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. ...