Another Victory for Hugo Chavez

No, that was not one of those “Dewey Defeats Truman” headlines. I know the referendum in Venezuela was “defeated” by a margin of about two percentage points, that is 49% Yes versus 51% No.

But it is very curious that when George W. Bush received 49% of the vote in elections that only gave him a mandate to govern the country for four years, that was sufficient proof of his legitimacy, and he was declared the victor. Meanwhile, when 49% of Venezuelans express their trust in Hugo Chavez to govern their country for the rest of his life, the mainstream media label the event as an historic defeat for Chavez, and as the end of the socialist project in Venezuela.

I have news for the newsmongers. Chavez is no willow tree, to be shaken by such winds – to paraphrase an Iranian proverb. The referendum may have been defeated, but the Venezuelan people have won a great victory. The post-referendum years will see a further consolidation of what one half of the nation is now fully supporting. There will be no turning back.

Shut up, Juan Carlos -- that's what you do best

For nearly forty years, Juan Carlos shut up and did not raise a peep against Franco's dictatorship. He knows all about shutting up to preserve his own status, despite the consequences of his inaction for his nation and for other nations.

The Amazing Mrs Pritchard

That’s the name of a 2006 BBC political drama, their answer to the American show Commander in Chief. PBS has just started to show it. I watched the first two hours last night, and found it rather alarming at several different levels.

Briefly, it is about a working-class woman who, while working as a supermarket manager, gets the idea to run for political office. The twist is that she wants to run outside all of the existing parties, because she thinks they are all drunk with power and politics. She wants to put government in ordinary people’s hands. She declares herself a member of the Purple Alliance (she likes purple), gets substantial funding from the supermarket’s owner (for very vague reasons), hundreds of others run on her party’s list across the country, and, guess what, she becomes Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s Government.

Sounds kind of kooky, but also inspiring in a kooky way. Does she remind you of anyone? For me, she is, of all people, a lot like Hitler. She basically wants to cleanse the corruption that has presumably gathered around the soul of Britain. She wants to bypass all existing organizations, presumably including labour unions, civil society organizations, and so on, and base governmental policies on the opinions of the person in the street, that is, Hitler’s das Volk.

Anyway, I hope the show was not indicative of the level that political discourse has sunk to in Britain under the ministrations of Tony Blair. At one point in the show, it hits Mrs Pritchard’s election committee that hundreds of people that they don’t even know have been elected Members of Parliament on the Purple Alliance’s list, and they wonder if there may be any criminals or other undesirable types among the new MPs. One of them wonders whether they may include any fascists. Another one is even more scared that there may be Marxists among the Purple Alliance’s MPs. The fact that Marxist ideology can be identified as undesirable, or even criminal, in a political candidate, and that it can be presented as equal to or worse than fascism, is hopefully not mainstream opinion in Britain today.

To the show’s cast, like its American counterpart, all of the horrors that Britain and the US have inflicted on Iraq are merely results of mistaken policy. Blair was presumably trying to do good in Iraq, but went about it the wrong way. And Bush is just a good old boy. The enemy, however, is genetically evil. Prime Minister Pritchard’s first duty in office is to deal with a crisis in Iran. Two British soldiers have been captured, and, we are told, the normal procedure in Iran in such cases is to torture and execute them. The fact that no such thing has ever happened in Iran, and has in fact only happened in British-occupied Iraq, is apparently irrelevant. The main thing is to save the soul of Britain. If slandering other nations is what it takes, so be it.

I also noticed some factual errors in the show, such as the mention of the Arabic-speaking province of Iran as the site of Iran’s nuclear activities. That province, in reality, is nowhere near the nuclear sites. Presumably, either the show’s writers did not know this, or else assumed that their audience was unaware of it. Either way, it is a small example of the lack of information that pervades discussion of world affairs in English-speaking countries. More ominously, the show as a whole is suggestive of the fertile soil on which all kinds of ultra-right, libertarian, and fascistic tendencies tend to thrive.

The Self-fulfilling Prophecy of a US War on Iran?

I think there has been a little too much talk lately about the possibility, nay “certainty,” of a US attack on Iran, and far too little analysis of exactly why (in the world!) would such an attack take place. I (obviously?) haven’t been to journalism school, but I have heard that budding journalists are taught to find out the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of a story. There has been far too much “information” about every element of the supposedly impending war, except for the “why” part of the story, even though the “why” part is obviously the most important part.

Let’s first look back at another one of America’s wars, that is, the war against Serbia. As Chomsky and many other progressive analysts have pointed out over the years, Clinton's war against Serbia was not about the slaughter of Kosovars by Serbs. The slaughter of Kosovars began after the start of the US attack on Serbia. The war was rather about Serbia's adamant refusal to abide by commercial and trade rules that Europe and the US were trying to impose on it. At the time of the war, millions of other people were fooled by the Clinton Administration's rhetoric of "Just War." I think we should avoid making similar mistakes in the current situation.

Therefore, the primary maxim to keep in mind is that every single war that the US has embarked upon has been about promoting the commercial and trade interests of its ruling class. America's official enemies, such as the late Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, have been comprised of groups and individuals who have seriously hindered those class interests. The leaderships of Republican and Democratic Parties share those class interests. That is why we see Barack Obama threatening war against Iran and Pakistan, and also why "Hil" Clinton is more of a Zionist than Olmert. In other words, if either of these individuals were to become president, US policy towards the Middle East would alter not a whit.

I have been extremely concerned about the possibility of a US attack against Iran. Applying the above analysis to the situation, however, I would say that an attack is not likely, as the US would, on balance, have little commercial or trade interest to gain from such an attack. Most of the rest, such as Barack Obama’s obscene threats, are pure rhetoric.

Some commentators have enumerated the deteriorating situation in Iraq, the possibility of an independent attack by Israel on Iran, and Iran’s nuclear energy program as incentives for US military involvement in Iran. However:

a) The US situation in Iraq is not deteriorating. The situation of the Iraqi people has been deteriorating, but that is to the advantage of the US. By the same token, the US does not need a scapegoat for Iraq.

b) The US does not work for Israel. Israel works for the US. Israel will do whatever the US wants it to do, and will refrain from doing whatever the US does not want it to do.

c) Iran's nuclear program is purely about energy production, and the Bush Administration knows it. There is no rational reason to go to war over the nuclear program.

Am I saying we should relax and stop worrying? By no means. What I am saying is that we should base our actions on real facts, rather than facts that the ruling class and its newsmedia want us to believe. What I have begun to realize over the last year or so is that the real problem is much bigger than a war against this or that country, as horrific as such wars may be. The real problem is that the existing political systems tend to give power to individuals who represent anti-human and and-environment interests. That system is the real enemy, and many governments and even supposedly progressive organizations are its components.

Meanwhile, all commentary about US vs Iran, whether from the Right, the “Left,” or the mainstream, has focused on the possibility of war. I think we should spend a little more time analyzing why all these groups are so focused on war. What are they trying to hide. Could it possibly be the fact that none of them have any “clothes”?

But a little more about Iran’s nuclear program, which is supposed to be the “why” of a US attack. Here is a list of some of the proffered reasons for war, along with their rebuttal:

a) “The non-military options have reached a dead-end. Diplomacy is not working.” A dead-end on the path to achieve what? To stop Iran from legally achieving nuclear enrichment and nuclear energy production?

b) “The US is going through the motions of diplomacy because it wants war.” Is this statement not self-contradictory? If the US wanted war, why would it persist so long in pursuing the diplomatic route?

c) “The US, through the UN Security Council, has tried to persuade Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, but Iran has stubbornly refused to comply.” Iran’s refusal has nothing to do with stubbornness, and the US (and the rest of the “Security Council”) are fully aware of that. The refusal has to do with the fact that (i) Iran’s petroleum resources will run out within a single generation, and therefore a replacement energy source is a vital national concern; and (ii) even in the short term, Iran must vigorously pursue nuclear energy, because it has to export as much of its petroleum production to earn foreign currency, rather than to make it available for domestic consumption. Petroleum exports are by far the primary source of revenue for the Iranian economy and government.

Even the progressive commentators tend to confuse Iran’s pursuit of nuclear energy with its presumed pursuit of nuclear weaponry. They begin by criticizing Western efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear energy work, but then attribute these efforts to a fear of nuclear proliferation. But you can’t have it both ways. The cause of Western concern has little to do with proliferation of nuclear weapons, and much to do with a fear of an independent Iran setting an example for the rest of the developing world.

The Evil That Lurks... Without

Dread and foreboding filled the city’s atmosphere. The worst part of it all was the uncertainty. No-one knew who the bombers were or where they would strike next. And the city… wasn’t even Baghdad.

No… it was London. A bombing attempt had been “foiled” by the police and security forces. The city that should long ago have been racked with guilt, and was not, for the suffering that its national government had brought to the people of Iraq, was now racked with fear – all because of a single bombing attempt. The million Iraqis that the British and their criminal partners have killed or caused to die, the millions of Iraqis that have suffered unspeakable injuries and have had their lives and their country forever ruined – all of that meant nothing to the noble British race. The actual daily bombings in Iraq mean nothing to them. But a bombing attempt filled them with foreboding and a sense of doom.

To me, the event brings to the surface, yet again, the question of whether the human race is inherently and irredeemably evil. Do even the best and most altruistic of us only really care only about their own personal safety and apparent well-being? And if so, is there really any hope at all for this miserable world and this miserable species?

I have not blogged for a while. In fact, I have not really done much serious thinking for a while. These days, I often feel tempted to take Voltaire’s advice near the end of Candide, and concentrate on “cultivating my own garden” and consigning the rest of the world to the hell it seems to be bound for. Is the human species really worth worrying about? Is it not the case that the essential character of the human being negates the very possibility of a better future?

An interested reader of this blog, whom I'll identify as Mike S. from Winnipeg, having noticed the absence of activity on this blog, kindly wrote me a couple of days ago to ask about my welfare. He added:

You posted on Iran's president and his (misrepresented) remarks about Israel a while back. I thought this piece by Juan Cole might interest you:

Informed Comment - Jun 26, 2007

http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic"

"Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.'

"As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for “this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.” Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed...."

Thanks Mike.

Our entire “reality” is a tissue of lies and misrepresentations. Nearly every “truth” and “fact” that we believe in… is some kind of lie. Given the falseness of our “reality” and the apparently innate corruptness of the character of our species, does it make any sense to hold on to a dream for a better future?

Here is part of my reply to Mike:

I am physically fine, but I don't feel quite motivated to spend much time on blogging. I guess there are two factors involved: (1) I see one of the tasks of people like me to be to prod the conscience of the world. Since Israel's invasion of Lebanon, though, I am not so sure the world has a conscience. (2) A related and possibly more important point is that I am no longer so sure I know what the solution is. The human species seems so profoundly evil and incorrigible to me right now that I suspect there may be no solution. And yet... I hold on to the dream of a better world, though the dream keeps receding. It looks more and more like nothing more than a dream, an unrealistic aspiration of overly optimistic idealists....

But, on the other hand… maybe the dream can some day become a reality…

This is how:

We are evil, but only conditionally so – and not inherently. We are evil as servants of the ruling classes and their propagandists who have indoctrinated us with a false picture of reality and a false picture of our own best interests. The evil does not inhere in us, but in them. Yet they cannot be fought with bombs and guns, because they possess far more powerful arsenals as well as the ruthlessness to use those arsenals. They can be fought by disseminating knowledge about the real nature of reality and about the lies we have been told about it. A New Enlightenment can save – and redeem – the human species and simultaneously save the world.

War Trials instead of Impeachment?

Hard on the heels of the surveys that detailed the shocking attitudes of the American soldiers in Iraq towards torture, the Iraqi people, and so on, which were released on May 4, I received a series of emails (beginning on May 8) urging me to watch some videos that portrayed American soldiers as victims. I am not going to mention the sender's name (or rather his pseudonym) or the titles of the videos that he wanted me to watch, as I do not want to inadvertently assist his propaganda campaign, but I thought I should mention the incident anyway, as other progressive bloggers may have received those same emails as well.

With the ever more obvious resemblance between the Iraq invasion (and the subsequent destruction of that country) and many events and lies of the Second World War (for instance, Hitler’s invasion of Poland on the pretext of a false-flag story and, later on, the deliberate and covered-up targeting of German civilian populations in Allied bombing campaigns), it would not be farfetched to suppose that some US military types are now getting concerned that a similar outcome may follow for them. In other words, they may be concerned that even America’s overwhelming politico-military might may not be enough to save them from Nuremberg-like war crimes trials. It is true that no-one has been tried for the bombings of the German cities, and most of the perpetrators are dead and gone now, but the truth has been seeping out more and more.

Today’s world is a very different world than the world of the 1940s, and the wide availability of information may yet prove to be the Achilles Heel of today’s war criminals. The US military may, therefore, be feeling an urgent need to deflect the blame for Iraq from itself onto the politicians.

Had there been any justice in this world...

... we would have seen a noose around that neck.

Slogans for Dummies

Do you know what the popular anti-war slogan “Bush lied; my son died” means? If you do, you are, believe it or not, a member of some kind of intellectual elite.

Put simply, the Americans who are outside the said "intellectual elite" interpret the slogan this way: “Bush said my son wasn’t going to die, but he did.” Let’s call that the A version of the slogan. These people fail to see that the slogan actually means: “Bush’s lies gave rise to a war, in which my son died.”

The important point is that the basic slogan sounds nonsensical to the people in the A group. Their plausible-sounding objection to the slogan is this: “In a war, some soldiers are going to get killed. That is the reality of warfare. So it is unfair to call Bush a liar.”

I think this is really more serious than a simple misunderstanding. It hints at the enormity of the task facing the progressive movement, because it shows that the basic presuppositions of a large part of their potential audience are different than their own presuppositions. This potential audience is so backward politically that it has failed to perceive the chain of events, so clear to us, that led from the lies of Bush and his cronies to the war in Iraq.

US aggression is nothing new!

Some conspiracy theorists are fond of the idea that US aggression against the rest of the world was the product of a so-called "Secret Government" that came into being after the Second World War. Some of these people are simply naive and misinformed. The rest, neither naive nor misinformed, are in fact highly worldly and knowledgeable. They know very well that (a) the criminal atrocities of the United States began long before the last world war, and that (b) the scale of those crimes has been several orders of magnitude larger than the relatively minor crimes that these individuals choose to enumerate.

So, why do they do it? Why do they try to minimize the spatial and temporal dimensions of American criminality? The answer should be obvious: (a) as long as their audience has the impression that the crimes began at a relatively recent period, it can easily be kept under the illusion that the United States was “good” prior to that time, and that the recent deviation can be corrected within the system; and (b) as long as people do not know the actual scale of the crimes and their systemic nature, they can be kept under the illusion that the crimes were the work of a few “bad apples.” To cite a recent news item, the revelation about the murder of some hundreds of Korean refugees by American soldiers during the Korean War serves to reinforce the false impression that this was somehow an aberration peculiar to a particular situation in a particular war. It was not. Even in that war, it was not peculiar to that situation. America’s wanton bombardment of Korea killed hundreds of thousands of Koreans who had nothing to do with the war. And the criminality began long, long, before the Korean War…

Simon Bolivar, the liberator of several South American countries, was one of the early targets of American aggression. Nearly two hundreds years ago, he had to detain two US frigates who were carrying a shipment of arms to the Spanish! Yes, the US was trying to keep South America subject to Spanish colonialism! Bolivar complains: “What brothers are these that fail to recognize our independence even after Europe has done so?” At about the same time, he wrote in a letter that “The United States of North America seems destined by providence to plague [Latin] America with misery in the name of liberty.” Nearly two hundreds years have passed, yet those words could have been written yesterday!

The quiet disappearance of bees

Surely it must be more than just a coincidence to see two news stories on the same day about the disappearance of honey bees in Canada and bumblebees in Britain:

Theory: Cellphone radiation killing honeybees?

Scientists fear flight of Britain's bumblebees

The investigation of the reason or reasons for the disappearance of these species is still at the purely speculative stage. What I do know is that each summer I see fewer and fewer of many different kinds of insects than the year before. I hope there are a lot of other people who are as alarmed by this as I am.

US assistance at work in Israel

This:



was one of the many tools that were used to accomplish this:

The "innocent sailors" were spies!

"We gathered intelligence"

That's why Tony "Bliar" Blair was in such a tizzy to get them out, and it is also why the spies themselves were confessing to everything -- so they could get out. Their official mission (anti-smuggling) was just a cover and an instrument for their real mission (gathering information from fishermen and others about Iranian activities in the area).

Update: British spies being tortured in Iran.

Whose lawlessness?

The following was my reply to an editorial in a major newspaper that bemoaned the supposed weakness of the UN in dealing with the recent standoff between Iran and the UK:

Dear Editor,

Re "Weak UN stand fails Iran captives" (Editorial, April 3)

In the lawless world we live in, it is interesting that mainstream Western newsmedia only notice the lawless behaviour of the underdogs.

George W. Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam had threatened to kill his father, and now your newspaper offers that invasion an imprimatur of legality.

Israel invaded and for all practical purposes destroyed Lebanon, and yet the Western newsmedia did not appear to find anything illegal in that. After all, two Israel soldiers had been kidnapped. According to our newsmedia, that was justification enough.

Caught between the lawless and criminal behaviour of Western and Western-supported governments and the blindness of the Western newsmedia, it would be strange and immoral if threatened countries did not take the law into their own hands.

President Ahmadinejad exchanges jokes with UK sailors

President Ahmadinejad exchanges jokes with the freed British sailors

I wonder if the five Iranian hostages held by the US in Iraq will also be in a mood for exchanging jokes when (and if) they are released. Somehow, I doubt it...

What gives us the right to treat (other) animals this way?

Undercover film footage taken by the Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals shows laying hens with feathers rubbed off from constant rubbing against their cages

A coalition that wants to get laying hens out of cages is directing its free-range campaign at universities and colleges

Update: An activist reader has emailed me a list of links and webpages about humane animal husbandry and related subjects. I have taken a brief look at some of the pages, and they seem to be quite informative and consciousness-raising. However, I take no responsibility for what you may see on some of these websites. Please note the brief descriptions of the sites as guidance, and use your own judgement. The descriptions were also provided by the said reader.

http://www.themeatrix.com/
AWESOME videos for all ages.

http://www.meat.org/
Hard to watch the truth - adults only

http://www.organicconsumers.org/index.htm
Organic Consumers Union - Get newsletter

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/AgainstFactoryFarming
Please join and use your voice !

http://www.sustainabletable.org/
Find local farms to support- a must read site.

http://www.farmaid.org/

http://www.localharvest.org/
buy local PLEASE

http://www.certifiedhumane.com/
Humane farming for animal well being
Strict standards and caring people.

http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/resources/

http://www.nodowners.org/
Critical activism for the worst of farm animal abuse

http://www.compassionoverkilling.org/
Helping animals have a human voice

http://www.aspca.org/
Doing some of the most important work on the planet

http://www.peta.org/
The Ones Unafraid !!! Support them please
Wonderful undercover work ! See the videos.

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/
Amazing people doing amazing work

http://www.factoryfarm.org/
Great Site- Great Org

http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/factory-farming/
Lots of Links

The Husbandry Institute focusus on creating consumer demand and fostering distribution of and access to sustainable meat. Their Ask for Change! campaign consists of a wallet-sized card with two simple questions you can ask your waiter, and on the other side, some tougher questions you can ask your butcher or other meat buyer who ought to know the answers. The cards, together with the fact sheet, provide information about the ramifications of each question, and why they are important.

Re-setting the rules of the game

The “United Nations” sure knows which side its bread is buttered on. It has been so very prompt in demanding the release of the British soldiers who are being held (in luxury) in Iran. Last year, though, the same “United Nations” was so very careful not to condemn Israel’s destruction of Lebanon, even though thousands of people were being killed, and hundreds of thousands of other people were wantonly being made homeless. When it finally, and very politely, begged Israel to please leave Lebanon, it did it in the most courteous possible terms, observing all possible protocols, including, most especially, the required mantra about the blame that falls on both sides.

This time, though, there is no mention of the blame that falls on both sides. Are the British soldiers guilty of any crime? That does not seem to concern the United Nations. Are Britain’s military operations in the Persian Gulf legitimate? Ditto. Does the American scare tactic of sending naval carriers with hundreds of cruise missiles, including nuclear ones, into the Persian Gulf accord with any kind of international law, especially when we are really talking about a minor dispute between two other nations? Ditto again.

Britain and the United States must understand that the days of empires are over. The sun has set over both of their empires, and the sooner they accept that fact, the fewer people will get killed because of their imperial adventures. If the “United Nations” is unwilling and unable, and essentially lacking the courage, to make this point, it has become the Iranian government’s reluctant duty to substitute itself for the United Nations, and to speak as the representative of a future humanity when logic and good will, not the irrationality of superior force, will guide world affairs.

Think about it...

The Western newsmedia's version of reality:

Iran claims it needs the uranium enrichment for electricity generating purposes, while the West fears the program could be used for making nuclear arms.

But could this be the real reality:

The West claims it fears Iran's uranium enrichment program could be used for making nuclear arms, while Iran needs the program for electricity generating purposes.

Why don't the newsmedia ever say "the West claims such-and-such," but it is always "Iran claims such-and-such"?

Update: The above quote is far from an isolated case. Also, the language is used in everything that has to do with Iran, and not just the nuclear issue. For instance:

Britain and Iran are at a standoff over the 15 seized sailors and marines. Britain said they were in Iraqi waters when detained, but Iran has contended the Britons entered its waters illegally.

Alas, if only k.d. lang could have children...

It turns out that women who eat a lot of beef while pregnant endanger the procreativity of their sons.

Wages of Democracy?

Just over a year ago, I asked the question: What will it take to dump Dubya?. His approval ratings had dropped below the mid-30s range, and it puzzled me that 34% percent of the American people still supported him, despite his crimes and failures. I asked myself "What more does he have to do, or rather fail to do, to convince the other 34% that they had made a mistake in electing him?"

During the intervening year, his approval rating climbed by a few points, but it is back down to the 30% range again, and there is no reason to believe that it will ever increase again. The overwhelming sense of failure that has overtaken his presidency and the American people as a whole is palpable and inescapable, and nothing seems to be able to change that. It used to be that apparent "successes" in the "war on terror" would raise his profile a bit -- not by much, but by a little anyway. Not any longer. The "confessions" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the supposed mastermind of 9/11 and just about every other terrorist attack in history, helped Dubya not at all.

So the question I have to ask again, but in a slightly different sense, is "What will it take to dump Dubya?" Should not there be a lower limit in a political leader's approval rating below which he will not be allowed to go? In other words, should there not be an automatic mechanism for removing a political leader that is triggered when his approval rating falls below a set limit? Or at least should there not be a mechanism for a recall referendum that is triggered by such an eventuality? For instance, perhaps there should be a referendum on keeping the leader when his/her approval rating falls below 40% or so.

As I said, Dubya's approval rating does not seem to have any upward potential, to use a business-type term. At the current rate of descent, it will probably fall below 25% by the end of his second term. What kind of legitimacy could a political leader have who is rejected by three quarters of the population? Is this lack of legitimacy, this sham legitimacy, just another price the American people have to pay for their "freedoms"?

Jimmy Carter has been vindicated

U.N. rights envoy likens Israeli actions to apartheid

"[Jewish] settlers, largely unrestrained by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), subject many Palestinians to a reign of terror -- particularly in Hebron."

One of the few representative governments left in the world

"Iran has balls. Few other states do, even while their populations crave stronger policies vis-à-vis Washington."

--quoted from Graham Fuller, former CIA analyst and vice-chairman of the National Intelligence Council in Washington

South Africa has "balls" too!

Israel, and its slave the United States, want Palestinians to give up the right to defend themselves!

Has any nation in the history of the world ever been asked to give up the right to resist aggression? Has any individual, except for slaves, ever been asked to give up the right to resist attacks and seek freedom from oppression?

It is a unique historical phenomenon that Palestinians are being asked to give up precisely those rights. Israel is refusing to deal with the new Palestinian unity government. Why? Because, to quote Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, "If this is a government that does not renounce terror, why should it be helped?” And what does Peres mean by “terror”? He is referring to the Palestinian unity government’s declaration that resistance in all its forms, especially non-violent resistance, to the occupation and continuing Israeli aggression is a legitimate right.

Who would in their right mind say this is not a legitimate right? Would you? Apparently the United States government, aka Israel’s slave, would say that. It is the only government in the world that, following the Israeli government’s lead, has dismissed the Palestinian unity government. According to Nancy Beck, the US State Department spokesperson, “The national unity government's platform reference to the right of resistance is disturbing and contradicts the quartet principle of renunciation of violence.” Since when has a renunciation of violence included the renunciation of the right of self-defence? I repeat, can a free person renounce the right to resist aggression and violence?

Update: Quote from Olmert: "We can't have contact with members of a government that justifies resistance, or in other words, terror." Resistance to oppression is "terror" -- but what else is new.

Israel in full control of US Congress agenda on Iran

The CNN sat on this news item for nearly 48 hours, and finally reported it on March 15. The rest of the media had already reported it two days earlier. Also interesting is the fact that although the CNN cited the Associated Press (AP) as the source, the item has disappeared from the AP’s website, or at least my efforts to find it on that website were fruitless. So, this is also a post about the way inconvenient news are marginalized and/or suppressed by the newsmedia and news agencies. The following is an excerpt from the news item:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday…

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nevada, said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran…

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened," Cheney said.

9/11 plotter: "I designed the Nazi gas chambers"

Okay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed hasn't actually confessed to designing the Nazi gas chambers -- but only because he wasn't born yet. Considering the persuastion methods used at the CIA's secret jails, though, I wouldn't be surprised if he has in fact made such a "confession" anyway.

They keep feeding us "confessions" that have been extracted through torture, and the public keeps eating it all up. After all, if the information came from government sources, it must be true, right?... But what else is new.

Update: The CIA abused his children to force him to "confess"

It ain't none of NORAD's business nohow

"We're pretty vigilant in terms of monitoring the skies," said Major Jason Proulx, a NORAD public affairs officer. "But what we do is we assess whether it poses a risk or a threat. If it doesn't pose a threat, it's not something we wouldn't express further interest in."

Somehow, I feel much safer knowing that.

It's official: The Iraq War is about Israel

Dick Cheney has finally let the cat out of the bag.

El Diablo

Guatemala's native priests have vowed to use ritual cleansing ceremnies to purify ancient burial grounds (shown above) that are to be visited by Bush today. The news has been reported by hundreds of news organs. The reason I decided to post about it was the fact that fewer than 1 out of every 25 of those news organs (none in North America) bothered to mention the reason for the Mayan people's anger. Much of the rest of the newsmedia have trivialized or marginalized this news item, for instance by assigning it to the "Offbeat" section (as in USA Today). The previous efforts of the powerful to suppress the historical truth have obviously failed in Guatemala, as they have and will elsewhere.

According to Reuters:

GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Mayan leaders will spiritually "cleanse" ancient ruins in Guatemala after a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush, unpopular here because of foreign policies going back to Central America's civil wars.

The leaders said they would hold a spiritual ceremony to restore "peace and harmony" at the Mayan ruins of Iximche after Bush tours the site on Monday.

"No, Mr. Bush, you cannot trample and degrade the memory of our ancestors," said indigenous leader Rodolfo Pocop during a press conference. "This is not your ranch in Texas." ...

The CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected socialist government in Guatemala in 1954 and U.S.-backed troops destroyed entire Mayan villages in a counter-insurgency campaign at the peak of Guatemala's 1960-96 civil war.

U.S. involvement in the war, which left nearly a quarter of a million people dead or missing, makes Bush's presence in Guatemala offensive to the nation's ethnic Mayan people, youth leader Jorge Morales Toj said. ...

Bush will visit farm cooperatives and schools in the Chimaltenango district to the west of the capital, an area where forensic scientist have uncovered numerous mass graves from wartime massacres. ...

Quotations from President Ahmadinejad of Iran

The complete lack of availability of reliable information to the English-speaking general public about President Ahmadinejad of Iran, and the abundance of lies perpetrated by the Western governments and their subservient newsmedia, have prompted me to collect some excerpts from his speeches, open letters, and interviews (along with a link to the complete texts). He is very articulate, and the best way to understand his views is to read the views themselves, undistorted by the Western media.

Why they hate us

Aaaah!

A baby Komodo dragon

Someone please find this idiot a girlfriend

It is becoming ever clearer that Peter MacKay, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, doesn't understand what the word affairs in his title refers to. He continues to roam the world in search of a suitable match. The latest candidate is Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni.

You can look, Pete, but you can't touch!

Pete is quoted as saying that, in the past year, he and Livni had become “regular friends,” holding almost daily conversations. Seriously, what the heck would Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs hold daily conversations with Israel's Foreign Minister about?

Polar bears waiting for sea ice to form

What will people do?
After the garden is gone
What will people say?
After the garden ...

Where will people go?

After the garden is gone
What will people know?

After the garden

After the garden is gone
After the garden is gone

---Neil Young