¡Horale!

2009-08-26T02:59:00.001-07:00

This game and more at PlayTheShow.com

Mens sana in copore sano

2009-05-28T02:50:00.000-07:00

Plato said that without a healthy mind a man could never have a healthy body. We now know the opposite is probably true as well. Increasing evidence is showing the positive effects of exercize on mood and intellectual capacity. See the CBC docuentary "Brain Gains" http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/brain_gains/brain_gains_2.html

"It is to be prayed that the mind be sound in a sound body.
Ask for a brave soul that lacks the fear of death,
which places the length of life last among nature’s blessings,
which is able to bear whatever kind of sufferings,
does not know anger, lusts for nothing and believes
the hardships and savage labors of Hercules better than
the satisfactions, feasts, and feather bed of an Eastern king.
I will reveal what you are able to give yourself;
For certain, the one footpath of a tranquil life lies through virtue."

"orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano.
fortem posce animum mortis terrore carentem,
qui spatium uitae extremum inter munera ponat
naturae, qui ferre queat quoscumque labores,
nesciat irasci, cupiat nihil et potiores
Herculis aerumnas credat saeuosque labores
et uenere et cenis et pluma Sardanapalli.
monstro quod ipse tibi possis dare; semita certe
tranquillae per uirtutem patet unica uitae."

From Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal (10.356-64)

2009-03-19T05:44:00.001-07:00

I am back......

2008-11-29T04:20:00.000-08:00

El Moe has retured, after an extended hiatus which carried him from Mexco City to Vancouver and now to London. I currently am keeping the wolves away (barely) by freelance writing for a company out of Nottingham. My eldest daughter (Cara "homediggle girlslice" - pictured below) is here with me and we are struggling to get her Euro residency "right of abode" status. Meanwhile I contine with my now epic battle to complete the oh-so-overdue doc thesis (dissertation, or whatever.) Anyway, I am back.

2008-07-16T18:49:00.001-07:00

The American Enterprise Institute proudly presents

2008-07-10T16:38:00.000-07:00

The American Enterprise Institute proudly presents

THE ADVENTURES OF DARTH CHENEY

Episode One: Darth Goes to Walter Reed on Independence Day

We join the Vice President as his motorcade pulls up in front of the shiny façade of Walter Reed Hospital. Darth steps grandly out of the limousine carrying a cardboard cutout of the commander in chief, and is immediately whisked into the hospital by an army of secret service personnel and his Republican Guards. In the dimly lit interior a ward full of bedridden patients languish in a sea of catheters, colostomy bags, mold and vermin. Darth floats in on his customized hoverboard, still clutching the life sized George Bush cutout while slicing rats in half with his light saber and blowing them to small pieces with miniaturized smart bombs

“I’m here boys, but don’t bother to get up. We’re just gonna take some pictures…”

A doctor approaches. “You can’t set those off in here! Don’t you realize that seventy percent of these patients are suffering from PTSD?”

“It’s not my fault they didn’t wear a rubber…now get outta my way. I’m here to inspect the place.”

“No….PTSD….Shell Shock…you can’t bring explosive devices in here.”

“Darth Cheney does what he wants, when he wants. Now get outta my way, son, before I bite your head off.”

Darth sets the cutout down and floats over to the nearest bed, glowering down at it’s occupant, a quadruple amputee.

“What happened to you, son?”

“You’re kidding, right? I’m a fucking torso with a head on it…..”

“We all have our cross to bear, son. Why, I’ve had 73 heart attacks and 12 quadruple bypasses, and I don’t even have a heart.”

Darth laughs maniacally and slaps the patient on one of his stumps: “Have one of my personal medallions, son. Weighs 30 pounds.”

Darth floats across to the next bed while flinging another smart grenade at a particularly large rat. “What’s with all these little dogs in here?”

The occupant of the next bed recoils, visibly shaken by the explosion. Darth looms over him, casting a menacing shadow. “What’s wrong with you? You look fine to me. Not a mark on you…”

“I’ve got PTSD…”

“I got no sympathy for perverts. How dare you share the same space with fine boys like stumpy there. Get outta here now before I throw you out myself.”

Darth advances threateningly, but the VA doctor steps between him and the patient. There is a brief scuffle, during which Darth’s helmet is dislodged and crashes to the floor, revealing not the avuncular brow and visage of Cheney, but a giant and terrifying Mantis head. The huge mandibles gnash together sickeningly, emanating the odor of half decayed human flesh. Everyone in the room recoils, including the Republican Guards. Darth Mantis moves forward to devour the doctor’s head but is frozen by a sudden and commanding voice.

“RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY!!!! JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU’RE DOING?”

Lynn Cheney stands in the doorway in curlers, dressing gown, slippers and night mask, silhouetted by the running lights of a nearby Screaming Eagle helicopter. The sight of her is even more terrifying than that of Darth Mantis and both the crowd and Darth shrink back in mute panic. The Second Lady trains both barrels of a sawed-off shotgun on Darth.

“Get in the helicopter, Dick.”

Darth Mantis glides through the door and is gone, followed by his scowling wife. The helicopter roars away. After several long seconds that seem like an eternity, the doctor finally speaks.

“Christ, that was a mind fucker! Grain alcohol, anybody?”

Next: Young Stevie Harper goes to Ottawa.

Posted by Citizen Ken on July 10th, 2008

2008-05-21T12:38:00.001-07:00

Raging Fred

2008-05-19T15:20:00.001-07:00

2007-12-12T14:15:00.001-08:00

Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings

2007-11-30T17:51:00.001-08:00

2007-10-14T00:16:00.001-07:00

Dumb-assed redneck

2007-08-11T15:46:00.001-07:00

Go Granny Go!

2007-08-11T15:36:00.000-07:00

Acha!

2007-08-03T09:14:00.001-07:00

Whispers of the Wolf

2007-08-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

2007-07-28T18:42:00.002-07:00

2007-07-28T18:42:00.001-07:00

They know not what they do?

2007-07-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

And then, one lovely day, the middle class is brought up short by a staggering blow: The Gestapos are busy again, the prisons are filling up, the torturers are once more inventing, perfecting, consulting over their workbenches.

People are astounded, they are angry. They say: "How strange that is. But then it is only Nazism, it won't last." And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves: It is savagery, the supreme savagery, it crowns, it epitomzes the day to day savageries; yes, it is Nazism, but before they became its victims, they were its accomplices; that Nazism they tolerated before they succumbed to it, they exonerated it, they closed their eyes to it, they legitimated it because until then it had been employed only against non-European peoples; that Nazism they encouraged, they were responsible for it, and it drips, it seeps, it wells from every crack in western Christian civilization until it engulfs that civilization in a bloody sea.

Aimé Césaire, "Discours sur le colionalisme" (Paris: Présence Africaine, 1956) p.14-15.

¡Oye Como Va!

2007-07-04T20:17:00.001-07:00

2007-05-28T21:31:00.000-07:00

In Association With Union Carbuncle and “Uncle Dickie”, Citizen Ken Presents

2007-05-24T09:51:00.000-07:00

BUBBA BUSH TAKES THE SEOUL TRAIN

“The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later – in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.”

Charles Bukowski

When last seen, having been unceremoniously “ejected” from the Horn of Africa, Bubba Bush, leader of the “free world”, embarks upon an unscheduled tour of Iranian prisons. Mere days pass before Bubba is, in turn, asked to leave Iran after his presence sparks numerous riots among inmates protesting declining standards. Bush, disheveled, ranting and generally irritating, is placed in the care of the South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, since South Korean officials must be seen to be bending over backwards to placate U.S. officials even when trading with the enemies of the American Dream. Specifically, however, Bubba was inflicted upon the SKMFAT because no one else leaving Tehran at that moment could be persuaded to travel with him. Upon his arrival in Seoul, Bush’s frequent impromptu appearances in public places and barely coherent abusive harangues, coupled with ongoing protests over the U.S./ Korea “free trade” deal, lead to intensified public uprisings led by union leaders and participated in by workers and students. Bubba seems to believe he has been abducted to North Korea and refers to everyone he encounters as a “commie dictator”. Sales of Bush masks (manufactured by Union Carbuncle Special Polyethylene Division) skyrocket among the student protesters. As we join the festivities, thousands of protesters have congregated outside the U.S. Embassy in downtown Seoul, hurling stones and epithets. A few have set themselves ablaze. Bubba Bush appears on a balcony above the crowd with the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, who is trying to pull Bubba inside.

BUBBA: Hey Al, looky there! Them commies’re havin’ a bar-b-q! I didn’t know them commies knew how to bar-b-q! I could really go for a big messa them Texas longhorn ribs right now, yep!

Bush produces a bullhorn and begins shouting through it towards a burning protester.

BUBBA: Hey! Hey! Heeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy, you commie bastards, watcha got cookin’ down there?

AMBASSADOR: Mr. President, please come inside!

BUBBA: Relax, Al. Hmmm…what’s yer last name again Al? Vershnovsky, right? Ain’t that Russian? You sure you’re not a commie, Al?

AMBASSADOR: Vershbow, Mr. President. Please come inside before there’s a riot!

The crowd begins to throw rocks, dirt, Bush masks and whatever else they can find at Bubba, who becomes apoplectic.

BUBBA: Get me a gun, Al, get me a gun!

The Ambassador manages to pull Bush inside just as “Uncle Dick” Cheney and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez (the corn flake king) enter the room, leading South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun by a leash.

CHENEY: See, Carlos? What do you think? He’s well trained, obedient and quite intelligent. Should make a first class ally.

GUTIERREZ: Right, and he knows who’s buttering his bread.

BUBBA: Dick, how are ya, Dick?

CHENEY: Except for the occasional heart attack, I never felt better. Like my new monkey….I mean flunkey?

BUBBA: Dick, you gotta help me with these commies. Get me a gun…a rocket launcher!

GUTIERREZ: No, Mr.President…times have changed….all you need is cheap commodities….watch…..

Gutierrez hauls a large bag labeled “cheap commodities” onto the balcony and begins flinging handfuls of cheap Asian made electronics into the crowd. The student protesters begin fighting among themselves over the “loot”. The protest leaders try to dissuade them, to no avail. Roh slips his leash and rushes onto the balcony, unfurling a banner which reads “Long Live Our Demockery”.

CHENEY: Dammit all, Roh….democracy….I SAID DEMOCRACY!!!!! Now we’ll be the butt of even more jokes!

Many of the workers have not been placated by the cheap commodities and rush the Embassy gates, breaking through by sheer force of numbers.

CHENEY: Lordy! George, Carlos, Al – let’s get out of here while the getting’s good. Out the back door – I have a ‘copter waiting.

They exit quickly, leaving Roh and the Embassy staff to fend off the crowd.

FADE TO BLACK

Next: Doppelgate – Bubba returns to D.C. only to find an impostor filling his boots.

Guerrilla News

2007-05-21T13:30:00.001-07:00

This is Worth a Repeat

2007-05-17T14:41:00.001-07:00

Glowman

Ay me babbies! Afin ye gihit, bae share an lave a wee cooment!!!!

2007-05-17T00:22:00.000-07:00

An English MP on a goodwill trip to Scotland visited a hospital in
Glasgow. He was shown into a men's ward that was full of older geezers.
He approached the first patient, and said "Hello, how are you?"
Whereupon the old feller in the bed said: "Wee sleekit cowrin' tim'rous
beastie, O, what a panic's in thy breastie; thou need na start awa sae
hasty. Wi' bickering brattle! I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee, Wi
murd'ring pattle!"

Somewhat nonplussed, the MP smiled nervously and moved to the next bed,
but before he could speak, the occupant of the bed began:
"Ye flowery banks o' bonnie Doon, How can ye blume sae fair? How can ye
chant, ye little birds, And I sae fu' o' care!"
Moving quickly on, the MP came to the third bed, whose occupant began to
rant: "Aye wud te gad the grace te gi'us te se ourselves as ithers see us".

By now completely confused, the MP turned to the doctor who was showing
him around and said: "Is this the, uh, psychiatric ward?"
To which the doctor replied:
"No, it's the Serious Burns unit."

Six former CIA Station Chiefs write public letter to former CIA Director George Tenet

2007-04-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

28 April 2007
Mr. George Tenet
c/o Harper Collins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
8th Floor
New York City, New York 10022
ATTN: Ms. Tina Andredis

Dear Mr. Tenet:

We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the "damage to your reputation". In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.

You are not alone in failing to speak up and protest the twisting and shading of intelligence. Those who remained silent when they could have made a difference also share the blame for not protesting the abuse and misuse of intelligence that occurred under your watch. But ultimately you were in charge and you signed off on the CIA products and you briefed the President.

This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in
the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—which dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002.

You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable. And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.
Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda.

You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium. You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA's most precious asset—credibility."

You may now feel you were bullied and victimized but you were also one of the bullies. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence. Yet you were informed in no uncertain terms that Curveball was not reliable. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president

It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community--a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in
charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President.

Mr. Tenet, as head of the intelligence community, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process and, more importantly, the country. What should you have done? What could you have done?
For starters, during the critical summer and fall of 2002, you could have gone to key Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and warned them of the pressure. But you remained silent. Your candor during your one-on-one with Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British Intelligence, of July 20, 2002" provides documentary evidence that you knew exactly what you were doing; namely, "fixing" the intelligence to the policy.

By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq. President Bush said that you: "played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty. " The reality of Iraq, however, has not made our nation more secure nor has the cause of human liberty been advanced. In fact, your tenure as head of the CIA has helped create a world that is more dangerous. The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. Many of the U.S. soldiers maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. Many will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, or physically disfigured. And the dead have passed into history.

Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.

Sincerely yours,

Phil Giraldi
Ray McGovern
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski
Vince Cannistraro
David MacMichael

2007-04-27T11:13:00.000-07:00

The stone grows old.
Eternity is not for stones.
But I shall go down from this airy space, this swift white peace, this stinging exultation;
And time will come close about me, and my soul stir to the rhythm of the daily round.
Yet, having known, life will not press so close,
And always I shall feel time ravel thin about me.
For once I stood
In the white windy presence of eternity.
-- EUNICE TIETJENS

Ibn Arabi

2007-04-25T13:21:00.000-07:00

Remark by Ibn al-Arabi, a 13th-century Muslim mystic and philosopher:

“Do not praise your own faith exclusively so that you disbelieve all the rest. If you do this, you will miss the truth of the matter. God, the omnipresent and omniscient, cannot be confined to any one creed, for he says: Wheresoever ye turn, there is the face of Allah. Everybody praises what he knows. His God is his own creature and in praising it, he praises himself, which he would not do if he were just, but his dislike is based on ignorance.”

Gulf stands on brink of all-out war

2007-04-25T11:54:00.000-07:00

Saudi King Abdulah

From the "First Post" online magazine Dec 12/06

Saudis say they’ll fight for their fellow Sunnis if the coalition forces quit Iraq, says robert fox
While the Bush administration remains locked in argument with the consiglieri of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group about what to do in Iraq, events on the ground are now moving ahead of them.

There is now every chance that civil war could turn into a major regional war as the Saudis and Jordanians threaten to come in on the side of the Sunni community, and the Shia militias in turn look to Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for backing.

"The intervention of Saudi Arabia and Jordan is now the most dangerous possibility facing us," a British commander told me, on condition of anonymity.

"We can't go, and we can't stay in the present posture. We've got to find a way of keeping a presence, but without it becoming the main problem."

The main proposals of the Baker-Hamilton report are seen as unrealistic by force commanders on the ground in Iraq. The plan is for American forces to pull back next year and assume primarily an oversight and training role with the Iraqi army, national guard and police.

The bulk of US forces would go home by April 2008. The British would move faster, handing back Maysan province to the Iraqis next January and Basra in April. By July 2007, Britain would have only 2,000 service personnel in Iraq, at most.

But US commanders, led by General John Abizaid of US Central Command, do not believe the Iraqi army will be ready to run anything much in terms of security for years to come.

This is what the Saudis realise too. And they have given warning to the US and Britain that if they make a quick exit by April 2008, they and their allies will have no choice but to enter Iraq to help their co-religionists, the Sunni Arabs.

Until now the Saudis have only hinted at their frustration with the allies.

"Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited," said the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal (previous page ).

Now, according to my anonymous British commander, their threat is unambiguous.

The Saudis' King Abdullah has said that, for the time being, his forces will not give arms and training to the Sunni insurgents of Iraq. But reports from Baghdad suggest this is already happening.

This is not the only threat facing the allies as they stare defeat in the face in Iraq. Tensions are rising between the Americans and the British.

American officials, particularly in the CIA, have criticised the British approach to dealing with the Iraqis, particularly the Shia militias in the south of the country.

A confidential British briefing paper says this is now a major bone of contention. "The Americans believe the British should take out the Mahdi Army (otherwise know as the Jaish al-Mahdi or JAM) of Moqtada al Sadr," said a British official last week.

This is because the Americans are backing the rival militia of the Badr Brigades, attached to the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, for whom they rolled out the red carpet in Washington earlier this month.

As civil war edges towards regional war in Iraq and the Gulf, the Arab powers have just thrown a large fly in the ointment - and it's a nuclear one.

At the meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council at the weekend, Saudi Arabia and its allies discussed openly for the first time the necessity for the Gulf Arab alliance to begin developing its own nuclear industry - for civil, and peaceful purposes, of course.

But why else would Arab kings and emirs, sitting on the largest commercial fossil fuel reserves in the world, want access to nuclear know-how, except to create a deterrent to protect their interests in an ever more unstable region?

For Jerry

2007-04-23T12:06:00.001-07:00

The Return of El Moe

2007-04-23T11:54:00.000-07:00

Greetings Friends, Romans, Countrymen: El Moe has been escondido in digs without an internet connection since the end of Feb. This explains his absence from the blogworld. He plans a return to his native land in June. His work is ongoing, the writing progressing.

Collision Course With Iran

2007-02-28T10:50:00.001-08:00

by Dennis J. Kucinich President Bush has claimed the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq and that those weapons are being used to kill US troops in Iraq. This sounds horrific and frightening -- and that is the point. The Administration is preparing for a military strike against Iran. The justification chosen by the Administration is the one circumstance in which a President could bypass Congress and still wage a military conflict. The intelligence backing up these assertions is questionable. The sources were anonymous. Since the briefing, the Administration has backed away from the assertion made by Pentagon briefers that Tehran was behind these weapons transfers and no new evidence has been presented. But the President, the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all repeat the questionable assertions. The newly claimed grievance with Iran could be used to satisfy section 2(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the President can introduce armed forces into a conflict or a national emergency created by an attack upon the armed forces. The President appears to have laid the groundwork for an attack on Iran while avoiding Congressional approval. This Administration has set a collision course with Iran. Time and again, it has refused to enter into direct diplomatic talks with Iran. • After the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the Iranian government signaled to the Administration a willingness to cooperate with the United States, including cooperation with the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But in January 2002, President Bush labeled Iran a member of the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. • In early 2003, Iran offered to enter into dialogue with the United States regarding several outstanding US-Iran issues, including full transparency of all nuclear facilities; the cessation of support of Palestinian opposition groups; transformation of Hezbollah into a political organization; coordination of counterterrorism efforts; cooperation with political stabilization in Iraq; and the acceptance of the Arab League "Beirut Declaration" -- a comprehensive peace, including the establishment of normal relations with Israel. The United States did not respond to this "grand bargain" offered by Iran. • Also in 2003, the United States refused to join France, Britain and Germany (the EU-3) in a diplomatic effort to curb Iran's nuclear program. • In November 2005, the US Ambassador to Iraq received permission to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran on the issue of Iraqi stability. The Iranians accepted the offer; however, no talks materialized. • On May 8, 2006, the Administration said it would support a renewed diplomatic overture by the EU-3. At the same time, the Administration ignored a letter from President Ahmadinejad to President Bush. • On May 31, 2006, the Administration said it would join the EU-3 talks but would not negotiate with Iran until Iran agreed, ahead of the talks, to abide by US demands. • On November 29, 2006, President Ahmadinejad sent an open letter to the American people. The Bush Administration refused to respond. • The White House is now selectively leaking intelligence to set the stage for a military attack on Iran. With Democrats in charge of the House and Senate, the President might have trouble starting another war. In light of the vote by the House of Representatives to disapprove of the President's escalation in Iraq and the mounting opposition to the war in Iraq, the President's new assertions about Iran hold the key to an attempt to bypass Congressional approval for another military conflict. There are additional reasons to believe the President is setting us on a path to another war. In his primetime address to the nation last month, the President ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf. The Administration has armed Iran's Arab neighbors with Patriot missiles, sent minesweepers to the Persian Gulf and ordered an increase in the national strategic oil reserve to guard against potential oil embargoes. It was not long ago when Iran was portrayed as a nuclear threat. But the news of a diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea changed what the Administration could say about Iran. For North Korea really possesses nuclear weapons, while Iran is five to ten years away from the ability to produce the fissile material to have even one nuclear bomb. Yet the United States was able to use diplomacy with North Korea. Obviously, diplomacy could be applied to the Iran situation as well. Instead, the Administration is escalating tensions with Iran, laying the groundwork for an attack and attempting to make a case to bypass Congressional authorization. Dennis Kucinch represents Ohio's 10th District in Congress, and he is currently the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus. He ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

Is Bush Really Planning War against Iran?

2007-02-28T10:38:00.000-08:00

by Patrick Seale Few observers of the international scene believe that the United States is preparing to go to war against Iran. The stakes are too high, the backlash too frightening, the consequences too unpredictable. The U.S. Congress, in its present mood, would not allow it, and no foreign government would support it, such is the international hostility to President George W. Bush. Rather, the consensus is that the United States is attempting to stop Iran from enriching uranium by using every other weapon in its armoury, short of war -- by isolating Iran, subjecting it to diplomatic pressure, punishing it with sanctions, depriving it of finance to stifle its economy, starving its oil industry of investment and high tech equipment, and of course by a military build-up which is intended to /intimidate/, but not to be used. That, at least, is the theory. The danger, however, lies in an unplanned incident, an accident, perhaps a small-scale exchange of fire somewhere on the periphery of the U.S.-Iranian confrontation, which could escalate into a full-blown conflict. It is this inherently unstable situation which has seriously alarmed the international community. The reasons for acute tension remain unchanged. Iran insists on upholding its fundamental right to civilian nuclear technology under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Accordingly, it has ignored the deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment activities by 21 February 2007, as demanded by UN Security Council Resolution 1737 of 23 December 2006 -- a document President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described as a "torn piece of paper." Iran has, however, repeated time and time again that it has no intention of building atomic weapons. Indeed, it has offered to give guarantees that it will not seek military applications of nuclear technology, and has declared its readiness to enter into negotiations on this basis with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and international partners. The United States, Israel and a number of other countries do not believe it. They suspect that Iran wants to become, if not an immediate nuclear-armed state, then a /nuclear threshold power/. That is to say, it is believed to want to master enough technology to allow it, in an emergency, to acquire nuclear weapons at short notice -- like, say, Japan. Israel, in particular, has mounted a world-wide propaganda campaign against Iran, claiming its leader is a new Hitler and that Jews are threatened with another Holocaust. A more accurate reading of the situation might be to say that Israel is determined to protect the monopoly of nuclear weapons, which it has enjoyed in the Middle East for more than forty years. Its overall military superiority -- in conventional and unconventional weapons -- has given it great freedom of action against its neighbours. It does not want this freedom to be circumscribed by a balance of power which Iran’s rise to nuclear status would create. All these alarms -- fear of an incident which might trigger a clash; concern that Israel and its friends might push the United States into war, as they did against Iraq; widespread anxiety among Arab states of the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran; anger at President Ahmadinejad’s verbal provocations -- have caused the international community to wake up, take notice, and start considering corrective action. Several weeks ago, President Jacques Chirac of France suggested sending a high-level emissary to Tehran to calm the situation and probe Iranian intentions. The initiative was much criticised and nothing came of it. But something like it is now being revived. Diplomatic sources report that, with French encouragement, the European Union is considering starting direct talks with Iran in the hope of defusing the situation and breaking the dangerous U.S.-Iran deadlock. Russia, now building Iran’s first nuclear power station at Bushehr, and on reasonably good terms with Tehran, might join the talks in due course. Iran, in turn, is reaching out in its own way to the international community. First, it is reminding the world that President Ahmadinejad is not all powerful. Command of Iran’s armed forces and the final decision on matters of war and peace lie, not with the President, but with the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic, Seyyed Ali Hussayni Khamenei. The latest reminder of this well-known, but sometimes forgotten fact, came from none other than Ali Akbat Velayati, Khomenei’s diplomatic adviser for the past decade and Iran’s foreign minister for 17 years. Second, Velayati has stressed that the Iranian official directly in charge of Iran’s nuclear file is not the President but Ali Larajani, head of Iran’s National Security Council. Third, to allay the world’s fears about Iran’s nuclear intentions, Velayati has suggested that France should take the lead in setting up on Iranian territory an international consortium to enrich uranium, managed by the Europeans under full IAEA guarantees (in an interview in the French daily /Le Monde/ on 22 February 2007). It is also significant that Saudi Arabia and its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council are entering the scene. Anxious about a possible overspill of Iraq’s Sunni-Shi‘i conflict into the Gulf, they have also begun a tentative dialogue with Iran. It remains to be seen whether these measures will allow good sense and calm to prevail. Only when the interests and anxieties of Iran, the Arab states, Israel, America and the rest of the world are addressed can an acceptable settlement be reached. The immediate objective should be to reduce tension and back off from the military confrontation. Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

Citizen Ken, Sultan of Gyeonggi, presents:

2007-02-05T15:39:00.000-08:00

The Ballad of King George, Part III: Bonzo Goes To Asmara

It was a beautiful morning on the high plateau. The mortars were silent and the sun had just begun to peek over the horizon. A group of refugees appeared in the distance and then faded out of sight, headed in the direction of Asmara. A passing baboon paused to urinate on a bush. At that moment the bush burst into flames, setting the unfortunate creature’s hindquarters alight. As the baboon scrambled away howling in pain, a man in a shiny sky blue suit with well-manicured facial hair catapulted out of the bush, brushing flames away from his pants. The man called to the retreating animal: “sorry about that,” adding with irritation “NEXT TIME LET’S DO IT WITHOUT THE STUPID BUSH!!” The man pulled a mango from his suit pocket and began munching hungrily on it. As he gobbled down the mango a figure appeared on the horizon, riding upon an ass. The man peered into the distance. “Who’s this, the new Moses……HEY…..OLD MAN…..ARE THERE ANY HOSTILE FORCES AROUND HERE I SHOULD KNOW ABOUT?” As the figure drew nearer it became apparent that this was definitely NOT the new Moses, but none other than Bonzo T. Bush, disheveled and disoriented leader of the free world. The man in the blue suit observed “Ah, my mistake, not a sage of any description – but an ass riding an ass!” As Bush drew closer the man in the blue suit could clearly see that the gibbering and drooling Commander in Chief was dressed in his old National Guard uniform, now tattered and moth-eaten by the passage of time. The ass was heavily laden, both with Bonzo and with numerous saddle bags. Bush stopped a few feet away and peered at the man for several moments, finally blurting out “Creflo???” “No, but I did get this suit off of him…..” “Hey, you know Creflo? Him ‘n Jerry’s muh personal preachers, yup…..Creflo loaned you his suit?” “Loaned…..no. I said I got it off of him….I will deal with all false prophets in the same way.” Bonzo began to foam at the mouth and sputtered “hey, hey, hold on there buddy, nobody talks about Reverend Dollar that way and gets away with it. Now, you better help me out here. I been lookin’ for Jesus out here. Some fella at the Wailin’ Wall said I could find Jesus out here.” “Look no further, Monkey Boy, your quest is over.” The Commander in Chief pulled a battered piece of paper from his rancid uniform, presenting it to the man in the blue suit. It was an artists rendering of Jesus as blond and Caucasian. “Jest hold on there buddy – this here’s Jesus…..everybody knows Jesus is a white guy!” “You are definitely in the wrong neighbourhood, son,” observed the man in the blue suit. At this moment another group of refugees appeared on the horizon, bound for Asmara. As they drew closer, Bonzo called out to them. “Hey, heyyyyyyyyyyy…..you kids…come on over here.” The refugees, mostly women and children, drew to a halt before the ass on the ass and the man in the blue suit. Bonzo began pulling packs of chewing gum and nylon stockings out of his saddle bags. “Here ya go….and maybe if yer good and vote Republican I’ll arrange to put some food on yer families.” Bush pelted the refugees with the chewing gum and nylons, laughing maniacally. The refugees responded by picking up rocks and clumps of dirt, pelting the incredulous and raving “leader of the free world” back. Bonzo T. glowered down at the refugees and pulled a pistol out of his shoulder holster, gibbering “terrorists….DIE TERRORISTS!” The man in the blue suit gestured and Bonzo disappeared, leaving the ass placidly munching on a patch of grass. As the refugees moved on, the man in the blue suit called “have a good trip, George, I hear it’s a bit stormy in Teheran right now….I’ll send you a rain coat!” After a moment he followed the refugees, handing out a seemingly endless stream of mangoes. They disappeared over the horizon.

Next – when Washington authorities finally notice Bonzo’s absence several weeks later, they spring into action, sending British, Canadian and Polish operatives into Iran. How will the Commander in Chief react to his tour of Iranian prisons? Will the truth be revealed in a classified document entitled “Syndromes Rhyming With Stockholm”? Stay tuned to CNN and read the Weekly World News for important details soon.

The Captain says....

2007-01-25T16:49:00.000-08:00

Click on the picture and play Picard's song. Make it so.

Must-read Editorial from NY Times

2007-01-22T09:56:00.000-08:00

THOSE who forget history may be doomed to repeat it, but who could imagine we’d already be in danger of replaying that rotten year 2003?

Scooter Libby, the mastermind behind the White House’s bogus scenarios for ginning up the war in Iraq, is back at Washington’s center stage, proudly defending the indefensible in a perjury trial. Ahmad Chalabi, the peddler of flawed prewar intelligence hyped by Mr. Libby, is back in clover in Baghdad, where he purports to lead the government’s Shiite-Baathist reconciliation efforts in between visits to his pal Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Last but never least is Mr. Libby’s former boss and Mr. Chalabi’s former patron, Dick Cheney, who is back on Sunday-morning television floating fictions about Iraq and accusing administration critics of aiding Al Qaeda. When the vice president went on a tear like this in 2003, hawking Iraq’s nonexistent W.M.D. and nonexistent connections to Mohamed Atta, he set the stage for a war that now kills Iraqi civilians in rising numbers (34,000-plus last year) that are heading into the genocidal realms of Saddam. Mr. Cheney’s latest sales pitch is for a new plan for “victory” promising an even bigger bloodbath.

Mr. Cheney was honest, at least, when he said that the White House’s Iraq policy would remain “full speed ahead!” no matter what happened on Nov. 7. Now it is our patriotic duty — politicians, the press and the public alike — to apply the brakes. Our failure to check the administration when it rushed into Iraq in 2003 will look even more shameful to history if we roll over again for a reboot in 2007. For all the belated Washington scrutiny of the war since the election, and for all the heralded (if so far symbolic) Congressional efforts to challenge it, too much lip service is still being paid to the deceptive P.R. strategies used by the administration to sell its reckless policies. This time we must do what too few did the first time: call the White House on its lies. Lies should not be confused with euphemisms like “incompetence” and “denial.”

Mr. Cheney’s performance last week on “Fox News Sunday” illustrates the problem; his lying is nowhere near its last throes. Asked by Chris Wallace about the White House’s decision to overrule commanders who recommended against a troop escalation, the vice president said, “I don’t think we’ve overruled the commanders.” He claimed we’ve made “enormous progress” in Iraq. He said the administration is not “embattled.” (Well, maybe that one is denial.)

This White House gang is so practiced in lying with a straight face that it never thinks twice about recycling its greatest hits. Hours after Mr. Cheney’s Fox interview, President Bush was on “60 Minutes,” claiming that before the war “everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction” and that “the minute we found out” the W.M.D. didn’t exist he “was the first to say so.” Everybody, of course, was not wrong on W.M.D., starting with the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq. Nor was Mr. Bush the first to come clean once the truth became apparent after the invasion. On May 29, 2003 — two days after a secret Defense Intelligence Agency-sponsored mission found no biological weapons in trailers captured by American forces — Mr. Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

But that’s all W.M.D under the bridge. The most important lies to watch for now are the new ones being reiterated daily by the administration’s top brass, from Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney on down. You know fiasco awaits America when everyone in the White House is reading in unison from the same fictional script, as they did back in the day when “mushroom clouds” and “uranium from Africa” were the daily drumbeat.

The latest lies are custom-made to prop up the new “way forward” that is anything but. Among
the emerging examples is a rewriting of the history of Iraq’s sectarian violence. The fictional version was initially laid out by Mr. Bush in his Jan. 10 prime-time speech and has since been repeated on television by both Mr. Cheney and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, last Sunday and by Mr. Bush again on PBS’s “NewsHour” on Tuesday. It goes like this: sectarian violence didn’t start spiraling out of control until the summer of 2006, after Sunni terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra and forced the Shiites to take revenge.

But as Mark Seibel of McClatchy Newspapers noted last week, “the president’s account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics.” They were visible in embryo long before that; The Times, among others, reported as far back as September 2003 that Shiite militias were becoming more radical, dangerous and anti-American. The reasons Mr. Bush pretends that Shiite killing started only last year are obvious enough. He wants to duck culpability for failing to recognize the sectarian violence from the outset — much as he failed to recognize the Sunni insurgency before it — and to underplay the intractability of the civil war to which he will now sacrifice fresh American flesh.

An equally big lie is the administration’s constant claim that it is on the same page as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as we go full speed ahead. Only last month Mr. Maliki told The Wall Street Journal that he wished he “could be done with” his role as Iraq’s leader “before the end of this term.” Now we are asked to believe not merely that he is a strongman capable of vanquishing the death squads of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, his political ally, but also that he can be trusted to produce the troops he failed to supply in last year’s failed Baghdad crackdown. Yet as recently as November, there still wasn’t a single Iraqi battalion capable of fighting on its own.

Hardly a day passes without Mr. Maliki mocking the White House’s professed faith in him. In the past week or so alone, he has presided over a second botched hanging (despite delaying it for more than two weeks to put in place new guidelines), charged Condi Rice with giving a “morale boost to the terrorists” because she criticized him, and overruled American objections to appoint an obscure commander from deep in Shiite territory to run the Baghdad “surge.” His government doesn’t even try to hide its greater allegiance to Iran. Mr. Maliki’s foreign minister has asked for the release of the five Iranians detained in an American raid on an Iranian office in northern Iraq this month and, on Monday, called for setting up more Iranian “consulates” in Iraq.

The president’s pretense that Mr. Maliki and his inept, ill-equipped, militia-infiltrated security forces can advance American interests in this war is Neville Chamberlain-like in its naiveté and disingenuousness. An American military official in Baghdad read the writing on the wall to The Times last week: “We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem. We are being played like a pawn.” That’s why the most destructive lie of all may be the White House’s constant refrain that its doomed strategy is the only one anyone has proposed. Administration critics, Mr. Cheney said last Sunday, “have absolutely nothing to offer in its place,” as if the Iraq Study Group, John Murtha and Joseph Biden-Leslie Gelb plans, among others, didn’t predate the White House’s own.

In reality we’re learning piece by piece that it is the White House that has no plan. Ms. Rice has now downsized the surge/escalation into an “augmentation,” inadvertently divulging how the Pentagon is improvising, juggling small deployments in fits and starts. No one can plausibly explain how a parallel chain of command sending American and Iraqi troops into urban street combat side by side will work with Iraqis in the lead (it will report to a “committee” led by Mr. Maliki!). Or how $1 billion in new American reconstruction spending will accomplish what the $30 billion thrown down the drain in previous reconstruction spending did not.

All of this replays 2003, when the White House refused to consider any plan, including existing ones in the Pentagon and State Department bureaucracies, for coping with a broken post-Saddam Iraq. Then, as at every stage of the war since, the only administration plan was for a propaganda campaign to bamboozle American voters into believing “victory” was just around the corner.

The next push on the “way forward” propaganda campaign arrives Tuesday night, with the State of the Union address. The good news is that the Democrats have chosen Jim Webb, the new Virginia senator, to give their official response. Mr. Webb, a Reagan administration Navy secretary and the father of a son serving in Iraq, has already provoked a testy exchange about the war with the president at a White House reception for freshmen in Congress. He’s the kind of guy likely to keep a scorecard of the lies on Tuesday night. But whether he does or not, it’s incumbent on all those talking heads who fell for “shock and awe” and “Mission Accomplished” in 2003 to not let history repeat itself in 2007. Facing the truth is the only way forward in Iraq.

Da New Crib!

2007-01-15T15:30:00.000-08:00

Click on these amigos to see it

Here, my pretties, are some snaps of me new digs in El Distrito Genial. New isn't the right word. The house is easily 150 anyway.

Teddy

2007-01-10T23:59:00.000-08:00

Ted Kennedy Says No to Bush's 'Surge'
by John Nichols

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, are trying to figure out how to respond to the to the expected presidential proposal for to surge the United States deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq.

But the man who, by virtue of his long service in the Senate and his mastery of that chamber's politics and procedures, is recognized and respected by savvy Democrats and Republicans as the essential member of the new Congress, is not confused.

Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, is introducing legislation to unequivocally "prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007."

Kennedy voted against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq and he has been a consistent critic of the war. But this targeted piece of legislation specifically addresses the "surge" being proposed by the president.

Even more importantly, Kennedy's bill reasserts the role of Congress in a time of war. The Constitution allows the president to serve as commander-in-chief and affords him reasonable war-making powers in that role. But it reserves for Congress the power of the purse, and the founders were clear in their belief that the House and Senate should use that power to constrain a president who is waging war without reason or sound strategies.

The Congress has frequently used the power of the purse to control presidential war-making. Kennedy points to examples from the Vietnam era, but there are also examples from just the past quarter century of the Congress specifically embracing troops caps in Lebanon, in the European NATO countries, and in Colombia. Indeed, as the Center for American Progress notes in a detailed new report, "Congressional Limitations and Requirements for Military Deployments and Funding," the Congress has a rich record of stepping in to prevent presidents from expanding U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.

Kennedy, who came to the Senate in 1963 recognizes that record, and he embraces its central theme: The Constitutionally-mandated system of checks and balances requires Congress to be in the thick of decision making with regard to wars and their escalation.

Kennedy's specific message is summed up in the title of the speech the senator delivered January 9, at the National Press Club: "Escalation is Not the Answer: Time for Congress to Insist on Real Change in Iraq"

Said Kennedy, "It seems to me that we are at a time of a major escalation into a civil war, that's what the proposal of a surge is really about. This president is going to escalate the American presence and escalate the whole Iraqi war. This is a major mistake and a major blunder. If there's one thing that the election was about last fall was sending a very clear message to Congress and to the president that the American people want accountability. They want a change in direction on Iraq, they want accountability, and they want people to stand up and be counted."

Will other members of the Senate stand up and be counted? And will members of the House do the same?

Pelosi is clearly toying with strategies to challenge the proposed escalation of the war. She has said that Congress must be a part of the discussion about the president's "surge" proposal, while the Senate's Reid remains troublingly vague.

Ultimately, it is Kennedy who has proposed the clearest challenge to the administration. And senators, especially those who recognize the futility of expanding this war, need to join him in saying no to the surge.

"I think it's to try to hold policy makers accountable," Kennedy explained in a discussion with The New York Times regarding his legislation. "The president is the commander in chief. This is George Bush's war. But we have some responsibility in holding him accountable and holding accountable the people that want to continue the war in the way that it is being undertaken at the present time. The American people have expressed a different view and we need accountability."

Here are Kennedy's remarks regarding his bill:

The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence. The way to start is by acting on the President's new plan. An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake. It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it.

Today I am introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill will say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President's plan.

My proposal will not diminish our support for the forces we already have in Iraq. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure they have all the support they truly need. Even more important, we will continue to do all we can to bring them safely home. The best immediate way to support our troops is by refusing to inject more and more of them into the cauldron of a civil war that can be resolved only by the people and government of Iraq.

This bill will give all Americans -- from Maine to Florida to California to Alaska and Hawaii -- an opportunity to hold the President accountable for his actions. The President's speech must be the beginning -- not the end -- of a new national discussion of our policy in Iraq. Congress must have a genuine debate over the wisdom of the President's plan. Let us hear the arguments for it and against it. Then let us vote on it in the light of day. Let the American people hear -- yes or no -- where their elected representatives stand on one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Until now, a rubber stamp Republican Congress has refused to hold the White House accountable on Iraq. But the November election has dramatically changed all that. Over the past two years, Democrats reached for their roots as true members of our Party. We listened to the hopes and dreams of everyday Americans. We rejected the politics of fear and division. We embraced a vision of hope and shared purpose. And the American people voted for change.

Many of us felt the authorization to go to war was a grave mistake at the time. I've said that my vote against the war in Iraq is the best vote I've cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate.

But no matter what any of us thought then, the Iraq War resolution is obviously obsolete today. It authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today, Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance.

The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress. President Bush should not be permitted to escalate the war further, and send an even larger number of our troops into harm's way, without a clear and specific new authorization from Congress.

Our history makes clear that a new escalation in our forces will not advance our national security. It will not move Iraq toward self-government, and it will needlessly endanger our troops by injecting more of them into the middle of a civil war.

... Comparisons from history resonate painfully in today's debate on Iraq. In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. Instead, each one led only to the next.

There was no military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.

Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.

As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military. Injecting more troops into a civil war is not the answer. Our men and women in uniform cannot force the Iraqi people to reconcile their differences. The President may deny the plain truth. But the truth speaks loudly and tragically. Congress must no longer follow him deeper into the quagmire in Iraq.

John Nichols is the Nation's Washington correspondent.

Execution

2006-12-31T04:20:00.000-08:00

Is there any doubt who is truly in control of the state in Iraq? Cleary the American Government makes or breaks the rulers there. So when the Iraqi Government moves swiftly to execute a polararizing figure such as former dictator Sadaam Hussein, (also formerly the regional darling of the Reagan Administration) we know that it was the will of the Bushtatorship in Washington that it be done. It is apropos and suitably ironic that the execution took place on a muslim Holy day associated with forgiveness and not retribution; an irony that parallels the larger one. That larger irony, of course, is the one in which the stated aims of the American government for the country, contrasts so epicly with the tragic impact that its illegal invasion has wrought upon Iraq's unfortunate people.

The many irregularities and the political interference in the prosecution of his trial, the images presented to world of the leader greeted at the execution chamber by hooded taunting brutes, showed well that it was the intention of the Iraqi leadership to repay Sadaam in kind for the years of butality his dictatorship imposed upon the nation. The question is what good will come of this. I thought that the Americans and the English wanted to set a higher standard. The image that will be remembered instead, will be the spectre of cold faceless executioners cruelly taunting a stoic, powerless yet defiant victim. These chickens too, no doubt, will come home to roost.

From the NYTimes:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 30 — Saddam Hussein never bowed his head, until his neck snapped.His last words were equally defiant. “Down with the traitors, the Americans, the spies and the Persians.”

The final hour of Iraq’s former ruler began about 5 a.m., when American troops escorted him from Camp Cropper, near the Baghdad airport, to Camp Justice, another American base at the heart of the city. There, he was handed over to a newly trained unit of the Iraqi National Police, with whom he would later exchange curses. Iraq took full custody of Mr. Hussein at 5:30 a.m.

Two American helicopters flew 14 witnesses from the Green Zone to the execution site — a former headquarters of the Istikhbarat, the deposed government’s much feared military intelligence outfit, now inside the American base.

Mr. Hussein was escorted into the room where the gallows, with its red railing, stood, greeted at the door by three masked executioners known as ashmawi. Several of the witnesses present — including Munkith al-Faroun, the deputy prosecutor for the court; Munir Haddad, the deputy chief judge for the Iraqi High Tribunal; and Sami al-Askari, a member of Parliament — described in detail how the execution unfolded and independently recounted what was said.

To protect himself from the bitter cold before dawn during the short trip, Mr. Hussein wore a 1940s-style wool cap, a scarf and a long black coat over a white collared shirt.
His executioners wore black ski masks, but Mr. Hussein could still see their deep brown skin and hear their dialects, distinct to the Shiite southern part of the country, where he had so brutally repressed two separate uprisings.

The small room had a foul odor. It was cold, had bad lighting and a sad, melancholic atmosphere. With the witnesses and 11 other people — including guards and the video crew — it was cramped. Mr. Hussein’s eyes darted about, trying to take in just who was going to put an end to him.

The executioners took his hat and his scarf. Mr. Hussein, whose hands were bound in front of him, was taken to the judge’s room next door. He followed each order he was given.
He sat down and the verdict, finding him guilty of crimes against humanity, was read aloud.
“Long live the nation!” Mr. Hussein shouted. “Long live the people! Long live the Palestinians!”
He continued shouting until the verdict was read in full, and then he composed himself again.
When he rose to be led back to the execution room at 6 a.m., he looked strong, confident and calm. Whatever apprehension he may have had only minutes earlier had faded.

The general prosecutor asked Mr. Hussein to whom he wanted to give his Koran. He said Bandar, the son of Awad al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court who was also to be executed soon. The room was quiet as everyone began to pray, including Mr. Hussein. “Peace be upon Mohammed and his holy family.” Two guards added, “Supporting his son Moktada, Moktada, Moktada.” Mr. Hussein seemed a bit stunned, swinging his head in their direction. They were talking about Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric whose militia is now committing some of the worst violence in the sectarian fighting; he is the son of a revered Shiite cleric, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, whom many believe Mr. Hussein ordered murdered.
“Moktada?” he spat out, mixing sarcasm and disbelief.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, asked Mr. Hussein if he had any remorse or fear. “No,” he said bluntly. “I am a militant and I have no fear for myself. I have spent my life in jihad and fighting aggression. Anyone who takes this route should not be afraid.”

Mr. Rubaie, standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Hussein, asked him about the killing of the elder Mr. Sadr. They were standing so close to each other that others could not hear the exchange.

One of the guards, though, became angry. “You have destroyed us,” the masked man yelled. “You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution.” Mr. Hussein was scornful: “I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your enemies, the Persians and Americans.” The guard cursed him. “God damn you.” Mr. Hussein replied, “God damn you.”
Two witnesses, apparently uninvolved in selecting the guards, exchanged a quiet joke, saying they gathered that the goal of disbanding the militias had yet to be accomplished. The deputy prosecutor, Mr. Faroun, berated the guards, saying, “I will not accept any offense directed at him.”

Mr. Hussein was led up to the gallows without a struggle. His hands were unbound, put behind his back, then fastened again. He showed no remorse. He held his head high.
The executioners offered him a hood. He refused. They explained that the thick rope could cut through his neck and offered to use the scarf he had worn earlier to keep that from happening. Mr. Hussein accepted.

He stood on the high platform, with a deep hole beneath it. He said a last prayer. Then, with his eyes wide open, no stutter or choke in his throat, he said his final words cursing the Americans and the Persians.

At 6:10 a.m., the trapdoor swung open. He seemed to fall a good distance, but he died swiftly. After just a minute, his body was still. His eyes still were open but he was dead. Despite the scarf, the rope cut a gash into his neck. His body stayed hanging for another nine minutes as those in attendance broke out in prayer, praising the Prophet, at the death of a dictator.

Poll from World Public Opinion.org

It never ceases to amaze me...

2006-12-26T07:40:00.000-08:00

...the audacity of the powers that be.

Big Brother wants your tele!

I had heard, but had no real idea about how invasive the state can be in everyone's life here. In the lives of every ordinary bloke, that is. Case in point: they have here what is called a TV licesnse fee. Every person owning a TV must pay an annual fee of ₤200 to watch it. That's around U.S. $400 for the privilege of using the electronics that you have privately purchased. The law has recently been extended to included personal computers, since some TV programmes may be seen online.

Failure to pay the license fee results in a ₤1000 fine. They actually have teams of TV License men (in her Majesty's service) who go out on the prowl in the Council Estates (the projects) with special sensor equipment. With these James Bondesque devices they can sense which houses are watching and which are not. Once an illicit viewer is detected, they pounce. A loud officious "RAP" comes at the door. Everyone inside knows what this means. The usual response (in our house anyway) is to quickly turn off the tele and to stay as hush as can be. Several other raps follow. Then a letter is left, like the one shown here. Two or three such incidents, and they they can obtain a warrent to search your house - I shit you not! If they find an offending unlicensed device during such a search, then you are fined the 1000 quid. Failure to pay two such fines results in jail time. Imagine - you ca go to the whosegow for watching the tube. My moher always told me that watching TV would come to no good! Click on the letter to enlarge it.

Click on Santa if you love him

2006-12-21T15:20:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Jim & Becky for this one!

JETLAGGED

2006-12-17T03:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, so here I am in jolly old England. The virus I picked up from Felipe (I am blaming him) took full grip (grippe) of me through the stress and sleeplessnes of the journey. Felipe thought he was sick because of the Chinese buffet we ate last Sunday. I pointed out that we ate the same food (Urbano and I.) Anyway, so I am in the prone position and bedridden for a few days before I go out to greet London again - panic-stricken trips to the loo being the one exception. After Xmas we are off to Dublin for a few days to see some family. Cheerio!

New From Immanel Wallerstein

2006-12-17T03:36:00.000-08:00

I am delighted to see that Dr. Wallersten is still pumping it out. I haven't heard hide nor hair of him for years. Below is his summar take of the curren political situation in Mexico. I would quibble with him on a few things, but for a non-specialist in the area he has hit it bang. Here then, through the miracle of copyright violation, is Immanuel Wallerstein!!

Mexican Turbulence: Uprising or Civil War?
by Immanuel Wallerstein

Subcomandante Marcos said last month that Mexico is "on the eve of a great uprising or a civil war." He is continuing "the other campaign" launched by the Zapatistas. And Andrés Manuel López Obrador, candidate of the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) in the election of June 2, 2006, has asserted very loudly, and to very great public support, that his election was stolen. He has refused to recognize Felipe Calderón who took the presidential oath on December 1, and has established his own competing structure, the "legitimate government" -- with offices, a cabinet, and representatives in each region. Meanwhile, what started earlier this year as a teacher's wage strike in Oaxaca morphed into a general anti-capitalist uprising that took over the town under a structure that called itself the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO in Spanish), and demanded minimally the dismissal of the PRI provincial governor, one Ulisses Ruiz. State and federal police eventually moved in with force, put down the uprising, and the leaders of APPO have been arrested.

How did the next-door neighbor of the United States get to a point where its government is actively and vigorously challenged as illegitimate, and where people are discussing whether the legal president can actually last out his six-year term, ending an 80-year period of relative political stability? One has to put together three elements to explain the turbulence: 500 years of oppression of the indigenous peoples of Mexico; the deterioration of Mexico's twentieth-century political institutions; and the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Mexico's basic welfare.

Mexico is a White settler country in which the majority of the population is composed of indigenous Indian peoples plus peoples of so-called mixed blood. Numbers make a difference, especially when the racial/ethnic stratification has remained fairly constant for so long and the gap in living standards is so blatant. The most recent political consequence of this underlying tension has been the emergence of the Zapatistas (the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) in Chiapas in 1994. The Zapatistas have proved themselves to be a lasting, meaningful political force whose "other campaign" that they started last year has begun to have its impact throughout the country. The "other campaign" is not a campaign for electoral power, nor to take over the present Mexican state. It seeks to empower local communities and oppressed groups of every variety (women, peasants and workers, gays) in a struggle against capitalism and imperialism -- in Mexico and throughout the world.

There is a second front -- the formal political arena established in the wake of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. After a shaky beginning, Mexico settled down into one-party rule under the aegis of the Partido Revolucionaria Institucional (PRI). PRI was at its revolutionary height in the 1930's during the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas, who nationalized petroleum and pursued agrarian reform by establishing government-backed communal land projects known as ejidos. Ever since 1940, the PRI has moved away from the path of Cárdenas, becoming more and more bureaucratic, conservative, and corrupt. Initially, its only opposition was a Catholic-based, pro-business rightwing party known as the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN).

In the 1980s, there was a breakaway to the left from PRI with the founding of the PRD. The PRD's 1988 candidate for president was Cárdenas's son, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas. It is generally agreed that the 1988 election was stolen by PRI, but the PRD did not fight this indignity. In 2000, the candidate of PAN, Vicente Fox, won, finally ousting PRI from presidential power and sending it on a precipitate political decline. When the PRD candidate in 2006, López Obrador was said to be defeated, he did not fade away passively like Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas in 1988. Instead, he has sought actively to delegitimize his opponent's supposed victory.

The Zapatistas and the López Obradistas represent two wings of Mexico's popular opposition. They represent different political strategies, and at the moment are not working in unison with each other. But APPO in Oaxaca indicates the kind of forces that might bring the two together. Both support APPO, and APPO has been totally autonomous from both of them. There may be many more APPO's in the near future.

The final element to put into the picture is NAFTA. Mexico's upper strata have done well under NAFTA. But the lower strata are worse off than ever. One of the many consequences of course has been increased trans-border migration into the United States, which has led to internal turmoil in the United States -- between a new "nativist" anti-immigrant movement and an aroused Latino political constituency. If the world-economy takes a further downward turn in the coming year or two, Mexico's legal government may face a drastic fall in income and find it difficult to weather the storm. And the two turbulences -- that of Mexico and the United States -- may join forces.

"Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble/Fire burn and cauldron bubble," intoned the witches in Macbeth.

Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University, is the author of The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World (New Press).

In association with Exxon, Monsanto and the fine folks at DuPont Plastic Explosives, Dick Haliburton proudly presents:

2006-12-14T05:12:00.000-08:00

TOGA PARTY AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA

By Citizen Ken, The Sultan of Namyangju

Starring George W. Bush as “Gaius Caesar Georgeigulus”

With Tony “I was just following orders” Blair as “Antonius Lepidus”
Michael V. Hayden as “Director of the CIA” / “bagman”
Reba McEntire as Mrs. Bush
Robert Duvall as the Rev. Jerry Falwell

It was getting wintry on Pennsylvania Avenue. Republican lobbyists hung upon the trees, changing color. Mrs. Bush had been in the kitchen for days, beating the servants as they boiled down the Thanksgiving carcasses. Dozens (or several) pundits, panderers and publicans had gathered in the midst of the Romanesque grottoes flanking the Rose Garden for a gala toga party / fundraiser / Skull and Bones Club meeting. Michael V. Hayden, Executive White House Bagman, had been mobilized for special operations since the midterms. In the ovoid office The Commander in Chief, rendered fully delusional from indiscriminate bag abuse and acute chronic megalomania, had been possessed by the agitated spirit of Gaius Caesar Caligula. “More Wild Turkey” he gibbered incoherently as packs of half-crazed lobbyists goaded him on. Bush and Gaius had merged in an evil and wretched fusion of maniacal craft and halfwittedness to spew forth………..Georgeigulus, Cancerous Barnacle of Late Capitalism. Prone before the the besandled boil and bunion encrusted feet of the Emperor knelt the flayed and beaten dregs of Antonius Lepidus “Faux Monica” Blair (the lesser) pocket despot of Sax-Northumbrius, intermittently mumbling “I urge you resolutely to maintain your position”. At this moment Executive Bagman Hayden arrived with yet another Presidential hit. “Hey Mike, what place we gonna save for democracy next? Huh? How about some place with a beach and some bananas? I could really eat some bananas! How about Fiji, huh, huh?” Georgeigulus’ chimp-like features had been twisted sideways in a demented smile and spittle was running down his chin. “Well, I guess we could, Mr. President. After all, Commodore Bainimarama has seized power there.” “Huh, wadda you mean, Mike? Jeez, I used to listen to those guys all the time. They got their nerve seizin’ power before me.” “What are you talking about, Mr. President?” “ Didn’tya just say The Commodores and Bananarama seized power in Fiji? Get the fleet ready Mike – we’re goin’ in!” Georgeigulus went completely berserk at this point and began smashing the furniture. Hayden consulted briefly with Blair – “Jesus, Tony! He’s lost it completely this time. I’m going to have the bring in the Republican Guard to get him over to The Institute. Looks like the last leukotomy didn’t take properly. Time for 2 or 3 more, I guess. Keep him busy while I make the arrangements.” Hayden rushed out of the ovoid office to summon the Republican Guard but before he could return Rev. Jerry Falwell appeared at the window in a Screaming Eagle helicopter with the Christian Coalition SWAT team. “George, George – quick, JUMP, JUMP! Get your ass out here!!!.” “Huh – where we goin’ Jer? Where we goin?” “Off to Jerusalem, simian! YOU MUST ATONE FOR YOUR SINS AT THE WAILING WALL!!!” “But, but, why me, Jer? Why me?” “Because you’re on television, dummy…NOW JUMP!!!” No longer infused with the spirit of Gaius Caesar, the Commander in Chief had once again become a wretched half-human husk. Dim recognition of his predicament began to spread across his Neolithic features. With baboon – like grace he leapt off the balcony onto the helicopter just as the Republican Guard burst into the room. The helicopter disappeared into the stormy night, carrying the dessicated wreck of the leader of the free world towards his destiny.

Coming soon: Episode 3, in which a disoriented George Dubya takes a wrong turn at the Wailing Wall while searching for “White Jesus” and blunders into hostile territory in The Horn of Africa.

Part of My Daily Reading (see sidebar left)

2006-12-13T05:18:00.000-08:00

The world can give you only what you gave it, for being nothing but your own projection, it has no meaning apart from what you found in it and placed your faith in. Be faithful unto darkness and you will not see, because your faith will be rewarded as you gave it. You will accept your treasure, and if you place your faith in the past, the future will be like it. Whatever you hold dear you think is yours. The power of your valuing will make it so....

...Do not be afraid to look within. The ego tells you all is black with guilt within you, and bids you not to look. Instead, it bids you look upon your brothers, and see the guilt in them. Yet this you cannot do without remaining blind. For those who see their brothers in the dark, and guilty in the dark in which they shroud them, are too afraid to look upon the light within. Within you is not what you believe is there, and what you put your faith in. Within you is the holy sign of perfect faith your Father has in you. He does not value you as you do. He knows himself, and knows the truth in you. He knows there is no difference, for he knows not of differences. Can you see guilt where God knows there is perfect innocence? You can deny his knowledge, but you cannot change it. Look, then, upon the light he placed within you, and learn that what you feared was there has been replaced with love.

Another Exciting Installment of Zany Zarathustra and the...

2006-12-13T03:10:00.000-08:00

The Nietzsche Family Circus

The man of knowledge must be able
not only to love his enemies
but also to hate his friends.

Jews For Justice In The Middle East (Part Nine)

2006-12-12T03:58:00.000-08:00

General Considerations
Israel has sought peace with its Arab neighbor states but has steadfastly refused to negotiate with Palestinians directly, until the last few years. Why?
"My friend, take care. When you recognize the concept of 'Palestine', you demolish your right to live in Ein Hahoresh. If this is Palestine and not the Land of Israel, then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land. You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who have lived here before you came. Only if it is the Land of Israel do you have a right to live in Ein Hahoresh and in Deganiyah B. If it is not your country, your fatherland, the country of your ancestors and of your sons, then what are you doing here? You came to another people's homeland, as they claim, you expelled them and you have taken their land." Menahem Begin, quoted in Noam Chomsky's "Peace in the Middle East?"

More from the horse's mouth
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs, We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" David Ben-Gurion, quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nathan Goldman, former president of the World Jewish Congress.

More from the horse's mouth
"Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived...We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home." Israeli leader Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel"

More from the horse's mouth
"The Arabs will be our problem for a long time," Weizmann said, "It's not going to be simple.One day they may have to leave and let us have the country. They're ten to one, but don't we Jews have ten times their intelligence?" Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in 1919 at the Paris peace conference, quoted in Ella Winter, "And Not To Yield."

The international consensus on Israel (a very small representative sampling)
"[In the early 1950s] Arab states regularly complained of the reprisals to the UN Security Council, which routinely rejected Israel's claims of self-defense...

"In June 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon, and it used aerial bombardment to destroy entire camps of Palestinian Arab refugees, By these means Israel killed 20,000 persons, mostly civilians...Israel claimed self-defense for its invasion, but the lack of PLO attacks into Israel during the previous year made that claim dubious...The [UN] Security Council demanded 'that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon'...

"The UN Human Rights Commission, using the Geneva Convention's provision that certain violations of humanitarian law are 'grave breaches' meriting criminal punishment for perpetrators, found a number of Israel's practices during the uprising [the intifada] to constitute 'war crimes.' It included physical and psychological torture of Palestinian detainees and their subjection to improper and inhuman treatment; the imposition of collective punishment on towns, villages and camps; the administrative detention of thousands of Palestinians; the expulsion of Palestinian citizens; the confiscation of Palestinian property; and the raiding and demolition of Palestinian houses." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

From the 1970s until the 1999 Israeli High Court decision forbidding torture during interrogation (theoretically), hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were subjected to inhuman treatment in Israeli prisons.
"Israel's two main interrogation agencies in the occupied territories engage in a systematic pattern of ill-treatment and torture - according to internationally recognized definitions of the terms...The methods used in nearly all interrogations are prolonged sleep deprivation; prolonged sight deprivation using blindfolds or tight-fitting hoods; forced, prolonged maintenance of body positions that grow increasingly painful; and verbal threats and insults.

"These methods are almost always combined with some of the following abuses; confinement in tiny, closet-like spaces; exposure to temperature extremes, such as deliberately overcooled rooms, prolonged toilet and hygiene deprivation; and degrading treatment...Beatings are far more routine in IDF interrogations than in GSS interrogations. Sixteen of the nineteen detainees we interviewed [detained between 1992 and 1994] reported having been assaulted in the interrogation room. Beatings and kicks were directed at the throat, testicles, and stomach. Some were repeatedly choked; some had their heads slammed against the walls...

"Israeli interrogations consistently use methods in combination with one another, over long periods of time. Thus, a detainee in the custody of the General Security Service (GSS) may spend weeks during which, except for brief respites, he shuttles from a tiny chair to which he is painfully shackled; to a stifling, tiny cubicle in which he can barely move; to questioning sessions in which he is beaten or violently manhandled; and then back to the chair.
"The intensive, sustained and combined use of these methods inflicts the severe mental or physical suffering that is central to internationally accepted definitions of torture. Israel's political leadership cannot claim ignorance that ill-treatment is the norm in interrogation centers. The number of victims is too large, and the abuses too systematic," 1994 Human Rights Watch report, "Torture and Ill-Treatment: Israel's Interrogation of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories."

The use of "force' - continued
"Amnesty International also observed that, when brought to trial, most Palestinian detainees arrested for 'terrorist' offenses and tortured by the Shin Bet (General Security Services) 'have been accused of offenses such as membership in unlawful associations or throwing stones. They have also included prisoners of conscience such as people arrested solely for raising a flag.' On a related point, Haaretz columnist B. Michael noted that there wasn't a single recorded case in which the Shin Bet's use of torture was prompted by a 'ticking bomb' scenario: 'In every instance of a Palestinian lodging formal complaint about torture, the Shin Bet justified its use in order to extract a confession about something that had already happened, not about something that was about to happen.'" Norman Finkelstein, "The Rise and Fall of Palestine."

The 1997 U.N. Commission Against Torture rules against Israel
"B'Tselem estimates---that the GSS annually interrogates between 1000-1500 Palestinians [as of 1998]. Some eighty-five percent of them - at least 850 persons a year - are tortured during interrogation...

"The U.N. Committee Against Torture,..reached an unequivocal conclusion:...'The methods of interrogation [used in Israeli prisons]...are in the Committee's view breaches of article 16 and also constitute torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention...As a State Party to the Convention Against Torture, Israel is precluded from raising before this Committee exceptional circumstances'...The prohibition on torture is, therefore, absolute, and no 'exceptional' circumstances may justify derogating from it." 1998 Report from B'Teslem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, "Routine Torture: Interrogation Methods of the General Security Service."

Some arguments used to justify Zionism
"There is clearly no need to justify the Zionist dream, the desire for relief from Jewish suffering...The trouble with Zionism starts when it lands, so to speak, in Palestine. What has to be justified is the injustice to the Palestinians caused by Zionism, the dispossession and victimization of a whole people. There is clearly a wrong here, a wrong which creates the need for justification...

[E.g., the inheritance claim] The aim of Zionism is the restoration of a Jewish sovereignty to its status 2,000 years ago. Zionism does not advocate an overhauling of the total world situation in the same way. It does not advocate the restoration of the Roman empire...[In addition,] Palestinians have claimed descent from the ancient inhabitants of Palestine 3,000 years ago!...

[Jewish suffering as justification] It was easy to make the Palestinians pay for 2,000 years of persecution. The Palestinians, who have felt the enormous power of this vengeance, were not the historical oppressors of the Jews.

They did not put Jews into ghettos and force them to wear yellow stars. They did not plan holocausts. But they had one fault. They were weak and defenseless in the face of real military might, so they were the ideal victims for an abstract revenge....

[Anti-semitism as justification] Unlike the situation of Jews persecuted for being Jews, Israelis are at war with the Arab world because they have committed the sin of colonialism, not because of their Jewish identity...

[The law of the jungle justification.] Presenting the world as naturally unjust, and oppression as nature's way, has always been the first refuge of those who want to preserve their privileges...The need to justify Zionism, and the lack of other defenses, has made it part of the Israeli world view...In Israel, one common outcome is cynicism, for which Israelis have become famous...

[The effect on Israelis] Israelis seem to be haunted by a curse. It is the curse of the original sin against the native Arabs. How can Israel be discussed without recalling the dispossession and exclusion of non-Jews? This is the most basic fact about Israel, and no understanding of Israeli reality is possible without it. The original sin haunts and torments Israelis; it marks everything and taints everybody. Its memory poisons the blood and marks every moment of existence." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahami, "Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel."

Zionism's 'historical right' to Palestine
"Zionism's 'historical right' to Palestine was neither historical nor a right. It was not historical inasmuch as it voided the two millennia of non-Jewish settlement in Palestine and the two millennia of Jewish settlement outside it. It was not a right, except in the Romantic 'mysticism' of 'blood and soil' and the Romantic 'cult' of 'death, heroes and graves'... "The claim of Jewish 'homelessness is founded on a cluster of assumptions that both negates the liberal idea of citizenship and duplicates the anti-Semitic one that the state belongs to the majority ethnic nation. In a word, the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews." Professor Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict,"

How about the Zionist argument that Jordan already is the Palestinian state?
"It is often alleged that there was, in fact, an earlier 'territorial compromise', namely in 1922, when Transjordan was excised from the promised 'national home for the Jewish people,'...a decision that is difficult to criticize in light of the fact that 'the number of Jews living there permanently in 1921 has reliably been estimated at two, or according to some authorities, three persons.'" Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Why doesn't Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," have a constitution?
"The abstention from formulating a constitution was no accident. The massive expropriation of lands and other properties from those Arabs who fled the country as a result of the War of Independence and of those who remained but were declared absent, as well as the confiscation of large tracts of land from Arab villages who did not flee, and the laws passed to legalize those acts - all this would have necessarily been declared unconstitutional, null and void, by the Supreme Court, being expressly discriminatory against one part of the citizenry, whereas a democratic constitution obliges the state to treat all of its citizens equally." Israeli author, Boas Evron, "Jewish State or Israeli Nation?"

"The only democracy in the Middle East?" - continued
"The 1989 Israel High Court decision that any political party advocating full equality between Arab and Jew can be barred from fielding candidates in an election...[means] that the Israeli state is the state of the Jews...not their [the Arabs'] state." Professor Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."

Monday Morning

2006-12-11T05:43:00.000-08:00

A panel of experts has been consulted, and they have decided that it is hard to go to get motivated on Mondays. Wow. Is there anything they can't figure out these days?

I WAAAAAAS going to go to the archives today. But, I am moving tomorrow. I am changing from one colonia to another. I curently live in a place called Roma. All roads lead to here, so its a very noisey place. It is also very bourgeois. It is full of "strawberries," as Mexicans are fond of referring to upperwardly mobile, somewhat pretentious, upper-middle class snobbies (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

On the other hand, where I am moving to, a colónia called Santa María la Ribera is a much cheaper and (most importantly) a much more colourful neighbourhood. It is also a bit more dangerous. Indeed, it is referred to as Santa María la Ratera (a ratero is a thief.)

So anyway, I have to get packed today. That's why I am staying home. Do you believe me yet? Yes, thank Goodness for those panels of experts. What would we do without them?

PD: To Inglaterra and the Sultan - Can you guys take over some postings while I am in Europe? Respond or be prepared to receive a Polonium 210 enema.

Jews For Jstice In The Middle East (Part Eight)

2006-12-08T04:16:00.000-08:00

Zionism and the Holocaust

The U.N. decisions to partition Palestine and then to grant admission to the state of Israel were made, on one level, as an emotional response to the horrors of the Holocaust, Under more normal circumstances, the compelling claims to sovereignty of the Arab majority would have prevailed. This reaction of guilt on the part of the Western allies was understandable, but that doesn't mean the Palestinians should have to pay for crimes committed by others -- a classic example of two wrongs not making a right.

The Holocaust is often used as the final argument in favor of Zionism, but is this connection justified? There are several aspects to consider in answering that question honestly. First, we will examine the historical record of what the Zionist movement actually did to help save European Jewry from the Nazis.

Shamir proposes an alliance with the Nazis
"As late as 1941, the Zionist group LEHI, one of whose leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, was later to become a prime minister of Israel, approached the Nazis, using the name of its parent organization, the Irgun(NMO)..[The proposal stated:] 'The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian Pd bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German nation of power in the Near East...The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany's side'...The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, they considered LEHI's military power 'negligible.' " Allan Brownfield in "The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs", July/August 1998.

Wasn't the main goal of Zionism to save Jews from the Holocaust?
"In 1938 a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Main goal of Zionism - continued
"It was summed up in the meeting [of the Jewish Agency's Executive on June 26, 1938] that the Zionist thing to do 'is belittle the [Evian] Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing...We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection efforts'...Ben-Gurion's statement at the same meeting: 'No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.'" Israeli author Boas Evron, "Jewish State or Israeli Nation?"

Main goal of Zionism - continued
"[Ben-Gurion stated] 'If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second - because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.' In the wake of the Kristallnacht pogroms, Ben-Gurion commented that 'the human conscience' might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: 'Zionism is in danger.'" Israeli historian, Tom Segev, "The Seventh Million."

Main goal of Zionism-continued
"Even David Ben-Gurion's sympathetic biographer acknowledges that Ben-Gurion did nothing practical for rescue, devoting his energies to post-war prospects. He delegated rescue work to Yitzak Gruenbaum, who [stated]...'They will say that I am anti-Semitic, that I don't want to save the Exile, that I don't have a varm Yiddish hartz...Let them say what they want. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act.'

"Zionists in America...took the same position. At a May 1943 meeting of the American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs, Nahum Goldmann argued, 'If a drive is opened against the White Paper (the British policy of restricting Jewish immigrants to Palestine) the mass meetings of protest against the murder of European Jewry will have to be dropped. We do not have sufficient manpower for both campaigns.'" Peter Novick, "The Holocaust in American Life."

Main goal of Zionism - continued
"The Zionist movement...interfered with and hindered other organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, whenever it imagined that their activity, political or humanitarian, was at variance with Zionist aims or in competition with them, even when these might be helpful to Jews, even when it was a question of life and death...Beit Zvi documents the Zionist leadership's indifference to saving Jews from the Nazi menace except in cases in which the Jews could be brought to Palestine...[e.g.] the readiness of the dictator of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo, to absorb one hundred thousand refugees and the sabotaging of this idea - as well as others, like proposals to settle the Jews inAlaska and the Philippines - by the Zionist movement...

"The obtuseness of the Zionist movement toward the fate of European Jewry did not prevent it, of course, from later hurling accusations against the whole world for its indifference toward the Jewish catastrophe or from pressing material, political, and moral demands on the world because of that indifference." Israeli author Boas Evron, "Jewish State or Israeli Nation?"

Main goal of Zionism - continued
"I have already gone exhaustively into the reason for our being here, reasons that I as a pioneer of 1906 can affirm have nothing to do with the Nazis!...We are here because the land is ours. And we are here because we have again made it ours in this time with the work we have put into it. Nazism and our history of martyrdom abroad do not concern our presence in Israel directly." David Ben-Gurion, "Memoirs."

In hindsight, it is easy to say that the millions of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust could have been saved if Palestine had been available for unlimited immigration. The history of this period is not so simple, however. First, keep in mind that other realistic resettlement plans were proposed but actively opposed by the Zionist movement. Second, the great majority of Jews in Europe were not Zionists and did not try to emigrate to Palestine before 1939. Third, after the start of the war, as the Nazis occupied various countries, they refused to let the Jews leave, making emigration virtually impossible. And Palestine, as we have shown, was already occupied; the indigenous Arabs had more valid reasons than any other country for wanting to limit Jewish immigration. Read on:

~ ~ ~ ~

Emigration to Palestine before World War II
"In 1936, the Social Democratic Bund won a sweeping victory in Jewish kehilla elections in Poland...Its main hallmarks included 'an unyielding hostility to Zionism' and to the Zionist enterprise of Jewish emigration from Poland to Palestine. The Bund wished Polish Jews to fight anti-semitism in Poland by remaining there...The Zionist goal was also opposed, as a matter of principle, by all the major parties and movements among pre-1939 Polish Jewry..."Elsewhere in eastern Europe...Zionist strength was weaker still." Prof. William Rubinstein, "The Myth ofRescue."

Emigration to Palestine before World War II - continued
"In fact, Zionism suffered its own defeat in the Holocaust; as a movement, it failed. It had not, after all, persuaded the majority of Jews to leave Europe for Palestine while it was still possible to do so." Israeli historian, Tom Segev, "The Seventh Million."
Emigration during World War II

"[With the start of the war, Nazi] edicts forbidding emigration followed in all countries under direct Nazi control: after 1940-1 it was in effect impossible for Jews legally to emigrate from Nazi-occupied Europe to places of safety...The doors...were firmly shut: by the Nazis, it must be emphasized." Prof William D. Rubinstein, "The Myth of Rescue.

Palestine was not necessarily a safe haven either
"In September 1940, the Italians, at war with Britain, bombed downtown Tel Aviv, with over a hundred casualties...As the German Army overran Europe and North Africa, it appeared possible that it would conquer Palestine as well. In the summer of 1940, in the spring of 1941, and again in the fall of 1942 the danger seemed imminent. The yishuv panicked...Many people tried to find a way out of the country, but it was not easy...Some...were taking no chances; they carried cyanide capsules." Israeli historian, Tom Segev, "The Seventh Million."

In any case, Palestine was not Britain's to give away; it was already occupied.
"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish, state here...Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population." Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Original Sins."

Already occupied, continued
"One can imagine an argument for the right of a persecuted minority to find refuge in another country able to accommodate it; one is hard-pressed, however, to imagine an argument for the right of a peaceful minority to politically and perhaps physically displace the indigenous population of another country. Yet...the latter was the actual intention of the Zionist movement." Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."

The use of the Holocaust for political gain
"[In 1947] the U.N. appointed a special body, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), to make the decision over Palestine and UNSCOP members were asked to visit the camps of Holocaust survivors. Many of these survivors wanted to emigrate to the United States, a wish that undermined the Zionist claims that the fate of European Jewry was connected to that of the Jewish community in Palestine. When UNSCOP representatives arrived at the camps, they were unaware that backstage manipulations were limiting their contacts solely to survivors who wished to emigrate to Palestine," Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe in "The Link," January March 1998.

Political gain - continued
"Inside the DP camps, emissaries from the Yishuv organized survivor activity - crucially, the testimony the DPs gave to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and the UN Special Committee on Palestine about where they wished to go...The Jewish Agency envoys reported home that they had been successful in preventing the appearance of 'undesirable' witnesses at the hearings. One wrote his girlfiend in Palestine that 'we have to change our style and handwriting constantly so that they will think that the questionaires were filled in by the refugees.'"Peter Novick, "The Holocaust in American Life."

Roosevelt's advisor writes on why Jewish refugees were not offered sanctuary in the U.S. after WWII
"What if Canada, Australia, South America, England and the United States were all to open a door to some migration? Even today [written in 1947] it is my judgement, and I have been in Germany since the war, that only a minority of the Jewish DP's [displaced persons] would choose Palestine...

"[Roosevelt] proposed a world budget for the easy migration of the 500,000 beaten people of Europe. Each nation should open its doors for some thousands of refugees...So he suggested that during my trips for him to England during the war I sound out in a general, unofficial manner the leaders of British public opinion, in and out of the government...The simple answer: Great Britain will match the United States, man for man, in admissions from Europe...It seemed all settled. With the rest of the world probably ready to give haven to 200,000, there was a sound reason for the President to press Congress to take in at least 150,000 immigrants after the war...

"It would free us from the hypocrisy of closing our own doors while making sanctimonious demands on the Arabs...But it did not work out...The failure of the leading Jewish organizations to support with zeal this immigration programme may have caused the President not to push forward with it at that time...

"I talked to many people active in Jewish organizations. I suggested the plan...I was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered, and then attacked me as if I were a traitor...I think I know the reason for much of the opposition. There is a deep, genuine, often fanatical emotional vested interest in putting over the Palestinian movement [Zionism]. Men like Ben Hecht are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own." Jewish attorney and friend of President Roosevelt, Morris Ernst, "So Far, So Good."

Victimology
"Jewish proponents of the 'victim' card are aware not only of its social effectiveness but of its usefulness as a means of insuring Jewish solidarity and, hence, survival. If we were forever hated by all and are doomed to be forever hated by all, then we'd best stick together and make the best of it...Personally, I have never found this view of the eternally-hating gentile to have any resemblance with reality. It seems a myth, pure and simple, and an ugly one at that.

"Is it a good means of social control? Perhaps, but at what cost? It strips the faith and history of Jew and gentile alike of all but their months of antagonism. It wallows in evil imagery and postulates a forever morally superior Jew, victimized by the forever morally inferior 'goy'..I have spent most of my adult life among Hasidic Jews, almost all of whom were Holocaust survivors, and I've heard almost nothing of the of the relentless harping on victimology and our need to forever memorialize it...(Victimology) allows Jews to bypass their own faith and offers the national allegiance of Holocaust/Israel in its place." Rabbi Mayer Schiller, quoted in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism," Summer 1998.

My head is going to explode!

2006-12-06T10:26:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I am reading this new book (new for me) called Power Vs. Force by David R. Hawkins. It is an absolutely intriguing effort to elaborate a measurable scale for consciousness. But it is dense with all kinds of stuff I always wanted to, but never did study. For example, he incorporates nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory mathematics, neuropsychology (he is an MD and has a Ph.D. in neuropsychiatry.) Add to this a healthy dose of discussion of quantum superposition theory, quantum entanglement and string theory, and I think my brain is going to melt down. I hate that! Just when I thought I was sort of smart - brain mush! But the implications are staggering. Scientists and philosophers and theologians are going ape over this stuff. I recommend the DVD What the Bleep Do We Know?: Down the Rabbit Hole to everyone (available even at Blockbusters Mexico!)

In the category of weird dreams....

2006-12-04T10:09:00.000-08:00

Man last night I had a weird one. I dreamed I was back with my old girlfriend Susan. Except she somehow had morphed into my exwife Suzan. And we were living in the house that Suzan and I used to own. Anyway, I am out in the city and I run into Marcel (exgirlfriend Susan's exhusband.) Marcel is a punk and a thug and was always threatening me over the phone, back in the day when I was with his exwife. In the dream we exchange a few words and then part. I go home, however, to discover Marcel has left a bunch of his belongings in our house. Susan/morph/Suzan, says that he had to move out of his place and had nowhere else to go. I told her, "That's too bad. He ain't staying here!" Marcel is, at this point, nowhere to be seen, but I worry that Susan/morph/Suzan may have slept with Marcel. I am now anticipating a confrontation with Marcel. That's when I wake up.

Subsequently, after going back to sleep, I dreamed about Marcel again. In the dream I am working with Marcel on some house that I don't recognize. We are painting the interior together, and I am working on the basement. That's it. Go figure.

Jewish Criticism of Zionism

2006-12-04T06:13:00.000-08:00

"Albert Einstein - "'I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State,with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain'...

"Professor Erich Fromm, a noted Jewish writer and thinker, [stated]...'In general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or his rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the Arabs in Israel have much more legitimacy than the Jews. Just because the Arabs fled? Since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people's forefathers have lived for generations? Thus, the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel cannot be a realistic claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse...I believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for Israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the State towards the Arabs - not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the Israeli State to its former inhabitants of Palestine'...

"Nathan Chofshi - 'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations"'...

"In an article published in the Washington Post of 3 October 1978, Rabbi Hirsch (of Jerusalem) is reported to have declared: 'The 12th principle of our faith, I believe, is that the Messiah will gather the Jewish exiled who are dispersed throughout the nations of the world. Zionism is diametrically opposed to Judaism. Zionism wishes to define the Jewish people as a nationalistic entity. The Zionists say, in effect, 'Look here, God. We do not like exile. Take us back, and if you don't, we'll just roll up our sleeves and take ourselves back.' 'The Rabbi continues: 'This, of course, is heresy. The Jewish people are charged by Divine oath not to force themselves back to the Holy Land against the wishes of those residing there.'" Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Jewish Criticism - continued

"A Jewish Home in Palestine built up on bayonets and oppression [is] not worth having, even though it succeed, whereas the very attempt to build it up peacefully, cooperatively, with understanding, education, and good will, [is] worth a great deal even though the attempt should fail." Rabbi Judah L. Magnes, first president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, quoted in "Like All The Nations?", ed. Brinner & Rischin.

Martin Buber on what Zionism should have been

"The first fact is that at the time when we entered into an alliance (an alliance, I admit, that was not well defined) with a European state and we provided that state with a claim to rule over Palestine, we made no attempt to reach an agreement with the Arabs of this land regarding the basis and conditions for the continuation of Jewish settlement.

This negative approach caused those Arabs who thought about and were concerned about the future of their people to see us increasingly not as a group which desired to live in cooperation with their people but as something in the nature of uninvited guests and agents of foreign interests (at the time I explicitly pointed out this fact).

"The second fact is that we took hold of the key economic positions in the country without compensating the Arab population, that is to say without allowing their capital and their labor a share in our economic activity. Paying the large landowners for purchases made or paying compensation to tenants on the land is not the same as compensating a people. As a result, many of the more thoughtful Arabs viewed the advance of Jewish settlement as a kind of plot designed to dispossess future generations of their people of the land necessary for their existence and development. Only by means of a comprehensive and vigorous economic policy aimed at organizing and developing common interests would it have been possible to contend with this view and its inevitable consequences. This we did not do.

"The third fact is that when a possibility arose that the Mandate would soon be terminated, not only did we not propose to the Arab population of the country that a joint Jewish Arab administration be set up in its place, we went ahead and demanded rule over the whole country (the Biltmore program) as a fitting political sequel to the gains we had already made. By this step, we with our own hands provided our enemies in the Arab camp with aid and comfort of the most valuable sort - the support of public opinion - without which the military attack launched against us would not have been possible. For it now appears to the Arab populace that in carrying on the activities we have been engaged in for years, in acquiring land and in working and developing the land, we were systematically laying the ground work for gaining control of the whole country." Martin Buber, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr

Israel's new historians now refute myths of the founding of the state

"Since the 1980's,.....Israeli scholars [have] concurred with their Palestinian counterparts that Zionism was...carried out as a pure colonialist act against the local population: a mixture of exploitation and expropriation...

"They were motivated to present a revisionist point of view to a large extent by the declassification of relevant archival material in Israel, Britain and the United States. [For example,]...

Challenging the Myth of Annihilation - The new historiographical picture is a fundamental challenge to the official history that says the Jewish community faced possible annihilation on the eve of the 1948 war. Archival documents expose a fragmented Arab world wrought by dismay and confusion and a Palestinian community that possessed no military ability with which to frighten the Jews...

Israel's responsibility for Refugees - The Jewish military advantage was translated into an act of mass expulsion of more than half of the Palestinian population. The Israeli forces, apart from rare exceptions, expelled the Palestinians from every village and town they occupied. In some cases, this expulsion was accompanied by massacres [of civilians] as was the case in Lydda, Ramleh, Dawimiyya, Sa'sa, Ein Zietun and other places. Expulsion also was accompanied by rape, looting and confiscation [of Palestinian land and property]...

The Myth of Arab Intransigence - [The U.N.] convened a peace conference in Lausanne, Switzerland in the spring of 1949. Before the conference, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution that in effect replaced the November 1947 partition resolution. This new resolution, Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948, accepted [U.N. Mediator] Bernadotte's triangular basis for a comprehensive peace: an unconditional return of all the refugees to their homes, the internationalization of Jerusalem, and the partitioning of Palestine into two states. This time, several Arab states and various representatives of the Palestinians accepted this as a basis for negotiations, as did the United States, which was running the show at Lausanne...Prime Minister David Ben Gurion strongly opposed any peace negotiations along these lines...The only reason he was willing to allow Israel to participate in the peace conference was his fear of an angry American reaction...The road to peace was not taken due to Israeli, not Arab, intransigence.

Conclusions - The new Israeli historians...wish to rectify what their research reveals as past evils...There was a high price exacted in creating a Jewish state in Palestine. And there were victims, the plight of whom still fuels the fire of conflict in Palestine." Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe in "The Link", January, 1998.

"It is no longer my country"

"For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished...I can't bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming it for their own...I can't do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell without me." Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Mitchell, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, "The Other Israel", August 1998.

The effect of Zionism on American Jews.

"The corruption of Judaism, as a religion of universal values, through its politicization by Zionism and by the replacement of dedication to Israel for dedication to God and the moral law, is what has alienated so many young Americans who, searching for spiritual meaning in life, have found little in the organized Jewish community." Allan Brownfield, "Issues of the American Council for Judaism", Spring 1997

Another Exciting Episode of Annie Mated

2006-12-03T14:01:00.000-08:00

Sunday

2006-12-03T13:34:00.000-08:00

So here I sit with what's called a "New Mix" in my fist, working on the hair of the dog that bit me (Mexicans are always amused when I translate and explain that expression.) Mew Mix is a mixture of El Jimador Tequila (ToKillYou as the Sultan likes to call it) with grapfruit soda. Mmmmmmmmm. I am almost feeling better. I was going to go downtown to the Zócalo to see the protest and snap some fotos for the blog, but nahhhh. This is better.

Yesterday in Canada (lindo y querido) the Liberal Party chose a new leader. They chose to reject front-runner egghead, Michael Ignatieff and go for Stephane Dion, from La Belle Province. I hope it turns out to be a wise choice. Besides have a distinct aire de nerd, Dion is a polarizing figure in Quebec. He is almost as disliked as Jean Cretién. I would hate to see the sovereignty issue reopened again. I think recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada was a clever move, much as I hate to give Stephen Harper and his cretinous Conservative Party credit for anything. Listen folks, this is what I write on - nationalism. I have studied the meaning of "nation" for twenty years. Quebec has ALL of the attributes of being a nation. Yet it is not a nation-state. The country it is subsumed into, the family to which it belongs is Canada. Newfoundland is in a similar situation. Quebeckers are hurt and dismayed when the rest of Canada doesn't acknowledge its distinctive culture. Anglo-canadians should wake the %%$$##@ up.

Look, I am an Irishman and a Canadian citizen, but in my heart I am an internationalist. As such I am suspicious of any form of nationalism - especially ethno-nationalism. I would just hate to see the Balkanization of Canada, a country almost everyone I have met abroad loves.

FECAL is sworn in

2006-12-01T09:19:00.000-08:00

"Zig Heil!!"

Felipe Calderón was officially sworn in as President of México today. His swearing was delayed from tuesday when a raucous brawl broke out in Chamber of Deputies. PRD legislaters were attacked by Calderón's PAN congressional deputies. Eventually Congressional Security broke up the fight and the Speaker declared suspension of session until today.

A few hours before today's swearing in, however, legislaters again took to throwing fisticuffs. The two parties had agreed to a non-agression pact. Curiously a time limit was attached to that agreement, which was set to expire at 8:00 AM today. And as soon as that pact expired, as if on cue, a new fist fight broke out when the PRD tried to unfurl a several metre long banner which delared "Mexic Deserves A Presdent Who Isn't A Traitor To Democracy!"

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of protesters again swarmed into the Zócalo to decry the swearing in of "FECAL." The controversy plaguing Calderón stems from the irregularities surrounding the July elections, which brought him to power. Widespread evidence of ballot-stuffing, ballot destruction and other serious fraudulent activity, was dismissed by an electoral court which consisted of PAN cronies. PRD activists, and tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans subsequently occupied the Zócalo and most of the Paseo de la Reforma, the Federal District's main artery.

The History of Terrorism in the Region

2006-12-01T06:26:00.000-08:00

Editor's Note: We believe that the killing of innocent people is wrong, in all cases. Thus, we cannot condone the use of terrorism by some extreme Palestinian groups, especially prevalent during the 1970s. That being said, however, it is necessary to examine the context in which such incidents occurred.

We hear lots about Palestinian terrorism. How about the Israeli record?

"The record of Israeli terrorism goes back to the origins of the state - indeed, long before - including the massacre of 250 civilians and brutal expulsion of seventy thousand others from Lydda and Ramle in July 1948; the massacre of hundreds of others at the undefended village of Doueimah near Hebron in October 1948;...the slaughters in Quibya, Kafr Kassem, and a string of other assassinated villages; the expulsion of thousands of Bedouins from the demilitarized zones shortly after the 1948 war and thousands more from northeastern Sinai in the early 1970's, their villages destroyed, to open the region for Jewish settlement; and on, and on." Noam Chomsky, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens.

Terrorism - continued

"However much one laments and even wishes somehow to atone for the loss of life and suffering visited upon innocents because of Palestinian violence, there is still the need, I think, also to say that no national movement has been so unfairly penalized, defamed, and subjected to disproportionate retaliation for its sins as has the Palestinian.

The Israeli policy of punitive counterattacks (or state terrorism) seems to be to try to kill anywhere from 50 to 100 Arabs for every Jewish fatality. The devastation of Lebanese refugee camps, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, and orphanages; the summary arrests, deportations, house destructions, maimings, and torture of Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza..these, and the number of Palestinian fatalities, the scale of material loss, the physical, political and psychological deprivations, have tremendously exceeded the damage done by Palestinians to Israelis." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

The U.S. Government and media bias on terrorism in the Middle East

"It is simply extraordinary and without precedent that Israel's history, its record - from the fact that it..is a state built on conquest, that it has invaded surrounding countries, bombed and destroyed at will, to the fact that it currently occupies Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian territory against international law - is simply never cited, never subjected to scrutiny in the U.S. media or in official discourse...never addressed as playing any role at all in provoking 'Islamic terror.'" Edward Said in "The Progressive." May 30, 1996.

Intense fighting between insurgents and U.S. troops

2006-12-01T06:24:00.001-08:00

U.S. soldiers kill 11 civilians and burn their homes

BAGHDAD, November 27.—U.S. forces and insurgents were involved in intense fighting in Al Anbar province, 35 kilometers northwest of Baghdad during which witnesses say three U.S. helicopters were brought down, EFE reports.

According to the sources, after the helicopters were downed close to the Al Karma zone, combat aircraft heavily bombarded the insurgency areas and one of them – an F-16 – was also downed by rebel fire, killing its pilot.

According to Reuters, a local journalist who filmed the remains of the aircraft after it came down north of Fallujah in the western province of Al Anbar, stated that there was no doubt that the pilot was dead.

Residents of Garma said that the site of the accident had been surrounded by U.S. troops.

In addition, police and witnesses said that U.S. soldiers fired on 11 civilians and wounded another five on Sunday night in Husseiniya, a suburb located 20 kilometers northeast of Baghdad, AP reported.

An EFE cable refers to a mortar attack by unknown persons that caused an enormous fire in some crude oilfields in Kirkuk, an Iraqi city rich in the hydrocarbon.

from Granma

Another lefty elected in Lat.Am.

2006-11-29T09:56:00.000-08:00

Ecuador's Rafael Correa is the latest in a series of new left wing leaders to be elected in Latin America. With a Master's in economics from Louvain University in Belgium, a Ph.D. from the University of illinois, Correa is well-prepared to reform the economy. His intention is to radically reform the oil sector, renogiating usurious and one-sided contracts with foreign oil companies.

Dadaism

2006-11-29T05:12:00.000-08:00

I love this painting by Georg Grosz. He was part of a cabal of lefty, anti-war artists and intellectuals known as Dadaists. They actually considered themselves anti-artists (whatever that is.) They emerged from the first World War I period with a justifiably angry belief that bourgeois geopolitical interests had unleashed unprecedented carnage upon humanity, and that anti-art must be employed to oppose bourgeois staus quo art. Prior to the end of the war, Rosa Luxembourg and V.I. Lenin used to hang out with them. They heralded a variety of unique new styles for representing reality, often somewhat grotesque and exagerated. Their impact was subversive, provocative and profond.

Lack of Blogness

2006-11-29T04:54:00.000-08:00

Someone recently criticized my space here for being not nuch like a blog. I confess it's sometimes easier to post what I am reading and interested in than to write about it. I have been trying to focus what writing I do on my dissertation. My idea has been "if you are going to write, write the @$#@$#@$ thesis!" (that's me swearing at myself. sometimes I get really angry and wrestle myself to the ground.) I am not sure, however, that this is a correct approach. I think journalling is cathartic and good. I suspect it also gets the creative juices flowing (is creativity really a juicy liquid?) Anyway, I will henceforth attempt to write more self-indulgent meanderings such as this. Live long and prosper.

Jews For Justic In The Middle East (Part Six)

2006-11-27T07:51:00.000-08:00

The 1967 War and theIsraeli Occupation of theWest Bank and Gaza

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997

The history of Israeli expansionism
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Expansionism - continued
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

Expansionism - continued
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's security?
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]

What happened after the 1967 war ended?
"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.

World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.
"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation
"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'

"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.

Israeli occupation - continued
"You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more have experienced - some many, many times - the [Israeli] army breaking into the home, beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had bones broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of] security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does not. In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma tend to be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political beliefs." Dr Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, quoted in "The Journal of Palestine Studies," Summer 1996, p.84

Israeli occupation - continued
"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done - the land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians. This is apartheid." Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.

All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada
"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:

1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'

1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been subdued...

1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published 'detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley, "Deliberate Deceptions."

Jerusalem - Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?
"Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out that the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility for drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze'evi. The line he drew 'took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem - but also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part of Israel's eternal and indivisible capital.'" Allan Brownfield in The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.

Just a note that....

2006-11-26T06:36:00.000-08:00

You can click on my daily reading, above left, if you wish to be indoctrinated or brainwashed by our insidious cult.

Jews For Justic In The Middle East (this should have come before the last section! My fault)

2006-11-24T07:14:00.000-08:00

The UN Partitionof Palestine

Why did the UN recommend the plan partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state?

"By this time [November 1947] the United States had emerged as the most aggressive proponent of partition...The United States got the General Assembly to delay a vote 'to gain time to bring certain Latin American republics into line with its own views.'...Some delegates charged U.S. officials with 'diplomatic intimidation.' Without 'terrific pressure' from the United States on 'governments which cannot afford to risk American reprisals,' said an anonymous editorial writer, the resolution 'would never have passed.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Why was this Truman's position?
"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." President Harry Truman, quoted in "Anti Zionism", ed. by Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.

Was the partition plan fair to both Arabs and Jews?
"Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Were the Zionists prepared to settle for the territory granted in the 1947 partition?
"While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israel's society - including...Ben-Gurion - were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." Israeli historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikkun", March/April 1998.

Public vs private pronouncements on this question.
"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that 'after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine'...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

The war begins
"In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem's streets almost immediately...Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war...During that fateful April of 1948, eight out of thirteen major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by the People Press Palestine Book Project.

Zionists' disrespect of partition boundaries
"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author, Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."

Culpability for escalation of the fighting
"Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how 'in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive...Arabs began to flee in terror...Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter'...The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states' intervention." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers
"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers 'lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,'...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

Was Deir Yassin the only act of its kind?
"By 1948, the Jew was not only able to 'defend himself' but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, 'in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes'...Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that 'every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.'" Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.".

Presidente Número Dos

2006-11-21T11:46:00.000-08:00

Mexico gets 'parallel' president
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has never accepted the result of the presidential elections in July. The allegedly defeated candidate has been "sworn in" as an alternative president. He wore a red-white-and-green sash like those of Mexico's presidents as he told his supporters in Mexico City on Monday that his "legitimate government" would work for the poor. Lopez Obrador, a left-winger, lost the presidential election in July to Felipe Calderon, a conservative, by less than one per cent and contests the result.

"There are millions of Mexicans who are not willing to accept more abuses," he said during the ceremony in Zocalo Square.

Lopez Obrador said of Calderon in an interview in La Jornada newspaper on Monday: "He knows that he didn't win, that he is the product of an electoral fraud. That can not give him peace of mind.
"No matter how cynical he is, he can not feel secure. Calderon is the lowly servant of the white-collar criminals."

Police barricades
Federal police have already set up barricades around the chamber of deputies to prevent Lopez Obrador's supporters from setting up new protest camps before Calderon's inauguration ceremony on December 1.
Followers of Lopez Obrador's Democratic Revolutionary Party have threatened to disrupt the ceremony, saying that the election was won by fraud and that the president-elect "is undeserving of any respect or consideration".

The launch of the opposition government was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the 1910 Mexican revolution, when Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa took up arms against conservatives to found modern Mexico.The former mayor of Mexico City has encouraged supporters to donate to his alternative administration on his website.

Since Calderon was announced the winner, Lopez Obrador and his supporters have carried out a number of demonstrations to protest against the decision but much of his support has faded since the courts refused to overturn the result.

A poll in the Reforma newspaper on Monday indicated that 56 per cent of those questioned opposed his decision to name himself "legitimate president" while 19 per cent supported him.

Jews for Justice in the Middle East (Part Four)

2006-11-20T11:50:00.000-08:00

Statehood and Expulsion
1948

What was the Arab reaction to the announcement of the creation of the state of Israel?

"The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state...About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the part of Palestine assigned to a Jewish state in mortal danger from the Arab armies?

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." "Our Roots Are Still Alive," by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

Ethnic cleansing of the Arab population of Palestine

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples - achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: 'With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it,'" Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."

Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948]. But no [general] expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller' and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy...But while there was no 'expulsion policy', the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949"

Didn't the Palestinians leave their homes voluntarily during the 1948 war?

"Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was 'self-inspired'. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action - whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it- or its predecessors - actively created." Peretz Kidron, quoted in "Blaming the Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens.

Arab orders to evacuate non-existent

"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Ethnic cleansing- continued

"That Ben-Gurion's ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve his purpose...most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants...even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

The deliberate destruction of Arab villages to prevent return of Palestinians

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

After the fighting was over, why didn't the Palestinians return to their homes?

"The first UN General Assembly resolution--Number 194- affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Is there any justification for this expropriation of land?

"The fact that the Arabs fled in terror, because of real fear of a repetition of the 1948 Zionist massacres, is no reason for denying them their homes, fields and livelihoods. Civilians caught in an area of military activity generally panic. But they have always been able to return to their homes when the danger subsides. Military conquest does not abolish private rights to property; nor does it entitle the victor to confiscate the homes, property and personal belongings of the noncombatant civilian population. The seizure of Arab property by the Israelis was an outrage." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

How about the negotiations after the 1948-1949 wars?

"[At Lausanne,] Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians were trying to save by negotiations what they had lost in the war--a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel, however... [preferred] tenuous armistice agreements to a definite peace that would involve territorial concessions and the repatriation of even a token number of refugees. The refusal to recognize the Palestinians' right to self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth Of Israel."

Israel admitted to UN but then reneged on the conditions under which it was admitted

"The [Lausanne] conference officially opened on 27 April 1949. On 12 May the [UN's] Palestine Conciliation ,Committee reaped its only success when it induced the parties to sign a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace. . Israel for the first time accepted the principle of repatriation [of the Arab refugees] and the internationalization of Jerusalem. . .[but] they did so as a mere exercise in public relations aimed at strengthening Israel's international image...Walter Eytan, the head of the Israeli delegation, [stated]..'My main purpose was to begin to undermine the protocol of 12 May, which we had signed only under duress of our struggle for admission to the U.N. Refusal to sign would...have immediately been reported to the Secretary-General and the various governments.'" Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, "The Making of the Arab-Israel Conflict, 1947-1951."

Israeli admission to the U.N.- continued

"The Preamble of this resolution of admission included a safeguarding clause as follows: 'Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (on partition) and 11 December 1948 (on reparation and compensation), and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, the General Assembly...decides to admit Israel into membership in the United Nations.'

"Here, it must be observed, is a condition and an undertaking to implement the resolutions mentioned. There was no question of such implementation being conditioned on the conclusion of peace on Israeli terms as the Israelis later claimed to justify their non-compliance." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

What was the fate of the Palestinians who had now become refugees?

"The winter of 1949, the first winter of exile for more than seven hundred fifty thousand Palestinians, was cold and hard...Families huddled in caves, abandoned huts, or makeshift tents...Many of the starving were only miles away from their own vegetable gardens and orchards in occupied Palestine - the new state of Israel...At the end of 1949 the United Nations finally acted. It set up the United Nations Relief and Works Administration (UNRWA) to take over sixty refugee camps from voluntary agencies. It managed to keep people alive, but only barely." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by The Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

What can I say?

2006-11-17T13:57:00.000-08:00

GET THE NEW KIM-WILL-BE- ILL SOON DOLL

2006-11-17T13:09:00.000-08:00

He talks, he walks, he tests thermonuclear devices! Pull the string on his back and he says "Hey honey! Me big playboy! You wanna see my missile fly?"

Buy now and we'll send you the matching Iranian/Scottish Prime Minister "McMood I'ma-beena-bad" doll.

Jews for Justice in the Middle East (Part Three)

2006-11-16T18:41:00.000-08:00

The British Mandate Period
1920-1948

The Balfour Declaration promises a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], 'The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Wasn't Palestine a wasteland before the Jews started immigrating there?

"Britain's high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said 'all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators'...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Were the early Zionists planning on living side by side with Arabs?

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, "The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

"If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine - nearly nine-tenths of the whole - are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered." Quoted in "The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.

Side by side - continued

"Zionist land policy was incorporated in the Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine...'land is to be acquired as Jewish property and..the title to the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the Jewish National Fund, to the end that the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.' The provision goes to stipulate that 'the Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labor'...The effect of this Zionist colonization policy on the Arabs was that land acquired by Jews became extra-territorialized. It ceased to be land from which the Arabs could ever hope to gain any advantage...

"The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, 'there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.' He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Given Arab opposition to them, did the Zionists support steps towards majority rule in Palestine?

"Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country... [Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine... [Churchill declared,] 'The present form of government will continue for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children's children will have passed away before that is accomplished.'" David Hirst, "The Gun and the Olive Branch."

Denial of the Arabs' right to self-determination

"Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights... Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise." Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Arab resistance to Pre-Israeli Zionism

"In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that 'in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,' but he urged, 'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.' The truth was that 'politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside'... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Gandhi on the Palestine conflict - 1938

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

Didn't the Zionists legally buy much of the land before Israel was established?

"In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine...After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced 'absentee landlords' in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances)." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

2006-11-16T07:27:00.000-08:00

Kabila holds DR Congo presidency
Kabila urged calm before the official result
Joseph Kabila, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, has beaten rival Jean-Pierre Bemba in the presidential election, according to provisional results.

Kabila took 58 per cent of the vote, against 42 per cent for Bemba, with all votes counted.

Bemba's coalition has already rejected partial results showing a win for Kabila.

Democratic Republic of Congo's electoral commission said it must deal with challenges to the figures before declaring a winner from run-off poll.

The commission posted results from all constituencies on its website. Kabila urged calm before the declaration of an official result.
"I would say to the population of our country, to the Congolese people ... that they should remain calm and wait for the publication of official results by the Independent Electoral Commission (CEI)," Kabila said on Wednesday.

Result rejected

Kabila said the police and army were loyal to him as president, suggesting security forces would not tolerate clashes with Bemba's supporters.

Thousands voted in DR Congo's first election for more than 40 years
The October 29 vote was the culmination of a peace process to end Congo's 1998-2003 war, in which Bemba led a rebel faction before joining a power-sharing government.

It is DR Congo's first full election in more than 40 years.

But the vice-president's Union for the Nation coalition has already rejected the results. It alleges "systematic cheating" in the vote count and has questioned the credibility of the electoral commission.

It said on Tuesday that data collected by its own observers at polling stations showed Bemba led the election with 52.5 per cent of the vote.

The coalition said in a statement on Tuesday: "The Union for the Nation will not accept an electoral holdup that aims to steal the victory from the Congolese people."

Violence feared

Kabila dismissed Bemba's complaints, saying: "This is nothing but agitation by politicians who either know they have lost the elections or don't even know what is going on because they have not been following the process."

Bemba's rejection of the results has stoked fears of further violence, but the city's streets were calm on Wednesday.

Soldiers loyal to the two candidates fought bloody street battles in August which killed at least 30 people after the first-round results were announced.

Four more were killed last Saturday when the two sides clashed once again.

A 17,500-strong UN force and a special European Union contingent have stepped up patrols in the country to head off any unrest.

Watch for more incidents like this soon

2006-11-15T17:15:00.000-08:00

US and China in submarine scare

The commander of the US Pacific Command has said that American military leaders want better relationships with their Chinese counterparts.

He said that an encounter last month between a Chinese submarine and the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft-carrier group in the Pacific Ocean could have "escalated into something that could have been very unforeseen".
The Washington Times said the submarine had "stalked" the carrier group and had surfaced about 8km away – within firing range.

Admiral William Fallon called the report “rather sensational”, but he conceded that the Chinese vessel had been close enough for miscalculation on both sides.

"It illustrates the primary reason why we are trying to push, to have better military-to-military relationships [with China]," he said.

China’s foreign ministry said it was not aware of the incident.

Lieutenant Sarah Self-Kyler, spokesman for the US Navy, said the Chinese Song-class submarine was sighted near the carrier group by a US aircraft near Okinawa, Japan.

"Cold War thinking"

Both ships were operating in international waters at the time, she said, and "there was no communication" between them.

Fallon’s disclosure came at the same time that Admiral Gary Roughead, the commander of the US Pacific Fleet, was in China overseeing the first joint exercise, scheduled to start on Sunday, between the American and Chinese navies.

"It's a modest search-and-rescue exercise, but it's a start ... so that we can move ahead from what I would characterise as kind of Cold War thinking," Fallon said.

He made the remarks while in Kuala Lumpur for a 23-nation meeting for defence chiefs. China declined an invitation to attend the meeting, but Fallon said he was hopeful that it would send representatives in future.

Fallon has visited China three times since taking office about a year-and-a-half ago.

Visits between the Chinese and American militaries were scaled down after the collision of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet off China's coast in 2001, but relations appear to have improved recently as Washington cautiously seeks to increase exchanges.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Welcome to the very beautifil Kashann Luren Irvin!!

2006-11-14T12:41:00.000-08:00

Knowledge, evidence and reality

2006-11-13T20:03:00.000-08:00

Found this on another blog, that of a Princeton philosophy grad student (http://toegodspot.blogspot.com/) and posted the response below.

God, you say?

I have become convinced that the intellectual deadlock between atheism and theism stems in part from an inadequate theory of knowledge. Ditto for the surprising resiliency of the absurd claims of some atheists that there is no 'evidence' for the existence of God, or that believers must 'prove' that God exists in order to be taken seriously. Of course the answer to the first claim is that intelligent, educated believers are more than happy to supply cartloads of 'evidence'. What's really going on is that unbelievers reject the evidence as inadequate. As for the second claim, the standards of proof which are usually required to prove the existence of God would result in radical skepticism not just about the existence of God, but the existence of other minds or even an external world. Here John Oman's remark, which I mentioned in an earlier post, bears repeating:"

Rationalism proceeded on the assumption that the world with which religion was concerned needed to be proved, and this by evidence not depending on itself. Religion came so badly through the test that the supernatural seemed reduced to the shadow of a shade, leaving naturalism triumphant through pure lack of a rival...Yet the theory was plausible only to those who overlooked the fact that the natural had been subjected by Rationalism to the same test, and that its reality had been left in even greater dubiety...This skeptical conclusion was as inevitable in the one case as the other, and in both for the same reason, which was neither remarkable nor recondite. It is simply that we cannot prove the reality of any environment while omitting the only evidence it ever gives of itself, which is the way in which it environs us (emphasis mine)."

An epistemological work with important ramifications for the science-religion discussion is The Construction of Reality by Michael Arbib and Mary Hesse, again so far as I can tell insufficiently appreciated. The author's claim is that our experienced reality is indeed a construct, the result of information processing in the brain, but that this construct is constrained by feedback from our actual environments in such a way as to prevent the construct (which they call a 'schema') from becoming completely abstracted from the 'real' world (pp.2-3).

Therefore attempting to show that 'religion is all in the mind' or the result of neural activity accomplishes nothing (for the atheist), without also showing that religious schemas are not constrained by feedback from the environment which religion professes to encounter. The authors go on to argue that methods for evaluating possible feedback mechanisms are not nearly as straightforward as some people think, especially in the case of religion. Here again it is worth repeating Michael Polanyi's explanation for why debates about the existence of God or the rationality of religious belief so quickly reach deadlock, even though there are intelligent, educated people on both sides of the debate:

“A controversy between two fundamentally different views of the same region of experience can never be conducted as methodically as a discussion taking place within one organized branch of knowledge. While clashes between two conflicting scientific theories or two divergent biblical interpretations can usually be brought to a definite test in the eyes of their respective professional opinions, it may be extremely difficult to find any implications of a naturalistic view of man on the one hand and of a religious view on the other, in which these two can be specifically contrasted in identical terms. The less two propositions have fundamentally in common the more the argument between them will lose its discursive character and become an attempt at mutually converting each other from one set of grounds to another, in which the contestants will have to rely largely on the general impression of rationality and spiritual worth which they can make on one another. They will try to expose the general poverty of their opponent’s position and to stimulate interest for their own richer perspectives; trusting that once an opponent has caught a glimpse of these, he cannot fail to sense a new mental satisfaction, which will attract him further and finally draw him over to its own grounds. The process of choosing between positions based on different sets of premises is thus more a matter of intuition and finally conscience, than is a decision between different interpretations based on the same or closely similar sets of premises."

Atheists often complain that these and similar arguments, such as that circularity or 'faith' are found in science as well as religion, are merely desperate tu quoque efforts to stave off the challenge of encroaching secular knowledge. This complaint, however, misses the point. To be sure some apologists operate under the unconscious mentality of 'if I'm going down I'm taking you down with me', but even secular scholars realize that this is the sober truth of the matter, and that it does not only or even primarily have negative implications for human knowledge of reality. The only 'negative' consequence for atheists is that they are forced to take religious truth claims seriously and actually (gasp!) engage in intelligent dialogue with believers as opposed to 'disproving' such truth claims through inane skeptical apologetics such as "Gospel Fictions" or "God's Defenders: what they believe and why they are wrong".

When philosophy of religion takes epistemology seriously, we arrive at some surprising conclusions: theology can meaningfully be treated as a science with its own data (Scripture, religious experience, miracle claims, etc) and method. Though its justification is necessarily internal, means of establishing (or refuting) consonance with extra-systemic reality are readily available. For example, Alister McGrath in his "Scientific Theology" evaluates the 'traction' of the doctrine of Creation with the world as we know it, based on the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics', the 'rational transparency' of the external world to the human mind, a solution to the Euphythro dilemma and beauty and simplicity as criteria for establishing scientific truth. These considerations do not 'prove' that the doctrine of Creation is 'true', but they do provide strong undergirding for the doctrine, so that believers (and even outsiders) can acknowledge that Christian theology is a reasonable option for thinking people in today's world.

El Moe's Response:

I tried to post this on your blog "theory of ever'thang" Unfortunately I was foolish enough to switch to betablogger (dont do it) which prevents me from posting to non beta sites. Talk about segregation! Anyway here is the comments to your sunday post.

I stumbled across your site surfing around blogspace and found these musings very stimulating. Thank you for that. Here's a little story and my two cents, for what they are worth. In my undergraduate years I sometimes found myself embroiled in debate (usually after a copious amount of wine)with a Salvadoran friend of mine who was an avid supporter of the FMLN guerillas. He was also a professed atheist. In those days I fancied myself an agnostic. I always would ask him what "the revolution" was for if the universe were a morally moot place. "Ethics" he would burst out, incredulous that I could ask such a thing "for the ethical treatment of our brothers and for a more just society," both laudable motives, of course.

The problem, however, is that such a response doesn't address why it is that we ought be ethical and just to begin with, or what it is in the breast of most of us in humanity that impells us to "do good." Even Hitler, after all, wanted to do "the right thing" and thought he was doing so. So, whence this impulse for good? If we dispense with the notion of a moral universal, we are left with a few options: one is mere (evolutionary) adaptation to environment as the primary motivator. That is, ethics as modus accomodaptionus. It tends to perpetuate the species to be loving and brotherly, ergo, brotherly love. Most atheists I have met, however, usually rely on the simple "we are raised to believe it is good to behave ethically, and so we feel satisfied (fulfilled?) when we do so." We get the warm fuzzy from doing what Momma said a good boy (girl) oughta do. I have always felt, however, that if you drop one Nietzchian shoe, you ought to drop the other one as well. If you wish to believe that the Universal Benevolence, directly experienced by countless mystics throughout history, is no more than a confusion in the human psyche, then accept all the consequences for such a position. If all metaphysics are no more than brainwashng, encrypted on our tabula rasa minds, well then, get over it. Become the überman!

The same goes for the Darwinian thing. Of course this leaves one cold. And thats there's the rub. It's not in our nature (if I may use that term) to take such an approach. It is, one might say, counter-intuitive (though rationalists and empiricists will recoil at the use of this term also.) Moreover, despite the nonstarters in the standards of proof issues you correctly raise, I think it needs metion that it is the rationalist position that is increasingly under siege, in these days of theoretical physics and quantum reality. Atheists seem scarcely able to deal with the often contradictory realities of the observable universe, let alone abstractly imagine beyond time/space - imagings which, I would argue, are demanded by general relativity and quantum physics. Regardless, for me, all this post-Enlightenment, rationalist hullabaloo recalls Shakespeare "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!" It may be that one day we will all look back to these times and say that we stood on the brink, at the precipice of a great Hegelian dialectic of consciousness and nature - as if the two were ever really separate!

Jews for Justice in the Middle East (Part Two)

2006-11-13T08:31:00.000-08:00

As promised, here is the next installment of....

Early History of the Region

Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

The present-day Palestinians' ancestral heritage

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine

"The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

More on Canaanite civilization

"Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.

How long has Palestine been a specifically Arab country?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change?

"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine." Rashid Khalidi, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Inherent anti-Semitism? - continued

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

Inherent anti-Semitism? - continued

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Jews attitude towards Arabs when reaching Palestine.

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Proposals for Arab-Jewish Cooperation

"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Was Palestine the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?

"The pogroms forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as 'Lovers of Zion,' which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, they argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish 'Kingdom of David and Solomon,' Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by The People Press Palestine Book Project.

Next Installment on Friday

Transcript from Democracy Now (U.S. Radio Show)

2006-11-12T22:52:00.000-08:00

Friday, November 10th, 2006

Coalition of Antiwar, Veteran Groups Launching National Movement to Impeach Bush and Cheney

A coalition of groups are meeting near Independence Hall in Philadelphia on Saturday to announce plans to mobilize a national movement to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. We speak with former New York Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the committee investigating Watergate, and we speak with Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. [includes rush transcript]
On Saturday, a coalition of groups are meeting near Independence Hall in Philadelphia to announce plans to mobilize a national movement to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Groups backing the effort include Progressive Democrats of America, CodePink, Gold Star Families for Peace and Veterans for Peace.
While the pro-impeachment movement has received little media attention, polls show growing numbers support for Congress to take such action.
A recent Newsweek poll found 51 percent of all Americans - including 20 percent of Republicans - feel impeachment should be on the table.
But it appears the new Democrat-led Congress will not take up the issue. Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become House Speaker, was asked about it on Wednesday during her first press conference since the mid-term election.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D - CA), Democratic Congressional leader.

There is support for impeachment in the House. Over three dozen Democrats in Congress have publicly supported an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses by the Bush administration. The list includes John Conyers of Michigan who is positioned to become chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

To talk more about impeachment, the mid-term elections and the war in Iraq, we are joined by two guests: Elizabeth Holtzman and Daniel Ellsberg.

Elizabeth Holtzman, served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She is co-author of the new book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens." She will be speaking in Philadelphia on Saturday at the pro-impeachment rally.
Daniel Ellsberg, may be the country's best known whistleblower. He leaked to the press the Pentagon Papers, the 7,000 page top-secret study of U.S. decision making in Vietnam. This set in motion actions that would eventually topple the Nixon presidency. He recently published an article in Harpers magazine about Iran. It is called "The Next War."

AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become House Speaker, was asked about it on Wednesday during her first press conference since the mid-term election.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people get ahead. And that's what our agenda is about. So while some people are excited about prospects that they have, in terms of their priorities, they are not our priorities. I have said, and I say again, that impeachment is off the table.
AMY GOODMAN: There is support for impeachment in the House. Over the three dozen Democrats in Congress have publicly supported an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses by the Bush administration. The list includes John Conyers of Michigan, positioned to become chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
To talk more about impeachment, the mid-term elections, and the war in Iraq, we’re joined by two guests, Elizabeth Holtzman and Daniel Ellsberg. Elizabeth Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She is co-author of the new book The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. Welcome to Democracy Now! You’re going to be speaking at a pro-impeachment rally on Saturday in Philadelphia?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct. In an effort to try to bring -- to create a grassroots movement around the country and press Congress to do what should be done.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s your response to the Speaker in waiting, Nancy Pelosi, saying it’s off the table?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, it’s very understandable. It was off the table to the Democrats in 1973, when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and you had Richard Nixon as president.
AMY GOODMAN: He had won by a landslide victory in 1972.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct. He had won by a landslide, and impeachment was off the table then. Nobody -- no Democrat was pushing for it. And, in fact, as the revelations came out, it still wasn't on the table. It took the American people, after the Saturday Night Massacre, sending a clear message to the Congress --
AMY GOODMAN: The Saturday Night Massacre being?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: The firing by Richard Nixon of the special prosecutor who was investigating him. It took that clear signal from the American people, who said, “Enough is enough. We are not a banana republic. A president cannot be above the law. He cannot stop an investigation into possible criminal behavior by him or his top aides. And we want Congress to hold him accountable.” So it came from the American people. It didn't come from the Congress.
It’s understandable that congressional leaders, members of Congress, will be very reluctant to take this enormous step to protect our Constitution and our democracy. But the American people still -- we have a democracy. You saw what happened at the polls. Members of Congress will get it, if the American people want it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Of course, in the Clinton scandal, it wasn’t a demand that came from the American people for impeachment, it was one that came directly from the Congress itself.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, that was the level of alleged crimes there was certainly not at the level that we're talking about here.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, remember, under the Constitution, first of all, you don't need a crime to commit an impeachable offense. It doesn't have to be a crime. A high crime and misdemeanor is really an archaic British term that means an abuse of power. It’s a political offense, not a criminal offense.
President Clinton did very bad things, but they were not abuses of power. They did not threaten our democracy, and the American people got it. They understand what impeachment’s about, and that's why they in the end supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon, because what he was doing was an abuse -- involved an abuse of power. What he was saying was that he was above the law, and the American people said, “No, we don't want that kind of abuse of our democracy.”
And I think the same thing can happen again. Of course, you can't have a top-down impeachment. You can't have a partisan impeachment. If an impeachment happens, it has to be done, I think, the way we did it in Watergate, which was bipartisan, to include the American people, to have a process that was extremely fair, nobody could question the fairness of it.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it worked, because Nixon resigned. He wasn't impeached.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Nixon resigned, because the process was so fair and so thorough and so honorable that he was going to have no support. Maybe one or two people would have voted for him to stay on as President in the House, and maybe one or two people would have voted for him in the Senate. He had lost all support in the Congress. And that's why a delegation of top Republican leaders, including Barry Goldwater, went to see Richard Nixon and told him, “You have no support in the House or the Senate. You can go through an impeachment trial. You will be surely impeached in the House, and you will be surely removed from the Senate,” because what happened was, all the members -- our first vote on the House Judiciary Committee was a bipartisan vote. We had members of the Republicans, as well as Democrats, including very conservative Democrats, voting for impeachment.
Then, the smoking gun tape was released by order of the Supreme Court. That's a tape that showed that Richard Nixon, from the get-go, had ordered the cover-up, an obstruction of justice. And once that tape came out, every Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, even those who had initially voted against impeachment, said he has committed impeachable offenses. So --
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, --
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: -- it was clear.
JUAN GONZALEZ: -- John Conyers, who would head the House Judiciary Committee, certainly is not one who is afraid to begin these kinds of investigations. What was the relationship in the House Judiciary Committee then between the chairs there and the leadership?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, it was first the American people that galvanized Congress into action that lit that fire. That's what happened. The House Judiciary Committee, the leadership had a key decision to make: was it going to be the House Judiciary Committee that undertook this or was there going to be a special select committee? That was the first, I think, strategic and important decision.
They said, “Okay, it’s going to the Judiciary Committee, because if we create a special committee, the American people will say we have stacked the cards. We’re going to take the existing committee and use that committee, and that's the committee that -- warts and all, brand new members and all -- that was the committee that was given this assignment. But we never -- I never was given any instruction from any member of the leadership or by the chair of the committee, as to how to vote.
AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Pelosi would be president -- she’s third in line --
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: -- that is, if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were impeached. But what are you talking about when it comes to Vice President Dick Cheney?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, my view right now is that I'm not sure we have the overwhelming evidence. That's not to say he hasn't committed impeachable offenses, just that we don't have the same level of evidence that we have with respect to President Bush. On the illegal wiretaps, for example, it’s President Bush who repeatedly and admittedly signed these orders directing wiretaps in violation of the explicit language of the statute. We don't have Dick Cheney signing that. I mean, that’s a very good example of how we have President Bush, but we don't see Vice President Cheney's fingerprints. That’s not to say he wasn’t part and parcel to this, but we don’t see that, so --
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to former Congress member Elizabeth Holtzman, who has written a book on impeachment. Daniel Ellsberg is also with us, perhaps the country’s best-known whistleblower. leaked to the press the Pentagon Papers, the 7,000-page top-secret study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam that set in motion actions that would eventually topple Nixon. He recently published an article in Harper's magazine about Iran. It’s called "The Next War." How do you tie this in, what your campaign is now, which is not exactly impeachment, Daniel Ellsberg?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: I think the impeachment process, starting with investigations, is very important, but it’s not the only important thing right now. Actually, Maurice Hinchey introduced a bill on June 20th this year calling for Congress to cut off any funds, to deny any funds of the appropriation bill for an attack on Iran, unless that had followed, as in Article 1, Section 8, from a decision by Congress. And it was a very brief little discussion in the night of June 20th. Two hours later, there was a vote. He had 158 votes in favor of that, somewhat surprisingly. That is the way the Vietnam War was stopped. I don't think they’ll stop the Iraq war very quickly that way. It takes a long time for a congressman to face the charge that he’s taking money away from the troops, no matter how long, and whether they should be there or not.
But the Iran War has not yet started, and a measure to prevent it before it starts has, I think, a lot more promise, and I think that approach with the new Congress has real promise. But even so, you would need, I think, a crucial aspect of that would be information from inside the government, and this applies both to the impeachment process and to measures like this. If you rely entirely on the administration cooperating by providing the documents you're asking or the witnesses you're asking, that’s not going to happen. They’ve promised already. I think it’s Cheney who said “a cataclysmic fight to the death,” before they will let these documents get out.
Now, a process like that is what finally emboldened Congress or enraged Congress to the point where, in fact, they did begin to cut off the funds for the war and they did seriously begin to look at impeachment. If the President was going to totally subordinate their role, rule it out of the Constitution essentially, that finally got their backs up. That could happen here, as investigations start, on a variety of reasons, which should happen, including Cheney. You’ll get the facts on the table from leakers. The facts you’ll get will be unauthorized.
And now, an unauthorized disclosure, a leak, has a chance of being acted on by Congress, which in the last several years, people have gotten discouraged. They’ve put out the truth to Sy Hersh and to others, and we can all see, not much happens. Congress, the Republican committees are not interested in hearing that. They don't want to act on it. Now, it's a challenge. If somebody inside the government gives information either on criminal wrongdoing by their bosses, which bears directly, or, you know, terrible high crimes and misdemeanors, which bears directly on impeachment, if they give that to Congress and the press, Congress can’t -- Congress now led by the Democrats cannot just ignore it, at least not if we let them. We can demand that they do act on it, and that’s a great inducement to get.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So, what you're saying in essence is that another Daniel Ellsberg is needed, and then maybe even another John Dean, to come forward from the inner circle.
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Both of those and more are needed, and we need them in a more timely way than either of us did it. Dean knew about the burglary of my psychiatrist's office years before he revealed it under pressure. I knew about what was happening in Nixon years before I finally saw the light, that it had to be given not only to Congress, which was sitting on it, but to the press. And I'm sorry it took that long, but when it comes to impeachment, say I have a full disclosure here to make, it was crimes that Nixon did against me, in part we learned by leaking, that were a major part of the impeachment process, that you were looking at, that he was committing those crimes.
If Dean had not revealed them in order to cop a plea himself in the process and not told the truth, they would not have called other people back to the grand jury and discovered they had enough basis for an impeachment. And likewise, if I hadn't put the documents out, Nixon wouldn't have been so afraid of me as to commit the crimes to shut me up.
I don't suppose I’ve made Bush as afraid of me then, I’m sorry to say. If he has committed crimes against me, I don't know them yet. If I have been listened in on warrant-less wiretaps -- I imagine I have, but it may be a while before I learn it. But there are others who could supply the names of who -- which Specter was not able to get from the President. Republican head of the Judiciary Committee was not able to get the names or even the programs. There are people in NSA who could tell him that. And if a Democrat now wants to hear that, which Specter didn't, he can call those people, he can put them under oath, and he can hear their testimony, people like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, and people in NSA, who know the crimes that have been committed.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us: Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon whistleblower, calling for whistleblowers today to come out, especially around plans for Iran; and former Congress member Liz Holtzman, she has written a new book. It’s called The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. She will be speaking on Saturday in Philadelphia at a pro-impeachment rally this Veteran’s Day weekend.

Another Episode of Zany Zarathustra

2006-11-11T11:49:00.000-08:00

and....

More from Citizen Ken, Sultan of Gyeonggi

2006-11-11T08:35:00.000-08:00

Fear and Loathing and the G.O.P.

(with thanks to Hunter S. Thompson)

It was a fortnight after Hallowe’en in the scary streets of D.C. Hallowe’en revelries had continued unabated, for it is always a masquerade party in jolly old D.C. Down on H Street many luminaries had gathered for après- Hallowe’en festivities at World Bank headquarters. Noticeably absent were the Commander-in-Chief and kindly old Dicky C.They surely would have attended if not for a last minute emergency rectoctomy in the White House press room to remove Uncle Dicky’s forearm from the President’s formerly gubernatorial seat. Karen Hughes was also present to assure the press corps that there was no need for concern due to the fact that the President was a devout Christian.

Meanwhile, back at H Street, recent G.O.P. misfortunes had cast an eerie pall over the revelries. The conversational din of the partygoers was frequently drowned out by the sound of Don Rumsfeld’s mandibles gnashing together. To purge his angst over recent events the Donald was busily scalping tickets for the upcoming Hussein execution, explaining patiently to Paul Wolfowitz and John Ashcroft that it was just not the same watching it on CNN. Wolfowitz and Ashcroft were not particularly inclined to listen to Rumsfeld’s tirades because, after all, the Don was now redundant and they were ravenous- all they had had to eat at the party were some orphaned-babies-of-foreign-wars appetizers. Luckily, at that very moment, Richard Perle entered with the entrée, a savoury Ragout de Bastille a la Baie de Guantanamo, resplendent in his Beelzebub costume and bearing pitchforks for the feast.

Condoleeza Rice had just arrived at the party with Karen Hughes, who had managed to pry herself loose from Bush and Cheney, who were now in intensive care at Johns Hopkins. Honourary Republican Madeleine Albright had tagged along with them. All three were dressed in form-fitting yellow spandex body stockings with blue capes. They had formed a new superhero committee known as “The Daughters of Foreign American Revolutions and Comprador Elitists” (also known as “The Georgettes”). The boys tried to convince them to stay and dine, but The Georgettes had to fly off into the dark night to save the global oil reserves for democracy. As they ascended to the heavens, Wolfowitz hastily cautioned them “to act on less than perfect information” while searching for weapons of mass destruction.

End of Part 1- coming soon: spreading the message of freedom, white Jesus and Christmas shopping to combat global terrorism.

This just in from the Sultan of Gyeonngi (aka Ken Rush)

2006-11-11T06:52:00.000-08:00

Fanning Hysteria Over Yet Another Evil Empire

On October 9, 2006 North Korea conducted a small underground nuclear test, thus generating a wave of hysteria throughout the “free world”. Being very visibly an evil empire, condemnation was swift and unambiguous. Other empires which conduct their nefarious activities with a greater degree of ambiguity were chief among those that condemned North Korean President Kim Jong Il’s latest cinematic spectacle.

Here in South Korea Kim is recognized as a potentially dangerous but ultimately toothless adversary by most of the populace and by at least a small minority of the foreigners who live and work here. Essentially Kim is a despot (thereby being a fairly typical representative of the political species) but he also fancies himself a bon vivant and playboy. Kim is an evil fusion of Josef Stalin and Hugh Hefner! Kim has his luxurious accommodations. Kim has at least two fully equipped luxury yachts provided by the state. Essentially, then, Kim’s lifestyle is little different than that of any self-respecting capitalist despot with money and power at their disposal.

In the wake of the October 9 test most reasonable observers here (including virtually all of my Korean colleagues and a small percentage of the foreigners I work with) concluded that this was merely another example of the sabre-rattling Kim has indulged in over the years. Subsequently, upon having his wrist slapped by Beijing and Moscow, Kim’s threats of conducting another test were revealed as idle. There are still those here (a large ESL theme park close to the DMZ) gabbling semi-hysterically about contingency plans, escape routes and emergency contact numbers for their consulates in Seoul. The rest of us merely sit back, have a shot of Soju, eat a few “crisps” and watch a little bit of political theatre.

Dirty Bombs Over Lebanon

2006-11-10T19:26:00.000-08:00

By ROBERT FISK

Did Israel use a secret new uranium-based weapon in southern Lebanon this summer in the 34-day assault that cost more than 1,300 Lebanese lives, most of them civilians?

We know that the Israelis used American "bunker-buster" bombs on Hizbollah's Beirut headquarters. We know that they drenched southern Lebanon with cluster bombs in the last 72 hours of the war, leaving tens of thousands of bomblets which are still killing Lebanese civilians every week. And we now know--after it first categorically denied using such munitions--that the Israeli army also used phosphorous bombs, weapons which are supposed to be restricted under the third protocol of the Geneva Conventions, which neither Israel nor the United States have signed.

But scientific evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the scene of fierce fighting between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli troops last July and August, suggests that uranium-based munitions may now also be included in Israel's weapons inventory--and were used against targets in Lebanon. According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures". Both have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry--used by the Ministry of Defence--which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples.

Dr Busby's initial report states that there are two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ... The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium." A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium.

Enriched uranium is produced from natural uranium ore and is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. A waste productof the enrichment process is depleted uranium, it is an extremely hard metal used in anti-tank missiles for penetrating armour. Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, which is less radioactive than enriched uranium. Israel has a poor reputation for telling the truth about its use of weapons in Lebanon. In 1982, it denied using phosphorous munitions on civilian areas--until journalists discovered dying and dead civilians whose wounds caught fire when exposed to air.

I saw two dead babies who, when taken from a mortuary drawer in West Beirut during the Israeli siege of the city, suddenly burst back into flames. Israel officially denied using phosphorous again in Lebanon during the summer--except for "marking" targets--even after civilians were photographed in Lebanese hospitals with burn wounds consistent with phosphorous munitions.

Then on Sunday, Israel suddenly admitted that it had not been telling the truth. Jacob Edery, the Israeli minister in charge of government and parliament relations, confirmed that phosphorous shells were used in direct attacks against Hizbollah, adding that "according to international law, the use of phosphorous munitions is authorised and the (Israeli) army keeps to the rules of international norms".

Asked by if the Israeli army had been using uranium-based munitions in Lebanon this summer, Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorised by international law or international conventions." This, however, begs more questions than it answers. Much international law does not cover modern uranium weapons because they were not invented when humanitarian rules such as the Geneva Conventions were drawn up and because Western governments still refuse to believe that their use can cause long-term damage to the health of thousands of civilians living in the area of the explosions.

American and British forces used hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) shells in Iraq in 1991--their hardened penetrator warheads manufactured from the waste products of the nuclear industry--and five years later, a plague of cancers emerged across the south of Iraq.

Initial US military assessments warned of grave consequences for public health if such weapons were used against armoured vehicles. But the US administration and the British government later went out of their way to belittle these claims. Yet the cancers continued to spread amid reports that civilians in Bosnia--where DU was also used by Nato aircraft--were suffering new forms of cancer. DU shells were again used in the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq but it is too early to register any health effects.

"When a uranium penetrator hits a hard target, the particles of the explosion are very long-lived in the environment," Dr Busby said yesterday. "They spread over long distances. They can be inhaled into the lungs. The military really seem to believe that this stuff is not as dangerous as it is." Yet why would Israel use such a weapon when its targets--in the case of Khiam, for example--were only two miles from the Israeli border? The dust ignited by DU munitions can be blown across international borders, just as the chlorine gas used in attacks by both sides in the First World War often blew back on its perpetrators.

Chris Bellamy, the professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University, who has reviewed the Busby report, said: "At worst it's some sort of experimental weapon with an enriched uranium component the purpose of which we don't yet know. At best--if you can say that--it shows a remarkably cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear waste products."

The soil sample from Khiam--site of a notorious torture prison when Israel occupied southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, and a frontline Hizbollah stronghold in the summer war--was a piece of impacted red earth from an explosion; the isotope ratio was 108, indicative of the presence of enriched uranium. "The health effects on local civilian populations following the use of large uranium penetrators and the large amounts of respirable uranium oxide particles in the atmosphere," the Busby report says, "are likely to be significant ... we recommend that the area is examined for further traces of these weapons with a view to clean up."

This summer's Lebanon war began after Hizbollah guerrillas crossed the Lebanese frontier into Israel, captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others, prompting Israel to unleash a massive bombardment of Lebanon's villages, cities, bridges and civilian infrastructure. Human rights groups have said that Israel committed war crimes when it attacked civilians, but that Hizbollah was also guilty of such crimes because it fired missiles into Israel which were also filled with ball-bearings, turning their rockets into primitive one-time-only cluster bombs.

Many Lebanese, however, long ago concluded that the latest Lebanon war was a weapons testing ground for the Americans and Iranians, who respectively supply Israel and Hizbollah with munitions. Just as Israel used hitherto-unproven US missiles in its attacks, so the Iranians were able to test-fire a rocket which hit an Israeli corvette off the Lebanese coast, killing four Israeli sailors and almost sinking the vessel after it suffered a 15-hour on-board fire.

What the weapons manufacturers make of the latest scientific findings of potential uranium weapons use in southern Lebanon is not yet known. Nor is their effect on civilians.

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Fisk's new book is The Conquest of the Middle East.

Who is a Semite?

2006-11-10T18:35:00.000-08:00

Pro-justice advocates (both in and outside of Israel) who argue against the persecution of the Palestinians by the Israeli government, are often accused by the B'nai Brith and other radical Zionist organizations of being anti-Semitic. This is intentional obfuscation on their part for the B'nai Brith knows very well that Palestinian Arabs are at least as much Semites as their own lilly-white Ashkanazi asses are. In Israel itself, indigenous Jews (known as Mizrahi) and Asian and Africa Jews (often referred to as Sephardic) have historically been subject to racism and discrimination. Jews transplanted to Israel from post-holocost Europe have dominated government and power. Mizrahi Jews are virtually indistinguishable from Arabs.

Ancient Semitic peoples

Akkadians — appear ca. 2500 BC and amalgamate with Mesopotamian populations into the Assyrians of the late Bronze Age
Eblaites — 23rd century BC Aramaeans — from the 14th century BC, evolve into the Syriacs of the early centuries AD Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
Canaanite nations of the early Iron Age:
Amorites
Ammonites
Edomites
Hebrews — founded the kingdom of Israel and Judah, the remnants of which became the Jews of Late Antiquity.
Moabites
Phoenicians
Sabaeans of Yemen and Ethiopia, from ca. the 9th century BC, evolving into Semitic Ethiopian peoples from the 5th century BC
Arabs — appearing from the 5th century BC as Nabataeans

Semitic languages

The modern linguistic meaning of "Semitic" is therefore derived from (though not identical to) Biblical usage. In a linguistic context the Semitic languages are a subgroup of the larger Afro-Asiatic language family (according to Joseph Greenberg's widely accepted classification) and include, among others: Akkadian, the ancient language of Babylon; Amharic, the official language of Ethiopia; Tigrinya, a language spoken in Eritrea and in northern Ethiopia; Arabic, the newest in the family of Semitic languages; Aramaic, the mother-tongue of Jesus; Canaanite; Ge'ez, the ancient language of the Ethiopian Orthodox scriptures; Hebrew; Phoenician or Punic; and South Arabian, the ancient language of Sheba/Saba, which today includes Mehri, spoken by only tiny minorities on the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula.

Wildly successful as second languages far beyond their numbers of contemporary first-language speakers, a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Orthodox Christianity (Aramaic and Ge'ez). Millions learn these as a second language (or an archaic version of their modern tongues): many Muslims learn to read and recite Classical Arabic, the language of the Qur'an, and Jews all over the world outside of Israel with other first languages speak and study Hebrew, the language of the Torah, Midrash, and other Jewish scriptures.

It should be noted that Berber, Egyptian (including Coptic), Hausa, Somali, and many other related languages within the wider area of Northern Africa and the Middle East do not belong to the Semitic group, but to the larger Afro-Asiatic language family of which the Semitic languages are also a subgroup. Other ancient and modern Middle Eastern languages — Armenian, Kurdish, Persian, Turkish, ancient Sumerian, and Nubian — do not belong to the larger Afro-Asiatic language family.

Geography

Semitic peoples and their languages in modern and ancient historic times have covered a broad area bridging Africa, Western Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. The earliest historic (written) evidences of them are found in the Fertile Crescent, an area encompassing the Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, extending northwest into southern Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and the Levant along the eastern Mediterranean. (Today this same region is populated by Arabic speakers except for Israel, where modern Hebrew was reintroduced in the 20th century as the national language.) Early traces of Semitic speakers are found, too, in South Arabian inscriptions in Yemen, Eritrea, Northern Ethiopia and later, in Roman times, in Nabataean inscriptions from Petra (modern Jordan) south into Arabia. (Here, too, Arabic has largely won out over the original Semitic tongues.) Semitic languages and peoples are also found in the Horn of Africa, especially Eritrea and Ethiopia, the last great holdout of South Semitic languages. Later expansions of Semitic languages also spread into North Africa at two widely separated periods. The first expansion occurred with the ancient Phoenicians, the name given by the Greeks to the Canaanites, along the southern Mediterranean Sea all the way to the Atlantic Ocean (colonies which included ancient Rome's nemesis Carthage). The second, a millennium later, occurred with the expansion of the Muslim armies and Arabic in the 7th-8th centuries AD, which, at their height, controlled the Hispanic Peninsula and Sicily. Arab Muslim expansion is also responsible for modern Arabic's presence from Mauretania, on the Atlantic coast of West Africa, to the Red Sea in the northeastern corner of Africa, and its reach south along the Nile River through traditionally non-Semitic territory, as far as the northern half of Sudan, where, as the national language, non-Arab Sudanese even farther south must learn it. Semitic languages today are also spoken in Malta (where an Italian-influenced dialect of North African Arabic is spoken) and on the island of Socotra in the Indian Ocean between Yemen and Somalia, where a dying vestige of South Arabian is spoken in the form of Soqotri.
ReligionIn a religious context, the term Semitic can refer to the religions associated with the speakers of these languages: thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam are often described as "Semitic religions," though the term Abrahamic religions is more commonly used today. A truly comprehensive account of "Semitic" religions would include the polytheistic Ancient Semitic religions (such as the religions of Adad, Hadad) that flourished in the Middle East before the Abrahamic religions.

Ethnicity and race

A stylised T and O map, depicting Asia as the home of the descendents of Shem (Sem). Africa is ascribed to Ham and Europe to JaphethIn Medieval Europe, all Asian peoples were thought of as descendents of Shem. By the nineteenth century, the term Semitic was confined to the ethnic groups who have historically spoken Semitic languages. These peoples were often considered to be a distinct race. However, some anti-Semitic racial theorists of the time argued that the Semitic peoples arose from the blurring of distinctions between previously separate races. This supposed process was referred to as Semiticization by the race-theorist Arthur de Gobineau. The notion that Semitic identity was a product of racial "confusion" was later taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg.

Modern science, in contrast, identifies an ethnic group's common physical descent through genetic research, and analysis of the Semitic peoples suggests that they share a significant common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Arabs, Syrians and Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied.

Jews for Justice in the Middle East

2006-11-10T12:07:00.000-08:00

Mis queridos aficionados,

El Moe thinks that most readers of this blog would agree on the importance for us all of the (unfolding and worrisome) events in the middle east. He fears, however, that one of the central issues of that region is little understood; namely, the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He has decided, therefore, to post an series of chapters of a history of the conflict in Palestine published by a progressive organization called Jews for Justice in the Middle East. Every Monday and Friday a chapter will appear. This is much in the tradition of serialized works of fiction (Dumas, Hardy, Austen) and science, that appeared in European and "New World" newspapers in the 19th century. Please offer your feedback. Shalom and Salam Aleikum!

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.

This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region's problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.

Introduction

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.

Vive le France

2006-11-09T18:36:00.000-08:00

I'm posting this for Mum, who sent it to me

An elderly Canadian gentleman arrived in Paris by plane. At French
customs he fumbled for his passport. "You have been to France before,
monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. The old gent admitted that he had been to France before. "Then, you should know enough to have your passport ready for inspection," snapped the irritated official.

The Canadian said, "The last time I came to France I didn't
have to show my passport."

"Impossible, old man. You Canadians always have to show your
passports on arrival in France!"

The old Canadian gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then,
with the feel of acid on his words, calmly stated, "I assure you, young man, that when I came ashore on Juno Beach in Normandy on D-Day in 1944, there wasn't a fucking Frenchmen anywhere on that beach.

Banned Ad?

2006-11-09T15:06:00.000-08:00

Monkey sent this to me - cheers bro'!

I am told this ad was banned in the U.S. after it aired just once on MTV. I wonder, though, if the U.S. goverment has that much censorship power. I doubt the Bill of Rights has been that much compromised. More than likely it was pulled by MTV. Right now its just a powerpoint presentation on the internet, though a poignant one. Click here to see it. It's Powerpoint so you have to click open to start it, and the click on each photo to keep moving through the slides.

In the category of weird dreams....

2006-11-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

Last night I dreamed about my daughter Cara. She and I are not, apparently, on speaking terms. Although I am not sure why she is so mad at me, I think she blames me for being a much-less-than perfect father, for being human. I love her more than my life and would like to establish a rapprochement with her but can't force her to talk to me.

Anyway, in the dream she decides to talk to me. I am overjoyed and I am giving her a boat, some old paddlewheeler type of riverboat. Running around the edge of the boat's main cabin deck is a paper banner. This banner is some form of currency and she is able to pull bits of the banner down as she wishes, to use to sustain herself. On the inside of the boat, running along the cieling in the corner, is a a rust coloured pipe. It has our family name written all along it, in brown script writing, over and over again throughout the boat.

I know that there is some sort of liquid in this pipe which I have left to her too, something which I know is to benefit her, that is part of her as much as a part of me (life's blood?) She, however, wants nothing to do with that. She only wants the banner and the boat itself. Anyway, go figure!

Canadians inaugurate pavilion at Cuban trade fair

2006-11-08T10:52:00.000-08:00

HAVANA, October 31 (PL) —. More than 50 Canadian companies and organizations are attending the 24th Havana Trade Fair (FIHAVE 2006), and are to inaugurate their pavilion today.

Those expected at the inauguration of that space, which covers 500 square meters, include Robert Déry, Canadian acting assistant deputy minister of foreign affairs and commerce, and Canadian Ambassador Alexandra Bugailiskis.

A large delegation of Canadians, comprised of high-ranking officials including representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Agriculture, and from the provinces Québec and New Brunswick, were also expected at the inauguration.

This 24th edition of the FIHAV is expected to create closer trade ties between the two countries and to demonstrate to visitors Canada’s development in many different industries, according to a press release from the Canadian embassy in Cuba.

U.S. soldiers petition for withdrawal

2006-11-08T10:46:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON — Several hundred U.S. soldiers have signed a petition appealing for a withdrawal from Iraq, which will be presented to Congress in January, campaign organizers announced on Monday, November 6.

“As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home,” reads the text, published on the website www.appealforredress.org.

The campaign was launched on the initiative of active-duty soldiers based in Norfolk, Virginia, and the petition is sponsored by anti-war organizations such as Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out, according to the website.

The petition is receiving media coverage at a time when the war is the top issue on the minds of U.S. citizens leading up to mid-term elections on Thursday. The Republican Party of President George W. Bush could lose its majority in Congress.

Wave of political change in Latin America

2006-11-08T10:39:00.000-08:00

A look at Latin American leftist leaders

A presidential victory by Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua would add to the growing number of left-of-center governments across Latin America, though only a few have hostile relations with Washington. Other left-leaning leaders include:

-CUBA: Fidel Castro is the leftist pole star in Latin America. The only avowed communist leader in the hemisphere, he has been an antagonist of the United States since shortly after taking power in 1959. Now ailing, he has temporarily turned over power to his brother, Vice President Raul Castro, with little change of policy apparent.

-VENEZUELA: Hugo Chavez is Castro's heir apparent as Washington's chief regional foe, aided by personal charisma and his nation's vast oil wealth. Chavez has cultivated hostile relations with the U.S. government and friendship with U.S. rivals such as Iran. He promotes socialism, but so far has avoided Castro-style shutdowns of the independent press, opposition parties or private business.

-BOLIVIA: Evo Morales, a socialist, former coca-grower and the first Indian president of his Indian-majority nation, has repeatedly expressed skepticism of U.S. motives, clashed with Washington on issues of drug policy and forged close ties with Castro and Chavez. But he expresses less hostility to the U.S. government than either of them.

-BRAZIL: Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former labor leader who won re-election to a four-year term on Oct. 29, has pleased business leaders by veering toward the center on fiscal policy while expanding subsidies that have helped lift millions from poverty. He maintains generally good relations with both Castro and the United States.

-ARGENTINA: Nestor Kirchner, a center-left politician from a remote province in Patagonia, has leaned on Chavez for economic financing and sought closer ties with Latin American neighbors while avoiding Venezuela's fiery confrontations with Washington.

-CHILE: Michelle Bachelet, a physician and former political prisoner, took office in March as the country's second consecutive Socialist Party president. She calls for expanding social programs, but favors Chile's free-trade pact with the United States.

-URUGUAY: Tabare Vazquez took office in March 2005 as the country's first leftist leader. A physician and former mayor of Montevideo, Vazquez has promised to maintain orthodox economic policies while focusing on helping the poor.

US fails in effort to derail Ortega presidential bid in Nicaragua

2006-11-08T10:31:00.000-08:00

Analysts say a leftist Nicaragua will add to anti-American sentiment in the region.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

In what critics call another sign of waning American influence in Central and Latin America, an "all-out" effort by the United States to convince Nicaraguans not to elect former Sandinista president Daniel Ortega to a second term has apparently failed.

The Houston Chronicle reports that the "high-profile" push to stop Mr. Ortega included warnings – made by a former US ambassador, members of Congress, and even Oliver North, who was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra scandal in the '80s – that the US would cut off its $220 millions of aid if Ortega was elected.

"They did everything but threaten to invade," said Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

The American campaign against Ortega hit a crescendo shortly before Sunday's vote. US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez warned that all US aid for Nicaragua could be at stake. Other officials said the country could be left out of the Central American Free Trade Agreement and that remittances sent home by Nicaraguans living in the United States could be blocked.

By contrast, [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a friend of Ortega's] promised to step in with economic aid and cheap oil for a leftist Sandinista government. In the end, many voters decided to give Ortega another chance.

"Nicaraguans worry that bad relations with the United States can have really negative consequences," said William LeoGrande, a professor at American University in Washington. "But some were offended (by the US interference) on nationalistic grounds and were more likely to vote for Ortega."

The Scotsman reports that Oliver North, now best known as a commentator for the conservative Fox News channel, urged the country's voters not to return to the "bad old days."

"My hope is that the people of Nicaragua are not going to return to that. That's not good for your country. That's not good for my country," the former aide to President Ronald Reagan said.

The Scotsman also reports that while Harvard-educated banker Eduardo Montealegre – Ortega's US-backed main opponent – and US officials claimed voting irregularities, 18,000 international observers (including former US President Jimmy Carter) who observed the election, and Nicaraguan election officials, reported no problems.

The Los Angeles Times reports that, although Mr. Montealegre said the election is not over until the last vote is counted, Ortega seems to have an insurmountable lead with more than 60 percent of the votes counted, allowing him to avoid a runoff election where his opponents would most likely unite against him. The Times writes that an Ortega victory would be "a blow to the Bush administration."

Mr. Weisbrot and Robert Naiman reports for The Huffington Post that the failed effort by the US to undermine Ortega is the clearest example yet of "plummeting US influence in Latin America."

The Associated Press reports that Nicaruagans living in the US (about 227,000 according to the latest US census), some of whom fled during Ortega's first term in office in the '80s, worry that his re-election means a return to the chaos of the past. But others say it may serve as a wake-up call to the country's opposition parties that they need to respond better to the needs of the country's citizens.

"It doesn't surprise me that Ortega would win after three consecutive governments that have fomented corruption in this nascent democracy," said Miami community activist Deborah Centeno, 47, who came to the US from Nicaragua 22 years ago. "The people of Nicaragua have repeatedly asked for democracy, but the leaders have not responded." ...

Centeno said she did not support Ortega, who left office in 1990. And she is skeptical of the alliances he has made with former political opponents, as well as his recent spiritual reawakening and his promises not to return to his Marxist past.

"Still, everybody deserves a second chance," she said. "But be careful. We are going to be watching you."

The Washington Post reports that analysts in Managua say that Ortega is too pragmatic now to try and implement some of the measures of his first presidency, including confiscation of private property and press censorship.

"Ortega is not going to be stupid and commit the mistakes of the past," said Emilio Elvarez, an analyst and critic of the Sandinistas. "He knows that the Soviet parachute is gone and that he is totally dependent on the assistance of the United States, the International Monetary Fund and foreign investment."

Instead, Mr. Elvarez predicted that Ortega would try to reach out to Nicaragua's impoverished populace with more modest measures, such as raising taxes to pay for salary increases for low-level government workers and for increased spending on education.

Violence explodes over Oaxaca City

2006-11-03T04:30:00.000-08:00

I am translating several articles for later today. Volence from the weekend continued yesterday with students from Benito Juarez University confronting riot police and retaking the cit centre. More later. I have to go to work now :-)

Slave Labor in Private Prisons

2006-11-02T18:33:00.000-08:00

Earning Millions from the Misery of the Poor

By JOHN ROSS

SAN CRISTOBAL CHIAPAS.

Lazaro Perez (not his real name), a poor Tzotzil Indian farmer from San Juan Chamula Chiapas, caught the old bus out of the state capital Tuxtla Gutierrez for the three-day journey to the northern border. Lazaro was determined to cross the brutal desert that separated him from the American dream - a cousin in Phoenix Arizona where there is a growing Chamulan community had written that there was plenty of work there.

Disembarking in El Altar, Sonora on the lip of the desert, Lazaro and a handful of fellow Chamulans with whom he had hopped the bus in Tuxtla contracted a "guia" (guide) for $1000 a head to get them across the foreboding badlands where more than 200 have perished each year for a decade. But "the corridor of death" as this wedge of the border west of Yuma is called is not such an easy place to die in these days. The beefed-up "Migra" (Border Patrol or Immigration Customs Enforcement as Homeland Security now calls it) aided and abetted by National Guard "scouts" brought in to back up the ICE under Operation Jumpstart as one facet of the Bush administration's politically motivated immigration crackdown, is corralling record numbers of undocumented travelers in this sector and Lazaro and his pals were taken into custody not an hour into their trek across the desert.

Out a $1000 he had borrowed from relatives, penniless, and in detention in a strange land, Lazaro wished he had never left Chiapas. The Chamulan's bad luck is shared by thousands of new would-be "indocumentados" these days all along the 3000-kilometer border between Mexico and Fortress America as immigration detentions skyrocket.

But Lazaro Perez's misfortune is making a fortune for one of the fastest-growing industries in the border region private immigration detention centers operated by such titans of the euphemistically-named "corrections industry" as GEO (formerly Wackenhut) of Boca Raton, Florida and the billion buck Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) out of Nashville.

Last spring's hopeful outburst of activism for immigration reform, that put millions of marchers into the streets of U.S. cities, has soured into a summer and fall of frustration. The more liberal Kennedy-McCain bill on the Senate side that would have provided a difficult path to legalization for millions of undocumented workers (millions more would have been deported) ran into a stone wall over in the House where HR 4437, a bill sponsored by James Sensenbrenner (Republican Wisconsin) and backed up by the usual nativist lynch mob, offered only punitive responses to the plight of the indocumentados streaming in from the south. HB 4437 would criminalize illegal immigration and would even throw in jail those who offer the migrant workers a glass of water, build hundreds of miles of border walls, and grow the Migra by 15,000 troops.

"Citizen" hearings held by Republican House members around the U.S. this summer turned into an anti-immigration circus, converting the misery of millions of migrants into a "National Security" issue, another front in Bush's Terror War - to the delight of private contractors like GEO and CCA.

By Labor Day, immigrant rights group could not muster up 10,000 marchers on the U.S. Capital steps.

Split off from HB 4437, a provision calling for 700 miles of border fencing (really a triple barrier wall) was signed into law by Bush in the run-up to the November mid-term elections.

The big prison privatizers are, of course, gung ho for Sensenbrenner and its various legislative offshoots such as the "Safe Border Act" if enacted, they are going to get fat on the hapless new arrivals. Whereas Kennedy-McCain does promise 2.2 million deportations of undocumented workers with less than five years U.S. residence, repatriation would be voluntary pending registration in a legal guest worker program and would involve no detention time.

On the other side of the ledger, the private prison czars figure that if the hardnosed provisions of HB 4437 become the law of the land, the federal government is going to need about 27,000 new beds each day over the next 18 months although at $95 a night in detention costs, Motel Six would seem to be a cheaper fix then private detention centers. Nonetheless, prospects of juicy contracts to come have the industry salivating.

The privatization of the detention side of the prison-industrial complex has been expanding exponentially since the new millennium kicked in - in the past six years, eight out of 16 federal immigration detention facilities have fallen into private hands. Moreover, 57% of all so-called "illegal aliens" are now housed in county jails far away from the border, about a fifth of which are administered by the privatizers.

Although the number of migrant workers on their way to El Norte has declined slightly in recent years, more indocumentados are being captured and the Feds need somewhere to warehouse them Homeland Security's veto of "catch & release" policies for all but Mexican "illegals" that previously allowed non-Mexican detainees to stay out of detention while their cases were being adjudicated, is further straining the federal system.

For the privatizers, managing the detention centers requires minimal investment compared to criminal incarceration facilities the no-frills lock-ups do not require legally mandated recreation, educational, or law library components that must be made available to common criminals. Although the U.S. prison population 1.5 million inmates remains the most voluminous on Planet Earth, incarceration rates are slowing to a little over 1%a year increase while the detention side is running 21% annual growth.

As the detention market balloons so do the fortunes of the corrections titans CCA's detention facilities turned a $95 million profit last year and its stock is up to $53 a share according to this morning's Wall Street Journal. Similarly, GEO stock has boomed 68% in the past year. "The detention market should grow by $200 to $250,000 in the next two years" figured Patrick Swindle of Avondale LLC in an instructive July 27th New York Times business page piece. "What's great is that this industry promises steadily growing profits," offered an upbeat Anton High of Jefferies & Company brokers (ibid.)

The detention market needs tough enforcement laws to fly and the corrections industry contracts high-powered Washington lobbyists to grease the wheels of Congress, prison activists like Kansas-based Frank Smith contend although Smith says the bucks are hard to track. Reluctant to advertise how they profit on the migrants' misery, the big guns sneak in under the radar, masquerading as PACs to bulk up the war chests of such immigration hawks as San Diego's Duncan Hunter, Colorado's Tom Tancredo, and the venerable Sensenbrenner.

The money is easier to follow on the state side. Numero Uno amongst U.S. politicos on the private prison hand outs is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson who has received nearly $50,000 from the industry since 2004 according to the Montana Open Secrets project New Mexico has privatized more prisons than any other state in the U.S. union with over half of its lock-ups now being managed by the corrections moguls.

The criminalization of undocumented workers presents a cornucopia of opportunities for private industry. For example, boosting Border Patrol numbers to 15,000 agents boosts the stock price of VF Industries of Nashville which manufactures the Migra's uniforms although VF can no longer subcontract out to Mexican maquiladoras to assemble Border Patrol outfits for fear that Migra uniforms will fall into the hands of narco-terrorists (federal prison inmates are reported to be the top candidate for the newly-returned jobs.)

Food and health providers are making a bundle contracting with the private detention centers to provide bottom line services and the 700 miles of new border "fence" (read wall) that Bush has just signed off on, will make construction contractors happy it is suggested that they will employ "illegal aliens" to cut corners.

Transporting the detained indocumentados is also a lucrative outcropping of draconian immigration enforcement policies. Indeed, the Mexican carrier Aeromexico operating on contacts from CSA Aviation grossed $13.5 million in 2005 flying two daily "voluntary return" flights a day from Phoenix-Tucson that carried 20,592 detained Mexicans back into the interior of their country. Among the passengers was Lazaro Perez (not his real name) of San Juan Chamula, Chiapas.

John Ross's ZAPATISTAS! Making Another World Possible--Chronicles of Resistance 2000-2006 will be published by Nation Books in October. Ross will travel the left coast this fall with the new volume and a hot-off-the-press chapbook of poetry Bomba!--all suggestions of venues will be cheerfully entertained--write johnross@igc.org

Ross will present both volumes at Modern Times Bookstore 888 Valencia Street in San Francisco's Mission District Wednesday Nov. 8th at 7 PM. FREE

Oaxaca

2006-11-02T08:42:00.000-08:00

Tourists mingle with riot police in Mexico's Oaxaca
Tue 31 Oct 2006 9:11 PM ET
By Noel Randewich
OAXACA, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Tourists were back in the graceful center of the Mexican city of Oaxaca on Tuesday, mingling with riot police who last weekend drove out activists demanding the ouster of a reviled governor.

Most of the city remained under the control of protesters, but Oaxaca residents and American tourists sat on benches in the leafy central plaza, the heart of a five-month-long protest against state Gov. Ulises Ruiz.

Police shed their body armor and bought souvenir indigenous art.

After two days of police clashes with activists around the square, a heavy truck carried away the shell of a burnt-out Volkswagen Beetle and officers gave a fresh coat of paint to buildings scrawled with political graffiti.

"The change is sudden," said 20-year-old Yesenia Hernandez, who sat on a sunny park bench with a friend, adding she had not visited the square for about two months.

Thousands of federal police poured into the city last weekend, broke up barricades and stormed a protest camp in the downtown square. At least one protester was killed. About a dozen people, mostly protesters, have been killed during the crisis.

Some foreign tourists, visiting the plaza for the first time since the police entered the city backed by armored trucks and water canons, were unimpressed with the change.

"It feels like a police state," said American tourist Rachelle Lewis, who arrived two weeks ago to study Spanish.

A U.S. reporter was killed in the city on Friday, apparently by local police. The United States urged its citizens not to visit the town.

For months, protesters directed their movement against Ruiz from the plaza, crowding it with cooking fires, furniture and living spaces carved out in flower beds. Accusing Ruiz and his government of corruption and of using thugs to crush dissent, they forced local and state police out of the city, took over government offices, sentenced people accused of theft and charged tolls on street corners.

Oaxaca City is best known for its architecture, indigenous crafts and cuisine as well as nearby archeological ruins, but it is surrounded by rural areas of crushing poverty.

The conflict, which began with a teachers strike in May, scarred the city center and scared away all but a few tourists.On Tuesday, bulldozers shifted burnt-out buses and traffic began to flow freely on a few downtown streets but most of the city was in the control of protesters, who guarded street barricades made of tires and trucks.

The government has said little about how it plans to restore order to the rest of the city or how long it might keep thousands of federal police there.

Politics Explained

2006-10-31T08:11:00.000-08:00

A friend sent this. It's an oldie but a goodie.

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me Capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the People. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense."

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit."

Hidden Away in the Land of Plenty

2006-10-31T07:51:00.000-08:00

The Arrogance of Ignorance;
Hidden Away, Out of Sight and Out of Mind
By Stephanie M. Schwartz,

Freelance Writer
Member, Native American Journalists Association
October 15, 2006 Brighton, Colorado

This is an article of facts about the lives of modern-day American Indians,
a topic most mainstream American news organizations will not discuss. It is
not a plea for charity. It is not a promotion for non-profit
organizations. It is not aimed for pity. It is not even an effort to
detail cause and effect.

It is, however, an effort to dispel ignorance. a massive, pervasive,
societal ignorance filled with illusions and caricatures which,
ultimately, serve only to corrupt the intelligence and decent intent of
the average mainstream citizen. Only through knowledge and understanding
can solutions be found.

But facts must be known first. Then, it is the reader's choice what to do
with those facts.

......................................................................
A Special Resource Report:
Regarding life, conditions, and hope
on the Pine Ridge Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Reservation of SD
.......................................................................
Hidden away, out of sight but dotting the landscape of America, are the
little known or forgotten Reservations of the Indigenous People of our land.
Sadly, the average U.S. mainstream resident knows almost nothing about the
people of the Native American reservations other than what romanticized or
caricaturized versions they see on film or as the print media stereotypes
of oil or casino-rich Indians. Most assume that whatever poverty exists
on a reservation is most certainly comparable to that which they might
experience themselves. Further, they assume it is curable by the same
means they would use.

But that is the arrogance of ignorance.

Our dominant society is accustomed to being exposed to poverty. It's nearly
invisible because it is everywhere. We drive through our cities with a
blind eye, numb to the suffering on the streets, or we shake our heads and
turn away, assuming help is on the way. After all, it's known that the
government and the big charities are helping the needy in nearly every
corner of the world.

But the question begs: What about the sovereign nations on America's own
soil, within this country, a part and yet apart from mainstream society?
What about these Reservations that few people ever see?

Oddly enough, the case could be made that more Europeans and Australians
know and understand the cultures and conditions of our Indigenous people
better Americans do. Moreover, what the Europeans and Australians know is
that there are a number of very fortunate Native American Nations whose
people are able to earn a very good living due to casino income, natural
resource income, a good job market from nearby cities, or from some other
source. They also know, however, that a staggering number of residents
on Native American reservations live in abject, incomprehensible
conditions rivaling, or even surpassing, that of many Third World
countries.

This article chronicles just one Nation: the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Nation
of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Yet the name and only a
few
details could easily be changed to describe a host of others. the Dineh
(Navajo), Ute Mountain Ute, Tohono O'odham, Pima, Yaqui, Apache, the
Brule Lakota (Sioux) --the list is long.

But this is not an article of hopelessness. Despite nearly-insurmountable
conditions, few resources, and against unbelievable odds, Nation after
Nation of Indigenous leaders and their people are working hard to
counteract decades of oppression and forced destruction of their cultures,
to bring their citizens back to a life of self-respect and
self-sufficiency in today's world.

In the meantime, these words will serve simply to dispel a few illusions
and make public part of that which is hidden away, out of sight, out of
mind, in the richest country in the world. It seeks to dispel the
arrogance of
ignorance.

Demographic Information

* The Pine Ridge Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Indian Reservation sits in
Bennett, Jackson, and Shannon Counties and is located in the southwest
corner
of South Dakota, fifty miles east of the Wyoming border.

* The 11,000-square mile (approximately 2.7 million acres) Pine
Ridge Reservation is the second-largest Native American Reservation within
the United States. It is roughly the size of the State of Connecticut.
According to the Oglala Sioux tribal statistics, approximately 1.7
million acres of this land are owned by the Tribe or by tribal members.

* The Reservation is divided into eight districts: Eagle Nest,
Pass Creek, Wakpamni, LaCreek, Pine Ridge, White Clay, Medicine Root,
Porcupine, and Wounded Knee.

* The topography of the Pine Ridge Reservation includes the barren
Badlands, rolling grassland hills, dryland prairie, and areas dotted with
pine
trees.

* The Pine Ridge Reservation is home to approximately 40,000
persons, 35% of which are under the age of 18. The latest Federal Census
shows the median age to be 20.6 years. Approximately half the residents
of the Reservation are registered tribal members of the Oglala Lakota
Sioux Nation.

* According to the most recent Federal Census, 58.7% of the
grandparents on the Reservation are responsible for raising their own
grandchildren.

* The population is slowly but steadily rising, despite the severe
conditions on the Reservation, as more and more Oglala Lakota return home
from far-away cities to live within their societal values, be with their
families, and assist with the revitalization of their culture and their
Nation.

Employment Information

* Recent reports vary but many point out that the median income on
the Pine Ridge Reservation is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.

* The unemployment rate on Pine Ridge is said to be approximately
83-85% and can be higher during the winter months when travel is
difficult or often impossible.

* According to 2006 resources, about 97% of the population lives
below Federal poverty levels.

* There is little industry, technology, or commercial
infrastructure on the Reservation to provide employment.

* Rapid City, South Dakota is the nearest town of size
(population approximately 57,700) for those who can travel to find work.
It is located 120 miles from the Reservation. The nearest large city to
Pine Ridge is Denver, Colorado located some 350 miles away.

Life Expectancy and Health Conditions

* Some figures state that the life expectancy on the Reservation
is 48 years old for men and 52 for women. Other reports state that the
average life expectancy on the Reservation is 45 years old. These
statistics are far from the 77.5 years of age life expectancy average
found in the United States as a whole. According to current USDA Rural
Development documents, the Lakota have the lowest life expectancy of any
group in America.

* Teenage suicide rate on the Pine Ridge Reservation is 150%
higher than the U.S. national average for this age group.

* The infant mortality rate is the highest on this continent and
is about 300% higher than the U.S. national average.

* More than half the Reservation's adults battle addiction and
disease. Alcoholism, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and malnutrition are
pervasive.

* The rate of diabetes on the Reservation is reported to be 800%
higher than the U.S. national average.

* Recent reports indicate that almost 50% of the adults on the
Reservation over the age of 40 have diabetes.

* As a result of the high rate of diabetes on the Reservation,
diabetic-related blindness, amputations, and kidney failure are common.

* The tuberculosis rate on the Pine Ridge Reservation is
approximately 800% higher than the U.S. national average.

* Cervical cancer is 500% higher than the U.S. national average.

* It is reported that at least 60% of the homes on the Pine Ridge
Reservation are infested with Black Mold, Stachybotrys. This infestation
causes an often-fatal condition with infants, children, elderly, those
with damaged immune systems, and those with lung and pulmonary conditions
at the highest risk. Exposure to this mold can cause hemorrhaging of the
lungs and brain as well as cancer.

* A Federal Commodity Food Program is active but supplies mostly
inappropriate foods (high in carbohydrate and/or sugar) for the largely
diabetic population of the Reservation.

* A small non-profit Food Co-op is in operation on the Reservation
but is available only for those with funds to participate.

Health Care

* Many Reservation residents live without health care due to vast
travel distances involved in accessing that care. Additional factors
include under-funded, under-staffed medical facilities and outdated or
non-existent medical equipment.

* Preventive healthcare programs are rare.

* In most of the treaties between the U.S. Government and Indian
Nations, the U.S. government agreed to provide adequate medical care for
Indians in return for vast quantities of land. The Indian Health
Services (IHS) was set up to administer the health care for Indians under
these treaties and receives an appropriation each year to fund Indian
health care. Unfortunately, the appropriation is very small compared to
the need and there is little hope for increased funding from Congress.
The IHS is understaffed and ill-equipped and can't possibly address the
needs of Indian communities. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the
Pine Ridge Reservation.

Education Issues

* School drop-out rate is over 70%.

* According to a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) report, the Pine
Ridge Reservation schools are in the bottom 10% of school funding by U.S.
Department of Education and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

* Teacher turnover is 800% that of the U.S. national average

Housing Conditions and Homelessness

* The small BIA/Tribal Housing Authority homes on the Pine Ridge
Reservation are overcrowded and scarce, resulting in many homeless
families who often use tents or cars for shelter. Many families live in
old cabins or dilapidated mobile homes and trailers.
* According to a 2003 report from South Dakota State University,
the majority of the current Tribal Housing Authority homes were built from
1970-1979. The report brings to light that a great percentage of that
original construction by the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) was 'shoddy
and substandard.'
The report also states that 26% of the housing units on the Reservation
are mobile homes, often purchased or obtained (through donations) as used,
low-value units with negative-value equity.

* Even though there is a large homeless population on the
Reservation, most families never turn away a relative no matter how
distant the blood relation. Consequently, many homes often have large
numbers of people living in them.

* In a recent case study, the Tribal Council estimated a need
for at least 4,000 new homes in order to combat the homeless situation.

* There is an estimated average of 17 people living in each family
home (a home which may only have two to three rooms). Some larger homes,
built for 6 to 8 people, have up to 30 people living in them.

* Over-all, 59% of the Reservation homes are substandard.

* Over 33% of the Reservation homes lack basic water and sewage
systems as well as electricity.

* Many residents must carry (often contaminated) water from the
local rivers daily for their personal needs.

* Some Reservation families are forced to sleep on dirt floors.

* Without basic insulation or central heating in their homes, many
residents on the Pine Ridge Reservation use their ovens to heat their homes.

* Many Reservation homes lack adequate insulation. Even more homes
lack central heating.

* Periodically, Reservation residents are found dead from
hypothermia (freezing).

* It is reported that at least 60% of the homes on the Pine Ridge
Reservation need to be burned to the ground and replaced with new housing
due to infestation of the potentially-fatal Black Mold, Stachybotrys.
There is no insurance or government program to assist families in
replacing their homes.

* 39% of the homes on the Pine Ridge Reservation have no
electricity.

* The most common form of heating fuel is propane. Wood-burning is
the second most common form of heating a home although wood supplies are
often expensive or difficult to obtain.

* Many Reservation homes lack basic furniture and appliances such
as beds, refrigerators, and stoves.

* 60% of Reservation families have no land-line telephone. The
Tribe has recently issued basic cell phones to the residents. However,
these cell phones (commonly called commodity phones) do not operate off the Reservation at all and are often inoperable in the rural areas on the Reservation or during storms or wind.

* Computers and internet connections are very rare.

* Federal and tribal heat assistance programs (such as LLEAP) are
limited by their funding. In the winter of 2005-2006, the average one-time
only payment to a family was said to be approximately $250-$300 to cover
the entire winter. For many, that amount did not even fill their propane
heating tanks one time.

Life on the Reservation

* Most Reservation families live in rural and often isolated areas.

* The largest town on the Reservation is the village of Pine
Ridge which has a population of approximately 5,720 people and is the
administrative center for the Reservation.

* There are few improved (paved) roads on the Reservation and most
of the rural homes are inaccessible during times of rain or snow.

* Weather is extreme on the Reservation. Severe winds are always a
factor. Traditionally, summer temperatures reach well over 110*F and
winters bring bitter cold with temperatures that can reach -50*F below
zero or worse. Flooding, tornados, or wildfires are always a risk.
* The Pine Ridge Reservation still has no banks, discount
stores, or movie theaters. It has only one grocery store of any moderate
size and it is located in the village of Pine Ridge on the Reservation.
A motel just opened in 2006 near the Oglala Lakota College at Kyle,
South Dakota. There are said to be about 8 Bed and Breakfast or campsite
locations found across the Reservation but that number varies from time to
time since most are part of a private home.

* Several of the banks and lending institutions nearest to the
Reservation have been targeted for investigation of fraudulent or predatory
lending practices, with the citizens of the Pine Ridge Reservation as their
victims.

* There are no public libraries except one at the Oglala Lakota
College.

* There is one radio station on the Pine Ridge Reservation. KILI
90.1FM is located near the town of Porcupine on the Reservation.

Transportation

* There is no public transportation available on the Reservation.

* Only a minority of Reservation residents own an operable
automobile.

* Predominant form of travel for all ages on the Reservation is
walking or hitchhiking.

* There is one very small airport on the Reservation servicing
both the Pine Ridge Reservation and Shannon County. It's longest, paved
runway extends 4,969 feet. There are no commercial flights available.
The majority of flights using the airport are Federal, State, or County
Government-related.

* The nearest commercial airport and/or commercial bus line is
located in Rapid City, South Dakota (approximately 120 miles away).

Alcoholism

* Alcoholism affects eight out of ten families on the Reservation.

* The death rate from alcohol-related problems on the
Reservation is 300% higher than the remaining US population.

* The Oglala Lakota Nation has prohibited the sale and
possession of alcohol on the Pine Ridge Reservation since the early
1970's. However, the town of Whiteclay, Nebraska (which sits 400 yards
off the Reservation border in a contested "buffer" zone) has
approximately 14 residents and four liquor stores which sell over 4.1
million cans of beer each year resulting in a $3million annual trade.
Unlike other Nebraska communities, Whiteclay exists only to sell liquor
and make money. It has no schools, no churches, no civic organizations,
no parks, no benches, no public bathrooms, no fire service and no law
enforcement. Tribal officials have repeatedly pleaded with the State of
Nebraska to close these liquor stores or enforce the State laws
regulating liquor stores but have been consistently refused.

Water and Aquifer Contamination

* Many wells and much of the water and land on the Reservation is
contaminated with pesticides and other poisons from farming, mining, open
dumps, and commercial and governmental mining operations outside the
Reservation. A further source of contamination is buried ordnance and
hazardous materials from closed U.S. military bombing ranges on the
Reservation.

* Scientific studies show that the High Plains/Oglala Aquifer
which begins underneath the Pine Ridge Reservation is predicted to run dry
in less than 30 years due to commercial interest use and dryland farming
in numerous states south of the Reservation. This critical North
American underground water resource is not renewable at anything near the
present consumption rate. The recent years of drought have simply
accelerated the problem.

* Scientific studies show that much of the High Plains/Oglala
Aquifer has been contaminated with farming pesticides and commercial, factory, mining, and industrial contaminants in the States of South
Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Sovereignty and Tribal Government

* By Treaty, the Tribal nations are considered to have sovereign
governmental status. They have a special government to government
relationship with the United States. Interactions with the U.S.
Government and the Department of Interior (and its Bureau of Indian
Affairs) are supposed to be through Treaty negotiations and most Federal
programs (such as Indian Health Services) were purchased by the Tribal
nations (usually with land) and guaranteed by Treaty. This is
specifically true for the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Nation of the Pine Ridge
Reservation.

* The Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Tribal government operates under a
constitution consistent with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and
approved by the Tribal membership and Tribal Council of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Tribe. The Tribe is governed by an elected body consisting of a 5 member Executive Committee and an 18 member Tribal Council, all of whom serve a four year term.

Hope

* Currently, there are various efforts underway to implement
innovative techniques and solutions to Reservation problems. These
projects include community volunteer groups, alternative education
programs, wind or water energy initiatives, substance abuse programs,
cultural and language programs, employment opportunities, cottage
industries, promotion of artists and musicians, small co-op businesses,
etc. However, funding for these programs is highly limited.

* There are several very small projects now working to help with
the housing shortage. Some of these involve using donated mobile homes,
community-built sod housing, other community-built housing (such as
Habitat for Humanity), exploring possible use of unused FEMA mobile
homes, and other alternate solutions. Unfortunately, funding is highly
limited.

* The Tribal Council Housing Authority is working as hard as it
can to build new homes and repair existing structures but it is limited by
the small, limited amount of funding available.

* There are a few reputable small non-profit organizations
attempting to sincerely assist the people of the Pine Ridge Reservation in
their efforts to resolve and mitigate existing problems. However, funding
for these programs is currently highly limited.
* There is one small independent (non-IHS) clinic on the
Reservation at the community of Porcupine. It was founded and is
controlled by the Lakota community. It just recently obtained its first
dialysis machine and runs an aggressive program to combat diabetes.
However, funding is very limited and is obtained locally and through
grants.

* The Oglala Lakota are a determined, intelligent, and proud
People who are working hard to over-come their Reservation problems.
Against all odds, with minimal resources, they are slowly working to
re-claim their self-sufficiency, their culture, and their life.

These statistics concerning the Pine Ridge Oglala Lakota (Sioux)
Reservation were compiled from recent Political, Educational, Government,
Non-Profit, and Tribal Publications. An earlier version was published by
the same author in 2002 entitled, 'Hidden Away, in the Land of Plenty.'

Contact the author if you wish a list of the resources and publications
used for this report.

Stephanie M. Schwartz may be reached at _SilvrDrach@Gmail.com_
(mailto:SilvrDrach@Gmail.com)

This and other articles may be viewed on the internet at the website,
The Writings of Stephanie M. Schwartz
_www.SilvrDrach.homestead.com_ (http://www.silvrdrach.homestead.com/)
-steph

2006-10-29T07:53:00.000-08:00

This Logo was recently sent to me and I was asked to put a link to their page on my site. Now, as many of you will know, I am a Latin American historian. I study military conflict, but am primarily interested in social history and the history of ideas, of mentalité, of consciousness and identity. One of the ways in which we self-identify is through the prism of ethnicity, locality, region and nation. In my heart, I am an internationalist. I am very suspicious of nationalisms (especially ethnonationalisms.)

Consequently, when I get stuff like this I have to ask what its purpose is . I read today how the U.S. is to build an Israeli-style fence along the border Mexico. My secondary field is U.S. Intellectual history and I can tell you that America has historically tottered between the extremes of isolationism and, shall we say, "international engagement." I see this Canadian nationalist movement as similarly narrow-minded, bigotted and quixotic. I am in favour of international "deep penetration" (the imagery is so fucking sexual isn't it?) as long as it is managed according to democratic and egalitarian principles. No? Americans, individually, are a noble people. They are just a bit "nationalistic" perhaps blindly so. Wake up Canada. We are all the same. Don't kid yourself. Y tú también carnalito mexicano. Todos somos hijos (de la chingada?) del Diós. Es tiempo - no, pasado tiempo - que nos comportamos como adultos y reconocer que todos somos miembros de la misma familia. Nacionalismo es el primer paso hacia facismo. Besides, think of the combined influence the populations of Canada and Mexico could have over the Congress of the U.S.C.A.M. (United States of Canada, America and Mexico - notice I put Canada first ;-\) COMMENT! TEAR ME UP!

Franz Fanon

2006-10-25T22:53:00.000-07:00

I hate confessing to not having read books that I ought to have read by now in my career. One of those books that has always been on "the list" since I was an undergraduate was The Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon. Well. There is this great Canadian radio show that i get over the web here, called Ideas. Tonight they aired the first part of a two-part series on Fanon, that brilliant Martinique intellectual who had such a profound influence on french Phenomenological and Existentialist philosophers (such as Sartre, Hanah Arrendt and Simone de Bouvoir, etc.) and on liberation movements and their leaders such as Ho Chi Mihn and others from around the globe. Part two is next Wednesday @ http://www.cbc.ca/listen at 9:05 pm local time in whatever city you choose to listen to.

A Lesson in Forgiveness

2006-10-24T09:31:00.000-07:00

In Rwanda, which was riven by genocide in 1994, a coffee farm brings Hutu and Tutsi together.

By Abraham McLaughlin Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BUTARE, RWANDA – A tall, slender Tutsi woman named Jeannette Nyirabaganwa has at least 100 perfectly good reasons never to speak to Anastaz Turimubakunzi again.
That's how many of Jeannette's relatives, including her husband, parents, and baby, were killed during the 1994 genocide that raced through her hometown here in Africa's midsection. Anastaz is a confessed killer who, Jeannette says, helped murder her husband.

Why Jeannette employs her family's killers

Yet Jeannette does, in fact, speak to Anastaz regularly. She even pays him - along with other Hutus who killed her relatives - to work on her coffee farm. Increasingly, their uneasy partnership is paying off: The beans they grow and pick together are being sold, along with those of many other Rwandan coffee farmers, to Starbucks and other high-end US coffee purveyors, creating growing prosperity for her, him, and others.

Jeannette's explanation of how she can stand to work alongside such men is utterly pragmatic: After genocide laid waste to Rwanda, she says, "The only solution was to go together with my countrymen" - even the killers. "There was no alternative."

This is a tale of Rwandan-style reconciliation. It may seem almost incomprehensible to outsiders, yet in some cases it works here.

It's driven largely by economics: Coffee is Rwanda's biggest export. To get the beans grown, harvested, and processed, both killers and victims from the genocide are striking an uneasy peace born of economic codependence. "They need each other to make that container of coffee," says Timothy Schilling, a coffee consultant, referring to steel shipping containers that are packed with beans and shipped overseas.

Jeannette may employ the man she says helped kill her husband, but she hasn't forgiven him - or even begun to forget what happened.

It started Sunday, April 10, 1994, when her husband ran to find her and declared, "The killings have started." The two of them, together with their 4-month-old baby, eventually fled into the courtyard of a medical clinic in town. Trapped with about 300 others, they came under attack, she says, by extremist Hutus who lobbed grenades into the courtyard. The trio survived. But they slept atop dead bodies for several days.

When a rainstorm came, the killers finally left. Her family ran. As they fled through town, Hutu women and children would shout and point, she says, "as if there was an animal." They were calling for killers to catch her family.

After hiding with a sympathetic Hutu relative for a few days, she and her husband decided to split up to try to avoid detection. Jeannette headed back to town with her baby. But a Hutu gang intercepted her, beat her, and raped her. She fell unconscious. Waking up after a few hours, she says, "I found the child next to me, dead."

When she later discovered her husband's body, she says, it was being eaten by dogs.

Finally, she gave up: "I waited for someone to come and kill me." But when a gang of Hutus found her, the leader declared, "It's bad luck to kill someone who's almost dead. She has no husband and no child. She's not going to survive." They left her.

But for weeks she did survive, scrounging for roots and fruits in a ravine near her family's coffee farm. Finally, in July, now-President Paul Kagame's Tutsi-dominated rebels arrived and saved her and others. She soon discovered that only a handful of her family members had made it: "All of a sudden, everything was gone."

In retelling the horrific story today, Jeannette seems, outwardly at least, calm. She doesn't shed any tears. But that, she explains, is a choice. "When you are crying, the killers are feeling proud," she says in a low, defiant tone. Besides, with most of her family gone, "I have no one to cry with."

Read the rest

Israel admits...

2006-10-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

...to the use of white phosphorous bombs in Lebanon.

From The Cuban daily, Granma:

Reconoce Israel que empleó bombas de fósforo contra el Líbano

• Flagrante violación de convención internacional del aliado de la Casa Blanca

LONDRES, 22 de octubre.— Por primera vez, Israel admitió que usó las ilegales bombas de fósforo blanco durante la agresión contra el Líbano en julio y agosto pasados, según un reporte de la BBC.

El ministro israelí para Relaciones con el Parlamento, Jacob Edery, confirmó que las bombas fueron lanzadas "contra blancos militares en campos abiertos", aunque fuentes hospitalarias libanesas denunciaron que civiles de ese país fueron víctimas de tales armas prohibidas.

Las armas de fósforo causan quemaduras químicas y tanto la Cruz Roja como los grupos de derechos humanos indican que ese tipo de bombasson catalogadas como armas químicas.

La Convención de Ginebra prohíbe el uso de fósforo blanco como un arma incendiaria en contra de las poblaciones civiles y en ataques aéreos contra fuerzas militares ubicadas en áreas civiles.

Edery confirmó, durante una sesión parlamentaria, en nombre del ministro de Defensa, Amir Peretz, que las armas fueron usadas en combate.

El mundo recuerda los terribles efectos del fósforo blanco en la agresión a Viet Nam por parte de Estados Unidos, cuyo aliado ahora repite la barbarie.

Inspired

2006-10-24T07:51:00.000-07:00

I was particularly moved by my A Course In Miracles reading this morning (see below left), that I just had to include the prayer of St. Francis as well - even though it was not so long ago that I first posted it. It is one of my all-time fav'es. May you all have a blessed day.

Prayer of St. Francis

2006-10-24T04:50:00.000-07:00

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.

For my daughter

2006-10-23T13:21:00.000-07:00

Cara

I once watched you as you softly slept, heart swelling with each sweet tiny sigh,
And I prayed for you a garden swept, clean of sorrow’s bind.
I held you gentle to my thorny breast, beheld my father in your face thereby,
My vain imagining possessed, of whither and what viney paths you’d find.

My daughter, my pride, my day, this punishing storm torments.
I know not why you turned away, what set your heart this way afire.
But I know this page, this clannish flame, rages inward wild and burns without relent.
Unchecked us both it’s sure to claim, fed on pride and hurt and ire.

Out of the storm and away now I say, into the garden swept,
Let’s choose to opt that other way, that way where peace is found.
What strife we once saw as real, lay now in cobwebs the dust has kept,
And the forward way is just to heal, to plan whither and what viney paths abound.

From April

2006-10-21T14:25:00.000-07:00

April: Send me your site again. i lost it. Duh!

Overheard in Transit
Overheard on the train:

Black Teenage Girl 1: and he thinks he's so sexy
Black Teenage Girl 2: eww, but he's so black
BTG 1: EWWW!
BTG 2: I mean black as asphalt
BTG 1: EWWWW!
BTG 2: Not even asphalt 'cause asphalt is lighter than he is.
BTG 1: EWWWW! BTG 2: I mean he so black he look purple. Don't nobody want a man black like that.

# posted by April @ 11:39 AM 6 comments

Cool Art, Man!

2006-10-21T10:10:00.000-07:00

Awesome Clay Sculpture!!
Click Here to See More.

or go to http://www.hallsculpture.com

¡Horale!

Mens sana in copore sano

I am back......

The American Enterprise Institute proudly presents

Raging Fred

Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings

Dumb-assed redneck

Go Granny Go!

Acha!

Whispers of the Wolf

They know not what they do?

¡Oye Como Va!

In Association With Union Carbuncle and “Uncle Dickie”, Citizen Ken Presents

Guerrilla News

This is Worth a Repeat

Ay me babbies! Afin ye gihit, bae share an lave a wee cooment!!!!

Six former CIA Station Chiefs write public letter to former CIA Director George Tenet

Ibn Arabi

Gulf stands on brink of all-out war

For Jerry

The Return of El Moe

*Collision Course With Iran*

Is Bush Really Planning War against Iran?

Citizen Ken, Sultan of Gyeonggi, presents:

The Captain says....

Must-read Editorial from NY Times

Da New Crib!

Teddy

Execution

It never ceases to amaze me...

Click on Santa if you love him

JETLAGGED

New From Immanel Wallerstein

In association with Exxon, Monsanto and the fine folks at DuPont Plastic Explosives, Dick Haliburton proudly presents:

Part of My Daily Reading (see sidebar left)

Another Exciting Installment of Zany Zarathustra and the...

Jews For Justice In The Middle East (Part Nine)

Monday Morning

Jews For Jstice In The Middle East (Part Eight)

My head is going to explode!

In the category of weird dreams....

Jewish Criticism of Zionism

Another Exciting Episode of Annie Mated

Sunday

FECAL is sworn in

The History of Terrorism in the Region

Intense fighting between insurgents and U.S. troops

Another lefty elected in Lat.Am.

Dadaism

Lack of Blogness

Jews For Justic In The Middle East (Part Six)

Just a note that....

Jews For Justic In The Middle East (this should have come before the last section! My fault)

Presidente Número Dos

Jews for Justice in the Middle East (Part Four)

What can I say?

GET THE NEW KIM-WILL-BE- ILL SOON DOLL

Jews for Justice in the Middle East (Part Three)

Watch for more incidents like this soon

Welcome to the very beautifil Kashann Luren Irvin!!

Knowledge, evidence and reality

Jews for Justice in the Middle East (Part Two)

Transcript from Democracy Now (U.S. Radio Show)

Another Episode of Zany Zarathustra

More from Citizen Ken, Sultan of Gyeonggi

This just in from the Sultan of Gyeonngi (aka Ken Rush)

Dirty Bombs Over Lebanon

Who is a Semite?

Jews for Justice in the Middle East

Vive le France

Banned Ad?

In the category of weird dreams....

Canadians inaugurate pavilion at Cuban trade fair

U.S. soldiers petition for withdrawal

Wave of political change in Latin America

US fails in effort to derail Ortega presidential bid in Nicaragua

Violence explodes over Oaxaca City

Slave Labor in Private Prisons

Oaxaca

Politics Explained

Collision Course With Iran