What Israel Has Done to Palestinian Children With U.S. Taxpayers' Dollars

BubbleShare: Share photos - Easy Photo Sharing

Sunday, September 23, 2007

NY Newspaper Refuses to Print Anti-Bush/Anti- War Ads

For Immediate Release
September 22, 2007
Press Contact: Debra Sweet 347-385-2195

www.worldcantwait. org

NY Newspaper Refuses to Print Anti-Bush/Anti- War Ads

The national political organization World Can’t
Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime said Friday that
they had been refused premium back-page space in
the New York City daily newspaper Metro NY based on the content of their ads.

The World Can't Wait angrily announced that on
Thursday, Metro NY newspaper refused to run their
paid ad headlined “Who is the Real Nuclear
Threat?,” which had been scheduled to run in its
September 21 issue. The reason given by the
publisher was that the content was “too
inflammatory” to publish on the back page.

On Friday, World Can't Wait tried to place a
different ad, headlined “One Million Dead in
Iraq.” This ad was also rejected by Metro NY for
placement on their back page explicitly because
of its content. Later the newspaper offered to
run it on an inside page, but at a prohibitively
high price, almost four times higher than what was originally agreed upon.

Debra Sweet, the Director of The World Can’t Wait
– Drive Out the Bush Regime drew links to the
attack by Bush and the Senate on last week's
MoveOn ad (which criticizes General Petraeus for
giving the White House version of the troop surge report).

Sweet said, “The U.S. Senate condemned MoveOn for
a paid ad which dissents from the ongoing war,
but won’t censure George Bush, a proven liar, for
repeatedly using falsified intelligence to justify the war on Iraq."

She continued, "Now there is another wave of
White House propaganda geared to justifying a war
on Iran. The major media repeated their lies
about Iraq for years, and now they’re doing it all over again on Iran .”

Sweet indicated that World Can't Wait will
continue to fight to publish the ads which call
the Bush administration the world’s “real nuclear
threat.” She asked people to protest when George
Bush speaks at the United Nations on September 25.

“We do not know if the Metro NY publisher opposes
in principle the content of these ads, or is
buckling under the pro-war political pressure
emanating from Washington. In either case, Metro
NY is reacting with cowardice in failing to
defending the principle of freedom of expression.
One of the few avenues to get the truth into the
major media – buying advocacy ads -- will in
effect be closed down if publishers are afraid to
sell space. We will not allow the White House to
be the strong-arm arbiter of what is acceptable
in terms of political criticism.”

With President George Bush scheduled to arrive at
the United Nations in New York City on Tuesday,
Sept. 25, the World Can’t Wait announced plans to
publish the ads even more widely, and are making
them available to other organizations.

The ads can be seen and reprinted at:
http://www.worldcan twait.net/ index.php? option=com_ content&task=view&id=4337&Itemid=223

Vertical Farming- The Road to The Future?


Like it or not over the next forty-three years we can expect over three billion new people to share the earth with the over six billion people already here. With the problem of global warming looming not only because the US refuses to address the issue but because China, India and the underdeveloped world - the majority of humanity-are going to continue to demand more petroleum,more vehicles, more energy, more food,more of the creature comforts North Americans and Europeans take for granted. Well and good to use energy efficient appliances and vehicles but the problem demands a drastic and radical change in how the human race is organized and meets its needs. In a world where the polar ice caps and snow capped mountain ranges are melting, oceans are warming and trending towards flooding of the habitats of millions of people ,where famine and drought threaten to make the world a living hell for billions we've got to think outside the box.

The following is an introductory essay published by the Vertical Farm Project-


http://www.verticalfarm.com/index.php




The Problem


By the year 2050, nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during the interim. An estimated 109 hectares of new land (about 20% more land than is represented by the country of Brazil) will be needed to grow enough food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA). Historically, some 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management practices. What can be done to avoid this impending disaster?

A Potential Solution: farm vertically

The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world's urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.

It took humans 10,000 years to learn how to grow most of the crops we now take for granted. Along the way, we despoiled most of the land we worked, often turning verdant, natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts. Within that same time frame, we evolved into an urban species, in which 60% of the human population now lives vertically in cities. This means that, for the majority, we humans are protected against the elements, yet we subject our food-bearing plants to the rigors of the “great outdoors” and can do no more than hope for a good weather year. However, more often than not now, due to a rapidly changing climate regime, that is not what follows. Massive floods, protracted droughts, class 4-5 hurricanes, and severe monsoons take their toll each year, destroying millions of tons of valuable crops. Don’t our harvestable plants deserve the same level of “comfort” and protection that we now enjoy? The time is at hand for us to learn how to safely grow our food inside environmentally controlled multistory buildings within urban centers. If we do not, then in just another 50 years, the next 3 billion people will surely go hungry, and the world will become a much more unpleasant place in which to live.

Advantages of Vertical Farming

Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)
No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests
All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers
VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water
VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services
VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface
VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of
evapotranspiration
VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible
parts of plants and animals
VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)
VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers
VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers
VF creates new employment opportunities
We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on
earth
VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps
VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical
LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.
VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water
and land for agriculture

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

Peter Tatchell – The Guardian
Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.
September 12, 2007 10:30 AM
Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.
What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.
The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.
Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.
The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.
The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.
But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.
What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.
There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.
Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:
1) Scholars for 911 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.
2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.
3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.
4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.
More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.
In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.
There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.
Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?
What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.
Source URL: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html
Fair Use NoticeThis page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Bush defended on stupidity rap.

By Michael Plank

In Which I (Initially) Defend George W. Bush

The president is getting a lot of flak for saying this:


I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.
C'mon. I'm pretty sure he knows that Nelson Mandela is alive, or at least that Saddam Hussein didn't literally kill him. And even if he doesn't, the context of the comment was clearly about hypothetical Iraqi versions of Nelson Mandela, as symbol of a pan-nationalist struggle for political power, not the actual Nelson Mandela as a living, breathing human being.

Still, people are making a lot of cheap jokes at Bush's expense, citing it as another example of his ignorance. It's not. It's an example of his imprecision with language. But it's also an example of his willful, calculating mendacity. On the eternal question, "Stupid or lying?," this one's closer to the latter.

The thing about Mandela is, he didn't just appear on the scene when the South African regime toppled over. He was one of the reasons it toppled over. He was imprisoned for decades precisely because of the threat he represented to the state. His imprisonment played a large part in mobilizing opposition to apartheid and the S.A. government throughout the world, and in its eventual downfall. He was the very epitome of a political prisoner. When he was released, and the vote was extended to blacks in South Africa, it was natural that he would be elevated to power. Same thing happened with Gandhi, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, etc. (Yeah, Castro, too.)

Now here's the thing. Before the invasion of Iraq, the neocons constantly assured America that we would be greeted as liberators, welcomed with flowers and candy, it would be a cakewalk, etc. Was there, at that point or at any point during Saddam's rule, an Iraqi version of Mandela or Gandhi? Was there someone inside of Iraq, under house arrest or in some gulag somewhere, who served as a symbol of internal political opposition to Saddam? I never heard of anybody like that.

Which is not to say that there wasn't widespread underground resistance to Saddam and the Ba'athists. And maybe Bush is right, that Saddam didn't merely toss his opponents in a dungeon somewhere, but actually killed them (all) -- although the horror stories about Saddam's use of Abu Ghraib would seem to contradict that. If so, Bush should've invoked Steve Biko, not Nelson Mandela.

The most visible political opposition to Saddam, pre-invasion, was a group of exiles called the Iraqi National Congress, centered in London and headed by Ahmed Chalabi. This was the guy put forth by the Bush Administration as Iraq's Nelson Mandela. Their post-invasion plan was thus the underpants gnome-like:

1. Topple Saddam.
2. ?????????????
3. Profit.
...with number 2 being some vague notion of "Chalabi runs things, somehow."

Read on....
http://michaelplank.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-which-i-initially-defend-george-w.html

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Blame Norway

"Blame Norway"- hey, why not?
http://select.nytimes.com/ search...DA10894DF404482

Those Norsepeople have an investment fund of $300 billion that they squeezed out of the pockets of deserving US citizen motorists- and they're pinkos who are trying to force us to adopt their way of life!

Norway took its funds out of Walmart stocks just because of child labor law violations and union busting. Obviously Norway constitutes a threat and a clear and present danger to the American way of life.
We can't have them politicizing our markets!

Just look at this! :
"The egalitarian values of the Norwegian society... ensure that the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies is much smaller than in comparable western economies...
"Norway possesses the second highest GDP per-capita and third highest PPP per-capita in the world, and has maintained 1st place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for the fifth consecutive year (2006). Cost of living is about 30% higher in Norway than in the US, and 25% higher than the UK.

The Norwegian economy is an example of mixed economy, featuring a combination of free market activity and large government ownership. The government controls key areas, such as the strategic petroleum sector (Norsk Hydro & Statoil), hydroelectric energy production Statkraft) and the largest Norwegian bank (DnB NOR) and telecommunication provider (Telenor). The government controls 31.6% of publicly listed companies. When non-listed companies are included the state has even higher share in ownership (mainly from direct oil license ownership)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nor...Norway#Politics

The coalition that governs Norway calls itself "Red-Green."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red...lition_(Norway)
Enough said!

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Bomb Whatevertheheckistan

Saturday, September 15, 2007

David Petraeus- "Ass Kissing Little Chickenshit."

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235


U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge


By Gareth Porter*


WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) -


In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members
of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's
superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command
(CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting
in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with
reports of the meeting.


Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing
little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources
say.


That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making
remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a
superior.


That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad
led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two
commanders.


Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's
recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during
the summer.


The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the
Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the
administration over Iraq.


The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad
relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".


Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM
commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and
their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the
sources.


The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of
his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front
man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy
of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.


In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet
taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early
February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase.


According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were
then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to
hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.


Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the
surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own
interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and
Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.


The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing
troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers
elsewhere in the region.


"He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's
thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."


By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had
become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and
carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely
unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest
population of Islamic extremists.


Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops
available for other contingencies in the region.


Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to
achieve results "as soon as possible".


The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended
conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.


Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption
underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way
for political reconciliation in Iraq.


In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior
administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from
Day One, 'This isn't working.' "


One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to
order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush
and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the
fight against terrorism.


Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S.
occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period.


Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept
of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that
U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.


During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began
to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq,
including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop
strength by the end of 2009.


The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in
early September.


According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were
sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation
with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend.


Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as
possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a
strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces
to deal with other potential threats in the region.


Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's
recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest
possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his
recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief
spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him
and the nation's highest military leaders.


Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the
surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top
brass.


Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's
sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional
roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.


Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an
institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies
in the process of advancement.


"If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're
not doing your job," says the source.


Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful
figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command
from February 2005 to March 2007.


He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him
in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested
interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.


He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused
in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier
task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May.


Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would
have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war.


Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on
his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a
policy.


A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on
the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals.


He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen.
Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton.


His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key
to success.


The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict
over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S.
military leaders in recent history.


___________________________________________________


*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst.
His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road
to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

Remember Sabra & Shatila

A quarter century ago, acknowledged Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon, commander of Israeli occupation forces occupying southern Lebanon, allowed Lebanese fascists to massacre up to 3,000 Palestinian civilians of all ages in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.


Tel Aviv had carried out an invasion of Lebanon in June of 1982 with the complete backing of the Ronald Reagan government of the U.S. It continued its war of aggression against Palestinians and Lebanese with the backing of U.S. imperialism and the powerful interests of finance capital that drive it to seek domination of the oil-rich and strategic Middle East.


During the summer of 1982, the Israeli military mercilessly bombed Beirut, killing more than 20,000 people, mostly civilians. In September 1982, a ceasefire agreement was forced upon the Lebanese and Palestinians resisting the assault, which resulted in moving most Palestinian fighting forces out of Lebanon.


Israeli forces surrounded the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon. Under Sharon’s orders, the Israeli forces backed up the entrance of Lebanese fascist forces on that Sept. 15. These forces carried out the mass slaughter—mass lynchings really—of the Palestinian civilians in the camp. The killers were Lebanese fascists; their physical support came from the Israelis; their bullets were made in the USA.


The attack on Sabra and Shatila was meant to instill terror. Yet the struggle of the Palestinian people continues today, as does the brutal repression by the nuclear-armed Israeli state.


Today, anti-war activism has focused a spotlight on the phony “debate” among Democrats and Republicans on Congressional Hill over a vague plan to gradually reduce troop deployment in Iraq. But both sides of the aisle on Congressional Hill have funded that brutal war as well as the occupation in Palestine.


Billions in financial and military support, without which Tel Aviv’s occupation of Palestine could not last a day, have been quietly rubberstamped by Democrats and Republicans—no matter which party of big business occupied the Oval Office.


The struggle of the Palestinian people deserves the support of the entire anti-war movement, which can raise—in one loud, clear voice—support for the right of Palestinian self-determination, sovereignty and right of return to their historic homeland.


The Palestinian people have fought for these rights for more than half a century, and now, as they commemorate Sabra and Shatila, they continue that struggle today. Long live Palestine.


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Submarines and Lots of Dough

Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney now residing in Caracas, Venezuela. She has done extensive research using the Freedom of Information Act to uncover broad interference in Venezuela's internal political affairs by entities of and creatures of the United States Government. Because of her work this sort of interference, which would never be tolerated in the United States, will soon be illegal in Venezuela.

Ms. Golinger has started a new blog called
"Postcards from The Revolution".

This article by her appeared in her blog yesterday.


Thursday, September 13, 2007
Submarines and Lots of Dough


What do a nuclear submarine off the coast of Venezuela and a bunch of NGOs have in common? Why, US intervention in Venezuela, of course!!

Yes, once again the United States is floating nuclear submarines just twenty miles off Venezuela's northwest coast in the Dutch island of Curaçao. The USS Albuquerque, a 110-meter long nuclear submarine docked last Friday, September 7th, at the Bay of Santa Ana on the island of Curaçao, the largest of the Dutch Antilles and Venezuela's closest neighbor in the Caribbean. Since 1999, the United States has maintained a small operative air force base within Curaçao's Hato International Airport. However, during 2006, construction began to expand the air base and US military and intelligence presence was pumped up throughout Curaçao, including an astonishing increase from what used to be no more than 10 US warships, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines passing through Curaçao's vast ports annually to over 100 just last year. Many of these battleships formed part of a sudden desire by the Pentagon's Southern Command to conduct a dozen or so military exercises in the Caribbean Sea that responded to hypothetical "terrorist" threats in the region or provided "humanitarian" support to neighboring islands. Considering that simultaneously, the US State Department was classifying Venezuela as a nation "not fully collaborating" with the war on terrorism and labeling President Chávez as "authoritarian" and "dictatorial", it isn't paranoid to assume that the increase in US military presence on Curaçao and surrounding bases is directed at intimidating Venezuela. Furthermore, the USS Albuquerque was last spotted just a mere three weeks ago on the island of Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela's closest neighbor in the northeastern Caribbean region. One has to wonder what the nuclear submarine was doing from the time it left Trinidad and Tobago and arrived at Curaçao, all that time just floating around off the coast of Venezuela...

So here's the juice on the new National Endowment for Democracy (NED) figures for funding activities in Venezuela during fiscal year 2006-2007. The following list is taken from the NED's own webpage. Remember, while the "projects" may sound friendly and helpful, it's all about intervening in the affairs of another nation. And the NED's history in Venezuela (as well as other nations like Haiti, Nicaragua, Bolivia, etc) has been pretty shady. Most groups funded in Venezuela have been involved in coup attempts or other destabilization actions against the Chávez administration, and as you will see, many groups now being funded appear to be trying to "break" into the Chávez camp to counteract or sabotage social programs or advances, such as the community councils (NED proposes "citizen councils"), and to impose the US-NED view of "democracy". Total funds dedicated to Venezuela this year =$2,166,076.00. And that's just on NED's end. USAID's 2007 budget for its "democracy promotion and transition" programs in Venezuela tops $3.6 million (to more than 385 groups/programs in Venezuela; all political). Of course, that doesn't include the additional $10 million Congress approved in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill this year to invest in transmitting "pro-American" propaganda to Venezuela. Yeah, like we really need that here. With major television networks like Globovisión, Venevisión and RCTV (now on cable and DirecTV), 90% of daily newspapers and 90% of radio stations constantly blabbering anti-Chávez and pro-US garbage, we can definitely say that those $10 million will be sliding into some other pockets down here. Oh, and before you read the list, remember that once December rolls around and the new constitutional reform is approved, Article 67 will prohibit - hear that, PROHIBIT - foreign funding from governmental OR private entities to groups with political objectives in Venezuela. Which means....enjoy those greenbacks while you can baby, because come December, the game is up!! (It makes me so happy to say that I could just cry).

Asociación Civil Acción Campesina (Farmers in Action)
$60,106 To strengthen community planning institutions, their interaction with local government officials, and their ability to address the priorities and concerns of the local populations.

Asociación Civil Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia (Consortium for Development and Justice)
$49,904 To continue strengthening its observatory program to monitor the judiciary in Venezuela.

Asociación Civil Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia (Consortium for Development and Justice)
$79,632 To promote democratic participation and defend human rights.

Asociación Civil Consorcio Justicia-Capítulo Occidente (Justice Consortium - West) $27,460 To bolster democratic participation and social consciousness in Táchira State.

Asociación Civil Justicia Alternativa (Alternative Justice)
$26,750 To strengthen the capacity of justices of the peace in Aragua State.

Asociación Civil Kapé-Kapé (Kapé-Kapé)
$39,900 To train indigenous leaders on negotiation, leadership, and human rights, and to facilitate a socioeconomic development agenda.

Asociación Civil Liderazgo y Visión (Leadership and Vision)
$64,823 To continue democracy and human rights training for members of the police and fire departments in the states of Aragua, Carabobo, and Cojedes.

Asociación Civil Uniandes (Uniandes)
$21,630 To promote participation in local citizen councils in Mérida.

Asodisamar
$16,200 To promote consensus building and strengthen political leadership in Sucre State.

Center for International Private Enterprise
$98,173 To educate community leaders.

Centro al Servicio de la Acción Popular (Center for Popular Action) (CESAP)
$74,675 To enhance civil society's capacity to monitor and evaluate government social programs and social policy expenditures.

Centro de Estudios de Derechos Humanos (Center for Human Rights Studies) (CEDH)
$45,652 To establish a network of independent judges and jurists to encourage judicial reform.

Centro Educativo de Adiestramiento Comunitario y Ético (Education Center for Community Training and Ethics) (CEACE)
$70,800 To implement a national-level training program for grassroots leaders, professionals, and government officials.

Fundación Justicia de Paz Monagas (Justice of Peace of Monagas State Foundation)
$28,850 To promote increased community participation.

Instituto Prensa y Sociedad de Venezuela (Institute of Press and Society of Venezuela) (IPYS)
$82,700 To monitor freedom of expression violations at the national level and to provide training to journalists.

International Republican Institute
$200,000 To strengthen the institutional capacity and internal democratic processes of political parties
Regional

AfroAmerica XXI
$100,998
To promote local political participation of Afro-Latino communities in Honduras, Panama, and Venezuela.

American Center for International Labor Solidarity
$687,823 To strengthen unions' capacity to involve workers democratically at their workplaces in Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

American University, Academy for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
$169,984 To promote the role of law schools in influencing public policy regarding human rights issues.

Asociación Ser en el 2000 (2000 Association) (SER)
$110,000 To promote the capacity of civilians in the area of security and defense.

Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
$160,000 To promote and defend human rights in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.

Posted by Eva Golinger at 12:20 PM

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Moab, meet Foab- Russia unveils the 'father of all bombs'

Click here to see FOAB video

US's MOAB being tested

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2167110,00.html



Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday September 12, 2007
The Guardian


Russia's military yesterday announced that it had successfully tested a lethal new air-delivered bomb, which it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear weapon.
In what appears to be the Kremlin's latest display of military might, officials said Moscow had developed a new thermobaric bomb to add to its already potent nuclear arsenal.

Russia's state-run Channel One television said the new ordnance - dubbed the Father of all Bombs - is four times more powerful than the US's Mother of all Bombs.



"The results of tests of the aviation explosive device that has been created have shown that it is comparable with nuclear weapons in its efficiency and potential," Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian armed forces staff, told the channel.
"You will now see it in action - the bomb which has no match in the world is being tested at a military site," the report said. It showed a Tupolev 160 strategic bomber dropping the bomb over a testing ground. A large explosion followed.

The aviation vacuum bomb, which is also known as a fuel-air bomb, was the mightiest ever created, it added.

Last night's announcement comes at a time of growing tension between Russia and the west, and follows a tumultuous eight months in which Vladimir Putin has denounced US power, torn up a conventional arms agreement with Nato, and grabbed a large, if symbolic, chunk of the Arctic.

Last month Russia carried out a series of war games with China and four other central Asian states, designed to show the country's resurgent military power and the emergence of new regional alliances outside Nato. Russia's strategic nuclear bombers also resumed patrols of the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

The development of this latest device appears to be another response to the Bush administration's plans to site elements of its missile defence system in central Europe. Mr Putin has denounced the plan, arguing that it upsets Europe's strategic balance, and has vowed to respond.

The US Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother of all Bombs, is a large-yield satellite-guided, air-delivered device, which previously enjoyed the dubious accolade of the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

Thermobaric weapons differ from conventional explosive weapons by using oxygen from the atmosphere, rather than carrying an oxidising agent in their explosives. They produce more energy than normal weapons but are hard to control.

The US used similar fuel-air munitions to clear jungle for helicopter landings during the Vietnam War. The Soviet Union also developed its own fuel-air weapons, deploying them against China and in Afghanistan, and the Russian army used them in its second war in Chechnya.

The new bomb comes at a time when both Russia and the US appear to be reneging on nuclear arms limitation treaties signed during the cold war and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yesterday the head of a Russian foreign policy thinktank warned that Russia and the US were on the brink of a new cold war involving "an unrestricted nuclear and conventional arms race".

Relations could sink into a serious crisis in a few years, and "domestic and political factors will aggravate the situation rather than help overcome the differences", Sergei Rogov, director of the Russian Academy of Science's US and Canada Institute, told the academy's presidium.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Castro says Cuba saved Reagan's life...

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={E785ACBD-EC59-497D-9C95-13B0C8A12CFB})&language=EN

Fidel Castro: The Empire and Falsehood
Havana, Sep 12 (Prensa Latina) Cuban President Fidel Castro on Wednesday reflected on the six long years since the painful September 11 episode in the US, about which it is known there has been deliberate disinformation.
Fidel Castro Sep 11 Essay World Hit
The most dramatic thing is that what really happened might be never known for certain, the leader affirmed in a new article broadcast by the radio-TV Roundtable Discussion.
Fidel Castro said in his reflections entitled "The Empire and Falsehood" that like the rest of the planet, "we were deceived." "What a big difference between the behavior of the Cuban government and that of the US! The Revolution is based on truth, and the empire on lie!" the president concluded.
Due to its importance, Prensa Latina integrally reproduces reflections in sections by the Cuban president: Reflections by the Commander in Chief THE EMPIRE AND ITS LIES It was Reagan who created the Cuban American National Foundation, whose sinister involvement in the blockade and in terrorist actions against Cuba would be revealed years later, when the United States declassified secret documents, albeit full of information that had been shamefully crossed out. Had these documents come to light earlier, our conduct would not have been different.
When, on March 30, 1981, we received news in Cuba that Reagan had been shot with a low-caliber weapon in an assassination attempt, we sent him a message condemning the act. The 22-caliber lead bullet lodged in one of his lungs was causing him pain and putting his life at risk. The message is contained in the conversation that, following precise instructions, our then minister of foreign affairs, Isidoro Malmierca, had with Wayne Smith, former head of the US Interests Section in Havana.
What follow are excerpts, quoted verbatim, of the conversation between the two: “ISIDORO MALMIERCA: We summoned you to this meeting on the express request of President Fidel Castro. He asked me to begin by expressing our appreciation for the information on the assassination attempt on President Reagan that you provided us with through director Joaquín Más. On behalf of President Fidel Castro, we also wish to express how deeply we regret this event and our sincere hope that President Reagan will recover from this attack as quickly as possible.
“WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, very much.
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: We have been receiving information about the medical attention the President is receiving. Initially, you had also received information that the consequences of the attack did not appear to be that severe, but it seems the situation is more complicated and he is undergoing surgery.
“WAYNE SMITH: Yes. Our impression is that he has been operated on already, but over the radio they are now saying that the operation is to begin now. It is likely to be over in, say, an hour. A 3-hour surgery, I mean, is nothing simple, especially for a 70-year-old man. They say there"s no danger. My interpretation of this is that there"s no immediate danger. But, for a 70-year-old man, a 3-hour surgery is a serious matter. They say he is not in serious condition, that his condition is stable. We hope everything goes well. I thank you for your best wishes, your concern and President Fidel Castro"s message.
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: In Washington, Mr. Frechette also approached the Cuban Interests Section and conveyed us information on this situation. He explained that you had also received information on this. Again, President Fidel Castro personally asked me to meet with you and to express our sincere hope that President Reagan recover promptly from the consequences of the attack.
“WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, very much. My God! This is a difficult situation. President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas and it looks as though the person responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan is from Dallas. He currently lives in Colorado, but he"s from Dallas. I don"t know...
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: In some cables, I read that he was born near Denver, 30 kilometers from Denver.
“WAYNE SMITH: I don’t know. One of my consuls here in the Interests Section told me he had heard on the radio that it"s a guy who studied in the same school he did. I don’t know, he may have lived a number of years in Dallas. I don"t know what"s in the air people breath in Dallas.
"ISIDORO MALMIERCA: They say they"re three brothers, the sons of a man who"s in the oil business.
“WAYNE SMITH: His dad, yes. He"s 22 years old. He was a student at Yale University, but he had recently abandoned his studies. He may feel bitter, a young man who has failed, who acted out of resentment. To be completely frank, I"m glad it"s a guy like that and not, say, a Puerto Rican or something like that, which could have political implications.
"ISIDORO MALMIERCA: You mean speculations about the political motivations behind that.
“WAYNE SMITH: Yes, that could, undeniably, prompt, encourage political readings. An attack by a white man from Colorado, Texas does not lend itself easily to political interpretations.
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: There have even been a number of police reports which say that he acted alone, that he has no ties to any groups...
“WAYNE SMITH: Yes, it must have been an insane or fanatical person. He got so close to the President...He was captured immediately. He took out his weapon and fired… “ISIDORO MALMIERCA: Brady died? “WAYNE SMITH: No.
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: They were saying he died.
“WAYNE SMITH: Yes. There were reports to that effect, that he had died. But the latest news is that he didn"t, that he"s in very serious condition, but that he hasn"t died. I imagine that that a 45-calibre round would have been deadly, but a 22-calibre certainly gives him possibilities... It seems the shot hit him on the head, apparently in the head...That"s not good news, there isn"t much hope.
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: A shot to the head, no matter what the caliber, is something very serious.
"WAYNE SMITH: Brady is in critical condition. He may survive, but he"d be a vegetable.
“ISIDORO MALMIERCA: I do regret that we should meet because of such an unfortunate event.
“WAYNE SMITH: I thank you for your best wishes. I will immediately send out a cable telling my government of our conversation. I kindly ask that you express my gratitude to President Fidel Castro.
No comments are needed. Malmierca"s version, written immediately after the meeting, speaks for itself. Wayne Smith is today a staunch opponent of the blockade and aggressions against Cuba.
But this is not the only example of our conduct towards the President of a country which, since the days of Eisenhower, has hatched hundreds of plots to physically eliminate me.
A highly confidential report submitted in the summer of 1984 to an agent responsible for the security of Cuban representatives in the UN warned of a possible assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan by a far-right group in North Carolina. Upon receiving it, we immediately informed US authorities. Our official suggested that we deliver the information via Robert C. Muller, head of security of the US mission to the United Nations, with whom we maintained contact to ensure the protection of Cuban delegations visiting the international organization.
The assassination was planned for an imminent date, for Reagan"s visit to North Carolina, as part of his re-election campaign.
We had all of the information at our disposal. We had the names of those implicated in the plot; the day, time and place where the assassination was to take place; the types of weapons the terrorists had and where they were being kept. In addition to all this, we knew where the elements who were plotting this were meeting and had a brief account of what had been said at a meeting.
The information was given Muller at a meeting in a building located in 37 and 3rd Avenue, two blocks away from the Cuban mission.
We provided him with all the information, making sure the most important details, such as the names of those involved, the place, time and type of weapons to be used, were clear.
At the end of the conversation, our official informed Muller he had received instructions from the Cuban government to report the matter urgently and that we had selected him because we knew he was an expert on security matters.
Muller read out what he had written down to ensure he had not changed anything and that all of the important information was there.
He asked about the source and was told it was reliable. He said that the Secret Service would need to meet with the Cuban officials. He was told this would not be a problem.
At around four thirty in the afternoon that day, Secret Service agents met with the Cuban representatives.
The meeting was held in apartment 34-F, in the 34th floor of the Ruppert Towers building located in 92, between Third and Second Avenue, in uptown Manhattan.
The agents were two young, white men with brush haircuts wearing suits. Their chief aim was to verify what Muller had reported, as evidenced by the copy of the cable he had sent them they brought with them. When the contents of the cable were read, they were told no information was missing.
The Secret Service agents wanted to know who had provided the information and how it had come into our possession. They were told what Muller was told. They were also interested in knowing if we could elaborate on the information, and they were told that, if any new information were to arrive, they would be immediately informed.
They left their cards and asked to be contacted directly if any additional information was received, saying there was no need to use Muller as an intermediary.
The following Monday, we received news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had detained a group of people in North Carolina, against whom a number of charges had been brought, none, as is logical to assume, related to the plan to assassinate President Reagan, who traveled to that State shortly afterwards as part of his presidential e-election campaign.
Four or five days following the arrests, at the end of the week, Muller phoned the Cuban mission to invite the Cuban official to lunch. They had lunch at the UN delegates’ lounge. The first thing Muller did was ask that the official convey the United States" gratitude to the Cuban government for the information provided, confirming that an operation against those involved had been carried out. A Cuban anti-terrorist activist had saved the life of a US President! Some US press reports mention an intimate diary, over 700 pages long, kept by Reagan— from the time he entered office to the day he handed the presidency over to Bush Sr.— which tries to suggest that his G¡government was not that aggressive towards Cuba.
However, according to some accounts, in his memoirs, Robert McFarlane, then Undersecretary of State under Alexander Haig, wrote that, of all the governments that had had dealings with Fidel Castro since 1959, Reagan"s seemed the least indicated to hold talks with Cuba"s communist regime.
Perhaps Reagan was grateful for our concern, when he was nearly assassinated in 1981, and for the warning that saved his life from imminent danger, and he expressed this gratitude through Robert C. Muller.
Reagan signed the first migratory accord with Cuba, but he could not rise above his milieu, for there were others, further to the right than he was, who would have physically eliminated him, as they did Kennedy after he faced the terrible risk of a thermonuclear war. To be sure, Reagan did change his policy towards Cuba in an electoral year, did not honor the accord he signed which guaranteed the granting of up to 20 thousand visas a year for safe trips by granting less than a thousand, and kept in effect the Cuban Adjustment Act, which has cost Cuba many lives.
On September 11, 2001, true chaos reigned in this neighboring country. For long, planes were forbidden to land at airports. A countless number of passenger planes were mid-flight somewhere. These were the news spread by the media in the United States. There were reports of thousands of victims in New York, including Twin Tower staff, firefighters and visitors. There were also reports of people on a passenger plane which was flown into the Pentagon. We offered to supply the United States with clean blood from regular donors if it was needed for any eventuality. Blood donations have long constituted a tradition of the Revolution.
These events happened to coincide with the day in which we had convened nearly 15,000 higher education students and university graduates for a 6:00 pm gathering, on the occasion of the re-opening of the Salvador Allende School, where 3,599 young people would begin higher studies and avail themselves of new and tried methods to become primary school teachers.
That painful incident occurred six years ago today. Today, we know that the public was deliberately misinformed. I don"t recall any talk, that day, of the fact that, in the basements of those towers, whose higher floors housed the banks of multinational corporations and other offices, lay nearly 200 tons in gold bars. An order to shoot to death anyone who attempted to get to the gold had been issued. The calculations with respect to the steel structures, plane impacts, the black boxes recovered and what they revealed do not coincide with the opinions of mathematicians, seismologists, information, demolition experts and others. What is most shocking is the claim that we may never know what actually happened. It is known, however, that a number of people en route to San Francisco from New Jersey, had conversations with their relatives when the air vessels were already under the control of individuals who were not members of the crew.
An analysis of the impact of planes similar to those against the towers, following accidental plane crashes in densely-populated cities, concludes that no plane crashed against the Pentagon and that only a projectile could have created the geometrically round hole that the alleged plane created. No passenger that perished there has turned up, either. No one in the world questioned the news about the attack on the Pentagon building. We were deceived, as were the rest of the planet"s inhabitants.
When I spoke at the Ciudad Deportiva sports complex that September 11th, I spoke of the tragedy that had hit the United States. In the interests of conciseness, I am reproducing the following excerpts from that speech: (…) We did not even consider postponing the ceremony. It could not be postponed, despite the international tension created by such events. I would imagine that almost everyone knows about them, but to briefly summarize, at approximately 9:00 this morning, a Boeing airplane, a really big one, crashed straight into one of the two New York famous towers which make up one of the highest buildings in the world. Naturally, the tower caught on fire because of all the fuel from such a big airplane, and some horrific scenes began. And then, 18 minutes later, another plane, also from an U.S. airline, crashed straight into the second tower.
A few minutes later, another plane crashed into the Pentagon. News arrived, in the midst of a certain amount of confusion, of a bomb outside the State Department, and other alarming events, although I have mentioned the most important.
Obviously, the country had fallen victim to a violent surprise attack, unexpected, unimaginable, something truly unheard of. And the scenes that ensued were appalling, especially when the two towers were burning, and foremost when they both collapsed, all 100 floors, spilling over onto neighboring buildings, when it was known that there were tens of thousands of people working there, in offices representing many companies from various countries.
It was only logical that this would be a shock for the United States and the rest of the world. The stock markets started to collapse, and because of the political, economic and technological importance and the power of the United States, the whole world was shaken up today by those events. So, we had to follow the events throughout the day, but at the same time, we also had to continue thinking about the conditions and circumstances in which this ceremony would take place.
Therefore, there were two issues: the school and the extremely important course it will offer, and the political and human catastrophe that had taken place over there, especially in New York.
(…) Today is a day of tragedy for the United States. You know very well that hatred against the American people has never been sown here. Perhaps, precisely because of its culture, its lack of prejudice, its sense of full freedom –with a homeland and without a master-- Cuba is the country where Americans are treated with the greatest respect. We have never preached any kind of national hatred, or anything similar to fanaticism, and that is the reason for our strength, because our conduct is based on principles and ideas. We treat all Americans who visit us with great respect, and they have noticed this and said so themselves.
Furthermore, we cannot forget the American people who put an end to the Vietnam War with their overwhelming opposition to that genocidal war. We cannot forget the American people who –in numbers that exceeded 80% of the population-- supported the return of Elián González to his homeland. We cannot forget their idealism, although it is often undermined by deception, because –as we have said often times– in order to mislead Americans to support an unjust cause, or an unjust war, they must first be deceived. The classic method used by that huge country in international politics is that of deceiving the people first, to count on their support later. When it is the other way around, and the people realize that something is unjust, then based on their traditional idealism they oppose what they have been supporting. Often these are extremely unjust causes, which they had supported convinced that they were doing the right thing.
Therefore, although unaware of the exact number of victims but seeing those moving scenes of suffering, we have felt profound grief and sadness for the American people.
We do not go around flattering any government, or asking for forgiveness or favors. We neither harbor in our hearts a single atom of fear. The history of our Revolution has proven its capacity to stand up to challenges, its capacity to fight and its capacity to resist whatever it has to; that is what has turned us into an invincible people. These are our principles. Our Revolution is based on ideas and persuasion, and not on the use of force.
(…)That has been our reaction, and we wanted our people to see the scenes and watch the tragedy. We have not hesitated to express our sentiments publicly, and right here I have a statement, which was drafted as soon as the facts were known and handed out to the international media around 3:00 p.m. In the meantime, our television networks were broadcasting news of the events. This statement was scheduled to be read to the Cuban public tonight during the evening TV newscast.
I am going to move the time up a few minutes by reading to you here and now the Official Statement from the Government of Cuba on the events that took place in the United States: "The Government of the Republic of Cuba has learned with grief and sadness of the violent surprise attacks carried out this morning against civilian and official facilities in the cities of New York and Washington, which have caused numerous deaths.
(…)"It is not possible to forget that for over four decades our country has been the target of such actions fostered from within the United States territory.
"Both for historical reasons and ethical principles, the Government of our country strongly repudiates and condemns the attacks against the aforementioned facilities and hereby expresses its most heartfelt sympathies to the American people for the painful, unjustifiable loss of human lives resulting from these attacks.
"In this bitter hour for all Americans, our people express their solidarity with the American people and their full willingness to cooperate, to the extent of their modest possibilities, with the health care institutions and any other medical or humanitarian organization in that country in the treatment, care and rehabilitation of the victims of this morning’s events." Although it is not known whether the casualties are 5000, 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000, it is known that the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon were carrying hundreds of passengers, and we have offered to provide whatever we can, if necessary.
That is a country with great scientific and medical development and resources, but at some point in time it could need blood of a specific type or plasma –any other product that we could donate, we would be most willing to give-- or medical support or paramedics. We know many hospitals are short of specific technicians and professionals. In other words, we want to express our disposition and readiness to be helpful in relation to these tragic events.
(…) The hijacking of planes –a method used against Cuba-- became a universal plague, and it was Cuba that solved this problem when, after repeated warnings, we sent two hijackers back to the United States. It is painful because they were Cubans but we had issued public warnings, so they came and we returned them. We complied with our public pledge, yet they never again provided us with any information about them to give to their relatives. They have their own ways of doing things. No one knows. I know they were sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, and that put an end to those hijackings".
(…) None of the problems affecting today’s world can be solved with the use of force; there is no global, technological or military power that can guarantee immunity against such acts, because they can be organized by small groups [which are] difficult to detect.
(...) It is very important to know what the reaction of the U.S. Government might be. Possibly the world will be living dangerous days, and I am not talking about Cuba. Cuba is the most peaceful country in the world, for several reasons: our policies, our forms of struggle, our doctrine, our ethics, and also, comrades, and due to an absolute absence of fear.
Nothing troubles us. Nothing intimidates us. It would be very difficult to concoct a slanderous accusation against Cuba; not even its inventor and the patent holder would believe it. It would be very difficult. And Cuba means something in the world today. It has a very high moral position, and a very sound political position in the world.
The days to come will be tense inside the United States. A number of people will start putting forward opinions.
(…) We would advise the leaders of that powerful empire to remain calm, to act with a cool head, to avoid getting carried away by a fit of rage or hatred, and not to start trying to hunt people down by throwing bombs just anywhere.
I reiterate that none of the world’s problems, not even terrorism, can be solved with the use of force, and every act of force, every imprudent action that entails the use of force anywhere, is going to seriously aggravate the world problems.
The way is neither the use of force nor the war. I say this with the full authority of someone who has always talked honestly, of someone with sound convictions and the experience of surviving the years of struggle that Cuba has lived through. Only reason, and the intelligent policy of seeking strength through consensus and international public opinion, can definitely eradicate this problem. I think this unexpected episode should be used to undertake an international effort against terrorism. However, this international struggle against terrorism cannot be won by eliminating a terrorist here and another one there, by killing people here and there, using similar methods to theirs and sacrificing innocent lives. It can only be won, among other ways, by putting an end to State terrorism and other repulsive forms of killing, by putting an end to genocide, and by seriously pursuing a policy of peace and respect for moral and legal standards. The world cannot be saved unless a path of international peace and cooperation is pursued.
(…) We have proven that we can survive, live and make progress, and everything seen here today is an expression of unprecedented progress in all of human history. Progress is not achieved only through the manufacturing of automobiles; developing people’s minds, providing knowledge, promoting culture, and looking after human beings the way they should be looked after makes progress. That is the secret of the tremendous strength of our Revolution.
The world cannot be saved in any other way, and by that I mean the situations of violence. Let us seek peace everywhere and protect all the people from that plague of terrorism. There is another horrible plague today, which is called AIDS, for instance. There is another plague, which kills tens of millions of children, teenagers and adults in the world, that is, hunger, disease and a lack of health care and medicines.
In the political arena, there are absolutist ideas, and attempts to impose a single way of thinking on the world; this fosters rebellious attitudes and irritation everywhere.
This world cannot be saved –and this does not have anything to do with terrorism-- if this unfair economic and social order continues to be developed and applied; an order that is leading the world to disaster, along a path from which there is no escape for the 6.2 billion people living today and the future inhabitants of this planet, suffering ever greater destruction and plunged further into poverty, unemployment, hunger and despair. This has been proven by the masses in places that have already gone down in history, like Seattle, Quebec, Washington and Genoa.
The world’s most powerful economic and political leaders now find it almost impossible to meet; everywhere we can see that people are less and less afraid, and are rising up. I was recently in Durban, a province in South Africa, and there I saw thousands and thousands of people members of non-governmental organizations; discontent is spreading like wildfire around the globe (…).
How enormously different is the conduct of the Cuban government from that of the government of the United States! The Revolution, based on truth, and the empire, based on lies! Fidel Castro Ruz September 11, 2007 5:25 p.m PL-3

Chemistry Nobel Shuns Biofuels


http://www.plenglish.com/Article.asp?ID={087CC20F-EFB2-4E73-9FE8-3EF81F60E269}&language=EN

Madrid, Sep 12 (Prensa Latina) The 1988 Chemistry Nobel Award winner, German Hartmut Michel, said that biofuels of vegetable origin are not a good choice to fight global warming.


Michel told the Spanish daily El Pais that rather than preventing CO2 emissions, biofuels production boost deforestation.



They foment rain forest burning in Indonesia, Malaysia and Africa, and in Brazil where soy bean plantations soar in the forest and their burning releases huge volumes of carbon dioxide.



The scientist proposed annulling the EU bylaw that calls for 5.75 percent of fossil fuel vehicles to change to biofuels before 2010.



He also said it was imperative to adopt renewable energy sources but warned that biofuels also issue CO2 since half their energy is of fossil origin..



For instance, producing ethanol demands investing as much in fossil energy for fertilizers, transportation and alcohol distilling, so you end up issuing as much Co2 as with fueling a car with gas.



Michel calls to trade biogas for solar energy since transforming biomass into biofuel is 0.15 to 0.3 percent efficient whereas photovoltaic cells are 15 to 20 percent efficient.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

An Engaged Political Culture in Venezuela

www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2130


An Engaged Political Culture in Venezuela

Monday, Sep 10, 2007

By: Cynthia Peters

At a little stand off an uneven road switchbacking its way up and down the Andean mountains, we stopped for a thick, syrupy sweet cafecito. It comes in a tiny, two-swallow sized cup, providing just the right hit of caffeine to keep us alert on the blind curves, which paradoxically are as numbingly repetitive as they are perilous. The two Venezuelans we met there, also on a coffee break, struck up a conversation. We talked amiably for a few minutes about their work bringing potable water to nearby villages, their thoughts about the Chavez government, and the role of grassroots advisory boards (“consejos comunales”) in determining what projects the government will pursue in which communities.

“What about Chavez’s push towards socialism?” I asked them.

“Socialism is about sharing,” one of them answered. “If I have three shirts, and you have none, I should at least give you one of mine.”

By Venezuelan standards, it wasn’t a particularly remarkable conversation. We had many others like them – some quite favorable toward the country’s revolutionary turn, and others less so. But for those of us accustomed to U.S. political culture, where so many citizens are so fatalistic about being able to play a meaningful role in society, the conversation was indeed remarkable.

It’s not that people in the U.S. don’t care about their communities and imagine ways to share what they have. My uncle, a conservative, church-going North Carolinian with a portrait of George Bush on his fridge and a son-in-law in Falujah, has made himself personally responsible for a stretch of highway near his home. Every few days, he walks the length of it picking up trash. “Mostly it’s cigarette butts,” he says, and he can’t believe the never-ending supply of them. But he doesn’t mind. He wants to do his part. He’s happy to do his part. “You got something else in mind?” he asks me. “You think there’s something else I could do to make a difference – especially when you’ve got all those corporations keeping the politicians in their pockets?” Collecting cigarette butts may not exactly be engaging work, but apparently it is no where near as coma-inducing as attempting to parse yet another sound bite from another candidate that sounded just like the previous one from the other candidate from the other party!

That’s the U.S. political culture in a nutshell. It feels more engaging to free a stretch of highway from tiny bits of litter than it does to participate in the political process. Not so in Venezuela. “One thing you can say about Chavez,” said one middle class Venezuelan named Ramon, “is that he’s got everyone thinking about politics.”

“But I don’t like him,” he added. “I voted for him at the beginning because I wanted to get rid of the old regime, but now he’s gone too far. He’s scaring away the middle class. He wants to take away our property. We’ve worked hard for what we have.”

We met this man, who runs his own business distributing fly and mosquito repellent, at a restaurant in the beach town, El Playon, filled with Venezuelan tourists enjoying one of the last weeks of vacation. During an hour-long conversation, he let us know that he agrees in principle with socialism. He feels grateful that Chavez is a strong international voice against the Bush agenda. But he feels Chavez has become a dictator. His ministers wear Rolexes and drive fancy cars. And, besides, if the poor would just work harder, they could enjoy all the same privileges as the middle class.

It should not, objectively, be easier for a poor man to give up one of his three shirts than it is for a wealthy man to give up a portion of his much larger economic cushion. But the wealthy man has worked very hard to justify his unequal access to comforts. He’d rather construct an elaborate ethic that helps him feel that he deserves what he has, rather than acknowledging the insecurity that goes with luck.

This was perhaps the most significant lesson for my two daughters, who traveled with their dad and me to Venezuela during the last week of August – the pure dumb luck that makes them comfortable while so many others in the world are left without even the most meager comforts. They were acquainted with statistics about income inequality. They had heard that the vast majority of the people on the planet live on the equivalent of one or two dollars a day. But they had never seen mile after mile of shanty towns, built out of mud and brick and pieces of bill board scavenged from the side of the highway. It’s challenging to hold the cruel facts of it in your mind without succumbing to some ideology that says all is the way it should be.

“It’s too bad the middle class is so alienated,” says a street market vendor named Adriana whom I met in Merida. “They have a lot to gain from this process because they have some education, they’re used to expressing themselves and being heard. They could bring their ideas to the “consejos comunales.”

“Consejos comunales” translates as “communal advice.” Adriana explained it to me this way: “Before, the government would come into our communities with their own agenda. They might come and repair the road, for example. The bigger problem in that community might be access to potable water, but there was no way to express that to the government. With consejos comunales, we have a way to get together and determine our priorities at the local level and then communicate those priorities to the government.”

On the two Sundays that we were in the country, we tuned into Chavez’s afternoon-long radio show, which he seems to use to build momentum for his policies, and during which he reveals himself to be part motivational speaker, part preacher, and part popular educator. Whatever you think of his views, he comes across as smart, energetic, anxious to learn, and confident enough to truly interact with people. I’m sure there are plenty of background people orchestrating the show, but there are a lot of unpolished moments, and there is a clear absence of “handlers.” Unlike most U.S. politicians, Chavez puts himself in front of the public without a script.

During one segment, Chavez used an extensive interview with fishermen and workers in a fish processing plant as a way to explain how socialism works. His technique was to get the fisherman talking about what aspects of their work were socialist. He skillfully wove their comments into his own elaboration of the meaning of socialism, sometimes sounding like a patient teacher, other times lapsing into the cadence of a preacher.

During another segment, he devoted the time to talking about corn. He waxed poetic talking about the nutritional properties of corn, the fact that it has been sown in Latin American since hundreds of years before Christ, and noting the role of human beings in the planting and harvesting of this staple crop. He interviewed farmers, consumers, workers in a corn processing plant. He wanted to know about where they got their seeds, how many varieties they planted, and what they had learned from their decades of experience. He seemed genuinely interested in integrating their knowledge with his. It’s a common outcome of human conversation – that two people or a group should exchange perspectives and come out more knowledgeable and more conscious than they were before. But between a president and a corn farmer, this type of exchange is unheard of (at least in my experience).

He spoke at length with a manager about why a certain plant was functioning at only an 80% capacity. And he didn’t accept easy answers. At one point, it was clear he had a pencil and paper out. He was calculating the plant’s volume in tons and figuring out percents and posing questions about the impact an increase in functionality would have – not a trivial question in a country where so many people are hungry.

As radio, it wasn’t superb. (You could hear paper being sorted and you could imagine the calculations happening.) But for a North American like me, working to tune in to the political culture, it was stunning. A president was having a seemingly unscripted moment during which he prompted a plant manager to actually think on his feet – about something that mattered to the least privileged in the country.

He also brought onto the show a boys baseball team that was heading into a championship game. He spoke with each child about the position he played and encouraged them to play their best. At other moments, he reminisced about learning how to plant corn from his grandmother. “See, my hands still know how to do it,” he said to the live audience as he demonstrated his grandmother’s technique. Again, not good radio by U.S. standards, but he doesn’t seem concerned about filling the airtime as much as he does about communicating with people on multiple levels.

There is a subtle but key quality in this style of communicating. That is, it involves listening. Chavez has clear ideas about what he wants for his country. But his vision includes popular participation, and his style on the radio show modeled a dynamic between “leaders” and “citizens” that assumes the populace to be part of the process – not an obstacle to the process.

Granted, there is such a thing as paternalistic listening, where the listener adopts the proper posture and nods a lot and then proceeds to do exactly as he had planned beforehand. And Chavez did not exactly include opponents or debaters in his show. I would have been interested in hearing how he dealt with those exchanges, but the country is not exactly deprived of opposition opinion given that every day, the mainstream media features anti-Chavez headlines, parodies, and attacks.

It’s risky to romanticize any leader. Leaders are prone to corruption. But it’s also important to keep some perspective. Preaching about socialism while flaunting expensive watches and fancy cars (assuming what Ramon said is true), is hypocritical, but it is corruption on an entirely different scale than what you see in the U.S. Here we have a president who claims to be fighting for democracy in Iraq, when in fact, he is occupying the country illegally while he enriches defense contractors (who destroy the place) and construction contractors (who get paid to rebuild it). That is hypocrisy on a scale that is almost too difficult to grasp (unlike the Rolex, which ironically causes more ire by virtue of the fact that it is comprehensible).

Meanwhile, what do I hear from Bush upon our return to the U.S.? “We’re kicking ass in Iraq,” he is quoted in the Boston Globe as saying to the Australian prime minister. Not only is it a blatant lie, it is inexcusable macho posturing in the face of an all-out tragedy for the Iraqi people, as well as many Americans, whose lives have been destroyed by the war.

Back in Miami at the end of our trip, we talked about how we would miss the lively culture of political participation we had learned about in Venezuela. We would miss the president who eschewed sound bites and talked and listened deeply about things that matter. We would miss the thoughtful political discussions you could have with workers at the roadside coffee stand.

As if on cue, my 11-year old noticed a key way we create community and share ideas in the U.S. She pointed at her Starbucks cup, which had a David Copperfield quote on it about how the most important thing in life is to stop saying “I wish,” and to start saying “I will.”

Back in the states, with a president who acts like a drunk fraternity brother, directives about pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps coming at us from the sides of to-go coffee cups, and an uncle who makes his presence felt on the shoulder of a lonely North Carolina highway, we’ll remember the existence of another model in Venezuela.

Fair use notice of copyrighted material: This site contains some copyrighted material that in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Police suppress Sept. 15 anti-war press conference across from White House


Police suppress Sept. 15 anti-war press
conference across from White House


Above, a policeman on horse disrupts today's anti-war press conference. Below, Adam Kokesh is arrested while legally putting up a poster for September 15th; Kokesh and Tina Richards speak to the press as the put up the poster.



Click this link to see a video of the police repression.

Three anti-war activists were arrested in front of the White House today after the U.S. Park Police moved to suppress a press conference called to protest the fines and threats against the ANSWER Coalition for putting up anti-war posters promoting the September 15 March and Die-In in Washington DC.

The arrested were Tina Richards, CEO of Grassroots America and mother of Iraq War Veteran Cloy Richards; Adam Kokesh, the Co-Chair Elect of the Iraq Veterans Against the War and member of Veterans for Peace; and Ian Thompson, an organizer with the ANSWER Coalition.

The press conference became a chaotic scene as U.S. Park Police interrupted the event on the basis that there was no permit for a folding table that was used as a speaker’s stand for media microphones. As U.S. Park Police officers surrounded the group, an officer on horseback rode into the crowd to disperse the media and onlookers.

Tina Richards and Adam Kokesh had announced that they would put a September 15 March to Stop the War poster on a lamppost following the press conference. The ANSWER Coalition has been fined over $30,000 in the last three weeks in an unprecedented action aimed at suppressing the September 15 mobilization. The three were taken to the Central District Substation of the United States Park Police. They will later be transferred to a jail in which they will spend the night before being arraigned in U.S. Superior Court tomorrow afternoon.

Attorneys at the Partnership for Civil Justice have filed a Free Speech lawsuit to strike down the unconstitutional postering law. The ANSWER Coalition has refused to pay these illegal fines.

Momentum continues to build for the September 15 Mass March, which will be led by Iraq War Veterans and their family members. More than 100 cities are mobilizing to bring people by bus, van and car caravan. The September 15 March will culminate with a large scale Die-In/Funeral for U.S. servicemembers and Iraqis who have been killed in this criminal war of aggression.

For details, go to www.Sept15.org.

Why 1/5 of Americans cannot locate the US on a world map.




“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people, out there in our nation don’t have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.”

thanks to
http://www.aporrealos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2695

9/11 Pimp Rudy Giuliani's disasterous role on 9/11.

http://therealrudy.org/


"It's just not possible."

That was the sentence we heard over and over from families who had firefighter sons, brothers, husbands and fathers killed on 9/11, from experts on emergency response, and from investigative journalists. It was just not possible that Rudy could so distort what happened on 9/11 and his role on that terrible day.

These experts, these grieving and furious family members, were united only by the fact that this story had to be told. Republicans, Independents, and Democrats could agree on just one thing: the cold hard facts about Rudy's terrible handling of 9/11 and the aftermath.

And so we went to work. We researched, we read, we interviewed. Jason locked himself in a quiet room. Christopher flew across the country at a moment's notice to interview. Lissette went over and over the footage. Leda kept juggling schedules so we could get the film done. Jimmy worked the phones to try and raise some funds.

And here it is... The REAL Rudy: Command Center. The first of a devastating four-part series.

We need your help. We don't have ad budgets, so like all our videos, we are counting on you to spread these to your email list, to your local paper, to blogs, to websites. We are fortunate that today we have the new technology and ability to reach millions, but it only happens when you send the video with notes to as many people as possible.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Get 2008 calendars

Basic Training-  Workout




Basic Training- Workout

2008 Calendar


Buy at AllPosters.com


The Girls Of Hawaiian Tropic




The Girls Of Hawaiian Tropic

2008 Calendar


Buy at AllPosters.com


Men Are Like




Men Are Like

2008 Calendar


Buy at AllPosters.com




Maxim




Maxim

2008 Calendar


Buy at AllPosters.com

The Trouble With Venezuela (Part One-and-a-Half)

Latin America Economonitor
The Trouble With Venezuela (Part One-and-a-Half)
Mark Turner Sep 3, 2007
After writing the first part of a critique on Venezuela’s present economy, I was busy preparing some bemused mutterings about the current foreign exchange regimen when I suddenly realized Bloomberg had beaten me to the punch with this article dated September 3rd 2007.

As befits a news agency with a reputation for unbiased and informative journalism, the headline was understated and non-partisan:
“Chavez Economy Unravels as Bolivar Devaluation Pressure Climbs”


There followed an article from Alex Kennedy and Matthew Walter about how bad things are in Venezuela. We are told that:

“Annual inflation has risen to 16 percent.”
“..consumers face shortages of meat, flour and cooking oil.”
“Chavez may have to devalue the bolivar to reduce the gap (between the official exchange rate and the unofficial parallel rate) and increase oil proceeds that make up half the state's revenue.”
We are also reminded that Chavez calls capitalism “evil” and he’s currently on a “march to socialism”. Thanks guys.
There’s plenty more where those came from, but let’s start here. The present inflation rate is 15.9%. This compares to 17.2% last month and 16.5% at the beginning of 2007. If we look back at previous Augusts, we see August 2006 at 15.0%, August 2005 at 15.3% and August 2004 at 21.2%. Presumably our commentators …..oops sorry reporters wished to make it clear they were comparing a year over year inflation rate and that gaping 0.9% gap was suitably newsworthy. Even so, they can’t go too far back as inflation is in fact substantially lower now than in previous years.

Now the food shortages. Helpfully, Kennedy and Walter explain further down the op-ed OOPS… SORRY AGAIN!! …the report that goods (and I quote) “have disappeared from store shelves in Caracas at times this year”. Worried about this alarming turn of events, your correspondent took time out to contact acquaintances in Caracas. Dear reader, rest easy. It would seem that the present time is not one of “those times” and the supermarkets have adequate supplies for the moment. Apparently mayonnaise stocks are a tad low, but the aforementioned staples of meat, flour and cooking oil are all in stock. Phew!

As for the given reason why Chávez (not his administration or government, of course, but good ol’ Hugo himself) may have to devalue, it sounded a little odd. Why should Hugo have to devalue while running a balanced budget? Am I missing something? Is it to do with the amount of money one analyst speculates that Chávez will spend in the run-up to the constitutional reform vote? Is it because devaluation eases inflation…no no!! That can’t be right! Ok, is it because the parallel market is only 10% of all forex trade? No!…that can’t be right either! Hmm, so is it because… No… sorry… give up.

And then there are the quotes. It would seem that Kennedy and Walter have a useful list of contacts for Venezuelan economy quotes.

“For the macroeconomic house of cards not to come crashing down, the price of oil has to go up at double digit growth rates…” (Richard Hausmann, teacher of economics at Harvard)
``It's like our director of marketing, our director of sales, our director of manufacturing is President Chavez,'' (Edgar Contreras, food manufacturing executive in Caracas)
“We can't go on like this.” (Edgar Contreras)
“People are invoking their right to circumvent what are very, very stiff (foreign exchange) controls..” (Alberto Ramos, Goldman Sachs)
“A devaluation is a foregone conclusion. The only question is when.” (Richard Hausmann)
“The growth in imports is so out of whack that it's choking off the local sector…” (Teodoro Petkoff, publisher of Venezuela’s Tal Cual newspaper)
“The engine of growth isn't the real economy. It's the government.” (Teodoro Petkoff)
“This has been the worst managed oil boom in Venezuela's history..” Richard Hausmann)
In the spirit of balanced journalism (they are after all journalists, not commentators, please remember) they gave us one quote from government circles:

“We're not going to devalue no matter how much they pressure us,” (Finance Minister Rodrigo) Cabezas told reporters in Caracas on Aug. 31. “The so-called parallel market doesn't dictate our fiscal, exchange or monetary policies.”
Now as a matter of fact, your correspondent happens to agree with some of those quotes and disagree with others. That’s fair enough, debate is a healthy thing etc. But when one sees so many voices giving a negative view of current affairs and only one supporter of the government who happens to be the very same finance minister pushing through these policies, it all seems a little lop-sided, does it not?

If this were the only example of this kind of journalism from news sources on Venezuela then I could rightly be accused of being just a bit too touchy. But to give just two more examples (from a list that would take up far too much RGE monitor bandwidth if expanded upon):

On 25th January 2007, in the London Financial Times article “Cheap Petrol May Be Victim of Chávez's Socialism”, reporter Andy Webb-Vidal told us “Venezuela's inflation rate is already running at close to 25 per cent per annum”. In fact, Venezuelan inflation hasn’t been that high since early 2004. Today’s rate of 15.9% may not be the best of situations, but there’s no need for such ...ahem… exaggerations.
On September 1st 2007, Bloomberg reported the latest macroeconomic figures from Peru and Venezuela. Under the happy headline “Peru Inflation Slows in August as Bus Fares, Fuel Prices Drop”, Lima correspondent Alex Emery noted Peru’s month on month rate rose and the year-on-year rate dropped. Meanwhile, under the worrying headline “Venezuelan Inflation Accelerates on State Spending” Caracas correspondents Theresa Bradley and Steve Bodzin noted Venezuela’s month on month rate rose and the year-on-year rate dropped.

Why not read that last one again and play spot the difference?

Back to those quotes, and to choose just one of them, “This has been the worst managed oil boom in Venezuela's history,” said Ricardo Hausmann. It’s an opinion, and a strong one at that, but that’s fine with us. Hausmann is eminently qualified to speak on the subject and his viewpoint is noteworthy. However there are plenty of achievements that counter such a comment. According to accepted and reliable sources, poverty levels have dropped dramatically. School attendances have quadrupled. The middle class is growing as a percentage of total population. Health care is now widely available where it was once scarce. Unemployment levels have dropped significantly. Salary increases have outstripped inflation in the last 3 years. All these improvements and more are arguably attributable to that oil boom, even without considering the political pressure of an attempted coup, a crippling oil strike and a recall election that stripped away development time between 2002 and 2004.

To hear that spending oil boom money on the poor constitutes bad management is all well and good, but why can’t we at least hear an opposite view from another eminent economist? It is of course a rhetorical question, but I feel like answering it anyway. It seems to me that we are not given balanced articles on Venezuela because reporters, controllers and editors are not interested in balanced articles on Venezuela, not even in the quality services like Reuters, Bloomberg, DJNW, WSJ, FT and all the rest. We are told Chavez has taken $17Bn from the central bank reserves, but we are not told about the Fonden reserve set up with a very large chunk of that money. We are told that Chávez has threatened to take over cement makers when all he said was the government wanted to look into said cement maker’s environmental record. The list goes on.

My conclusion is a simple request to the newswires: When it comes to Venezuela, more facts, more balance and less spin. Please. There are already enough opinions of all colours, flavours, sizes and shapes about Chávez without otherwise reliable services adding their two cents. I’m now going back to my charts and stats to try and write a real part two.

///////
Fair use notice of copyrighted
material:

This site contains some copyrighted material that in some cases
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding
of politics, human rights, the economy, democracy, and social justice
issues related to Venezuela. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Bush Regime Prepares Outlaw Criminal Attack On Iran

The War Criminal in the Living Room
Published: Sunday, September 02, 2007
Bylined to: Paul Craig Roberts


The Bush administration’s position is a contrived excuse to start another war

Information Clearing House (Paul Craig Roberts): The US media is silent, the US Congress is absent, and Americans are distracted as George W. Bush openly prepares aggression against Iran.

US Navy aircraft carrier strike forces are deployed off Iran.

US Air Force jets and missile systems are deployed in bases in countries bordering or near to Iran.

US B-2 stealth bombers have been refitted to carry 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bombs.

The US government is financing terrorist and separatist groups within Iran.

US Special Forces teams are conducting terrorist operations inside Iran.

US war doctrine has been altered to permit first strike nuclear attack on Iran and other non-nuclear countries.
Bush’s war threats against Iran have intensified during the course of this year ... the American people are being fed a repeat of the lies used to justify naked aggression against Iraq.

Bush is too self-righteous to see the dark humor in his denunciations of Iran for threatening “the security of nations everywhere” and of the Iraqi resistance for “a vision that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power.”

Those are precisely the words that most of the world applies to Bush and his 'Brownshirt' administration. The Pew Foundation’s world polls show that despite all the American and Israeli propaganda against Iran, the US and Israel are regarded as no less threats to world stability than demonized Iran.

Bush has discarded habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, justified torture and secret trials, damned critics as anti-American, and is responsible, according to Information Clearing House, for over one million deaths of Iraqi civilians, which puts Bush high on the list of mass murderers of all time. The vast majority of “kills” by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.

Now Bush wants to murder more. We have to kill Iranians “over there,” Bush says, “before they come over here.” There is no possibility that Iranians or any Muslims who have no air force, no navy, no modern military technology are going to “come over here,” and no indication that they plan to do so. The Muslims are disunited and have been for centuries. That is what makes them vulnerable to colonial rule. If Muslims were united, the US would already have lost its army in Iraq. Indeed, it would not have been able to put an army in Iraq.

Meanwhile the US media focuses on whether Republican Senator Larry Craig is a homosexual or has offended gays by denying to be one of them. The run-up for the public’s attention is why a South Carolina beauty queen cannot answer a simple question about why her generation is unable to find the United States on a map.

The war criminal is in the living room, and no official notice is taken of the fact.

Lacking US troops with which to invade Iran, the Bush administration has decided to bomb Iran “back into the stone age.” Punishing air and missile attacks have been designed not merely to destroy Iran’s nuclear energy projects, but also to destroy the public infrastructure, the economy, and the ability of the government to function.

Encouraged by the indifference of both the American media and Christian churches to the massive casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians, the Bush administration will not be deterred by the prospect of its air attacks inflicting massive casualties on Iranian civilians. Last summer the Bush administration demonstrated to the entire world its total disdain for Muslim life when Bush supported Israel’s month-long air attack on Lebanese civilian infrastructure and civilian residences. Bush blocked the attempt by the rest of the world to halt the gratuitous murder of Lebanese civilians and infrastructure destruction. Clearly, turning the Muslim Middle East into a wasteland is the Bush policy. For Bush, civilian casualties are a non-issue. Hegemony uber alles.

The Bush administration has made its war plans for attacking Iraq and positioned its forces without any prior approval from Congress. The “unitary executive” obviously doesn’t believe that an attack on Iran requires the approval of Congress. By its absence and quietude, Congress seems to agree that it has no role in the decision.

In the improbable event that the US Congress were to make any fuss about Bush’s decision to attack yet another country, the US State Department has devised legalistic cover: simply declare Iran’s military to be a “terrorist organization” and go to war under the cover of the existing resolution.

The “Iran issue” has been created by the Bush administration, not by Iran.

Iran, like many other countries, has a nuclear energy program to which it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ... inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

The Bush administration has brushed away this fact, which should be determining, just as the Bush administration brushed away the fact that weapons inspectors reported, prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The Bush administration managed to disrupt the work of the pesky IAEA weapons inspectors in Iran. Iran has been working successfully with the IAEA and has achieved what a senior IAEA official recently described as a milestone agreement. The Bush administration instantly went to work to discredit the agreement and unleashed its new lapdog, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to threaten “the bombing of Iran.”

The Bush administration’s position is legally untenable and is really nothing but a contrived excuse to start another war. Bush claims that Iran, alone among all the signatories of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, must be denied its right under the pact to develop nuclear energy, because Iran, along among all the other signatories, will be the only country able to deceive the IAEA inspectors and develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, Iran must be denied its rights under the agreement.

Bush’s position on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is as legally untenable as his position on every other issue -- the Geneva Conventions, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, habeas corpus, the constitutional separation of powers, and presidential signing statements that he cavalierly attaches to new laws in order to override the legislative power of Congress.
Bush’s position is that the meaning of laws and treaties varies with his needs of the moment.

Bush has declared himself to be the “decider.” The “decider” decides whether Americans have any rights under the Constitution and whether Iran has any rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As the “decider” has decided that Iran has no such rights, the “decider” decides whether to attack Iran. No one else has any say about it. The people’s representatives are just so much chaff in the wind.

Whatever form of government Bush is operating under, it is far outside an accountable constitutional democratic government.

Bush has transitioned America to caesarism, and even if Bush leaves office in January 2009, the powers he has accumulated in the executive will remain.
Unless Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, there is no prospect of the US Congress and federal judiciary ever again being co-equal branches of government.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.