ever dreamt,’ she says. ‘I am so proud of our women.’
A newspaper......written by hand?
Newspapers being published are dropping off like flies and here we have what might the last newspaper in the world ........written by hand no less!
Showing rare devotion to the craft of journalism, lifelong staffers at The Musalman in Chennai, India, have been publishing a daily newspaper penned in Urdu calligraphy since 1927. The kicker? No one has ever quit the paper, laboring until death and often passing their responsibilities down to their next of kin.
Friday, May 27, 2011
A turning-point which we ignore at our peril
Anyone even remotely concerned about the environment and our globe, must read this compelling piece by Johann Hari in The Independent. It's more than a timely call that the world has reached a tipping-point from which there may be no return.
"Sometimes, there are hinge-points in human history – moments when we have to choose between an exuberant descent into lunacy, and a still, sober voice offering us a sane way out. Usually, we can only see them when we look back from a distance. In 1793, the great democrat Thomas Paine said the French Revolution shouldn't betray its principles by killing the King, because it would trigger an orgy of blood-letting that would eventually drown them all. They threw him in jail. In 1919, the great economist John Maynard Keynes said the European powers shouldn't humiliate Germany, because it would catalyse extreme nationalism and produce another world war. They ignored him. In 1953, a handful of US President Dwight Eisenhower's advisers urged him not to destroy Iranian democracy and kidnap its Prime Minister, because it would have a reactionary ripple effect that lasted decades. He refused to listen.
Another of those seemingly small moments with a long echo is happening now. A marginalised voice is offering us a warning, and an inspiring way to save ourselves – yet this alternative seems to be passing unheard in the night. It is coming from the people of Ecuador, led by their President, Rafael Correa, and it would begin to deal with two converging crises."
Continue reading here.
"Sometimes, there are hinge-points in human history – moments when we have to choose between an exuberant descent into lunacy, and a still, sober voice offering us a sane way out. Usually, we can only see them when we look back from a distance. In 1793, the great democrat Thomas Paine said the French Revolution shouldn't betray its principles by killing the King, because it would trigger an orgy of blood-letting that would eventually drown them all. They threw him in jail. In 1919, the great economist John Maynard Keynes said the European powers shouldn't humiliate Germany, because it would catalyse extreme nationalism and produce another world war. They ignored him. In 1953, a handful of US President Dwight Eisenhower's advisers urged him not to destroy Iranian democracy and kidnap its Prime Minister, because it would have a reactionary ripple effect that lasted decades. He refused to listen.
Another of those seemingly small moments with a long echo is happening now. A marginalised voice is offering us a warning, and an inspiring way to save ourselves – yet this alternative seems to be passing unheard in the night. It is coming from the people of Ecuador, led by their President, Rafael Correa, and it would begin to deal with two converging crises."
Continue reading here.
NY Times editorialises: The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse
The New York Times, with a wide Jewish readership in New York, is always tempered in what it writes about the Israel - Palestinian conflict - and if anything, the position put is heavily weighted toward Israel.
Therefore today's editorial is somewhat out of character.
"Only a few minutes after President Obama finished his carefully balanced speech on the Middle East last week, Republican presidential candidates and lawmakers began twisting his words to suggest that he was calling for an epochal abandonment of Israel.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” said Mitt Romney. Tim Pawlenty wrongly said Mr. Obama had called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, which he called “a disaster waiting to happen.” Rick Santorum said Mr. Obama “just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.”
Others went even further. Representative Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee, a former presidential candidate, said Mr. Obama had “betrayed Israel.” The worst line came from Representative Allen West of Florida, who somehow believes Mr. Obama wants to keep Jews away from the Western Wall and wants to see “the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”
Some Democrats were also piling on, evidently afraid Republicans will paint them as anti-Israel. It was not helpful when Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said that no one outside of the talks should urge the terms of negotiation, clearly repudiating the president’s attempts to do just that. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, and other Democrats have made similar statements.
Pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade. Most Republicans know full well that Mr. Obama is not calling on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. He said those borders, which define the West Bank and Gaza, would be the starting point for talks about land swaps.
Do the president’s critics even agree on the need for a Palestinian state next to Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel says he does? It is not clear that several of the Republicans would go as far as the prime minister, who at least noted that Mr. Obama does not want to return to the 1967 lines. But even those who do should admit that two-state proposals have always been along the lines sketched out by the president.
In 2007, for example, Mr. Romney told The Jerusalem Post that his administration would “actively work toward a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” What could the outline of that solution be if not the one Mr. Obama mentioned? Mr. Romney doesn’t address that question in his speeches. It is one thing to make noise on the campaign trail. It is quite another to lead a quest for peace."
Therefore today's editorial is somewhat out of character.
"Only a few minutes after President Obama finished his carefully balanced speech on the Middle East last week, Republican presidential candidates and lawmakers began twisting his words to suggest that he was calling for an epochal abandonment of Israel.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” said Mitt Romney. Tim Pawlenty wrongly said Mr. Obama had called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, which he called “a disaster waiting to happen.” Rick Santorum said Mr. Obama “just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.”
Others went even further. Representative Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee, a former presidential candidate, said Mr. Obama had “betrayed Israel.” The worst line came from Representative Allen West of Florida, who somehow believes Mr. Obama wants to keep Jews away from the Western Wall and wants to see “the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”
Some Democrats were also piling on, evidently afraid Republicans will paint them as anti-Israel. It was not helpful when Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said that no one outside of the talks should urge the terms of negotiation, clearly repudiating the president’s attempts to do just that. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, and other Democrats have made similar statements.
Pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade. Most Republicans know full well that Mr. Obama is not calling on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. He said those borders, which define the West Bank and Gaza, would be the starting point for talks about land swaps.
Do the president’s critics even agree on the need for a Palestinian state next to Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel says he does? It is not clear that several of the Republicans would go as far as the prime minister, who at least noted that Mr. Obama does not want to return to the 1967 lines. But even those who do should admit that two-state proposals have always been along the lines sketched out by the president.
In 2007, for example, Mr. Romney told The Jerusalem Post that his administration would “actively work toward a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” What could the outline of that solution be if not the one Mr. Obama mentioned? Mr. Romney doesn’t address that question in his speeches. It is one thing to make noise on the campaign trail. It is quite another to lead a quest for peace."
Yikes! Uncle Sam can attack anyone worldwide
The US has just passed a wide-ranging piece of legislation which allows for it to attack anyone, or any country anywhere in the world, engaged in terrorism. The ACLU reports:
"The House today passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains a dangerous provision that authorizes a worldwide war against terrorism suspects and against nations suspected of supporting them. The bill includes several additional troubling provisions, including one that would needlessly delay the implementation of the repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and another blocking all federal criminal trials of suspected terrorists who are not U.S. citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes the authorization for worldwide war and many other provisions in the bill."
Continue reading here. Scary stuff!
"The House today passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains a dangerous provision that authorizes a worldwide war against terrorism suspects and against nations suspected of supporting them. The bill includes several additional troubling provisions, including one that would needlessly delay the implementation of the repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and another blocking all federal criminal trials of suspected terrorists who are not U.S. citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes the authorization for worldwide war and many other provisions in the bill."
Continue reading here. Scary stuff!
Killed off in full public view
If the American Congress thought that by giving the Israeli PM such an enthusiastic reception to his speech - and in the process poking their own President in the eye! - there was a benefit to be gained for Israel and America, then, as Bernard Avishai writes on his blog Bernard Avishai Dot Com they could not have been further from the truth.
"But Congress's enthusiasm for its slyness may also mark the moment the rising Arab world, including what will rise in the streets of Palestine and on the borders of Israel, dismisses America as a misguided empire. The speech may eventually prove a world-historical photo-op as damaging in its way as Abu Ghraib; the moment to despair, once and for all, of America's once-promising young president being seen as even-handed.
This reaction of Congress may also mark the moment when intellectuals across Europe and Latin America--also on American campuses, for that matter--claim absolute proof that America's Middle East diplomacy is bought-and-paid-for by the people Netanyahu romanticizes. It is a people they are inclined to romanticize, too, though in a quite different way, alas."
"But Congress's enthusiasm for its slyness may also mark the moment the rising Arab world, including what will rise in the streets of Palestine and on the borders of Israel, dismisses America as a misguided empire. The speech may eventually prove a world-historical photo-op as damaging in its way as Abu Ghraib; the moment to despair, once and for all, of America's once-promising young president being seen as even-handed.
This reaction of Congress may also mark the moment when intellectuals across Europe and Latin America--also on American campuses, for that matter--claim absolute proof that America's Middle East diplomacy is bought-and-paid-for by the people Netanyahu romanticizes. It is a people they are inclined to romanticize, too, though in a quite different way, alas."
Thursday, May 26, 2011
5 years on the financial scene in America is far from rosy
The hard facts almost 5 years after the GFC hit everyone, almost everywhere. It doesn't make for pretty reading when especially when considers that the US is supposed to be the beacon in the capitalist world.
"The current capitalist global crisis began with the severe contraction in the housing markets in mid-2007. Therefore welcome to Year Five. This inventory of where things stand may begin with the good news: the major banks, the stock market, and corporate profits have largely or completely “recovered” from the lows they reached early in 2009. The US dollar has fallen sharply against many currencies of countries with which the US trades and that has enabled US exports to rebound from their crisis lows.
However, the bad news is what prevails notwithstanding the political and media hypes about “recovery.” The most widely cited unemployment rate remains at 9 % for workers without jobs but looking. If instead we use the more indicative U-6 unemployment statistic of the US Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, then the rate is 15%. The latter rate counts also those who want full-time but can only find part-time work and those who want work but have given up looking. One in six members of the US labor force brings home little or no money, burdening family and friends, using up savings, cutting back on spending, etc. At the same time, the housing market remains deeply depressed as 1.5 to 2 million home foreclosures are scheduled for 2011, separating more millions from their homes. After a short upturn, housing prices nationally have resumed their fall: one of those feared “double dips” downward is thus already under way in the economically vital housing market.
The combination of high unemployment and high home foreclosures assures a deeply depressed economy. The mass of US citizens cannot work more hours – the US already is number 1 in the world in the average number of hours of paid labor done per year per worker. The mass of US citizens cannot borrow much more because of debt levels already teetering on the edge of unsustainability for most consumers. Real wages are going nowhere because of high unemployment enabling employers everywhere to refuse significant wage increases. Job-related benefits (pensions, medical insurance, holidays, etc.) are being pared back. There is thus no discernible basis for a substantial recovery for the mass of Americans. The US economy, like so many others, is caught in a serious stagnation situation flowing partly from the economic crisis that began in 2007 and partly from the way in which most governments responded to that crisis."
"The current capitalist global crisis began with the severe contraction in the housing markets in mid-2007. Therefore welcome to Year Five. This inventory of where things stand may begin with the good news: the major banks, the stock market, and corporate profits have largely or completely “recovered” from the lows they reached early in 2009. The US dollar has fallen sharply against many currencies of countries with which the US trades and that has enabled US exports to rebound from their crisis lows.
However, the bad news is what prevails notwithstanding the political and media hypes about “recovery.” The most widely cited unemployment rate remains at 9 % for workers without jobs but looking. If instead we use the more indicative U-6 unemployment statistic of the US Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, then the rate is 15%. The latter rate counts also those who want full-time but can only find part-time work and those who want work but have given up looking. One in six members of the US labor force brings home little or no money, burdening family and friends, using up savings, cutting back on spending, etc. At the same time, the housing market remains deeply depressed as 1.5 to 2 million home foreclosures are scheduled for 2011, separating more millions from their homes. After a short upturn, housing prices nationally have resumed their fall: one of those feared “double dips” downward is thus already under way in the economically vital housing market.
The combination of high unemployment and high home foreclosures assures a deeply depressed economy. The mass of US citizens cannot work more hours – the US already is number 1 in the world in the average number of hours of paid labor done per year per worker. The mass of US citizens cannot borrow much more because of debt levels already teetering on the edge of unsustainability for most consumers. Real wages are going nowhere because of high unemployment enabling employers everywhere to refuse significant wage increases. Job-related benefits (pensions, medical insurance, holidays, etc.) are being pared back. There is thus no discernible basis for a substantial recovery for the mass of Americans. The US economy, like so many others, is caught in a serious stagnation situation flowing partly from the economic crisis that began in 2007 and partly from the way in which most governments responded to that crisis."
Hey, look who's to the Right
Leaving aside the cringe-factor of PM Natanyahu's speech to Congress a couple of days - and the absurd hyper-venting enthusiasm of his audience - a poll done in Israel one day after the PM's speech throws up more than some "interesting" stats and facts.
"In the morning following Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress, a poll published by the Israeli daily Maariv indicates that while Netanyahu enjoys considerable support among Israelis, the public is far more inclined than its prime minister to make concessions to the Palestinians.
According to a Teleseker-Maariv poll, conducted last night, a clear majority of 57 percent of Israelis would have wanted Netanyahu to say “yes” or “yes, but” (figures break 10 percent “yes”, 47 “yes, but”) to the path to a two-state solution outlined in President Obama’s speech.
(As pollster Dahlia Scheindlin wrote on this site, such figures correspond to previous polls, which show, for most part, the support of most of the Jewish public for a two-state solution based on the ‘67 borders.)
At the same time, if elections were held today, the Maariv poll has Netanyahu’s Likud party receiving 30 seats (it holds 27 today), with opposition party Kadima dropping from 27 to 26 seats. The poll shows Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beitenu rising from 14 to 16 seats.
If those numbers represent the real attitude of the Israeli public, then Netanyahu has presented a false picture in the speeches given during his U.S. visit– he enjoys a stronger coalition than he cares to present, but in rejecting the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, he doesn’t reflect the views of most Israelis.
My bet is that with time, more Israelis will come to oppose the ‘67-based solution and a compromise over Jerusalem, as the prime minister’s messages increasingly sinks in with some of his supporters, who are now more open to concessions than he is.
What’s even more interesting is how far to the right the Washington establishment is on these issues. If they were Israelis, all of those attacking President Obama on Israel – from the Senate majority leader to the Washington Post’s editorial page – would have been part of the right flank of the Likud, or a moderate settler party. Right now, the Israeli consensus – if such thing exists – is to the left of the beltway (though Netanyahu is working very hard to change that).
If the events of the past few days have taught us anything, it’s that the unique connection between Washington politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike), the Jewish lobby and Israeli hawks is the main obstacle to the termination of the occupation.
Under the current circumstances, the road to justice and peace in the region cannot pass through the U.S. capital."
"In the morning following Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress, a poll published by the Israeli daily Maariv indicates that while Netanyahu enjoys considerable support among Israelis, the public is far more inclined than its prime minister to make concessions to the Palestinians.
According to a Teleseker-Maariv poll, conducted last night, a clear majority of 57 percent of Israelis would have wanted Netanyahu to say “yes” or “yes, but” (figures break 10 percent “yes”, 47 “yes, but”) to the path to a two-state solution outlined in President Obama’s speech.
(As pollster Dahlia Scheindlin wrote on this site, such figures correspond to previous polls, which show, for most part, the support of most of the Jewish public for a two-state solution based on the ‘67 borders.)
At the same time, if elections were held today, the Maariv poll has Netanyahu’s Likud party receiving 30 seats (it holds 27 today), with opposition party Kadima dropping from 27 to 26 seats. The poll shows Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beitenu rising from 14 to 16 seats.
If those numbers represent the real attitude of the Israeli public, then Netanyahu has presented a false picture in the speeches given during his U.S. visit– he enjoys a stronger coalition than he cares to present, but in rejecting the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, he doesn’t reflect the views of most Israelis.
My bet is that with time, more Israelis will come to oppose the ‘67-based solution and a compromise over Jerusalem, as the prime minister’s messages increasingly sinks in with some of his supporters, who are now more open to concessions than he is.
What’s even more interesting is how far to the right the Washington establishment is on these issues. If they were Israelis, all of those attacking President Obama on Israel – from the Senate majority leader to the Washington Post’s editorial page – would have been part of the right flank of the Likud, or a moderate settler party. Right now, the Israeli consensus – if such thing exists – is to the left of the beltway (though Netanyahu is working very hard to change that).
If the events of the past few days have taught us anything, it’s that the unique connection between Washington politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike), the Jewish lobby and Israeli hawks is the main obstacle to the termination of the occupation.
Under the current circumstances, the road to justice and peace in the region cannot pass through the U.S. capital."
Internet censorship to come to Turkey
Politicians just can't help themselves. Keeping their grubby hands off the internet - that is, censoring it - is just too tempting.
Step up to the plate Turkey, which will in August impose a censorship regime in relation to the internet.
"When my wife Diane and I arrived in Istanbul on May 12—the sixth stop on our multi-country adventure—an email awaited from Diane's sister Cynthia, who is always on the lookout for a good laugh. It contained a link to a YouTube video of the late British comedians Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, the former a cop who has pulled over the latter for playing a Beethoven piano piece too fast. Cook wore a bobby's helmet and for some reason carried a trumpet, so the sketch looked funny–but there was no sound.
We had encountered this censorship before, in China and Vietnam, and I was under no illusion that Turkey was a democratic paradise. Still, the silence was ominous, a harbinger of a greater clampdown due to take effect on August 22. On that date, the government plans to require all Turkish computer users to choose among four Internet filters–family, children, domestic or standard–if they wish to gain online access.
The authorities also have given Internet service providers and website hosts a list of 138 keywords that are off-limits. Most seem arbitrary, if not absurd: yasak, which means forbidden, is forbidden. Also yasak are etek (skirt), baldiz (sister-in-law) and hayvan (animals). Less benign words on the list are free and pic, which minimize the appearance of photographs and most references to freedom that might displease the Muslim-dominated Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has become increasingly authoritarian since coming to power in 2003."
Step up to the plate Turkey, which will in August impose a censorship regime in relation to the internet.
"When my wife Diane and I arrived in Istanbul on May 12—the sixth stop on our multi-country adventure—an email awaited from Diane's sister Cynthia, who is always on the lookout for a good laugh. It contained a link to a YouTube video of the late British comedians Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, the former a cop who has pulled over the latter for playing a Beethoven piano piece too fast. Cook wore a bobby's helmet and for some reason carried a trumpet, so the sketch looked funny–but there was no sound.
We had encountered this censorship before, in China and Vietnam, and I was under no illusion that Turkey was a democratic paradise. Still, the silence was ominous, a harbinger of a greater clampdown due to take effect on August 22. On that date, the government plans to require all Turkish computer users to choose among four Internet filters–family, children, domestic or standard–if they wish to gain online access.
The authorities also have given Internet service providers and website hosts a list of 138 keywords that are off-limits. Most seem arbitrary, if not absurd: yasak, which means forbidden, is forbidden. Also yasak are etek (skirt), baldiz (sister-in-law) and hayvan (animals). Less benign words on the list are free and pic, which minimize the appearance of photographs and most references to freedom that might displease the Muslim-dominated Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has become increasingly authoritarian since coming to power in 2003."
Uncle Sam has your personal data - for 15 years!
Presumably all under the guise and rationale of security and the fight against terrorism, the US is storing all details about foreign passengers entering the US for 15 years. Yes, all info about your address, credit card, etc. etc. This is Big Brother 1984 gone mad!
"The personal data of millions of passengers who fly between the US and Europe, including credit card details, phone numbers and home addresses, may be stored by the US department of homeland security for 15 years, according to a draft agreement between Washington and Brussels leaked to the Guardian.
The "restricted" draft, which emerged from negotiations between the US and EU, opens the way for passenger data provided to airlines on check-in to be analysed by US automated data-mining and profiling programmes in the name of fighting terrorism, crime and illegal migration. The Americans want to require airlines to supply passenger lists as near complete as possible 96 hours before takeoff, so names can be checked against terrorist and immigration watchlists.
The agreement acknowledges that there will be occasions when people are delayed or prevented from flying because they are wrongly identified as a threat, and gives them the right to petition for judicial review in the US federal court. It also outlines procedures in the event of anticipated data losses or other unauthorised disclosure. The text includes provisions under which "sensitive personal data" – such as ethnic origin, political opinions, and details of health or sex life – can be used in exceptional circumstances where an individual's life could be imperilled.
The 15-year retention period is likely to prove highly controversial as it is three times the five years allowed for in the EU's PNR (passenger name record) regime to cover flights into, out of and within Europe. A period of five and a half years has just been negotiated in a similar agreement with Australia. Germany and France raised concerns this week about the agreement and the unproven necessity for the measure"
"The personal data of millions of passengers who fly between the US and Europe, including credit card details, phone numbers and home addresses, may be stored by the US department of homeland security for 15 years, according to a draft agreement between Washington and Brussels leaked to the Guardian.
The "restricted" draft, which emerged from negotiations between the US and EU, opens the way for passenger data provided to airlines on check-in to be analysed by US automated data-mining and profiling programmes in the name of fighting terrorism, crime and illegal migration. The Americans want to require airlines to supply passenger lists as near complete as possible 96 hours before takeoff, so names can be checked against terrorist and immigration watchlists.
The agreement acknowledges that there will be occasions when people are delayed or prevented from flying because they are wrongly identified as a threat, and gives them the right to petition for judicial review in the US federal court. It also outlines procedures in the event of anticipated data losses or other unauthorised disclosure. The text includes provisions under which "sensitive personal data" – such as ethnic origin, political opinions, and details of health or sex life – can be used in exceptional circumstances where an individual's life could be imperilled.
The 15-year retention period is likely to prove highly controversial as it is three times the five years allowed for in the EU's PNR (passenger name record) regime to cover flights into, out of and within Europe. A period of five and a half years has just been negotiated in a similar agreement with Australia. Germany and France raised concerns this week about the agreement and the unproven necessity for the measure"
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Natanyahu and that speech to the US Congress
The speech by the Israeli PM to the US Congress has drawn much comment. That it was shameful and that the US members of Congress and the Senate lapped it all up says much for the politicians - no doubt, petrified to upset, however minor, the Israel Lobby, especially with an election coming up in 2012.
Jeffrey Goldberg on Bloomberg:
"If I were a Palestinian (and, should there be any confusion on this point, I am not), and if I were the sort of Palestinian who believed that Israel should be wiped off the map, then I would be quite pleased with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance before Congress this morning.
I would applaud Netanyahu for including no bold initiatives that would have suggested to the world that Israel is alive to the threat posed by its seemingly eternal occupation of the West Bank.
In fact, I would make support for Netanyahu the foundation stone of my patient campaign to dismantle the world’s only majority-Jewish country. I would support not only Netanyahu, but the far-right parties of his governing coalition, the parties that seem uninterested in democracy and obsessed with planting more Jewish settlements on the West Bank."
Phil Weiss on Mondoweiss:
"In Israel they say that the occupation devoured Israeli politics so that everyone is beholden to the settlers, well the same thing is happening to American politics and today it was evident. I'm not the only one to feel shattered by Netanyahu's bravura performance in Congress today laying claim to the West Bank as the ancestral Jewish homeland-- and the Congress's prostrate acceptance of his rightwing declarations.
"In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers," he said to a standing ovation-- I even saw John Kerry standing. "We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo."
And Netanyahu got the same standing ovation when he said, crazily: "Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians."
No wonder David Welna of NPR has quoted John Mearsheimer as lead analyst in his piece tonight-- a breakthrough by the gobsmacked media. Writes a friend: "With this speech Netanyahu becomes the right-wing politician of most serious national stature in America. He put a lot of work into the words, and the delivery. It was necessary to have some understanding of (a) history, (b) politics, and (c) character in order to see through it. The distortions were everywhere. But I doubt that 20 members of Congress were equipped to notice them. There must have been a dozen standing ovations. He has taken Hamas off the table, put the peril of Iran back on the table, and bound the U.S. to Israel under the sign of power and providence."
ABC says there were 20 standing ovations, on MSNBC I heard there were 26. Staggering. Our president is overseas, and his spokesman Ben Rhodes was afraid to contradict Netanyahu in any way today. This is power of the lobby in our politics, and it looks as disastrous to me as the slave power's ability to enforce unanimity in American politics in the 1850s."
Gideon Levy in Haaretz:
"It was an address with no destination, filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress. It's unlikely that any other has attempted to sell them such a pile of propaganda and prevarication, such hypocrisy and sanctimony as Benjamin Netanyahu did yesterday.
The fact that the Congress rose to its feet multiple times to applaud him says more about the ignorance of its members than the quality of their guest's speech. An Israeli presence on the Jordan River - cheering. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel - applause. Did American's elected representatives know that they were cheering for the death of possibility? If America loved it, we're in big trouble."
Jeffrey Goldberg on Bloomberg:
"If I were a Palestinian (and, should there be any confusion on this point, I am not), and if I were the sort of Palestinian who believed that Israel should be wiped off the map, then I would be quite pleased with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance before Congress this morning.
I would applaud Netanyahu for including no bold initiatives that would have suggested to the world that Israel is alive to the threat posed by its seemingly eternal occupation of the West Bank.
In fact, I would make support for Netanyahu the foundation stone of my patient campaign to dismantle the world’s only majority-Jewish country. I would support not only Netanyahu, but the far-right parties of his governing coalition, the parties that seem uninterested in democracy and obsessed with planting more Jewish settlements on the West Bank."
Phil Weiss on Mondoweiss:
"In Israel they say that the occupation devoured Israeli politics so that everyone is beholden to the settlers, well the same thing is happening to American politics and today it was evident. I'm not the only one to feel shattered by Netanyahu's bravura performance in Congress today laying claim to the West Bank as the ancestral Jewish homeland-- and the Congress's prostrate acceptance of his rightwing declarations.
"In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers," he said to a standing ovation-- I even saw John Kerry standing. "We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo."
And Netanyahu got the same standing ovation when he said, crazily: "Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians."
No wonder David Welna of NPR has quoted John Mearsheimer as lead analyst in his piece tonight-- a breakthrough by the gobsmacked media. Writes a friend: "With this speech Netanyahu becomes the right-wing politician of most serious national stature in America. He put a lot of work into the words, and the delivery. It was necessary to have some understanding of (a) history, (b) politics, and (c) character in order to see through it. The distortions were everywhere. But I doubt that 20 members of Congress were equipped to notice them. There must have been a dozen standing ovations. He has taken Hamas off the table, put the peril of Iran back on the table, and bound the U.S. to Israel under the sign of power and providence."
ABC says there were 20 standing ovations, on MSNBC I heard there were 26. Staggering. Our president is overseas, and his spokesman Ben Rhodes was afraid to contradict Netanyahu in any way today. This is power of the lobby in our politics, and it looks as disastrous to me as the slave power's ability to enforce unanimity in American politics in the 1850s."
Gideon Levy in Haaretz:
"It was an address with no destination, filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress. It's unlikely that any other has attempted to sell them such a pile of propaganda and prevarication, such hypocrisy and sanctimony as Benjamin Netanyahu did yesterday.
The fact that the Congress rose to its feet multiple times to applaud him says more about the ignorance of its members than the quality of their guest's speech. An Israeli presence on the Jordan River - cheering. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel - applause. Did American's elected representatives know that they were cheering for the death of possibility? If America loved it, we're in big trouble."
Money galore....for armaments
People are starving in various parts of the globe and our atmosphere is polluted. WE are fighting climate change. America's middle class is struggling. Europe's middle class, certainly in some countries, is finding economic strictures hard going. So, where do the politicians spend money? - and lots of it! Why armaments of course!
"Despite the vast rivers of blood and treasure poured into wars over the centuries, the nations of the world continue to enhance their military might.
According to a recent report from the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), world military expenditures grew to a record $1.63 trillion in 2010. Middle East nations alone spent $111 billion on the military, with Saudi Arabia leading the way.
Arms sales have also reached record heights. SIPRI's Top 100 of the world's arms-producing companies sold $401 billion in weaponry during 2009 (the latest year for which figures are available), a real dollar increase of eight percent over the preceding year and 59 percent since 2002. These military companies do a particularly brisk business overseas, where they engage in fierce battles for weapons contracts. "There is intense competition between suppliers for big-ticket deals in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America," reports Dr. Paul Holtom, Director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program. Until recently, in fact, defense contractors scrambled vigorously to sell arms to Libya.
In numerous ways, the United States is at the head of the pack. Of the $20.6 billion increase in world military expenditures during 2010, the U.S. government accounted for $19.6 billion. Indeed, between 2001 and 2010, theU.S. government increased its military spending by 81 percent. As a result, it now accounts for about 43 percent of global military spending, some six times that of its nearest military rival, China.
U.S. weapons producers are also world leaders. According to SIPRI, 45 of its Top 100 weapons-manufacturers are based in the United States. In 2009, they generated nearly $247 billion in weapons sales—nearly 62 percent of income produced by the Top 100. Not surprisingly, the United States is also the world's leading exporter of military equipment, accounting for 30 percent of global arms exports in the 2006-2010 period.
Being Number 1 might be exciting, even thrilling, among children. But adults might well ask if the benefits are worth the cost. Are they?"
Keep reading here to find out the answer to the question.
"Despite the vast rivers of blood and treasure poured into wars over the centuries, the nations of the world continue to enhance their military might.
According to a recent report from the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), world military expenditures grew to a record $1.63 trillion in 2010. Middle East nations alone spent $111 billion on the military, with Saudi Arabia leading the way.
Arms sales have also reached record heights. SIPRI's Top 100 of the world's arms-producing companies sold $401 billion in weaponry during 2009 (the latest year for which figures are available), a real dollar increase of eight percent over the preceding year and 59 percent since 2002. These military companies do a particularly brisk business overseas, where they engage in fierce battles for weapons contracts. "There is intense competition between suppliers for big-ticket deals in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America," reports Dr. Paul Holtom, Director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program. Until recently, in fact, defense contractors scrambled vigorously to sell arms to Libya.
In numerous ways, the United States is at the head of the pack. Of the $20.6 billion increase in world military expenditures during 2010, the U.S. government accounted for $19.6 billion. Indeed, between 2001 and 2010, theU.S. government increased its military spending by 81 percent. As a result, it now accounts for about 43 percent of global military spending, some six times that of its nearest military rival, China.
U.S. weapons producers are also world leaders. According to SIPRI, 45 of its Top 100 weapons-manufacturers are based in the United States. In 2009, they generated nearly $247 billion in weapons sales—nearly 62 percent of income produced by the Top 100. Not surprisingly, the United States is also the world's leading exporter of military equipment, accounting for 30 percent of global arms exports in the 2006-2010 period.
Being Number 1 might be exciting, even thrilling, among children. But adults might well ask if the benefits are worth the cost. Are they?"
Keep reading here to find out the answer to the question.
Save money, let 'em eat cake!
AlterNet puts into sharp context what the GOP plan on doing to save money as part of budgetary measures. In effect attack the most vulnerable in society. Reduce aid for food, etc. Charming!
"Hunger and starvation is no excuse to welch off the Federal Government.
That's the Republican response, in any event, to how to deal with the budget deficit. While Republicans defend billions of dollars in subsidies for Big Oil and propose further tax cuts for the wealthy, they see food aid for hungry people here and around the world as a bad idea. Bug Guvmint should get out of the business of keeping people from starving. Now isn't that special:
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are targeting domestic nutrition programs and international food assistance as they try to control spending in next year's budget.
In a bill released Monday, Republicans proposed cutting $832 million - 11 percent from this year's budget for the Women, Infants and Children program, which provides food for low-income mothers and children. The 2012 budget proposal for food and farm programs also includes a decrease of almost $457 million, or 23 percent, from international food assistance.
The legislation would cut $2 billion from food stamps, or about 2 percent of the feeding program's giant $67 billion budget.
Of course, Republicans claim that this is all wasted money and that cutting it would have "no effect" on the actual delivery of services for poor, underfed, malnourished people. Please excuse me if I don't trust the word of the same folks who:
Apologized to the Chairman of BP for the way the Obama administration acted to obtain compensation for all the billions of dollars of damage that was caused by B P's (at best) negligence after its Deepwater Horizon Well dumped unimaginable amounts of oil and gas into the Gulf.
Believes Global Warming and Climate Change are a hoax concocted by Al Gore and scientists who are conspiring to kill our economy.
Screamed to high heaven about "Obamacare's Death Panels"
Claims killing Medicare is the only way to save it.
Told us the Bush Tax cuts would create jobs and increase government revenues.
"Hunger and starvation is no excuse to welch off the Federal Government.
That's the Republican response, in any event, to how to deal with the budget deficit. While Republicans defend billions of dollars in subsidies for Big Oil and propose further tax cuts for the wealthy, they see food aid for hungry people here and around the world as a bad idea. Bug Guvmint should get out of the business of keeping people from starving. Now isn't that special:
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are targeting domestic nutrition programs and international food assistance as they try to control spending in next year's budget.
In a bill released Monday, Republicans proposed cutting $832 million - 11 percent from this year's budget for the Women, Infants and Children program, which provides food for low-income mothers and children. The 2012 budget proposal for food and farm programs also includes a decrease of almost $457 million, or 23 percent, from international food assistance.
The legislation would cut $2 billion from food stamps, or about 2 percent of the feeding program's giant $67 billion budget.
Of course, Republicans claim that this is all wasted money and that cutting it would have "no effect" on the actual delivery of services for poor, underfed, malnourished people. Please excuse me if I don't trust the word of the same folks who:
Apologized to the Chairman of BP for the way the Obama administration acted to obtain compensation for all the billions of dollars of damage that was caused by B P's (at best) negligence after its Deepwater Horizon Well dumped unimaginable amounts of oil and gas into the Gulf.
Believes Global Warming and Climate Change are a hoax concocted by Al Gore and scientists who are conspiring to kill our economy.
Screamed to high heaven about "Obamacare's Death Panels"
Claims killing Medicare is the only way to save it.
Told us the Bush Tax cuts would create jobs and increase government revenues.
Peace (if it ever had any chance) dead in the water
It is hard to know what was worse. The Israeli PM's speech to the US Congress - or those who listened to his talk and gave him 31 standing ovations. Netanyahu killed off any chance of peace with the Palestinians any time soon and the response of the US legislators ensured that the Arab world will see the Americans as anything but honest brokers.
Haaretz has this piece well worth reading in the circumstances.
"The tension didn't kill us before the speech and we managed to survive it, too. We'll live to see how Israel manages to manage despite its prime minister. Yesterday's speech to Congress was a surrealistic performance in Orwellian style. He's the representative of a county that for 44 years has denied its Palestinian neighbors' freedom, an occupier boasting as if he was a liberator, speaking about freedom and reaping the rewards.
That same man, who wouldn't agree to another short settlement construction freeze, is promising to be "generous." Is the right-wing, anti-Obama applause evidence that members of Congress live on the moon? We, on the other hand, live here, and even sometimes die before our time. And as the prophet of Israeli insubordination once said, peace will not come of this, nor will any sort of agreement.
Yesterday Netanyahu revealed whether he wanted to be Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir, and Shamir it was. The link between undivided Jewish Jerusalem and an Israeli army presence in the Jordan Valley and settlement blocs are the shoal on which declarations are dashed. If this had been the speech of his lifetime, that's one thing. Nothing really would have happened. But it was the speech of our lifetimes and it is our disaster. In the absence of a peace process, a process of belligerence develops that ultimately explodes. And there was nothing in the speech to constitute even a drop of fuel to jump-start the diplomatic process.
It's already time to open the emergency warehouses, and Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar can expand his proposed school program through which our children would adopt the graves of the fallen. If it is truly impossible to defend Israel in the 1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps, this country is a lost cause.
Yesterday Netanyahu followed the advice of his advisers, who advised him to "walk between the raindrops." The problem is that such a stroll is as feasible as walking on water, which even then was considered a miracle. Maybe the prime minister won't get too wet, but Israel is liable to get swept away in the floodwaters.
There are times when leaders must place themselves in the eye of the storm or into the flames, and either get wet to the bone or burned. Netanyahu's speech did not project such readiness. Those same advisers from the government and the media implored him to say "yes, but," meaning "yes, but no," as if it is only they who hear the "no" and the whole world was deaf.
Is Obama's despair with Netanyahu as great as our own, and it's just that the president's experiencing it on his journey to Dublin and London is more comfortable? And what happened to those 30 words of redemption that were supposed to grip and amaze the world? It's not that expected surprise that gave Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad his heart attack.
About all we have left is prayer, to he who makes peace in the heavens, because he who makes peace on earth won't do a thing."
Haaretz has this piece well worth reading in the circumstances.
"The tension didn't kill us before the speech and we managed to survive it, too. We'll live to see how Israel manages to manage despite its prime minister. Yesterday's speech to Congress was a surrealistic performance in Orwellian style. He's the representative of a county that for 44 years has denied its Palestinian neighbors' freedom, an occupier boasting as if he was a liberator, speaking about freedom and reaping the rewards.
That same man, who wouldn't agree to another short settlement construction freeze, is promising to be "generous." Is the right-wing, anti-Obama applause evidence that members of Congress live on the moon? We, on the other hand, live here, and even sometimes die before our time. And as the prophet of Israeli insubordination once said, peace will not come of this, nor will any sort of agreement.
Yesterday Netanyahu revealed whether he wanted to be Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir, and Shamir it was. The link between undivided Jewish Jerusalem and an Israeli army presence in the Jordan Valley and settlement blocs are the shoal on which declarations are dashed. If this had been the speech of his lifetime, that's one thing. Nothing really would have happened. But it was the speech of our lifetimes and it is our disaster. In the absence of a peace process, a process of belligerence develops that ultimately explodes. And there was nothing in the speech to constitute even a drop of fuel to jump-start the diplomatic process.
It's already time to open the emergency warehouses, and Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar can expand his proposed school program through which our children would adopt the graves of the fallen. If it is truly impossible to defend Israel in the 1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps, this country is a lost cause.
Yesterday Netanyahu followed the advice of his advisers, who advised him to "walk between the raindrops." The problem is that such a stroll is as feasible as walking on water, which even then was considered a miracle. Maybe the prime minister won't get too wet, but Israel is liable to get swept away in the floodwaters.
There are times when leaders must place themselves in the eye of the storm or into the flames, and either get wet to the bone or burned. Netanyahu's speech did not project such readiness. Those same advisers from the government and the media implored him to say "yes, but," meaning "yes, but no," as if it is only they who hear the "no" and the whole world was deaf.
Is Obama's despair with Netanyahu as great as our own, and it's just that the president's experiencing it on his journey to Dublin and London is more comfortable? And what happened to those 30 words of redemption that were supposed to grip and amaze the world? It's not that expected surprise that gave Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad his heart attack.
About all we have left is prayer, to he who makes peace in the heavens, because he who makes peace on earth won't do a thing."
DSK: What money will probably buy
If this report in the New York Post is correct, there is no other word for it other than that it stinks. And a matter of contempt to "buy" off a critical prosecution witness?
"Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody, The Post has learned.
The woman, who says she was sexually assaulted by the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund, has an extended family in the former French colony of Guinea in West Africa, well out of reach of the Manhattan DA's Office.
"They already talked with her family," a French businesswoman with close ties to Strauss-Kahn and his family told The Post. "For sure, it's going to end up on a quiet note."
Prosecutors in Manhattan have done their best to keep the cleaning woman out of the reach of Strauss-Kahn's supporters, but the source was already predicting success for the Parisian pol's pals.
"He'll get out of it and will fly back to France. He won't spend time in jail. The woman will get a lot of money," said the source, adding that a seven-figure sum has been bandied about.
While the DA's office has sequestered the maid -- and is even monitoring her phone calls -- her extended family lives in a village that lacks paved roads, electricity and phone lines.
The average monthly income is $45, which is near-starvation, and some of her family members can't even afford shoes."
"Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody, The Post has learned.
The woman, who says she was sexually assaulted by the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund, has an extended family in the former French colony of Guinea in West Africa, well out of reach of the Manhattan DA's Office.
"They already talked with her family," a French businesswoman with close ties to Strauss-Kahn and his family told The Post. "For sure, it's going to end up on a quiet note."
Prosecutors in Manhattan have done their best to keep the cleaning woman out of the reach of Strauss-Kahn's supporters, but the source was already predicting success for the Parisian pol's pals.
"He'll get out of it and will fly back to France. He won't spend time in jail. The woman will get a lot of money," said the source, adding that a seven-figure sum has been bandied about.
While the DA's office has sequestered the maid -- and is even monitoring her phone calls -- her extended family lives in a village that lacks paved roads, electricity and phone lines.
The average monthly income is $45, which is near-starvation, and some of her family members can't even afford shoes."
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Sticking it to the Americans
The Israeli PM comes to Washington, takes on the President and then preaches to the converted and one-eyed supporters of Israel at AIPAC. Netanyahu speaks of peace but all his actions, and those of his government, are totally the opposite. There is no one, apart from the Israelis, who agree with Israel's building of so-called settlements in the West Bank - occupied territory. In fact the development of the settlements and cities is totally contrary to international law. Of course, Netanyahu now says that the facts on the ground prevent Israel returning to the borders as they existed in 1967 pre the Six Day War. But who created that situation, deliberately of course, in the first place?
But to stick it to the Americans, just before the Israeli PM ventured off to America, approval was given to build more settlements.
"On the 26th of September 2010, the 10 months settlement moratorium came to an end. Since then, the settlers have managed to “catch up” with the construction freeze and erase its effect, starting construction of some 2,000 housing units in 75 different settlements and outposts, one third of them in settlements east of the Separation Barrier (this number is higher than the yearly average for the last few years). Meanwhile the Israeli Government has approved the planning and marketing of at least 800 new units in 13 settlements."
Continue reading here and see a summary of all the building undertaken or approved together with a map to put it all into context.
Meanwhile, over at truthdig Barry Lando has written a piece "The Speech Obama Should Have Given to AIPAC". Lando spent 25 years as an award-winning investigative producer with “60 Minutes.” He has produced numerous articles, a documentary and a book, “Web of Deceit,” about Iraq.
"In the end, your attempt to defeat my desire to pursue a policy that is in the interests of all Americans—as well as the state of Israel—could lead to your own downfall."
But to stick it to the Americans, just before the Israeli PM ventured off to America, approval was given to build more settlements.
"On the 26th of September 2010, the 10 months settlement moratorium came to an end. Since then, the settlers have managed to “catch up” with the construction freeze and erase its effect, starting construction of some 2,000 housing units in 75 different settlements and outposts, one third of them in settlements east of the Separation Barrier (this number is higher than the yearly average for the last few years). Meanwhile the Israeli Government has approved the planning and marketing of at least 800 new units in 13 settlements."
Continue reading here and see a summary of all the building undertaken or approved together with a map to put it all into context.
Meanwhile, over at truthdig Barry Lando has written a piece "The Speech Obama Should Have Given to AIPAC". Lando spent 25 years as an award-winning investigative producer with “60 Minutes.” He has produced numerous articles, a documentary and a book, “Web of Deceit,” about Iraq.
"In the end, your attempt to defeat my desire to pursue a policy that is in the interests of all Americans—as well as the state of Israel—could lead to your own downfall."
No L-plated women drivers here... or at all!
It is hard to believe, let alone reconcile, that in this modern day and age women are not permitted to drive in Saudi Arabia.
"Saudi Arabia is the only country that bars women from driving. But the topic remains a highly emotional issue in the kingdom, where women are also not allowed to vote, or even work without their husbands’, or fathers’, permission. For religious puritans, the ban on women driving is a sign that the government remains steadfast in the face of a Western onslaught on Saudi traditions. A political cartoon here once depicted car keys attached to a hand grenade."
As they say, watch this space to see how the tussle between the women and the authorities plays out.
"Saudi Arabia is the only country that bars women from driving. But the topic remains a highly emotional issue in the kingdom, where women are also not allowed to vote, or even work without their husbands’, or fathers’, permission. For religious puritans, the ban on women driving is a sign that the government remains steadfast in the face of a Western onslaught on Saudi traditions. A political cartoon here once depicted car keys attached to a hand grenade."
As they say, watch this space to see how the tussle between the women and the authorities plays out.
The problem with Syria
"American policy toward Syria presents mainly a record of failure. One strain of that policy has sought unsuccessfully, through diplomatic engagement, to coax Assad to instigate internal reforms; weaken Syria’s alliances with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas; and broker a peace with Israel. As recently as 2008, Assad told an American diplomat that he was “a few words away” from an agreement with Israel. He never delivered. Washington has also sought to pressure Assad through sanctions imposed by the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, and by covertly funding democratic campaigners, in a program that was initiated under George W. Bush. That didn’t work, either. The Damascus Declaration activists publicly rejected American support, and the covert program, recently exposed by WikiLeaks, endangered some of the people it was designed to help.
Any foreign power hoping to promote peace, stability, and democratic inclusion in the Middle East must account for the Israeli-Palestinian divide, the Sunni-Shia divide, the Muslim-Christian divide, widespread anti-Semitism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the security of oil supplies pumped by weak regimes, Al Qaeda and related radicals, tribalism, corruption, and a picturesque lineup of despots. For half a century, the region has made outside idealists look like fools, turned realists into complicit cynics, and consigned local heroes—Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar Sadat—to martyrdom. The Arab Spring can be understood as just another fault line: it represents the destabilizing rise of a large, underemployed generation of angry youth lacking clear leaders. Yet it rightly inspires optimism, too. Millions have risked their lives to seek self-determination in countries with some of the world’s largest civil-rights deficits."
This from a piece in The New Yorker on the multiple failures in dealing with Syria. And even now, after what has been happening in Syria, the West still fails to take any positive action. One can't imagine that preventing President Assad visiting the US is going to trouble him all that much.
Any foreign power hoping to promote peace, stability, and democratic inclusion in the Middle East must account for the Israeli-Palestinian divide, the Sunni-Shia divide, the Muslim-Christian divide, widespread anti-Semitism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the security of oil supplies pumped by weak regimes, Al Qaeda and related radicals, tribalism, corruption, and a picturesque lineup of despots. For half a century, the region has made outside idealists look like fools, turned realists into complicit cynics, and consigned local heroes—Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar Sadat—to martyrdom. The Arab Spring can be understood as just another fault line: it represents the destabilizing rise of a large, underemployed generation of angry youth lacking clear leaders. Yet it rightly inspires optimism, too. Millions have risked their lives to seek self-determination in countries with some of the world’s largest civil-rights deficits."
This from a piece in The New Yorker on the multiple failures in dealing with Syria. And even now, after what has been happening in Syria, the West still fails to take any positive action. One can't imagine that preventing President Assad visiting the US is going to trouble him all that much.
Iraq: Military out.......contractors in
It's one way to fudge the figures and hype the PR about how the US military is being withdrawn from Iraq. "Good news" for the folks at home - you know, bringing "the boys" back and the war in Iraq has been won, etc, etc. - and it fits in tidily with the US presidential elections next year. Only problem is that contractors will be taking over from the military.
"A U.S. Army helicopter brigade is set to pull out of Baghdad in December, as part of an agreement with the Iraqi government to remove U.S. forces. So the armed helicopters flying over the Iraqi capital next year will have pilots and machine gunners from DynCorp International, a company based in Virginia.
On the ground, it's the same story. American soldiers and Marines will leave. Those replacing them, right down to carrying assault weapons, will come from places with names like Aegis Defence Services and Global Strategies Group — eight companies in all.
All U.S. combat forces are scheduled to leave Iraq by year's end, but there will still be a need for security. That means American troops will be replaced by a private army whose job will be to protect diplomats.
Already, the State Department is approving contracts, but there are questions about whether it makes sense to turn over this security job to private companies."
"A U.S. Army helicopter brigade is set to pull out of Baghdad in December, as part of an agreement with the Iraqi government to remove U.S. forces. So the armed helicopters flying over the Iraqi capital next year will have pilots and machine gunners from DynCorp International, a company based in Virginia.
On the ground, it's the same story. American soldiers and Marines will leave. Those replacing them, right down to carrying assault weapons, will come from places with names like Aegis Defence Services and Global Strategies Group — eight companies in all.
All U.S. combat forces are scheduled to leave Iraq by year's end, but there will still be a need for security. That means American troops will be replaced by a private army whose job will be to protect diplomats.
Already, the State Department is approving contracts, but there are questions about whether it makes sense to turn over this security job to private companies."
Monday, May 23, 2011
Words and action not matched
The Boston Globe pulls together a number of stats to show, clearly, how Obama's words are not reflected in actions or deeds. The US calls for peace in the Middle East yet is plying untold monies into the region - whilst, also, at the same time turning a blind eye to the myriad of issues in Saudi Arabia such as the appalling status of women.
"On the same day President Obama pressed again for peace in the Middle East, the Associated Press reminded us that the United States cannot help itself from flooding the region with the instruments of war, reporting that the nation is “quietly expanding defense ties on a vast scale’’ with Saudi Arabia.
How vast? The part that has been highly publicized is the new $60 billion arms sale made to the Saudis because of the ongoing threat of Iran. The deal sends Saudi Arabia 84 new F-15s and upgrades to 70 F-15s. It also sends them about 180 Apache, Black Hawk, and Little Bird helicopters, as well as anti-ship and anti-radar missiles. In officially announcing the sale last fall, Andrew Shapiro, the US assistant secretary of state for political affairs, said the sales were part of “deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we’ve enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly 70 years.’’
But there are other emerging aspects of the security relationship the Obama administration is not so candid about. The AP also reported on an obscure project to create a special elite security force that would fall under the US Central Command. The force would have up to 35,000 members “to protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites.’’ It would be separate from Saudi Arabia’s military and its national guard and would involve tens of billions of dollars in additional military contracts. But no official of the Pentagon, the State Department, or the Saudi embassy would go on the record to discuss the program.
The sheepishness of the Pentagon was mirrored by Obama’s failure to mention Saudi Arabia once in his speech Thursday at the State Department. Obama urged fresh Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, praised the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, harshly denounced Libya and Syria, and cajoled Yemen and Bahrain to loosen up on their people. Obama criticized in general the “corruption of elites’’ and pushed for women’s rights in health, business, and politics. He said, “the region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.’’
Saudi Arabia is well-known for the elites who still continue to suppress women’s potential. Only 31 percent of women ages 25-54 are in the workplace, compared to 96 percent of like-aged men, according to the International Labor Organization. While modernization and international pressure have led to women being more than half of the country’s college students, they do not have equal access to classes and facilities, according to Freedom House, the advocacy group that has tracked levels of freedom since World War II. Despite scattered appointments of female officials in government, business, and television news, laws still discriminate against women, and women were recently banned once more from municipal elections scheduled for later this year."
"On the same day President Obama pressed again for peace in the Middle East, the Associated Press reminded us that the United States cannot help itself from flooding the region with the instruments of war, reporting that the nation is “quietly expanding defense ties on a vast scale’’ with Saudi Arabia.
How vast? The part that has been highly publicized is the new $60 billion arms sale made to the Saudis because of the ongoing threat of Iran. The deal sends Saudi Arabia 84 new F-15s and upgrades to 70 F-15s. It also sends them about 180 Apache, Black Hawk, and Little Bird helicopters, as well as anti-ship and anti-radar missiles. In officially announcing the sale last fall, Andrew Shapiro, the US assistant secretary of state for political affairs, said the sales were part of “deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we’ve enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly 70 years.’’
But there are other emerging aspects of the security relationship the Obama administration is not so candid about. The AP also reported on an obscure project to create a special elite security force that would fall under the US Central Command. The force would have up to 35,000 members “to protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites.’’ It would be separate from Saudi Arabia’s military and its national guard and would involve tens of billions of dollars in additional military contracts. But no official of the Pentagon, the State Department, or the Saudi embassy would go on the record to discuss the program.
The sheepishness of the Pentagon was mirrored by Obama’s failure to mention Saudi Arabia once in his speech Thursday at the State Department. Obama urged fresh Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, praised the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, harshly denounced Libya and Syria, and cajoled Yemen and Bahrain to loosen up on their people. Obama criticized in general the “corruption of elites’’ and pushed for women’s rights in health, business, and politics. He said, “the region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.’’
Saudi Arabia is well-known for the elites who still continue to suppress women’s potential. Only 31 percent of women ages 25-54 are in the workplace, compared to 96 percent of like-aged men, according to the International Labor Organization. While modernization and international pressure have led to women being more than half of the country’s college students, they do not have equal access to classes and facilities, according to Freedom House, the advocacy group that has tracked levels of freedom since World War II. Despite scattered appointments of female officials in government, business, and television news, laws still discriminate against women, and women were recently banned once more from municipal elections scheduled for later this year."
Those pull-out sections might just save the newspaper industry!
Credited to Cameron (Cam) Cardow, Canada
Autocratic regimes take on tech-savvy opponents. War in cyberspace
Much has been made of how social networking, a la Twitter and Facebook, was instrumental in relation to the so-called Arab Spring. It has been exaggerated but there is no doubting that dissidents and opponents to the various dictatorships and regimes employed the net to circumvent might otherwise have means of opposition.
Now the regimes are hitting back as The Washington Post reports.
"For weeks, Syrian democracy activists have used Facebook and Twitter to promote a wave of bold demonstrations. Now, the Syrian government and its supporters are striking back — not just with bullets, but with their own social-media offensive.
Mysterious intruders have scrawled pro-government messages on dissidents’ Facebook pages. Facebook pages have popped up offering cyber tools to attack the opposition. The Twitter #Syria hashtag — which had carried accounts of the protests — has been deluged with automated messages bearing scenes of nature and old sports scores.
“There is a war itself going on in cyberspace,” said Wissam Tarif, head of the Middle East human rights organization Insan, whose Web site has been attacked.
Syria offers just one example of the online backlash in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. Although social media sites have been lionized for their role in the Arab Spring protests, governments are increasingly turning the technology against the activists.
“In the same way that, a few years ago, it became commonplace to talk about Web 2.0, we’re now seeing Repression 2.0,” said Daniel B. Baer, a deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor."
Now the regimes are hitting back as The Washington Post reports.
"For weeks, Syrian democracy activists have used Facebook and Twitter to promote a wave of bold demonstrations. Now, the Syrian government and its supporters are striking back — not just with bullets, but with their own social-media offensive.
Mysterious intruders have scrawled pro-government messages on dissidents’ Facebook pages. Facebook pages have popped up offering cyber tools to attack the opposition. The Twitter #Syria hashtag — which had carried accounts of the protests — has been deluged with automated messages bearing scenes of nature and old sports scores.
“There is a war itself going on in cyberspace,” said Wissam Tarif, head of the Middle East human rights organization Insan, whose Web site has been attacked.
Syria offers just one example of the online backlash in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. Although social media sites have been lionized for their role in the Arab Spring protests, governments are increasingly turning the technology against the activists.
“In the same way that, a few years ago, it became commonplace to talk about Web 2.0, we’re now seeing Repression 2.0,” said Daniel B. Baer, a deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor."
Let's hear it from French women on the DSK scandal
French women are well known for being chic and sophisticated. Not all, mind you, but that is the reputation.
So, what do French women think of what is now dubbed as the DSK scandal? Global Voices Online provides an insight into what French women bloggers are writing.
"French feminist bloggers and women bloggers writing on women's issues, have gained a larger audience and a new respect in France in the aftermath of the Domininique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) scandal. They were the first and very few voices reminding that there was a woman involved, possibly a victim, and they drew attention to the biased and sexist coverage of the French media.
Meet a few French feminist bloggers, blogging from different perspectives but all laboring online against prejudices and the French perception of sexual harassment and crimes."
Continue reading here.
So, what do French women think of what is now dubbed as the DSK scandal? Global Voices Online provides an insight into what French women bloggers are writing.
"French feminist bloggers and women bloggers writing on women's issues, have gained a larger audience and a new respect in France in the aftermath of the Domininique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) scandal. They were the first and very few voices reminding that there was a woman involved, possibly a victim, and they drew attention to the biased and sexist coverage of the French media.
Meet a few French feminist bloggers, blogging from different perspectives but all laboring online against prejudices and the French perception of sexual harassment and crimes."
Continue reading here.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Rhetoric 10. Substance and positive help 0
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent, provides his take and assessment of the Obama speech the other day - which was said as intending put the USA's position in relation to the Middle East.
"It was the same old story. Palestinians can have a "viable" state, Israel a "secure" one. Israel cannot be de-legitimised. The Palestinians must not attempt to ask the UN for statehood in September. No peace can be imposed on either party. Sometimes yesterday, you could have turned this into Obama's forthcoming speech to pro-Israeli lobbyists this weekend. Oh yes, and the Palestinian state must have no weapons to defend itself. So that's what "viable" means!
It was a kind of Second Coming, I suppose, Cairo re-pledged, another crack at the Middle East, as boring and as unfair as all the other ones, with lots of rhetoric about the Arab revolutions which Obama did nothing to help. Some of it was positively delusional. "We have broken the Taliban's momentum," the great speechifier said. What? Does he really – really – think that?
Of course, there was the usual rhetoric bath for Libya, Syria, Iran, the usual suspects. And there were the words. Courage. Peace. Dignity. Democracy. A creature from Mars would think that the man had helped to bring about the revolutions in the Middle East rather that sat primly to one side in the hope that the wretched dictators might survive.
There was some knuckle-rapping to Bahrain (no revolution there, of course) and there was not a word about Saudi Arabia, although I rather fancy its elderly king will be on the blower to Obama in the next few days. What's all this about change in the Middle East?
We got one timid reference to "Israeli settlement activity", a crack at Hamas (naturally), lots of tears for the Tunisian vegetable vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, who started off the revolutions – Tunisia being one state that Obama never actually mentioned until Ben Ali had run away. The "humiliation of occupation" for the Palestinians – this was a straight repeat of Cairo two years ago – and the tale of a Palestinian "who lost three daughters to Israeli shells" in Gaza. I got the point, of course. The man just "lost" his daughters to shells that happened to fall on them; no suggestion that anyone actually fired them.
Is Obama just talking too much? I fear so. He was cashing in, bathing in his own words as he did in his miserable performance when he got the Nobel Peace Prize for Speechmaking.
And then, I guessed it before he said it, he compared the Arab revolutions to the American revolution. We hold these truths to be self-evident, etc, etc. That many Arabs fought and died to be free of us than to be like Americans was quite lost on him. And then we had to hear what America's "role" was going to be in the new Middle East. We did not hear if the Arabs wanted them to have a role. But that's Obama for you. Always searching for a role.
Well, this weekend is Netanyahu's weekend and the Israeli settlements – more were flagged only hours before Obama spoke – will go on as before. And by the time Obama ends up swearing eternal loyalty to the Israelis, the Arabs will forget yesterday's posturing. And the reference to the "Jewish state" was obviously intended to make Netanyahu happy. Last time I went there, there were hundreds of thousands of Arabs who lived in Israel, all of them with Israeli passports. They didn't get a reference from Obama. Or maybe I was just imagining."
As a postscript what did the Israeli's think of the Obama speech and where Obama was allegedly heading in a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Bluntly and directly - no way! Read here.
"It was the same old story. Palestinians can have a "viable" state, Israel a "secure" one. Israel cannot be de-legitimised. The Palestinians must not attempt to ask the UN for statehood in September. No peace can be imposed on either party. Sometimes yesterday, you could have turned this into Obama's forthcoming speech to pro-Israeli lobbyists this weekend. Oh yes, and the Palestinian state must have no weapons to defend itself. So that's what "viable" means!
It was a kind of Second Coming, I suppose, Cairo re-pledged, another crack at the Middle East, as boring and as unfair as all the other ones, with lots of rhetoric about the Arab revolutions which Obama did nothing to help. Some of it was positively delusional. "We have broken the Taliban's momentum," the great speechifier said. What? Does he really – really – think that?
Of course, there was the usual rhetoric bath for Libya, Syria, Iran, the usual suspects. And there were the words. Courage. Peace. Dignity. Democracy. A creature from Mars would think that the man had helped to bring about the revolutions in the Middle East rather that sat primly to one side in the hope that the wretched dictators might survive.
There was some knuckle-rapping to Bahrain (no revolution there, of course) and there was not a word about Saudi Arabia, although I rather fancy its elderly king will be on the blower to Obama in the next few days. What's all this about change in the Middle East?
We got one timid reference to "Israeli settlement activity", a crack at Hamas (naturally), lots of tears for the Tunisian vegetable vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, who started off the revolutions – Tunisia being one state that Obama never actually mentioned until Ben Ali had run away. The "humiliation of occupation" for the Palestinians – this was a straight repeat of Cairo two years ago – and the tale of a Palestinian "who lost three daughters to Israeli shells" in Gaza. I got the point, of course. The man just "lost" his daughters to shells that happened to fall on them; no suggestion that anyone actually fired them.
Is Obama just talking too much? I fear so. He was cashing in, bathing in his own words as he did in his miserable performance when he got the Nobel Peace Prize for Speechmaking.
And then, I guessed it before he said it, he compared the Arab revolutions to the American revolution. We hold these truths to be self-evident, etc, etc. That many Arabs fought and died to be free of us than to be like Americans was quite lost on him. And then we had to hear what America's "role" was going to be in the new Middle East. We did not hear if the Arabs wanted them to have a role. But that's Obama for you. Always searching for a role.
Well, this weekend is Netanyahu's weekend and the Israeli settlements – more were flagged only hours before Obama spoke – will go on as before. And by the time Obama ends up swearing eternal loyalty to the Israelis, the Arabs will forget yesterday's posturing. And the reference to the "Jewish state" was obviously intended to make Netanyahu happy. Last time I went there, there were hundreds of thousands of Arabs who lived in Israel, all of them with Israeli passports. They didn't get a reference from Obama. Or maybe I was just imagining."
As a postscript what did the Israeli's think of the Obama speech and where Obama was allegedly heading in a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Bluntly and directly - no way! Read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)