"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." -M. L. King Jr.
Yesterday I mentioned EU Elections Inspectors busy at work in the Congo to oversee democratic elections there. I have also discussed in previous posts the question of "democracy" "promotion" both in the U.S. and in other nations, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. There is an interesting article pertaining to the subject on Salon.com today, regarding a documentary meant to be aired on HBO (of international "Sopranos" and "Sex and the City" fame) in the US this evening, November 2. The article is entitled "Hacking Democracy" and the introduction and link to the full article are below.
"Hacking Democracy" On Tuesday, 40 percent of voters will cast ballots on electronic touch-screens. If you're not worried already about the dangers of paperless voting, this HBO documentary will blow your mind.
By Farhad Manjoo
Nov. 2, 2006 | "When people see what is really going on, there is no way we will allow this to continue," the crusading election-reform activist Bev Harris declares at the beginning of "Hacking Democracy," a documentary film about the flawed American election system that premieres on HBO on Nov. 2. It's a nice thought, one you want to believe: If only Americans could be made to understand the true, gut-sinking atrociousness of just about everything involved in U.S. elections -- from the gerrymandered districts to the undemocratic distribution of electoral power to the enormous influence wielded by partisan officials to the underfunded, overwhelmed local offices to, finally, the insanely dangerous technology we use to run the whole thing -- well, then, maybe folks would actually do something about the problem.
Some other interesting reading on the subject would include Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Conscent" regarding the current incumbents' (in their first run under Reagan) views on democracy abroad, specifically elections in Nicaragua, Guatamala, and El Salvador.
Just a quick post today covering a couple of newsworthy items today (other than the first major snowstorm of the year in Stockholm).
The first is the fact that the predictions of Far East analysts regarding North Korea using their Nuclear tests as a ploy to gain an advantage in diplomatic negotiations in the stalled six party talks seems to be accurate. While the DPRK's official news site has said this all along, now even Reuters is reporting (via the Moscow Times) that North Korea is "ready" to return to the 6 party talks, apparently dropping their demand for strict one-on-one talks with the U.S. This is likely due to pressure from Beijing to stop with their "provacative" measures, and likely to have been their strategy from the beginning. As they have been asserting all along, they have no desire to see a large scale conflict erupt.
On the American Elections, I'm sure most people are aware of former Presidential candidate John Kerry's comments saying that if you don't work hard and study you end up in Iraq. This was aimed at the Bush administration, and he followed up that statement (after an attack by the White House saying he was attacking the troops that were serving) by explaining further that it was the bush administration who didn't do their homework and thus ended up in Iraq.
Perhaps slightly more important for the hopes of changes in the US Government is the recent work of M. J. Fox for democratic candidates who support stem cell research, which seems to be increasing the lead most democrats have over republicans in the US, mere days before elections.
Also in the news is a recently leaked EU report on Turkey "slamming" their economic progress, and likely to curtail EU spending in that country and strain relations. Also the EU election inspectors currently in the Congo for elections being held there are urging calm following disputable results. Where were they in 2000 in the US? Hopefully they'll make a showing at the US elections and try to keep everything on the up-and-up.
Among the dangerous threats facing our species (and in fact all species on this planet) today is the grave threat of climate change and global warming. The following article was posted on BBC News today.
Climate change 'hitting Africa' Climate change is already affecting people across Africa and will wipe out efforts to tackle poverty there unless urgent action is taken, a report says. Droughts are getting worse and climate uncertainty is growing, the research from a coalition of UK aid agencies and environmental groups says.
Climate change is an "unprecedented" threat to food security, it says.
It calls for a "climate-proof" model of development and massive emissions cuts to avoid "possibly cataclysmic change".
The report, Up In Smoke 2, updates previous research from the organisations - Oxfam, the New Economics Foundation and the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, an umbrella group of aid and green groups.
Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse Andrew Simms New Economics Foundation
It says that although climates across Africa have always been erratic, scientific research and the experience of the contributing groups "indicates new and dangerous extremes".
Arid or semi-arid areas in northern, western, eastern and parts of southern Africa are becoming drier, while equatorial Africa and other parts of southern Africa are getting wetter, the report says.
The continent is, on average, 0.5C warmer than it was 100 years ago, but temperatures have risen much higher in some areas - such as a part of Kenya which has become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years, the agencies report.
Andrew Simms, from the New Economics Foundation, said: "Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse," he said.
"In the last year alone, 25 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have faced food crisis.
"Global warming means that that many dry areas are going to get drier and wet areas are going to get wetter. They are going to be caught between the devil of drought and the deep blue seas of floods."
He added that the "great tragedy" was that Africa had played virtually no role in global warming, a problem he said was caused by economic activity of the rich, industrial countries.
Mr Simms said unless climate change was tackled all the "best efforts" to help Africa could come to nothing.
One of the biggest threats is growing climate unpredictability, which makes subsistence farming difficult, the report says.
The average number of food emergencies in Africa per year almost tripled since the mid 1980s, it points out.
But it says that better planning to reduce the risk from disasters, together with developing agricultural practices that can withstand changing climates, have been shown to work and could help mitigate the impact if used be more widely.
'Overwhelming'
Up in Smoke 2 also laments the failure of industrialised governments to help developing countries adapt to climate change.
Between $10bn (£5.2bn) and $40bn is needed annually, the report says, but industrialised countries have given only $43m - a tenth of the amount they have pledged - while rich country fossil fuel subsidies total $73bn a year.
The agencies say that greenhouse emissions cuts of 60% - 90% will ultimately be needed - way beyond the targets set in the Kyoto agreement.
"Climate change is overwhelming the situation in Africa... unless we take genuine steps now to reduce our emissions, people in the developed world will be condemning millions to hunger, starvation and death," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth.
The report comes two weeks before a key summit on climate change in Nairobi, where delegates will look at the progress made on the Kyoto agreement that requires industrial nations to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.
Delegates will also consider what system should be adopted when the current period ends.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/6092564.stm
The British Treasury and Cambridge University have also produced a related report about the economic consequences of global warming.
The report is available through the official website of the British Treasury, accessable by clicking here.
Essentially the conclusions of the report (available most easily through the executive summary) are nothing new. For instance, one of the important assertions of the report is that it will cost less to stem pollution now than it will cost to deal with the warming effects later. Of course, a pure capitalist system does not really care about the future, for systematic reasons. The current Robber Barrons (masters of big business) view their position as being at the top of a democratic structure in which votes are cast in dollars (or foreign equivalent). The opinions of the public (as viewed by where the money is going) is of course of paramount importantce. However, in this system that is based strictly on the here and now, future generations are of no value as they cannot cast their dollar-votes today. As such, anything that would adversely affect the bottom line now is rejected.
However, this particular aspect of the system is in contrast with the general will of the populations of the world, the majority of whom would like to see governments sign and impliment the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.
The important question, which shouldn't even have to be brought up in "democratic" states, is will our governments do what we want? --------------------------- Update: November 4, 2006
On Monday, November 6, the second United Nations Climate Change conference for parties to the (1997) Kyoto Protocols on climate change will meet in Nairobi, Kenya. This event is likely to be overshadowed by coverage of the US elections set to take place on 7 November, and will not include a delegation from the United States as the US is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocols. However, as the US the worlds leading producer of CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions which have been increasing at an alarming rate over the past few decades and are likely to continue to increase exponentially without immediate action being taken, such as pollution reduction to 2002 target levels, which still hadn't been reached by many industrialised nations by 2005, the time at which the target levels were set to decrease again. These are simple steps to take, and of the utmost importance for those who care about the world that we leave (or don't leave) our children.
A rise in the Earth’s temperature could lead to an increase in the number of insects worldwide, with potentially dire consequences for humans, a new study suggests.
New research shows that insect species living in warmer areas are more likely to undergo rapid population growth because they have higher metabolic rates and reproduce more frequently. The finding has scientists concerned that global warming could give rise to more fast-growing insect populations and that we could see a spike in the number of six-legged critters.
The consequences could be more serious than just a few extra bug bites each summer. “If they’re crop species, we could count on needing to use more pesticides and it could be very costly,” said Melanie Frazier, a doctoral student at the University of Washington and lead author of the study.
Insect-borne diseases are also a worry. Malaria, Lyme Disease and a host of others rely on insect vectors to spread among humans, and a swell in their populations could mean more infections.
Already, scientists have observed a widening of malarial zones with new cases appearing in previously unaffected areas. The change is thought to be due to rising temperatures and an expansion of areas habitable for mosquitoes. The new research, detailed in the October issue of The American Naturalist, shows rising temperatures would mean insects would not only spread out, but also multiply more quickly.
from Cartledge's Grub Street Journal. --------------------------- The Civil War in Iraq, which is claiming, on average, 100 Iraqis a day, is still finding its way into the news headlines. Not surprising as many of the moneyed elites are beginning to wonder whether the seizure of Iraqi oil was worth the cost (based on continually soaring oil and petrol prices), and that divergence in elite opinion leads to more questioning articles in news reports (see Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Conscent").
The White House, not sure how to handle the situation, is simultaneously saying "we will stay the course" and "´staying the course´ has never been the president's plan." Also, while worldwide news reports are constantly pointing out the failure of the US's strategy in Iraq ("Heck of a Job, Malaki!"), the White House is "very happy, acually, with the way the Prime Minister is working" and putting together a team of occupation experts (sorry, I meant a "high level working group") to address security concerns in Iraq.
My question is, how many people must die before America gives up its imperial ambitions? If 500,000 isn't enough, would 5,000,000? 50,000,000? How many will it take?
When confronted with harshrealities, human beings have an inherent nature to do one of two things: bury their heads in the sand and say "it can't be true," or give up hope along the lines of a pessimistic austrian writer who once wrote "A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die."
Grave predictions, uncertain futures, and a feeling of powerlessness can lead people to give up hope. I won't pretend to not understand why someone in Baghdad who has lost their family to american shells and sectarian bullets would want to give up hope. Or why someone in Michigan might sigh as they look back on 2 presidential elections that should have been won, the first that was stolen blatantly and the second that produced an unimaginable result based on what seemed to be an astounding turnout of young and opposition voters, and surrender to institutional structures that they believe will never change. Or how someone, after too long under the screw of an oppressive occupation, could be left so devoid of hope that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of hurting their oppressors. I can understand these people.
But hope should never be abandoned. We as human beings have the capability to be so much more than we allow ourselves to be. I believe that human beings have the capability to forsake anger and hatred, vengence and violence, and overcome any challenge they are presented without having to sacrifice their dignity and morality. This power comes not only from our minds, but from our hearts as well.
A courageous leader once stated that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." He also pointed out that "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."
Leading scientists and intellectuals often proffer dire predictions and observations, and many of us pass along these statements without pointing out constructive solutions. It is painfully obvious that human beings have an unprecedented capability to destroy, but along with the ability to destroy comes an unprecedented ability to create, to nourish, and to improve.
We must never allow ourselves to become slaves to fear, hopelessness, vengence, or greed. We need not destroy ourselves and our environment to satisfy our primal urges, we have the capability to be so much better than that.
There are many things wrong with the world today. There is no other species that destroys its own with such ferocity and on such an immense scale. I would like to present you today with the words of unquestionably one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, with help from Bertrand Russell.
Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.
We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.
...
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
...
"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."
Now, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are situations, as described in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in which military action is appropriate. However, military action as a first resort, rather than a last resort, is a danger to all of us, and a danger that can easily be avoided.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands that its signatories not only refrain from producing new nuclear weapons, but also take steps to dismantle existing nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration's continued simultaneous assertions to be against the proliferation of WMDs and intent development of "low yeild" "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons are not only hypocritical , but a danger to all of us. Their actions have already triggered the beginning of an arms race, and their constant war-like posturing is increasing the danger posed to all of us. Simultaneously they claim christian piety, and as such, to them and their supporters I say "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).
On this page I had previously planned to illustrate the un-democratic nature of American governance, but not for the purpose of inspiring despair, or causing people to surrender to what they see as an unbreakable system for the "protection of the minority of the opulent," but rather because real change, for the better, is possible. In any event, a discussion of the American Republic form of government (republic, not democracy) and its implications for the world will be postponed.
Rather, at this point it is necessary to point out some key facts that are relevant to the world's current state of affairs.
The first is American Militarism. Most Americans are in fact not the militant "chicken hawks" that are so often highlighted in the media. The majority of Americans do not wish to go to war unless no other options are available. As we have seen with the collapse of all pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, those in power are not catering to the will of their people. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "liberation," by any rational definition, does not entail 500,000 civilian deaths as a direct result. The only people who have reaped any positive benefit from the invasion are the small number of people who made a profit off of the $350billion in congressional budget appropriations for the conflict, and a profit from the redistribution of Iraq's wealth of natural resources to private companies. A well informed American would not have chosen such a course of action. A byproduct of this invasion, brought about by a militarism that is not in the wishes of a majority of the population, is an increase in support for organisations that assert their intentention to launch reprisals against what they perceive (rightly) as American Imperialism.
Another byproduct of this militarism, or resort-to-force-as-the-first-option, is that other countries are developing their own military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, as a deterrant to the American threat. This is evidenced by North Korea's recent Nuclear test. This increases a danger to us all, due to the fact that they increase the risk of provocation of a larger conflict, and as discussed by Russell and Einstein above, this would have disasterous effects for our species as a whole.
But how can this situation be changed? Because it is America that poses this threat, it is the American people who are in the best position to alleviate it. It is widely understood that the coming American election will have little or no effect on US government policy. Simultaneously, there is a pervailing sentiment (rarely articulated) that regardless of who is in charge (in the US), things will stay the same. This is partially right. Madeline Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) has intoned that every president over the past few decades has had a strategy like George Bush's in their back pocket, they just know better than to bash people over the head with said strategy. We need look no farther than the first months of the Clinton administration to see that he was more than willing to engage in military strikes as a first option, with disasterous consequences for hundreds of children holed up in a Baghdad childrens shelter.
However, a change in regime as far as the US congress is concerned could lead to additional positive moves. Most notably, the American public would likely be let in on the realities that have been so vehemently hidden from them for the past 6 years. As we all know, an ignorant population is easy to control, and the Bush administration has excersised this control to the fullest. Their unprecedented control over the flow of information to the population has allowed them to excersise unprecedented control over public discussion on major issues, many of which are not open for public discussion to begin with. A few examples:
The first that comes to mind is the recent "conflict" between Israel and the civilian populations of Lebanon and Palestine. The very limited discourse on the subject was limited to the scope of Israel's actions, proportedly against "terrorists" but realistically against civilians (in violation of the Geneva conventions), was evidenced both in the mainstream and so-called "fringe" media. I'm including in the "fringe" media blog sites and information websites, including the well known site "MyLeftWing." On that particular site I was directly threatened with expulsion from discussion by the site's owner for a comment regarding the fact that those who supported the Israeli military incursions that killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, was tantamount to support for murder. And this site is proportedly the epitome of "the left" in America, which it was observed to me by a source that I trust that there really is no "left" left in America, and "the right" committed political genocide against "the left" decades ago. Aprepo, though not entirely accurate. The fact of the matter is that most Americans, even those who consider themselves well versed in news and politics, and of a "liberal" bent, are inherently subject to the information control mechanisms of an overreaching Executive, which has the power to disseminate a very large volume of disinformation to the public so as to cloud any attempt at rational discourse. Supressed from the public was the fact that Israel's invasion plans were drawn up long before the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, that Israeli soldiers had kidnapped "suspected hizballah" members just days before, and the fact that the weapons used to flatten Lebanon were handed to the Israeli military with the costs deferred to the American taxpayers.
Another example that comes quickly to mind is of course the Iraq war, wherein civilian and military death tolls are surpressed to an unprecedented extent by the Bush administration. This has included going so far as to arrest Hospital personnell in Iraq for realeasing accurate but "too high" casualty figures, and barring the US media from covering the return of injured or dead American soldiers. Due to current disagreement in elite circles as to the effectiveness of the US's Iraq policy, some dissent has filtered through into the US Media (much the same as in later stages of the Vietnam conflict), and as such the issue is receiving a large amount of coverage. However, even policy makers on the democratic side of the aisle (including Chuch Schumer and Hilliary Clinton) do not disagree with the administrations stated goals, merely question the methods. Again, even a "regime change" in the US congress is unlikely to have any impact on policy.
However, that is not to say that people should give up hope in initiating change. One of the first steps for making changes is to be presented with the full picture, which influential analysts argue will increase in likelyhood with a change in those in charge (in congress) of overseeing the actions of the government as a whole, specifically the executive. It is pointed out that Democratic oversight committees would be able to share much needed information with the American public, and put them in a better position to make informed decisions, one of the most important aspects of reclaiming democracy in America. From Unclaimed Territory:
A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.
It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured.
Armed with a more realistic view of what's going on, Americans are put in a much better position to initiate the so-badly-needed changes that the rest of the world is screaming for. Hope for a better tomorrow always exists as long as there are those who are willing to work for it, and who are aware of the needs and opportunities involved.
Naturally, there are those whose vested interest in seeing that things continue as they are leads them to continue to take steps to quiet their opposition. The murders ("unintentional") of dozens of foreign journalists by US troops notwithstanding, the tactics employed are nothing new: maintaining claims that "everything is allright, trust us" or playing upon the most negative of emotions, fear and anger.
To give just a couple of examples, today the BBC published a report by the US Ambassador to Iraq that "success" by the US in Iraq was still possible. This was in response to the admittal by a US State Department official that the US was "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq, a statement claimed by the White House to have been mistranslated but verified by the BBC to have been accurate. It was also immediately following an analysis by Robert Dreyfuss, echoing the sentiments of many prominent analysists, that a coup was on the cards in Iraq.
Facing such grim news, the Bush administration reverts to its classic strategy of playing upon the fears of the American population. The latest of a virtual plethora of examples is a video recently published on the Republican party's website RNC.org designed to scare the American public into obedience (much the same as Mao scared his population into obedience). The video is below:
The Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad had some thoughts and observations on this very subject in his letter to George Bush a few months back:
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
I think the answer is obvious. To constantly push the buttons of the population and use their fear as a tool of manipulation is an intense disservice not only to the American population, but to those against whom the fear is used to mobilise militant action. But I have hope. I have hope that Americans are as fed up with the situation as the rest of the world is. I have hope that the "elites" in the american business world are not right in their assessment that the candidate with the largest campaign war chest [must have] superior grass-roots support, the war chest referring to the amount of money they have left for their campaign. I have hope that Americans are intelligent enough to realise that the Dow Jones' record performance recently does not represent the economic welfare of their nation or themselves as individuals.
I think Americans are at a breaking point, that the situation is bad enough at this stage (domestically, for americans, and internationally) that many are coming to realise that major changes are needed, of which making a showing at their election next month is an important first step.
I have hope that the strength of morality and human decency will overpower the will of those whose greed, arrogance, and or fear have monopolised their decision making processes. I have hope for the future.
Here is the list of the Democrats who must never be allowed to be public servants again.
Carper (D-DE) Johnson (D-SD) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Lieberman (D-CT) Menendez (D-NJ) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Stabenow (D-MI)
We must never vote for these people again, ever. They violated their oath of office and suspended habeas corpus, the fundamental cornerstone of democracy. They have OK'd torture and rendition programs and betrayed the American people by allowing us to be declared enemy combatants at the discretion of George W. Bush.
The "Military Commissions Act of 2006" is actually a sick piece of work.
Flanked by the panjandrums of shame and the dirty hands gang, including the current attorney general and the vice president, President Bush last week signed into law the Military Commissions Act, a law that will go down in history as an obscenity against liberty and decency
When inhabitants of foreign (non-American) lands first encounter the average stereotypical American Tourists there are certain characteristics that they consistantly find surprising. For the sake of enlightening some Americans who have been overseas and were wondering what the locals were blabbing to each other about as they passed, I shall share a couple of these observations.
The first thing that many non-americans notice about americans is that Americans Speak Very Loudly. I'm not really sure what the reasoning behind this is, but perhaps it is due to the inherently loud nature of American Sport Utitilty Vehicles (they tell me everyone has one now), which preclude carrying on conversations at a normal volume in public places. I am also told that when the mobile ("cell") phone revolution hit America, the american companies were in such a rush to catch up with other industrialised countries that they forgot that telephone reception is an important aspect of the use of mobile technology, and as such Americans have been forced to adopt a Consistantly High Volume to be heard over what is generally referred to as "static," but which in America these days could be realisticially termed "the sound of Big Brother listening in."
The other, and perhaps more troubling, aspect of the Stereotypical American is that they are quite gullible. One of the most striking examples of this in my recent memory is the story of a group of American tourists who travelled to Denmark, and subsequently (and I am not making this up) sued the Danish Tourist Ministry for false advertising in saying (still not making this up) that "the sun is different over here." These particular american tourists actually believed that a different sun rises and sets over Europe, or specifically Denmark, than rises and sets over America. I'm sure that there are countless cases of locals having a bit of fun with the gullibility of their visitors from across the pond, so to avoid any unnecessary embarassment for our well-meaning visitors, may I extend the following warning to american tourists: If you ask a local where the nearest "burger joint" is, and they tell you to knock on the door of the third house on the right and ask for a "big one with cheese," when you do so and the elderly woman who answers the door starts swinging a broom at you, don't be perplexed or irritated; it's all in good fun.
However, believing everything one is told is not all fun and games. Americans have unknowingly allowed themselves to be turned into propagators of the greatest threat to international peace and security that the world has seen since Adolf Hitler set his sights on world domination. Among the consequences of this slide into blatant imperialism (as opposed to veiled imperialism which America has employed since its inception) is the increased likelyhood of a large scale global conflict, the increased proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the increase in popularity of and recruitment possibilities by dangerous terrorist organisations, the destruction of 2 soverign nations, the erosion of basic human rights principles, the erosion of personal freedoms for american citizens and non-citizens alike, and the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention the high likelyhood of a continuation of this unnecessary loss of civilian life.
One of the most distressing news items of the past couple of weeks was the report by The Lancet that put on paper what most Iraqis already knew: that the American invasion of Iraq had directly contributed to the deaths of roughly half a million Iraqi civilians. Due to the fact that a large percentage of Iraqi civilian deaths go unreported, Americans who bought into the professions of benign intentions in the invasion of Iraq are quick to dismiss such claims, choosing instead to cower under the umbrella of uplifting rhetoric provided on a daily basis by their manipulative leaders and passed on unquestioningly by their subjugated media. However, to immediately write off works of scientific scholarship in favor of an unfailing belief in the inherent piety of greedy ruling elites is to bury one's head in the sand as a sandstorm approaches; half a million people dead leaves countless millions of berieved angry family members and friends, many of whom might consider turing to violence "to avenge this" (to borrow the words of the Marine Staff Sargent in the recent film "World Trade Center"). This violence will manifest itself in what the US Government refers to as "terrorism," in other words "when others do to us what we do to them."
Another byproduct of this new blatant imperialism is the physical manifestation of the excuses given for the agression from the beginning: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As anyone who has not been holed up in a cave in afghanistan without access to the outside world is aware, on Monday, October 9, 2006, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea to the west) tested their first Nuclear bomb. This unsurprisingly led to immediate worldwide condemnation, though not for the reasons that most Americans would assume. Many worldwide leaders condemned the action as a provocation: provoking the American government which has shown itself willing to engage in military conflict for far less substantial reasons.
However, Americans have allowed their government to become the Tyrannical British Empire that their forefathers fought a war of liberation from. How? It comes back to their inherent gullibility, or perhaps to put it more nicely to the fact that they have entirely too much trust in people who are not trustworthy.
I feel it is necessary to point out some painful but obvious truths to the American population, and I shall try to do so in a manner in which they may understand:
Your Government Lies To You All The Time.
Your Media Lies To You All The Time.
Those Who Claim To Be The Opposition In Your Government Lie To You All The Time.
You Need To Stop Buying All The Lies.
That is all.
-----------
By the way, my absence from here was not intentional, and I have no intention to see it happen again.
Could all that's been won be lost so soon again could the ending we've been dreading only be a matter of when? did you mean to make them suffer? did you mean to make them cry? when you arrived, did you ask them if they had prepared themselves to die? Does the future really matter if we're not around to see it? When you were young, your future dreams could this, now, really be it?
The Bush, The Devil, The Lies don't act like you're surprised.
When you sell out, give in, give up the fight you can't just expect everything to be allright.
Stand up. Ask why. Lets not let more children die.
I made the mistake of watching CNN the other day and had the pleasure of getting to see Larry King lie repeatedly into the camera. It is possible, of course, that he believed the lies he was telling, but that does not make them true.
He kept referring, as most American journalists do, to "Iran's Nuclear Weapons" or "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program."
What needs to be noted is that, based on the evidence provided, Iran does not have a Nuclear weapons program. The IAEA's reports on the subject outline the fact that "there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program" however "outstanding questions" remain. Suspension of Uranium Enrichment is intended to "build confidence in the international community," and clearing up the outstanding questions (rather than suspension of enrichment) is the real issue, contrary to the assertions of the western media.
We should also note that a few months ago Iran offered the IAEA full access to all of Iran's nuclear sites and suspected nuclear sites. This offer was flatly rejected by America's Condeleeza Rice, speaking on behalf of a Security Council Veto holding state. However, this offer was basically what is being demanded of Iran right now by the Security Council (aside from the manufactured issue of Suspension) in their recent resolution on Iran.
The resolution by the Security council refers to a document released by the IAEA board of Governers from February 8, 2006, numbered Gov/2006/14. That IAEA resolution states "that Article IV of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stipulates that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty," and each IAEA report (covered extensively in this blog) since then has reiterated the fact that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
It will be difficult for the Security Council to agree on any kind of sanctions what with the fact that Iran's right to develop enriched Uranium and Nuclear Power is protected by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and there is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Somehow, however, the US media and US public (including such liberal comedians as George Carlin, who on the Jay Leno show some weeks back stated bluntly that "now Iran has The Bomb") are convinced that Iran either has a Nuclear Weapons program, or has a Nuclear Bomb already.
Again, people are being too easily misled. Perhaps they don't realise that, instead of just believing what their Lying News Agencies tell them, they could check the firsthand sources instead, such as the IAEA News Center, Focus: Iran web page.
When studying history of the 20th century many people are perplexed as to how the population of germany could have been turned from otherwise rational and compassionate people into supporters of the Nazi murderers who had taken power in their country. Especially for those who have spent time in Germany, having met people who could well have been or be descendents of Nazi murderers, and wonder how this could happen to an otherwise nice person. If one ever wanted a case study of how such a thing could possibly happen, they need only look to America right now, and observe the unconditional support for murder and murderers by a large percentage of the population.
One of the reasons for this mind-control over the American population is that all rational coherent discussion is silenced by ignorance. When trying to explain to non-Americans how on earth Americans could be so easily brainwashed, I try to explain that any living organism is only aware of the world with which they are presented. Since September 11th, 2001, the U.S. media has been unwilling and unable to share basic truth with the population of America, much the same as the media in Germany, under the control of the Nazi government after executive orders expanding the power of the Nazi regime, presented only a pro-nazi view. As such, the population of America, blinded by ignorance, knows no better than to agree with the murderous policies carried out in their name.
Theoretically, in a democracy, a well-informed population would have their wishes represented by their democratically elected leaders. When the government of a "democracy" has pushed the situation to the point where there is no room for dissent, and where the representatives who are meant to be what in Europe would be termed the "loyal opposition" willingly go along with whatever is ordered of them by those they are meant to be opposing, then that nation ceases to be a democracy. For evidence of this we need only look to the near unanimous support for the Terrorist State of Israel in the American Democratic Party, and their support for the murderous invasion of Iraq. When only one point of view and one set of goals is represented in a government, that government is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Democracy in America is dead.
The American Dictatorship has been criticising Iran and Syria recently for their support of Hizballah, and this criticism has received much news coverage in the American Propaganda Media and Rupert "I sell cancer and promote murder" Murdoch's international media empire (Sky News, Reuters, Fox News, etc.), and also in the mainstream world media through their reliance on news wires such as reuters and AP (who are trying to compete with Reuters by echoing the same views and broadcasting the same stories and sources). This criticism is in line with the recent report by the US State Department regarding "State Sponsors of Terror" that asserted that Iran was the worlds leading state sponsor of terror. This is not true, although it was unconditionally accepted by "news" agencies such as CNN.
The truth is, the worlds Leading State Sponsor of Terror is America. We need look no further than the current situation in Lebanon and Palestine. In all of 3 weeks, the Israeli Military has killed over one thousand Lebanese civilians. They claim to be targeting Hizballah, but the reality is that less than 50 of the more than 1000 killed had any relation whatsoever to Hizballah, all the rest were ordinary men, women, and children, trying hard to live normal lives.
While the US-controlled media echos criticisms of Iran and Syria, they neglect to point out that planeloads of weapons and ammunition are, to this day, as we speak, flying from the U.S., re-fueling in British owned Scotland, and continuing on to Israel. These planeloads of weapons and ammunition are then turned over, for no cost, to the Israeli military. The dollars of U.S. taxpayers are being used to slaughter civilians by the thousands. This is the very definition of sponsoring terror.
Just after the UN Security Council finally came to an agreement on the wording of a resolution calling for an end to the current Israeli Slaughter of Civilians (actually, I think their words were more along the lines of "conflict"), the Israeli Military increased, yet again, the scope of their attacks by more than 300%. Now that international pressure has been on them for 3 weeks, they realise that their murder cannot continue indefinitely (or can it?), and must step up the pace if they are to anihilate Lebanon and Palestine before they are forced to step their attacks down.
Americans are absolutely blind to the fact that the actions of the IDF, carried out with American weapons and American support, is going to increase recruitment for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. For America to get away with supporting murder on a large scale is sickening to rational people the world over, and especially those affected are going to channel their rage towards revenge against those they find responsible. The recently foiled bomb plot in England is only the beginning, and if U.S. policies don't change, it is logical to expect the threat of attacks on America and Britain to increase exponentially.
By sponsoring the Terrorist Regime of Israel, the U.S. government is betraying the legacy of the American founding fathers who called for a government that would not be destructive towards the ends of pursuing a safe and happy life. However, the ignorant Nazi-American population is too far removed from reality to be reached.
If the greatest threat to the world today is Terrorism (as asserted by the U.S. government and their mignions), then America and Israel are the greatest threats of all. ---------- Among the weapons that evidence suggests are being used by Israel, that the U.S. is likely supplying to them, are items that are banned by international law and the Geneva conventions. These include depleted uranium shells and chemical weapons. This receives no coverage in the U.S. media. An ignorant population is easily blinded and led. ---------- The words of British MP George Galloway come close to expressing the rage that is being felt by people the world over.
The assertion by the American media that Condeleeza Rice is working on an immediate ceasefire is false. The statement is qualified by an assertion that the ceasefire must be a "lasting" one, as in Lebanon must give in to all of Israel's demands. This is, by the way, the very definition of terrorism, the use of violence as a means of coercion.
This stalling is having disasterous effects. With American support, Ehud Olmert says they will continue to "act without hesitation" in their attacks. And the effects of this are dangerous for much civilian life.
Just yesterday, an Israeli airstrike on a building in Qana, Lebanon, killed a minimum of 50 civilians, at least 34 of which were children.
Reporters spoke of survivors screaming in grief and anger, as some scrabbled through the debris with bare hands.
"We want this to stop," a villager shouted.
"May God have mercy on the children. They came here to escape the fighting."
Rescuers found the experience too much to cope with.
Our correspondent saw a Red Cross rescue worker sitting in the sunshine just sobbing, overcome with emotion.
Kofi Annan stated that if international action was not taken immediately it might undermine the very existance of the UN. His words:
“The authority and standing of this Council are at stake. People have noticed its failure to act firmly and quickly during this crisis,” “For the sake of the people of the region and of this Organization, I urge you to act, and to act now.”
He also noted that the tragedy “has, rightly, provoked moral outrage throughout the world."
Yet America, weilding it's Security Council Veto like a weapon, holds the world at bay, and allows no action to be taken that might save lives.
Meanwhile, the American Media is being kept quiet on the matter, and neo-cons are effectively controlling the discourse on the subject in America so as to suppress any kind of realistic discussion.
May God Have Mercy on Americans, for they know not what they do.
Now, more than ever, America is finding itself alone in the world. With a population blinded by a media censored for "National Security" reasons and trained to pass along official government statements as "News" in a truly dictatorial fashion, the not-so-Duly-Elected government is fairly rapidly removing personal freedoms and doing away with social welfare and retirement benefits while alienating allies and strengthening the resolve of- and recruitment for- terror groups who would seek to attack America.
The Bush administration's "petri dish" for testing the National Security Strategy of 2002 has plummeted into a civil war, with thousands of civilians dead in the last month alone, and even brainwashed Democrats are surprised that their specifically chosen and installed "democratic" government is echoing the views of every other country on the planet condemning Israel's murderous incursions into Lebanon.
Russia, once subsurvient to Washington's demands, is starting to break free of America's stranglehold. Recent comments by Russian officials criticising American policies, such as the statement that "a hysterical atmosphere was being artificially created and a political environment that was favorable for launching a process of overthrowing legally constituted governments was being formed" and, scoffing at remarks by Bush saying Russia should institute a democracy more similar to that of Iraq, Putin replied “We of course don’t want to have a democracy like the one in Iraq.” This was an obvious reference to the un-democratic nature of the elections held in Iraq, wherein all of the choices in the election had been hand picked by the U.S. government; by definition undemocratic.
The American Constitution, once lauded as the best system of governance on the planet, is being ignored and marginalised by the government's Executive branch. The following story ran yesterday in The Guardian newspaper in the U.K.:
Leading lawyers say Bush creates loopholes in laws he doesn't like
Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday July 25, 2006 The Guardian
President George Bush's practice of writing exceptions to legislation as he signs it into law represents a violation of the constitution and a danger to democracy, America's leading lawyers alleged yesterday.
The American Bar Association, an independent lawyers' organisation, issued a report on President Bush's prolific use of "signing statements" and found he was using them to create unconstitutional loopholes to laws passed by Congress.
The ABA found that the president used signing statements to make more than 800 challenges to congressional legislation, 200 more than all previous US presidents put together. Signing statements have been issued since the nation's founding but they have traditionally served a ceremonial function, extolling the virtues of the legislation just signed.
Mr Bush has used the statements to distance himself from the laws he signs rather than veto them outright. A veto can be overruled by Congress but the legislature has so far been powerless to make the White House enforce provisions the president does not like.
For example, in signing a bill last year banning the use of torture by American personnel, the president wrote that the executive branch would "construe" the legislation "in a manner consistent" with the president's powers and "the constitutional limitations on the judicial power". In other words the president would not enforce the law if it conflicted with his authority as commander-in-chief to pursue his "war on terror" as he saw fit.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," the ABA's president, Michael Greco, said. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
Asked about the report yesterday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said: "The president does not have the luxury of practising civil disobedience. The laws that have been enacted must be executed by the government. A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality. It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"
The justice department has denied that Mr Bush's use of signing statements has gone significantly beyond previous presidents. However, the Bush administration subscribes to a constitutional theory known as the "unitary executive". It stipulates that under the constitution, the president has supreme control over all executive branches of government and that Congress has very limited power to divest him of that authority.
The ABA report found that the administration's interpretation of the "unitary executive" theory violated the constitution's strictures on the separation of powers, that were "essential to the preservation of liberty".
"The constitution thus limits the president's role in the lawmaking process to the recommendation of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks unwise," it said.
The president's attempts to gain the power to issue "line item vetoes" against individual provisions within congressional bills, have been rebuffed by Congress. The ABA called on Congress to pass a bill allowing signing statements to be challenged in the courts.
However, the American public is completely unaware of the worsening state of the nation, choosing instead to stay in their dreamworld rather than face harsh realities.
Ignorance is bliss I suppose. ----------------------------- Thank you to Truth About Iraqis for the beginning graphic.
