Thursday, November 30, 2006

Industrialized religion did not

save America from capitalism

and the endless barrage of

advertisements that constantly assail

our senses and shape our perceptions

Americans believe they are the greatest democracy
to emerge from the birthing mists of history
It was drummed into our heads since
our first visit to Disneyworld
It's continued through a fairy tale
presentation of history by the mass media

It may well be that there is no hope for the American republic, that we are by choice beyond reclamation. Much of the world sees the average American as detached from reality, isolated from the suffering of others.

They see us as self-absorbed, over indulgent, willfully ignorant, and imbued with enormous hubris-characterizations that are difficult to argue against. Unfortunately, I am well acquainted with the type.

Most Americans somehow believe that we are an exceptional people-God's chosen few. It would not be the first time in history this has occurred.

The world is our oyster and it is our's to use as we see fit, even if it does not belong to us. To the physically strongest and morally depraved, to the wealthiest, go the spoils.

Deep down, Americans may reason that if we are to continue our lives of excess, if we are to carry on driving our Hummers and other inefficient motorized polluting obscenities, we need an inexhaustible supply of oil.

As keepers of the world's strongest military, we have the means of procuring oil anywhere in the world, and that makes it ours. Might makes right in capitalist America and we have the weaponry to get whatever we want.

That is exactly how the west was won-it was stolen at gun point and driven by religious fervor. We must feed the insatiable tape worms of our desires right up to the moment of the Apocalypse.

That kind of thinking, if such mediocrity and willful ignorance can be called thought, is an oft repeated strand that runs through the tapestry of the American psyche. It is one of those strains of fabulous mythology that makes America a difficult place for some of us to live.

From the moment of birth onward Americans are conditioned to think that we are not only special, but are superior to everyone else; that we are somehow entitled not only to our share of the world's wealth, but to everyone else's share as well.

Thus we remain primitive Conquistadors in our thinking. We believe that we are the truly enlightened, the envy of the world, and everyone aspires to emulate our shining example.

Americans also believe that they are the greatest democracy to emerge from the birthing mists of history.

The idea was drummed into our heads since we could talk, even in the absence of any supporting evidence and is continued through a fairy tale presentation of history, and perpetuated daily in the corporate media. Critical thinking is not one of our strong suits, as exemplified by the sitting president.

Whatever the origins of the grossly inflated American self image, it is, in part, the paradigm behind the ideology of Manifest Destiny-a force that continues rampaging and pillaging most of the world in its quest for markets and wealth.

Thus we witness the tragic consequences of the preservation of the American Way-a wrath the rest of the world is expected to incur with gratitude.

We cannot recognize that the American Dream is the world's nightmare. Our gluttonous wants, we think, supersede the right of other people to exist.

The gilded highway is built upon the bones of the victims of genocide and empire, and that is what makes our ride into oblivion so smooth.

What can be said about a culture that is willing to destroy the biosphere, to create irreversible global climate change for the sake of private profit, and a few short decades of drunken exuberance and intemperance?

In what kind of value system can the acquisition of material goods and services really outweigh the right of others to exist, including our own children and their children, not to mention more than thirty million species of flora and fauna that have as much right to live, if not more, than we do?

What global good could possibly come from an economic system predicated upon selfishness and waste and foisted upon the world with carpet bombs?

What common good can stem from a belief system that places greater value on profits than on life itself?

How can spiritual health be expected from a system that embraces spiritual emptiness and depravity as virtuous?

The enormous weight of conscience and awareness can be quite demoralizing at times; a heavy burden to bear.

Even my own family is without social scruples. Some of them are as addicted to shopping as a cocaine user seeking a chemical fix in a dimly lit alley at two o'clock in the morning somewhere in the metropolis.

They have no control over the addiction and go forth into the crowded malls night after night with vacant stares and minds programmed to consume. They are suffocating under mountains of debt but the addiction must be satisfied at all costs.

It can be seen that Americans are a spiritually starved people, despite bold proclamations of religiosity and faith.

But at some level we must intuit that we have few freedoms and are slaves in an economic system that dehumanizes us into mere commodities and turns us into voracious consumers.

We are not the free and fulfilled people we claim to be; we are the property of our employers, objects to be used for purposes not of our own choosing.

Industrialized religion did not save America from capitalism and the endless barrage of advertisements that constantly assail our senses and shape our perceptions.

It gave the appearance of moral credence to untenable ideas that are at odds with the teachings of the world's great religions, as well as the natural rhythms of earth and sky.

This explains the bizarre sociopathic behavior induced by Black Friday and other strange phenomenon fostered by capitalism.

It can also explain America's world leading per capita rate of incarceration and our pervasive addiction to drugs and alcohol in this way.

It neatly explains our persistent cultural violence. Let us recognize that these are not symptoms of social or economic health; they are indisputable evidence of debilitating, life threatening disease and spiritual death.

Material goods and services are a poor substitute for inner tranquility and global community. We are a people bombarded by commercial media every waking hour of our lives.

Our troubled existence is a matrix of distracting white noise from which the only escape is the calm slumber of death.

The result is that few of us have ever had a true waking moment in our lives. We have replaced wild nature with Disney World and have forgotten which is real and which is bogus.

We have recreated god in the image of capital and put him on our currency. Charles Sullivan/OpEd News

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Impressive honesty (Wilson)

Jimmy Carter must have known that even the title of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid would draw fire, in daring to implicate Israel in systematic racial oppression of Palestinians. But evidently he's had it up to here with this particular denial of the obvious, especially as perpetuated by his fellow Democrats:

[Good Morning America host] Robin Roberts told Carter that "many people find surprising that you come down a little hard on Israel, and that there have been some key Democrats who have distanced themselves a little bit from your view on Israel."

"In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said 'it is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based suppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,'" Roberts said. "What is your response to that?"

"Well, Robin, I have spent the last 30 years trying to find peace for Israel and Israel's neighbors, and the purpose of this book is to do that," Carter responded. "But you can't find peace unless you address the existing issues honestly and frankly."

Carter said that there was "no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people."

[...]

Carter called Israel's occupation the "prime cause" of continuing violence in the Middle East.

"And contrary to the United Nations resolutions, contrary to the official policy of the United States government, contrary to the Quartet so-called road map, all of those things -- and contrary to the majority of Israeli people's opinion -- this occupation and confiscation and colonization of land in the West Bank is the prime cause of a continuation of violence in the Middle East," said Carter.

"And what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious," Carter continued. "It's a terrible affliction on these people."

In his book, Carter argues that "peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens and honor its own previous commitments by accepting its legal borders."

Indeed. An excerpt from Carter's book can be found here.

Published: November 28, 2006

ANKARA, Turkey, Nov. 27 — A short 24 hours before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI to this Muslim country, its prime minister finally agreed to meet him publicly. The venue: the airport, on the Turkish leader’s way out of town.

A pedestrian street in Istanbul, where women in miniskirts and head scarves mingle. Turkey’s traditional secularism is under pressure.

The elaborate, last-minute choreography pointed to the deep divide that has festered within Turkish society since the foundation of the modern state. Should Turkey face eastward, toward its Muslim neighbors, or westward, toward Europe?

In the past five years, Muslims here have repeatedly felt betrayed by the West. The United States began holding Muslims without charge at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; it invaded Iraq and abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Turkey’s hopes of entering the European Union have dimmed. The pope made a speech citing criticism of Islam.

Turkey — a democratic Muslim country with a rigidly secular state — is at a pivot point. It is trying to navigate between the forces that want to pull it closer to Islam and the institutions that safeguard its secularism. Turkey’s pro-Islamic government is constrained by rules dictating secularism established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey’s revered founder.

The extremes jostle on Istanbul’s streets, where miniskirts mix with tightly tied head scarves and lingerie boutiques stand unapologetically next to mosques.

“There are two Turkeys within Turkey right now,” said Binnaz Toprak, a professor of political science at Bogazici University.

The pope’s visit, which begins Tuesday, falls squarely on that fault line, and highlights a slow but steady shift: Turkey is feeling its Muslim identity more and more. The trend worries secular Turkish politicians, who believe the state’s central tenet is under threat. In late October, a senior officer of Turkey’s army — which ousted a government it saw as overly Islamic in 1997 — issued a rare warning to that effect.

Others say the threat is overstated, but acknowledge that Turks do feel pushed eastward by pressures on their country from America and Europe. A poll by the Pew Foundation in June found that 53 percent of Turks have positive views of Iran, while public opinion of Europe and the United States has slipped sharply.

“Many people in Turkey have lost hopes in joining Europe and they are looking for other horizons,” said Onur Oymen, an opposition politician whose party is staunchly secular.

It has been more than 80 years since religion was ripped out of the heart of the new Turkish state, which was assembled from the remains of the Ottoman Empire, the political and economic center of the Muslim world for centuries. But the portion of Turks who identify themselves by their religion has increased to 46 percent this year, from 36 percent seven years ago, according to a survey of 1,500 people in 23 cities conducted by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, an independent research organization based in Istanbul. That is a trend that has emerged in countries throughout the Muslim world since Sept. 11, 2001.

“I’m here as a Muslim,” said Fatma Eksioglu, who was sitting on the grass next to her sister in downtown Istanbul on Sunday at a demonstration of about 20,000 people opposing the pope’s visit. She did not belong to the Islamic party that organized the gathering, she said, adding, “When it comes to Islam, we are one.”

But in a paradox that goes to the heart of modern Turkey, a stronger Muslim identity does not mean that, as in Iraq, fundamentalism is on the rise, or even that more Turks want more religion in their government. Indeed, the number of Turks in favor of imposing Shariah law declined to 9 percent from 21 percent, according to the survey, which was released last week.

Perhaps the most powerful factor pushing Turks toward the east has been a series of bitter setbacks in talks on admission to the European Union. To try to win membership, the Turkish government enacted a series of rigorous reforms to bring the country in line with European standards, including some unprecedented in the Muslim world, like a law against marital rape.

But the admission talks have stalled. And while the official reason involves the longstanding Greek-Turkish dispute over Cyprus, most Turks say they believe the real reason is a deep suspicion of their country’s religion.

Indeed, in 2002, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president, said Turkey’s admission to the union would mean “the end of Europe.” Nicholas Sarkozy, the French presidential hopeful, has made his opposition to Turkish membership a campaign issue. Even the pope, when he was still a cardinal in Germany, said publicly that he did not think Turkey fit into Europe because it was Muslim. That talk has begun to grate on Turks.

“It hurts me that the E.U. expects Turkey to be something it’s not,” said Nilgun Yun, a stylish 26-year-old eating a chocolate muffin in a downtown Istanbul cafe on Sunday.

Her position, shared by many of her friends, was simple: “Accept me as I am. We are Muslim, and we will remain Muslim. That’s not going to change.”

Mr. Oyman, the Turkish opposition politician, said criticism of his country was tougher than ever. “You cannot believe how they accuse Turkey on Cyprus and other issues,” he said in a telephone interview from Brussels, where he was attending a meeting of European parliamentarians. “Our European friends are playing a very shortsighted game.”

The shift has begun to affect trade. While Europe is still Turkey’s largest trading partner, business with other neighbors, including Syria, Iraq and Iran, has picked up substantially in recent years, said Omer Bolat, the head of one of the country’s largest business associations, whose members are mostly pro-Islamic. He put the growth at about 30 percent from just 3 percent in 2000.

“It is risky for a country with respect to foreign policy to have dependence on one partner and market,” he said in English, sitting in a sleek conference room overlooking a bustling trade fair that showcased Turkish goods. “Now Turkey is opening its muscles, its horizons.”

The policies of the Bush administration have deeply worried Muslims, he said, before rushing off to speak to the Pakistani ambassador, who had arrived at the fair.

“The United States used to be paradigm of freedom and rights,” he said. “But since the Republican period, the U.S. policies have been so detrimental in Muslim eyes.”

In just four years, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has managed to get inflation down to historical lows and growth rates to all-time highs. The growing prosperity has eased the integration of religious Turks into the country’s secular society, which is still suspicious of advocates of Islam, as well as of Mr. Erdogan.

“This group of people that was more religious has relaxed,” said Ms. Toprak, the professor. “They are now visible. They go to restaurants they would never have gone; they go to posh shopping malls.”

“It was a struggle to get a piece of the pie,” she said. “Now they have one.”

Even so, the increased religiosity, or at least identification with religion, could eventually present a serious problem for Turkish society. There are already rumblings. A killing of a judge whose court had ruled that a nursery school teacher could not wear a head scarf, even away from school, alarmed Turkey’s secularists. Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, head of the Turkish Army, has referred to a rising threat of fundamentalism on at least four occasions since he took up his position in late August.

Mr. Erdogan’s closely watched government had attempted to limit liquor consumption in public places, but later backed down. It also tried to make adultery a crime, but relented.

Some Turkish officials play down the possibility of real damage to secularism, but say that European suspicion does Turkey no good.

The delay with Europe, for instance, “fans up the disappointment, the disillusionment,” said Namik Tan, the spokesman for Turkey’s Foreign Ministry. “People say, ‘Why are they doing this?’ ”

That is why public officials, including Mr. Erdogan, have shrunk from the visit by the pope, who symbolizes, in the eyes of Turks, a disdain for Islam and the unfair exclusivity of the Western club. A cartoon in a Turkish newspaper last weekend showed two public officials belly laughing at the bad luck of those Turkish officials obliged to meet him. (The senior official appointed to be his formal guide has the portfolio of youth and sport.)

But the pope is coming, and the meetings are happening. Despite growing pains, a neglected Kurdish minority in the south, a thin skin for any reference to the Armenian genocide, and failure to scrap a law that makes insulting Turkishness a crime, Turkey stands out as lively democracy in a larger Middle East riddled with restrictions, and its acceptance by the West is a test case for others, officials said.

Muslim countries, Mr. Tan points out, are watching.

“Turkey is a beacon for those countries,” he said. “Don’t forget, if we fail, then the whole dream will fail.”

Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting from Ankara, and Ian Fisher from Rome. Sabrina Pacifici contributed research.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Ecuador leftist Correa leads vote in official tally

By Patrick Markey

QUITO, Ecuador (Reuters) - Ecuadorean leftist Rafael Correa, an admirer of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, was headed for victory following Sunday's presidential run-off after promising sweeping reform in the unstable Andean country.

A Correa victory would make him the country's eighth president in just ten years and strengthen Chavez's drive to challenge Washington's influence in Latin America and promote his brand of socialist revolution.

Correa, a U.S.-trained economist, has worried Wall Street with pledges to limit debt payments and irked Washington with vows to oppose a free trade pact and a local U.S. military base. His platform mirrors many of Chavez's proposals.

Reflecting investor jitters over the election results, Ecuador's dollar-denominated debt fell sharply in Monday trading. Ecuador's Global 2012 bonds were off 2.18 points after markets absorbed what traders view as a negative development.

Initial election results early on Monday showed Correa had won 68.16 percent of the votes while his conservative rival, banana tycoon Alvaro Noboa had 31.84 percent with almost half of the ballot boxes counted.

The partial results may not reflect a nationwide trend as ballot counts come in from smaller provinces before more populated areas. But three exit polls and a quick count on Sunday showed Correa with around 57 percent.

"This is a clear message that the people want change," Correa told reporters after exit polls showed him ahead.

Noboa, Ecuador's wealthiest man with holdings ranging from coffee to construction, rejected poll results and said he could demand a scrutiny of the ballots if necessary. Tallying the full official results could take until Tuesday

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

The 'Suits' Rule, OK? Let's face it, the power elite
have successfully executed a changing of the guard

We will continue to see unlimited manufacture

and exportation of arms around the globe

We will continue to witness the wanton destruction

of our planet by sociopaths

in Armani suits with sound-bite smiles

(Yes, that was an Armani Nancy Pelosi was wearing

at her first press conference following the election)

We are already beginning to see the results of the "blue wave" which occurred in our recent elections. Lobbyists are retooling to accommodate their favorite Democratic politicians.

Harry Reid has promised to increase the military budget by $75 billion. Impeachment is "off the table," not to mention trials for war crimes. And Democrats have pledged to raise the minimum wage to a whopping $7.25 an hour.

That's a total income of $15,080 a year, before taxes. Members of Congress will give themselves that much in automatic cost of living increases alone over the next five years.

Let's face it, the power elite have successfully executed a changing of the guard.

The "progressive" community wasted the last two years and countless resources sponsoring corporate lackeys for election to a fascist system of government.

(Fascism was originally defined by Benito Mussolini as a partnership between government and corporations.)

Congratulations. There still is no serious anti-war or anti-militarism movement in this country. The corporatists won-peace and social justice lost, again. With progress like this, who needs habeas corpus?

As I did before this recent lemming vote-fest, I suggest we spit out the electronic pacifier of the masses and begin a program of vaccination for "chronic voter's syndrome."

We should recognize the corrupt system of electoral madness for the farce that it is and implement a boycott of elections, local as well as national. As long as we agree to participate in an Alice-in-Wonderland system of governance we will continue to be ruled by corporations.

We will continue to see unlimited manufacture and exportation of arms around the globe. We will continue to witness the wanton destruction of our planet by sociopaths in Armani suits with sound-bite smiles.

(Yes, that was an Armani Nancy Pelosi was wearing at her first press conference following the election. No kidding.)

Whether for federal, state or local ballot items, which ad campaigns did you like the best? Did you vote for Captain Crunch or Count Chocula? How about that myriad of candidates' forums and policy discussions?

Who could keep up with the avalanche of meaningful information we were given about these politicos and their agendas. It was tough deciding whether to vote for "a new direction" or "a positive change." There were so many clever and inspiring slogans, one was hard pressed to choose among them.

Some Democrats expressed their opposition to the war but don't hold your breath waiting for them to end it any time soon.

While we're busy celebrating the ascension to power of the kinder, gentler fascists, innocent men, women and children continue to die at a rate of thousands per month in Iraq and Afghanistan.

LINK to rest of article
Iraq: The Hidden War

Iraq: The Hidden Story shows the footage used by TV news broadcasts, and compares it with the devastatingly powerful uncensored footage of the aftermath of the carnage that is becoming a part of the fabric of life in Iraq.

Prod/ Dir: Christian Trumble; Exec Prod: Stephen Phelps; Prod Co: Zenith Entertainment Ltd - 2006

Images of Iraq dominate our TV news bulletins every night but in this film, Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow, questions whether these reports are sugar-coating the bloody reality of war under the US-led occupation

- Warning -

This video contains images that should only be viewed by a mature audience

05/29/06 - Run Time 49 Minutes

LINK TO VIDEO

Bush's Only Real Victory
He vanquished American liberty by Paul Craig Roberts

George Orwell warned us, but what American would have expected that in the opening years of the 21st century the United States would become a country in which lies and deception by the president and vice president were the basis for a foreign policy of war and aggression, and in which indefinite detention without charges, torture, and spying on citizens without warrants have displaced the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution?

If anyone had predicted that the election of George W. Bush to the presidency would result in an American police state and illegal wars of aggression, he would have been dismissed as a lunatic.

What American ever would have thought that any U.S. president and attorney general would defend torture or that a Republican Congress would pass a bill legalizing torture by the executive branch and exempting the executive branch from the Geneva Conventions?

What American ever would have expected the U.S. Congress to accept the president's claim that he is above the law?

What American could have imagined that if such crimes and travesties occurred, nothing would be done about them and that the media and opposition party would be largely silent?

Except for a few columnists, who are denounced by "conservatives" as traitors for defending the Bill of Rights, the defense of U.S. civil liberty has been limited to the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. The few federal judges who have refused to genuflect before the Bush police state are denounced by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "grave threat" to U.S. security. Vice President Richard Cheney called a federal judge's ruling against the Bush regime's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program "an indefensible act of judicial overreaching."

Brainwashed "conservatives" are so accustomed to denouncing federal judges for "judicial activism" that Cheney's charge of overreach goes down smoothly. Vast percentages of the American public are simply unconcerned that their liberty can be revoked at the discretion of a police or military officer and that they can be held without evidence, trial, or access to an attorney and tortured until they confess to whatever charge their torturers wish to impose.

Americans believe that such things can only happen to "real terrorists," despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the Bush regime's detainees have no connections to terrorism.

When these points are made to fellow citizens, the reply is usually that "I'm doing nothing wrong. I have nothing to fear."

Why, then, did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

American liberties are the result of an 800-year struggle by the English people to make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of government. For centuries English-speaking peoples have understood that governments cannot be trusted with unaccountable power. If the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to tie down a very weak and limited central government with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, these protections are certainly more necessary now that our government has grown in size, scope, and power beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers.

LINK

America Has Left the Building: An Open Missive of Anger and Hope
by Phil Rockstroh


Recently, we've been plied and pummeled with the absurd proclamation that "the system worked" -- that our congressional representatives listened and took note of the collective, antiwar fulmination of the people, registered in our faux republic's latest, sham plebiscite … Yes, I suspect, the political classes of Washington did hear the people's thunder -- and then went running for cover within the comfort zones of their sheltering smugness, constructed of the brick and mortar of arrogant power and inequitable privilege. Just ask Joe Lieberman: He's the self-satisfied fellow seated comfortably upon the large, plush lounge chair, stuffed with campaign dollars, nearest the door with access to K Street.

But we must not let ourselves -- the true beneficiaries of empire -- off so easily: Our national tragedies (from all the corpses amassed, buried and forgotten in our imperial wars -- to our intransigence and denial regarding Global Warming) are a collaborative effort with our leaders: A joint and living lie of the mind -- made manifest by collective desire and remorseless pursuit.

Upon the occasion of our cultural confabulation of colonial hagiography dubbed "Thanksgiving," a tradition when we stuff our overweight bellies by devouring big, growth hormone-injected, flightless birds in order to celebrate, what in truth was, a Thanks-taking of this land by our ancestors from its original inhabitants -- (but a hearty salutation of "Happy Genocide Day" doesn't exactly stimulate the appetite, does it?) -- I will address the following missive to you -- my fellow unindicted (perhaps even unconscious) co-conspirators in the crimes of our country.

Let's begin with the things nearest to us: The structures and objects we see before us, everyday. And it's not a beautiful sight to behold.

Due to the banality, blandness, and flat-out ugliness of the stripmall/big box store/fast food outlet, prefab nowhereland of our contemporary landscape, life in the US under corporatism is as seductive as the glare of florescent tube lighting in a convenience store.

The architecture of the US looks as if Aldophe Eichmann grew bored endlessly calculating the human weigh capacity of death camp bound boxcars -- rose from Hell -- and went into the prefab structure design business.

Now, don’t get ugly, you admonish.

Tell me: What is truly ugly -- the composition and dissemination of a heartfelt, political jeremiad (or even an angry rant) – or the squandering of the passing hours of our finite lives within ugly suburban subdivisions, oversized, ugly-ass motor vehicles, soulless stripmalls and sterile office parks.

LINK

The End of the United Kingdom?

London, England - One of the world's most successful multinational states, and a key ally of the United States, could in a few months time start to unravel: I mean, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The process will be set in motion if the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) ends up the largest party in the Scottish parliament after elections next May. This is a distinct possibility. The break up of the UK will not be inevitable even if the SNP do dominate the parliament, but it will certainly make the political classes of Britain -- and perhaps of the U.S. and the main EU states too -- think hard about the point and value of the union to them. (Ironically, the elections will come just a matter of days after the 300th anniversary of the creation of modern Britain when the Scottish and English parliaments were merged in 1707.)

Most people in England who think about these things assumed that the "Scottish question" had been dealt with when, as one of the first acts of the Blair government elected in 1997, it announced the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament with wide ranging powers over domestic matters. But disillusionment with the performance of that parliament (and the UK parliament in London), the long-standing belief that the English "stole" Scotland's oil and gas, and the postmodern temptations of identity politics, have put independence back on the agenda (a recent opinion poll found 51 percent of Scots favoring it).

And a new front has now been opened up in the independence debate from the political right. Writing in the latest issue of London-based Prospect magazine, Michael Fry, a conservative Scottish historian, argues that the only way to revive the moderate right in Scotland and to better reflect the country's conservative Calvinistic soul is for former Tories like himself to back the SNP. If enough Tories heed Fry's advice it makes the likelihood of a SNP victory in May even more likely.

LINK

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

United States 'Trapped' in Iraq: Annan
by William French

US forces are trapped in Iraq, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said, warning that Washington must find the right time to leave without plunging the country deeper into chaos.

"On the question of the military presence, it is a difficult issue. The US is in a way trapped in Iraq, trapped in the sense that it cannot stay and it cannot leave," Annan told a press conference Tuesday.

"The timing of its departure will have to be optimal," he added.

An eventual withdrawal of US forces should "not lead to a further deterioration", Annan cautioned.

He said Washington should instead "try and get it to a level that when it withdraws, the Iraqis themselves will be able to maintain a situation that would ensure a reasonable secure environment".

The debate in the United States over options in Iraq has intensified in recent weeks, with the military reportedly ready to temporarily increase its troops there by up to 30,000 soldiers, while expanding training for Iraqi forces.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that three basic options had emerged from a strategy review at the Pentagon, led by a hybrid that would beef up US forces for a short period to dampen sectarian violence.

A sizeable boost in US troops would run counter to the strong current of public anger over Iraq, which swept Democrats to power in Congressional elections earlier this month.

Annan said in Geneva that one key immediate step for Iraq was to revise its constitution to ensure that power and revenue was shared fairly between its feuding communities, especially to allay the fears of Sunni Muslims.

Iraqi lawmakers voted unanimously to set up a committee to amend the constitution in September.

LINK

Dell to start making PCs, laptops in India

NEW DELHI: Taking its total headcount in India to 20,000, global PC maker Dell will start manufacturing all its products including desktops, laptops and computer peripherals in the country by the first half of 2007.

Besides, the company will invest $150 million this year for its various global initiatives including India. "We will manufacture all our products in our facility in Chennai in the first half of 2007 for the domestic market. Initially, we will start manufacturing desktops, which contribute 70% of our revenues and then we would add new products to our portfolio,"Dell vice president (customer experience and support) Dick Hunter said.

He said Dell was investing $150 million globally in this fiscal, in its customer care support centres. However, he declined to give details as to how much of this investment would come to India.

Dell currently employs about 13,000 people in India and in the next couple of years is expected to take the total number of its employees to 20,000.

To reach out to customers across the world with affordable technology, Dell recently opened its new customer contact centre in Gurgaon. The 3,00,000 square-foot centre employs 800 people and the number would increase to 1,000 by the end of this year. The centre has a total capacity of 3,000 employees.

LINK

Atheists: The New Gays

Is it my imagination or have the atheists come out of the closet (in the United States) since 9/11?

Prior to 9/11, it would have been career suicide for a public figure to come right out and say God is a fairy tale. Now it’s a feature of popular culture. You can see it on cable of course, in shows such as BullSh*t, Real Time, The Daily Show, and Southpark. But it’s also a feature of network TV. The main character on House is written as the most brilliant human on the planet, and he’s an atheist. The new show 3lbs has a similar character. I can’t remember anything like that ten years ago.

Famous atheist Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is #5 on Amazon.com. Sam Harris is right up there with his books The End of Faith and Letters to a Christian Nation. They aren’t selling in numbers anywhere approaching the top religious books, but they are best sellers. When was the last time two books promoting atheism were best sellers at about the same time?

I think the hidden benefit of Islamic extremism is that it freed the atheists from their closets. The old mindset in the United States was that almost any religion was good, and atheism was bad. But since 9/11, atheism has moved above Islam in the rankings, at least in the minds of Christians and Jews in the United States.

Ask a deeply religious Christian if he’d rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don’t seem so bad lately.

I think that in an election cycle or two you will see an atheist business leader emerge as a legitimate candidate for president. And his name will be Bill Gates.

By then, Bill Gates will have done so much good for the world through his charitable works that combined with his business success he’ll appear more qualified than any other candidate. His early bachelor life and some of his business practices will come back to haunt him if he runs, but he can still win with this simple slogan: “Who would you rather have on your side?” He’ll confess to all of his past imperfections and say that presidents are poor choices for role models. He’ll advise you to look to your parents for role models while you let him run the country.

I doubt Bill Gates is considering a run for president right now, largely because it’s so hard to make a difference from that job. His charities will have more impact. But I think he’ll someday realize that the world needs a rational thinker in the top spot and no one else can win.

At least you’d know he wouldn’t be in it for the money or to speed up the Rapture. He has my vote.

VIA dilbert.blog

Mexico's Lopez Obrador to Be Sworn In
By JULIE WATSON

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has toured the country as if taking a victory lap. He's named a Cabinet and called for donations to fund his government.

Now the fiery leftist plans to be sworn in as the country's "legitimate president" on Monday as the country celebrates its 1910 revolution - thumbing his nose at the country's highest electoral court, which declared conservative Felipe Calderon the presidential election winner by less than 1 percentage point.

Based in Mexico City, the parallel government will not try to collect taxes or make laws. It will have one objective: to hamper Calderon during his six-year term that begins Dec. 1. His supporters have pledged to block Calderon's swearing-in ceremony before the Mexican Congress, although they have not announced how they plan to do so.

"We're not going to give the right free rein," Lopez Obrador said in a final stop in the southeastern state of Veracruz this weekend. "We're going to confront it."

According to Lopez Obrador's Web site, the campaign has opened bank accounts where Mexicans can donate money for his parallel government.

But it remains to be seen whether the man who claims the elections were tainted to favor the rich can keep up momentum.

Besieged by protests since the disputed July 2 presidential elections, many Mexicans are tired of political strife.

The upheaval has taken a heavy toll on the country's tourism industry, one of Mexico's main income generators. According to Mexico Tourism Department, the number of foreign tourists visiting the country between January and September of 2006 was down 4.3 percent from the same period in 2005.

The U.S. State Department has urged travelers to exercise caution while visiting Mexico and to avoid the southern city of Oaxaca, where a leftist protest not directly related to the presidential dispute has created chaos.

Columnist Rene Aviles called on Calderon to put things in order when he takes office. President Vicente Fox has been criticized for his hands-off approach to the conflicts.

"If Calderon wants to govern without so many blunders, he should start with a firm hand," Aviles wrote in the Mexico City newspaper Excelsior on Sunday.

Lopez Obrador also faces a challenge in uniting his Democratic Revolution Party. Some within Mexico's main leftist party have started to distance themselves from his civil resistance campaign, fearing they will lose support.

Others say Mexico needs strong action to focus more attention on its millions of poor and Lopez Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor, is the man to do that.

LINK to

Media Miss the Point on Pelosi's Endorsement

By Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted November 21, 2006.

The only thing surprising about the current mainstream media narrative regarding Nancy Pelosi is its relentless predictability. Practically since the day the Iraq war started to go bad, Democrats have been derided in the press for not having a plan, and choosing pragmatism over principle.

Cut to '06. Hot on the heels of an electoral triumph, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi endorses as Majority Leader the member of the House most identified with speaking out against the war -- the man whose courage in doing so fueled the nationalized campaign that gave Democrats the majority in the first place. I'm speaking, of course, about Jack Murtha.

Murtha then loses the Leadership race to Steny Hoyer. As Pelosi no doubt knew, it was an uphill battle from the beginning -- Hoyer had been tirelessly campaigning for the job among Democratic caucus members for months. But Pelosi gave her support to Murtha because, as she put it in the title of her blog this week on HuffPost: "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker."

It doesn't get much clearer or more principled than that.

So what's been the reaction in the media?

According to the Los Angeles Times, Pelosi is off to a "rocky start," while the New York Times says she's "tempting disaster."

Disaster? If wanting to give a high-profile platform to the man most responsible for his party finally locating its spine regarding Iraq (and who, for his troubles, received the full brunt of the Bush/Rove/Mehlman slime machine) is a "disaster," what word do you use to describe the war itself? Disast-orrfic? Catastro-bacle-aster? Disaster-to-the-10th-power?

Maureen Dowd joined the bash-Pelosi-bash with a column entitled "Squeaker of the House," writing:

"Nancy Pelosi's first move, after the Democratic triumph, was to throw like a girl. Women get criticized in the office for acting on relationships and past slights rather than strategy, so Madame Speaker wasted no time making her first move based on relationships and past slights rather than strategy... Ms. Pelosi offered an argument along the lines of: John Murtha's my friend. He's been nice to me. I don't like Steny. He did something a long time ago that was really, really bad that I'm never, ever going to tell you. And I'm the boss of you. So vote for John."

Click the LINK for the rest of the article and check out the other articles from AlterNet

Monday, November 20, 2006

Tunis Hebdo, Tunisia

"I can just see Jacques Chirac rubbing his hands together as he addresses both Bush and his vassal Blair, saying: 'I warned you, I told you so!' And he's not the only one ...

"
Say Good Bye to America's Double-Barrel Chest and Deceit!

By M'Hamed Ben Youssef

Translated By Kate Brumback

November 13 – November 19 Issue

The Republicans' double defeat at the polls in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, without a single flaw, was predictable. The American people and especially the silent masses realized that they were dealing with neoconservatives that had lied on every important issue. Hadn't they dragged through the mud the reputation of the great Lincoln's America by causing 600,000 Iraqi deaths, according to the medical journal The Lancet? Didn't the White House risk a general destabilization of the region simply as an act of retribution? They also facilitated the rise of Iran as a top-rank regional power. Soon to be equipped with nuclear weapons, Iran is a good counterweight to the Sunnis, 19 of whom perpetrated the drama of the World Trade Center.

The rout of the U.S. hawks came as a relief to the entire world. International opinion sees them as evildoers, some of whom should appear before a war crimes tribunal. Furthermore, who didn't warn the White House to avoid attacking Iraq? Who didn't want the U.S. to renounce their false accusations against Saddam Hussein when it suspected him of having weapons of mass destruction? And, recently, sensing the outcome of the elections and in order to try to save the Republican cause, Bush went so far as to arrange it so that not only did Saddam's death sentence be handed down to coincide with the midterm elections, but there would also be a draconian drop of almost 21% in OPEC oil prices. This was done to cajole the American voter, and was based on the idea that domestic issues invariably decide the outcome of midterm elections.

This time, however, it was the disastrous military intervention in Iraq and the loss of several thousand GIs, along with at least 15,000 badly wounded and expenditures of about $74 billion a year, which were the determining factors. And add to this the failure of the war against global terrorism. Never has the world seen so many attacks.

But in contrast to his usual habit, bin Laden - who still walks free - this time decided to release a fiery speech to give a backhanded push to the Republicans. Wrongly or rightly, the jihadist Islamist leader seems convinced that the Americans are in too deep in Iraq, and that they won't withdraw until they are at the level of a second Vietnam … I can just see Jacques Chirac rubbing his hands together as he addresses both Bush and his vassal Blair, saying: "I warned you, I told you so!" And he's not the only one ...

As for the fall of Donald Rumsfeld - while we wait for that of the vulture John Bolton, the U.S. representative at the U.N. - it is all in the order of things. He's just a fall guy. Someone had to pay for all the broken pottery, and more importantly, the dark and ineffective defense strategy. On this matter, the only thing left for Bush to have done would have been to utter the refrain of the banana republics to anyone who would listen: "I was duped."

Nevertheless it was he who, on the day after September 11, called on his pro-Zionist brain trust to provide him with ideas for attacking a Middle Eastern country, a matter of satisfying his Texas hatred! We know the outcome. The actions that followed were almost identical to the disasters committed by certain units of Hitler's armies. From now on, how will the weakened master of Washington behave and how will he get along with his conquerors, the Democrats?

More at LINK

Kissinger Says no Victory Possible;
Bombings in Baghdad, Hilla Kill 74;
Chaos in Baquba


Bush's visit to Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, has elicited protests. In 2000, 75 percent of Indonesians thought well of the United States. Now, only 30% do, according to polling.

Henry Kissinger now thinks the Iraq War is unwinnable and that the goal of a stable democratic pro-American state is unlikely to be achieved.

A Pentagon review sees three options in Iraq-- Go big, go long and go home. The generals seem to favor a combination of the first (increasing troop levels temporarily) and second (getting down to 60,000 US troops but stepping up the training of the Iraqi army). I'd suggest instead a phased withdrawal in a relatively short time frame. A long-term presence of 60,000 US troops just provokes Iraqis and inflames the situation.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Syria's foreign minister, visiting Baghdad, called for the US to set a timetable for withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. He discussed with Hoshyar Zebari, his counterpart, the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Syria and Iraq, which were cut off in 1982.

Guerrillas kidnapped Iraq's deputy minister of Health on Sunday. The Ministry of Health is a Sadrist stronghold, with many employees following young Shiite nationalist cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that guerrillas established control over four city districts in Baquba, northeast of Baghdad.

Guerrillas opened fire on season workers returning to Baghdad from orchards in the east of Baquba, killing 8.

Authorities said that on Saturday guerrillas had attacked a police checkpoint (killing two policemen and wounding two others) and opened fire on residents after pulling them from their homes or automobiles.

Police had declared a one-day curfew after attacks in the city on Saturday, but guerrillas still controlled several city quarters.

The police said that in a separate incident, guerrillas loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr set fire to numerous shops in the market in revenge for attacks on their own offices in the city.

On Sunday morning the curfew was lifted but the main street was closed off. The guerrillas still had 4 districts, and they attacked another police checkpoint.

Al-Zaman's correspondent says that Baquba is living through a parlous security situation. Police patrols disappear from the principal streets early in the day and various armed groups thereafter have enormous sway. A policeman who declined to be named said that no day passes but dozens of persons are killed, whether from gunfire, bombs, or being assassinated. This has been going on for months.

Note that no newspaper or wire service is reporting "dozens" of daily deaths in Baquba. That so many are being missed lends credence to the higher estimates for deaths of the Lancet study.

There were several assassinations in Fallujah, including one attributed to a Marine sniper.

Guerrillas in Basra fired a katyusha rocket at a residence in the southern Abi al-Khasib section of Basra next to al-Jahiz School.

Baghdad and Hilla were hit by a wave of suicide bombings that left at least 74 dead and dozens others wounded.

Iraqi authorities said that bombers detonated three car bombs in Mashtal in the southeast of Baghdad, killing at least 10 and wounding 54. The toll will likely rise.

Another bomb in southeast Baghdad aimed at a police patrol killed 3 civilians and wounded 3 policemen.

Guerrillas kidnapped a judge, Muzaffar al-Ubaidi, from his home in al-Khadra, West Baghdad.

Reuters reports that on Sunday:

' HILLA - At least 17 [al-Zaman says 22] people were killed and 49 wounded when a suicide bomber exploded his vehicle among day labourers waiting to be hired in Hilla, 100 km (62 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb wounded six people in Baghdad's southern Saidiya district, an Interior Ministry source said. '


Al-Hayat says that a Sunni Arab guerrilla cell claimed that it carried out the Hilla bombing in revenge for the kidnapping last Tuesday of Sunni employees from the ministry of higher education. posted by Juan @

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

O Globo, Brazil By William Waack
It's Not Rumsfeld, But Bush that Should Be Dismissed
The resignation of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld pleases military leaders ... But the American generals are mistaken. Bush is the one who should have been fired.

In regard to the bloody catastrophe in Iraq, the electoral defeat of Bush and the Republicans was a shout for change made manifest. It would be difficult to imagine a more sensational spectacle.

Beginning with Iraq: the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, above all pleases military leaders. To them, the "civilians" (that being Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative advisors) are responsible for a situation in which American combatants never lose a confrontation and never win the war. But the American generals are mistaken. Bush is the one who should have been fired, most of all for his political calculations - miscalculations that force the military to find a cure, as best that it can.

The new man in the Pentagon, Robert Gates, led the CIA during the time that Bush's father occupied the White House. He is part of the bipartisan commission led by James Baker III, another old friend of the President's father. Pragmatic and an adherent of another kind of Republican conservatism, Baker should present a new strategy for Iraq by January.

Strategic options that fall between "tolerable" and "horrible," were well summarized by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. The U.S. can either stay on the sidelines while Iraqis kill one another until they end the ethnic cleansing on their own; or the U.S. can withdraw and leave neighboring countries (mainly Iran, Turkey and Syria) to sort the chaos in their respective areas of influence - with incalculable and unforeseeable consequences.

If in Iraq there appears little that will radically alter the situation, the same can be said in regard to America's relations with its allies. It is impossible to hide the Schadenfreude (that excellent German term meaning to take pleasure in the misfortune of others) of Europeans over Bush's defeat. After all, "Old Europe" as Rumsfeld used to characterize the reluctant allies to the American adventure, felt vindicated in its collective belief that the worst part of Washington's foreign policy was its ideological bias and distortion of the facts.

But even Europeans properly point to the dangerous paralysis that was already being felt before the electoral earthquake of last Tuesday (Nov. 7). The question of North Korea's bomb is in the hands of China; the Iranian nuclear program is now in European hands; and there is little hope for a toning down of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In Afghanistan, there are now NATO troops trying to achieve what the Americans couldn't. And Democrats have no new ideas to address these problems.

LINK TO

Gas Prospectors Exploit Public Lands

By William deBuys, Orion Magazine. Posted November 15, 2006.

WELCOME TO AZTEC

6378 FRIENDLY PEOPLE &

6 OLD SOREHEADS

The sign at the edge of town makes you wonder what a sorehead up in the dry, windblown heart of New Mexico's San Juan basin might be sore about. Other signs that compete for attention along the same mile of highway provide a possible hint: WILLIAMS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, DESERT POWER, SIERRA CHEMICALS, XTO ENERGY, UNDERGROUND SPECIALISTS, and on they go. A drilling derrick four stories tall looms above the sprawl of pipe and machinery at Aztec Well Servicing. These businesses, being so numerous, must belong to the friendlies.

If anybody in Aztec qualifies as a sorehead, Tweeti Blancett and her husband Linn would have to top the list. At first impulse, you might not take someone named Tweeti seriously, but that would be a mistake. Tweeti, whose blond hair spills from beneath her cowboy hat, ran George W. Bush's campaign in San Juan County in 2000, and she has similarly headed various of Republican Senator Pete Domenici's re-election efforts. Tweeti herself has served in New Mexico's House of Representatives. She is affable, energetic, capable, and extremely persistent. And because of what coal bed methane has done to her land, she is a certifiable sorehead.

Her duties last Memorial Day helped remind her what she is sore about. She took three "huge" tubs of flowers to the Aztec cemetery, and "it nearly wasn't enough." The cemetery lies at the end of a little ridge that used to be lonely, but nowadays so-called ranch houses crowd the hills around it. Downslope to the west run the Animas River and the ever-droning highway to Durango. Off to the north, jagged peaks in Colorado etch a blue horizon. Tweeti and Linn have buried two sons in the cemetery, lost to accident and illness, and there are lots of other Blancetts to keep them company: Myrtle, M. Linn and Violet, Robert Linn, Matilda, Edward, Marcellus, Golda, George L., and Caddie, to name a few. Inside the gate under an old cedar lie Moses and Lucinda, born in 1833 and 1834, respectively. There are also kin from the four families who came with the Blancetts to the San Juan country in the 1870s, even before it was legal for whites to settle, and into whose lines the Blancetts married. Altogether, Tweeti distributed her flowers among six generations of relatives.

LINK to the rest

Iraq News via Juan Cole

Click LINK to go

Do not adjust your sets: An alternative view of the world

Set up 10 years ago by the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera has grown to become an influential antidote to the Western bias of the global media. Today it launches an English-language channel. Guy Adams reports

Lights, cameras, salaam. In the heart of old London, a stone's throw from Buckingham Palace, the inhabitants of a state-of-the-art television studio are preparing to make broadcasting history.

Today, the Arabic television network Al Jazeera launches one of the most ambitious television ventures of recent times: an English-language channel, to bring rolling news, from a Middle Eastern perspective, to a global audience of millions.

The new channel, Al Jazeera International, already boasts star quality. A host of big names, from Sir David Frost to former-BBC and ITV stalwarts Rageh Omaar and Darren Jordon have been poached from rival broadcasters.

Tony Blair is expected to provide the station's first major "scoop", having agreed to an exclusive interview on Friday's debut edition of Sir David's new weekly show, Frost Over the World.

In the US, meanwhile, AJI has signalled its intention to do battle with the mighty CNN, after poaching its sought-after Atlanta-based anchorman Riz Khan to front a daily news programme from Washington.

The channel certainly has money to back up its ambitious aims. Bankrolled by the Emir of Qatar to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, it launches with a total of 18 bureaux around the world, and no less than five hundred staff of its own.

Four studios - in London, Doha, Kuala Lumpur and Washington DC - will allow AJI to "follow the sun," broadcasting around the world via satellite television and the internet, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

"This will be the last great adventure in TV news," says the station's Europe correspondent, Alan Fisher. "It sounds like a terrible cliché, but the world is getting smaller, and there's a huge untapped market that isn't served by a rolling news station. I'd put that potential audience in tens, if not hundreds of millions."

It's a bold claim, but Al Jazeera has made a habit of living up to the hype that has surrounded it since the original Arabic station hit the airwaves just 10 years ago.

That channel was launched on the back of a US$10m grant from the Emir of Qatar in 1996, after the BBC scrapped its World Service Arabic language station, in response to censorship demands from the government of Saudi Arabia.

Link to
To Hell with Centrism: We Must Reclaim the Inspired Edge
by Phil Rockstroh
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act". --George Orwell

"I don't want to be part of your revolution if I can't dance."--Emma Goldman


Rumsfeld is gone. Mehlman is gone. Delay is gone. Yet -- let's not have our progressives' version of a strutting on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier moment. Because mission has not been accomplished.

For those who haven't noticed: While we were busy with other concerns, many of our rights and liberties went missing. Moreover, along with them, have went or are going fast: our planet's polar ice caps; accountability of the corporate sector (our nation's true power brokers); as well as, a sense of place, history, and even a cursory understanding, among a large percent of the populace of the US, of the precepts of civilization and of democratic discourse.

These circumstances, like the melting of the polar ice caps, have transpired, incrementally, and have been going on for longer than that Reign of Terror in Tiny Town known as the Bush presidency. For example, regarding the increasingly authoritarian terrain we negotiate our way through daily: In American work places, bosses routinely snoop into underlings' personal e-mails and monitor our web-surfing practices. How did it come about that so many Americans have grown to accept such demeaning intrusions into our privacy?

In such a repressive societal milieu, there is no need to threaten would-be dissidents with old school totalitarian measures such as forced deportment to Siberian labor camps. Threats, overt and covert, to one's economic security and social standing serve to dissuade most of us from political and social dissent. In the class stratified structure of the US work force, where the personal consequences borne of financial upheaval are swift, punitive and severe, the implicit threat of being deported to America's urban gulag archipelago of homelessness renders most of us compliant to the exploitive dictates of corporate oligarchy.

Where did this all begin? How did it all get away from us? Furthermore -- why do we stand for it -- when these practices are antithetical to everything we claim to believe in as a nation?

In part, the proto-fascistic transgressions of corporate rule have made these circumstances all but inevitable, because our concept of what it means to be a human being has been incrementally defined downward. There has been much discussion of the dumbing down of American life. And these assessments are accurate and unnerving. (How else does one explain that 37% of those Connecticut voters who cast ballots for Joe Lieberman did so believing he was the peace candidate?) But there has been little discourse given to the pervasive corporate blandification of American life -- the manner in which its criteria both numbs out the personality of an individual and renders the nation's landscape monotonous and ugly.

The effects of corporatism are insidious. In such an environment, there is no need for mass rallies replete with bon fires blazing against the totalitarian darkness: Corporatism establishes an authoritarian order by way of a series of overt bribes and tacit threats. This social and cultural criteria causes an individual to become fearful and cautious -- and, after a time, flattens out one's inner drives and longings. As a result, a Triumph of the Bland comes to pass, internally and externally.

Ergo, the oligarchs atop the present order have no need for reeducation camps nor the ever-vigilant gaze of neighborhood block captains. We have become our own, ever-vigilant minders; within us, we have in place vast networks of secret police informers -- our own personal bully boy enforcers of blandness who leave us as passionless and empty as the architecture of the corporate nothingscape that surrounds us.

In addition, corporatism demands employees render themselves fecklessly pleasant. One doesn't want to be caught being "negative" nor be accused of the treachery of not being "a team player." Such accusations bring to an individual a similar decree of ignominy as being denounced as a counterrevolutionary under the fallen regime of the former Soviet Union.

Accordingly, despite their midterm election victory, this problem remains mirrored in the leadership of the Democratic party -- most of whom are the bought and sold products of corporatist rule and, therefore, have been trained to act with the kind of ersatz public congeniality demanded of all underlings in the corporate state. Apropos, the odd combination of fecklessness and smugness they delude themselves into believing is conducive to steering a course of "sensible centrism." From refusing to fight stolen elections -- right up to the present Democratic leadership of congress stating they will not press for the impeachment of the most corrupt president in the history of the republic -- we bear constant witness to it.

In this regard, it's very considerate of congressional Republicans who, in synergy with the Bush cartel, perpetrated one of the most vicious, vindictive and exclusionary reigns in congressional history to now want to play nice and "reconcile." It's very magnanimous of them to forgive us leftists for being right on all fronts -- and generous of them to forgive the majority of their Democratic peers in congress for cowering before them, day in and day out, for the past four years of one party rule.

Moreover, it was we leftist outsiders -- not reasonable, accommodating liberals -- who were right about the disastrous consequences that would befall an invasion of Iraq; as we were and remain right in our revulsion to the fascistic fraud that is the Patriot Act and the War on Terror.

This is the reason we're not let into the closed club of mainstream punditry. Although, to avoid being cruel, such an event might prove to be unfair to the slow children therein. We'd be hurling our ninety mile-an-hour, progressive fast balls past them -- while they're playing tee-ball ... Only the insularity inherent to a life of privilege can render folks as outright slow to the realities of the outside world as evinced by our present day pundit class. Is it any wonder they've enabled Duyba for so long. He's on their tee-ball team. The little Beltway Oligarchs.

LINK to article

Monday, November 13, 2006


Sources
(1) CNN (read)
(2) FBI (read)
(3) National Center for Statistics and Analysis (read)
(4) PBS (read)
(5) Washington Times (read)
(6) American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (read)
(7) American Cancer Society (read)
(8) National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (read)
(9) Center for Disease Control (CDC), NCHS Leading Causes of Death (read)
(10) National Cancer Institute (read)
(11) CDC, Smoking Attributable Deaths (read)
(12) CDC, Cigarette Smoking-Related Mortality (read)
3 GIs, 4 British Killed
Guerrillas Slay over 100
al-Maliki shuffles Cabinet


The Democratic Congress will pass a resolution in January asking that troops start coming home by mid-2007 in a phased withdrawal.

Three US troops were announced killed in Iraq on Sunday, some dying of wounds incurred earlier.

Shiite guerrillas, most likely, used an improvised explosive device (IED) placed along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to attack a British ship patrolling those waters. They killed 4 and seriously wounded 3. The attack was especially poignant, coming on Remembrance Day, as the UK public memorialized their war dead.

AP reports well over 100 deaths in Iraq on Sunday from political violence. The worst single incident came when two suicide bombers detonated their bomb belts in the midst of a crowd of police recruits, killing 35 and wounding dozens. Another 25 bodies were found in Baghdad, victims of the sectarian civil war. In Baquba, some 40 bodies that had accumulated at the morgue in recent weeks were buried. Inhabitants in Baquba reported that a large number of bodies, up to 50, were strewn behind an electricity plant, but police could only find 5. Well, I shouldn't say only. I think the two distinct reports got conflated somehow.

AP says of the big bombing:

' n Sunday morning's bombing targeting police recruits, two men detonated explosives strapped to their bodies simultaneously, police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq said. The attack, killing 35 men outside the police station near western Baghdad's Nissur Square, was one of several blasts in the capital.' '


Dozens of other assassinations and bombings are reported by Reuters, including the discovery of 12 bodies in Mosul.

AP also reports that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malik addressed a closed session of parliament on Sunday in which he pledged a shake-up of his cabinet and pressed his plan to have US troops withdraw to garrisons to be called on only in emergencies. He wants to deploy Iraqi troops more actively instead. His defense minister, Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi, however, demurred that Iraqi troops are not sufficiently well trained to take a more active role yet. Note to al-Obaidi: You commit your troops to battle and you'd be surprised how fast they get "trained."

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that al-Maliki also criticized parliamentarians whose parties have gun-toting paramilitaries, as well as those who have threatened to resign from parliament if they don't get their way, calling both "irresponsible".

His reference to threats to resign concerned the Sunni religious party, the Iraqi Accord Front, one of the spokesmen for which threatened to resign last Wednesday if it were not given more of a say in how Iraq is run.

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naef said Sunday that Iraq has become a major base for terrorism. He expressed concern about Saudi young men being seduced to go fight there [i.e. against Americans and Shiites]. posted by Juan @ 11/13/2006 06:25:00 AM 0 comments

The Terrorists Who Aren't in the News

By Jennifer L. Pozner, AlterNet. Posted November 11, 2006.

Anti-abortion fanatics spread fear by bombings, murders and assaults, but the media take little notice.

This piece was originally published by Newsday.

On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.

No national newspaper, magazine or network newscast reported this attempted suicide bombing, though an AP wire story was available. Cable news (save for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann) was silent about this latest act of terrorism in America.

Had the criminal, David McMenemy, been Arab or Muslim, this would have been headline news for weeks. But since his target was the Edgerton Women's Health Center, rather than, say, a bank or a police station, media have not called this terrorism -- even after three decades of extreme violence by anti-abortion fanatics, mostly fundamentalist Christians who believe they're fighting a holy war.

Since 1977, casualties from this war include seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents, 380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts of vandalism, according to the National Abortion Federation.

Abortion providers and activists received 77 letters threatening anthrax attacks before 9/11, yet the media never considered anthrax threats as terrorism until after 9/11, when such letters were delivered to journalists and members of Congress.

After 9/11, Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups received 554 envelopes containing white powder and messages like: "You have been exposed to anthrax. ... We are going to kill all of you." They were signed by the Army of God, a group that hosts Scripture-filled web pages for "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith," including minister Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and James Kopp, all convicted of murdering abortion providers, and a convicted clinic bomber, the Rev. Michael Bray. Another of their "martyrs," Clayton Waagner, mailed anthrax letters while a fugitive on the FBI's 10 most wanted list for anti-abortion related crimes.

"I am a terrorist," Waagner declared on the Army of God's web site. Boasting that God "freed me to make war on his enemy," he claimed he knew where 42 Planned Parenthood workers lived. "It doesn't matter to me if you're a nurse, receptionist, bookkeeper, or janitor, if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you."

That's textbook terrorism, defined by the USA Patriot Act as dangerous criminal acts that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

LINK to article

11 states 'fuelling civil war in Somalia'

By David Blair, Africa Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:10am GMT 11/11/2006

Eleven countries are fuelling Somalia's civil war by supplying arms to either the Islamist movement in control of Mogadishu, the capital, or their bitter rivals in the country's official government, according to the United Nations.

A massive inflow of weapons and supplies threatens to turn Somalia into the battleground for a new regional war in the Horn of Africa.

Eight countries, including Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt, are supplying the Islamists.

Three are backing Somalia's internationally recognised government based in the ruined town of Baidoa.

The UN report – which has yet to be released — has been seen by experts interviewed by Reuters news agency.

Its key findings are that the Islamists, who seized Mogadishu and much of southern Somalia in June, have benefited from huge outside support, largely from the Muslim world.

Iran has given them 250 anti-aircraft missiles and some 1,000 foreign "jihadists" have arrived in Somalia, including experts in bomb-making and assassination.

The Mogadishu Islamists have forged links with Hizbollah in Lebanon and received practical support from Syria, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Djibouti and Saudi Arabia.

Eritrea, a non-Muslim country, has also sent about 2,500 soldiers to Somalia in support of the Islamists, who style themselves the Supreme Council of Islamic Courts.

The main enemy of Somalia's Islamists is neighbouring Ethiopia, with whom Somalia has a longstanding border dispute.

Eritrea also accuses Ethiopia of occupying its territory and the two countries fought a war between 1998 and 2000.

Eritrea appears to be supplying the Islamists on the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

Ethiopia, for its part, has sent between 5,000 and 10,000 troops to Somalia in order to back the official administration in Baidoa.

A Big Step in Nation's March to Left
by Paul Waldman

The last time a midterm election brought this kind of change to the Washington power structure, reporters and pundits explained that it was more than the product of clever election strategy, a couple of scandals or a failed policy. Instead, we were told in 1994 that the results at the ballot box signaled something deeper and more fundamental: a shift in Americans' beliefs.

"The country has unmistakably moved to the right," wrote The New York Times the day after Republicans took both houses of Congress. "The huge Republican gains also marked a clear shift to the right in the country," said The Washington Post. Similar notes were sounded after Republican wins in 2002 and 2004.

Yet, for some reason, we have yet to hear the opinion-makers tell us that Tuesday's election means that the country has "moved to the left."

But if 1994 was a move to the right, then 2006 would certainly qualify as a move to the left. After all, Republicans have owned all three branches of government for most of the last six years. They lowered taxes on the wealthy, increased spending on defense, cut or ignored regulation in areas such as environmental protection and worker safety, and pursued a bellicose foreign policy - the very program conservatives have been advocating for decades. The problem was that Americans weren't happy with the results.

Yet if recent experience is a guide, we shouldn't be too surprised that pundits haven't spotted a shift to the left in the rejection Republicans suffered Tuesday. This has been the pattern in recent years: When Democrats win, we're told it was a matter of circumstance or an unusually skillful candidate. When Republicans win, we're told it was because Americans are becoming more conservative.

Why? Because many members of the media have internalized the attacks conservatives have made on them for decades and come to adopt the complimentary conservative picture of what America is all about.

Journalists have accepted the idea that they are an urban elite disconnected from the "real America." They live in places such as Washington and New York, where liberal ideas dominate. The rest of the country, therefore, must be filled with conservatives. So when Democrats win, it can only be an accident of history - but when Republicans win, it must be a pure expression of popular will.

But the fact is that nearly all the movement in American public opinion in recent decades has been in one direction: to the left. This evolution is precisely why conservatives have grown so angry about the "culture wars" - because they're losing.

In 1977, the General Social Survey found 66 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement, "It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family." By 2004, that figure had fallen to 36 percent.

To take another example, a 1987 Pew poll found that only 48 percent of Americans agreed with the statement, "It's all right for blacks and whites to date each other." By 2003, the number agreeing had risen to 77 percent, and it will no doubt keep rising in our ever-more-diverse society.

Conservatives might protest that opposition to interracial dating isn't a "conservative" position - but that's only because all sides have now accepted what was once the liberal position. In other words, we've moved to the left. Our ideas about race, gender roles, child rearing and a host of other matters have grown increasingly progressive over time. And that isn't even mentioning issues such as health care, the minimum wage or Social Security, where the liberal position has long been the more popular one.

Yet, through smart politicking, Republicans managed to hold on to power. By keeping their base energized and organized, they ensured that they wouldn't be beaten on turnout alone. Combined with ruthless redistricting to increase the number of safe Republican seats, and relentless exploitation of 9/11 - not to mention some key Democratic missteps - it was enough to get more than 50 percent on Election Day.

But it could only work for so long, particularly when their positions on issues don't command majority support. In fact, looking at public opinion over the last few decades, issues seem to come in two types: those on which the public is steadily moving to the left, and those, such as abortion and gun control, on which opinions barely budge no matter what happens in the political arena. Although Americans may be more conservative than our friends in Western Europe, it is virtually impossible to find a fundamental issue on which the public is moving steadily to the right.

When Republicans took over both houses in Congress in 1994, commentators told President Bill Clinton that his policies had been repudiated. The country had moved to the right, they said, so if Mr. Clinton wanted to salvage his presidency, he should do the same. In many ways, he followed their advice.

In the wake of resounding Democratic wins, will we hear the same voices advising President Bush to move to the left? Knowing what we do about Mr. Bush, the idea that he would listen to such a suggestion seems fanciful. But unless they want to see more defeats in the coming years, his fellow Republicans might want to think about it.

Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog group, and the author of "Being Right Is Not Enough." His e-mail is pwaldman@mediamatters.org.