From ths at psalience.org Mon Oct 31 17:07:32 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:07:32 +0100 Subject: [THS] Scientists pinpoint the brain circuitry linked to making healthy or unhealthy choices Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111031170618.03e77040@mail.messagingengine.com> [Yet more fabulous nonsense from the hallowed halls of neuroscience] Scientists pinpoint the brain circuitry linked to making healthy or unhealthy choices October 30th, 2011 in Neuroscience Scientists pinpoint the brain circuitry linked to making health (Medical Xpress) -- What drives addicts to repeatedly choose drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, overeating, gambling or kleptomania, despite the risks involved? Neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have pinpointed the exact locations in the brain where calculations are made that can result in addictive and compulsive behavior. UC Berkeley researchers have found how neural activity in the brain's orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortex regulates our choices. These astonishing new findings could pave the way for more targeted treatments for everything from drug and alcohol abuse to obsessive-compulsive disorders. 'The better we understand our decision-making brain circuitry, the better we can target treatment, whether it's pharmaceutical, behavioral or deep brain stimulation," said Jonathan Wallis, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at UC Berkeley and the principal investigator of the study to be published in the Oct. 30 online issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience. Wallis was inspired to look into the brain mechanism behind substance abuse when he observed the lengths to which addicts will go to fulfill their cravings, despite the downside of their habit: He asked, "What has the drug done to their brains that makes it so difficult for them not to make that choice? What is preventing them from making the healthier choice?" In the new study, he and fellow researchers targeted the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex ?- two areas in the frontal brain -- because previous research has shown that patients with damage to these areas of the brain are impaired in the choices they make. While these individuals may appear perfectly normal on the surface, they routinely make decisions that create chaos in their lives. A similar dynamic has been observed in chronic drug addicts, alcoholics and people with obsessive-compulsive tendencies. "They get divorced, quit their jobs, lose their friends and lose all their money," Wallis said. "All the decisions they make are bad ones." To test their hypothesis that these areas of the brain were the key players in impaired decision making, the UC Berkeley researchers measured the neural activity of macaque monkeys as they played games in which they identified the pictures most likely to deliver juice through a spout into their mouths. The animals quickly learned which pictures would most frequently deliver the greatest amount of juice, enabling researchers to see what calculations they were making, and in which part of the brain. The brains of macaques function similarly to those of humans in basic decision making. The exercise was designed to see how the animals weigh costs, benefits and risks. The results show that the orbitofrontal cortex regulates neural activity, depending on the value or "stakes" of a decision. This part of the brain enables you to switch easily between making important decisions, such as what school to attend or which job to take, and making trivial decisions such as coffee versus tea or burrito versus pizza. However, in the case of addicts and people with damage to the orbitofrontal cortex, the neural activity does not change based on the gravity of the decision, presenting trouble when these individuals try to get their brains in gear to make sound choices, the findings suggest. As for the anterior cingulate cortex, the study found that when this part of the brain functions normally, we learn quickly whether a decision we made matched our expectations. If we eat food that makes us sick, we do not eat it again. But in people with a malfunctioning anterior cingulate cortex, these signals are missing, and so they continue to make poor choices, Wallis said. "This is the first study to pin down the calculations made by these two specific parts of the brain that underlie healthy decision-making," Wallis said. A clearer understanding of how people with addictions make decisions may help remove some of the stigma of this condition, Wallis said. However, Wallis warned that these findings should not be used as a rationale for addicts to maintain unhealthy habits. Chronic drug and alcohol use changes the brain circuitry, and that can lead to unhealthy choices, he said. If anything, he said, the findings offer hope that, through understanding the mechanism of addiction, treatment can be targeted at these risk-weighing, decision-making centers of the brain. Provided by University of California - Berkeley "Scientists pinpoint the brain circuitry linked to making healthy or unhealthy choices." October 30th, 2011. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-scientists-brain-circuitry-linked-healthy.html From ths at psalience.org Mon Oct 31 17:13:03 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:13:03 +0100 Subject: [THS] Prominent physicist skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111031171231.043644b0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real APBy SETH BORENSTEIN - AP Science Writer | AP WASHINGTON (AP) ? A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly. The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Mullerwas partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists. Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades. What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study. One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions. Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis. "The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias." Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before. There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be. Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels. "Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is. On Monday, Muller was taking his results ? four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says ? to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists. "Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things." Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now." Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too. Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn. "After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change." Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it." Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said. Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer ? frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email. In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins. From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 1 01:25:19 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 01:25:19 +0100 Subject: [THS] Montana: Obama Reneges On Medical Marijuana Pledge Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111101012233.05612868@mail.messagingengine.com> Pubdate: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT) Copyright: 2011 The Billings Gazette Contact: http://billingsgazette.com/app/contact/?contact=letter Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/515 Author: Edwin Stickney Note: Dr. Edwin Stickney of Billings is a retired physician and past president of the Montana Medical Association and the Montana chapter of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Montanans Suffer As Obama Reneges On Medical Marijuana Pledge The Obama administration has been a disappointment in some ways, but by far the worst of its actions concern medical marijuana. [debatable, but go ahead...] What the federal government is doing now is nothing short of cruel and unfair, not to mention a gross waste of taxpayer dollars. It began with aggressive raids last March on legal Montana producers and providers who had been working to help worthy patients, and now has escalated to become a national scandal. As a physician, I have issued more than 400 recommendations to patients who have benefited greatly from the use of medical marijuana. It seems to me that we are seeing the fruits either of colossal ineptitude on the part of Obama's appointees or, much worse, an unconscionable double-cross that essentially amounts to deliberate entrapment by the government of good, law-abiding citizens. Ogden memo Consider that as a candidate in 2008, Obama promised to stop prosecuting patients and their providers who functioned legally under state medical marijuana laws. Once he took office, the Justice Department followed up with the "Ogden memo," in which U.S. attorneys were advised not to spend scarce resources on patients and providers in "clear and unambiguous compliance" with state and local laws. With these actions, the Obama administration itself invited a rapid increase in medical marijuana use in Montana and elsewhere. This included some problems, certainly, but states were responding, and Montana was working to improve its law. Meanwhile, some of the Montana providers I got to know sought to operate with a high degree of professionalism. To ensure Obama's required "clear and unambiguous compliance," they worked closely with local law enforcement, gave them regular tours of their facilities and used practices that they knew conformed to local law enforcement's interpretation of the rules. Yet suddenly, out of nowhere and with no warning, federal agencies intruded, shutting down some of Montana's finest model operations, thus implementing a radically altered "federal" approach to the issue. Thousands of Montana patients instantly lost access to medical marijuana - the safe medicine that had helped them more than the riskier drugs for which they no longer had prescriptions. Public's money wasted Most shockingly, the federal government now is spending taxpayer dollars to prosecute many of these good Montanans, seeking to spend yet many more taxpayer dollars to imprison them for decades or longer. And, at the same time, the government is planning to deny these defendants the right to even mention in court their compliance with state law or their open-door relations with local and state law enforcement. So much for Obama's campaign promises and the "Ogden memo." Good Montanans are now pleading guilty, no matter how professional, honorable and legal in the eyes of state law enforcement they may have been. While Congress is talking about sharply curtailing things like Medicare and Social Security because we can't afford it, every taxpayer is funding this immoral "bait-and-switch" that the Obama administration itself perpetrated. It should make every Montanan who believes in the U.S. Constitution sick. From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 1 23:22:44 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:22:44 +0100 Subject: [THS] GOLDMAN SUX? Giant Squid Strikes Again at Occupy Wall Street's Credit Union Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111101232213.041c3e60@mail.messagingengine.com> GOLDMAN SUX? Giant Squid Strikes Again at Occupy Wall Street's Credit Union Goldman Sachs Intensifies Threat on Credit Union By Greg Palast Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: in Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, out on November 14. Art by Molly Crabapple What have I done? There's one angry squid out there. Last week, Democracy Now! and The Guardian ran our story about Goldman Sachs yanking financial support from a community credit union for honoring one of its largest customers. The customer: Occupy Wall Street. Our report so enraged Goldman that, within days, it doubled down on its attack on the little community bank. Goldman had already demanded the return of its $5,000 payment to the Lower East Side Peoples Federal Credit Union. Now, sources say, the trillion-dollar Wall Street mega-bank sent the following message to the not-for-profit community bank: "You will never get a dime from any bank ever again." About those "dimes" Goldman is taking away: They come from you and me, the taxpayers who put up billions into the Troubled Asset Recovery Plan (TARP), usually known as the Bank Bail-Out Fund. For Goldman to suck its $10 billion from the TARP trough, Goldman had to change from investment bank to commercial bank. This change makes Goldman subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and requires it by law to pay back a notable portion in funds for low-income communities, abandoned by the big banks. Memo from Tim Geithner to Larry Summers (click to enlarge) In other words, Goldman is beating up Lower East Side Peoples (which operates in Harlem and the Latino New York neighborhood known as Loisaida). I would note that Goldman's nasty threat to cut off funding for Peoples, the credit union that is officially chartered as the bank for low income New Yorkers, came with a complaint about this reporter. Goldman claims that Greg Palast called only one time to get Goldman's side of the story. (I called many times, as did my associate, and we left the same repeated message: I want your side of the story. Please call me and tell me if you're punishing the poor peoples' bank because they are supporting the demands of Occupy Wall Street?) There are tens of billions of dollars at stake in the Community Reinvestment funds due from the big banks. As other banks are making noises of heeding Goldman's call to whip the uppity little credit union, an answer from Goldman becomes urgent. So, Goldman, I'm still waiting for an answer. You've got my numbers, so just pick up a tentacle and call. ******** Chapter 12 of Vultures' Picnic, "The Generalissimo of Globalization," includes the Palast team investigation of confidential documents of meetings over years between Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and the CEOs of Goldman, Bank of America and JP Morgan. The investigation takes the Palast crew from a dictator's shopping spree in Geneva to the Andes to Africa and back to Palast's years within the circle of a troll-like character named Milton Friedman. Pre-order Vultures' Picnic now or donate for a signed copy. *** Greg Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, which will be released on November 14 by Penguin USA. Pre-order it now! For more information about Palast's brand new book and his book-signing events in your city, go to www.VulturesPicnic.org Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts. From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 2 16:24:50 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:24:50 +0100 Subject: [THS] Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi: Pull Your Money Out of BofA Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111102162313.052eb340@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/another-weapon-for-ows-pull-your-money-out-of-b-of-a-20111028 Another Weapon for OWS: Pull Your Money Out of BofA ROLLING STONE - MATT TAIBBI POSTED: October 28, 11:15 AM ET Bank of America Corp. signage is displayed above the entrance to a branch in New York. Jin Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images My good friend Nomi Prins has a great new piece out that I just caught on Zero Hedge, chronicling 10 reasons why depositors should pull out of Bank of America. Obviously Goldman, Sachs has become the great symbol of investment banking corruption, and other companies like AIG and Countrywide have become poster children for problems with businesses like insurance and mortgage-lending. But when it comes to commercial banking, Bank of America is as bad as it gets. The markets, of course, have lately come to agree, as B of A has lately been downgraded again to just above junk status. The only reason the bank is not rated even lower than that is that it is Too Big To Fail. The whole world knows that if Bank of America implodes ? whether because of the vast number of fraud suits it faces for mortgage securitization practices, or because of the time bomb of toxic assets on its balance sheets ? the U.S. government will probably step in to one degree or another and save it. The government?s patronage of the bank was never clearer than in recent weeks, when B of A quietly decided to move trillions of dollars (trillions, not billions) in risky Merrill Lynch derivatives contracts off Merrill?s books and onto the books of the parent/retail arm, Bank of America. This decision was done at the behest of counterparties to those transactions, who wanted those contracts placed under the aegis of Bank of America, whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. The move was made, according to reports, so that Bank of America could avoid posting $3.3 billion in collateral to satisfy the company?s creditors. In other words, Bank of America just got You the Taxpayer to co-sign as much as $53 trillion worth of dicey derivative contracts. The FDIC wasn?t pleased by the move, but the Fed apparently encouraged it. Bloomberg, citing people with ?direct knowledge? of the deals, reported that, The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting, said the people. The bank doesn?t believe regulatory approval is needed, said people with knowledge of its position. So the primary regulator of the banking industry is encouraging a functionally insolvent megabank to respond to a credit downgrade by pushing its most explosively risky holdings onto the laps of the taxpayer. This is lunacy . Remember that story about the Chinese man who had a world-record 33-pound tumor removed from his face? This would be like treating that patient by removing the tumor and surgically attaching it to the face of a new patient, in this case the U.S. taxpayer. A series of lawmakers on the Hill, including most notably Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, and Bernie Sanders, are trying to figure out if there?s any way to stop this transaction, but of course there is not. Upstate NY congressman Maurice Hinchey put it best. "What Bank of America is doing is perfectly legal ? and that's the problem,? he said. This is exactly why the Glass-Steagall Act needs to be reinstated: without a separation of Investment Banks and Commercial Banks, what we end up getting is taxpayer-guaranteed gambling. Instead of encouraging prudence and savings by insuring deposits in commercial banks, the FDIC is now being turned into a vehicle for socializing speculative losses. So our government is not only no longer encouraging fiscal conservatism, it is doing exactly the opposite, i.e. encouraging speculation and risk-taking. That this is happening in the fever of the OWS movement, and at a time when top politicians from Barack Obama on down are paying lip service to public complaints against Wall Street, should tell you everything you need to know about whether or not we can expect this government to voluntarily enact real changes, and stop making the taxpayer eat Wall Street?s pain. Anyway, Nomi?s list goes a long way toward explaining why Bank of America is the last company on earth whose $53 trillion derivatives portfolio we should be insuring. A sample of her top ten: 7. Bank of America got the most AIG money of the big depositor banks. By virtue of having acquired Merrill Lynch's AIG-related portfolio, B of A got to keep approximately $12 billion worth of federal AIG backing, too. It also received more government subsidies than any other mega-bank except Citigroup ... In terms of overall federal subsidies (including TARP), Bank of America was second only to Citigroup ($230 billion compared to $415 billion). None of that got in the way of former B of A CEO Ken Lewis' personal take, a $63 million retirement plan, in addition to the $63 million he scored during the three years before his departure. If you?re a Bank of America customer, Nomi is right: find another bank. Try a local credit union. Keeping your money in this TBTF behemoth is very unsafe sex. Incidentally, this kind of suggestion might prove a real help to OWS. One definite tactic that Occupy Wall Street can adopt, going forward, is educating people about the perfidy of certain financial institutions and convincing people to do what they did back in the days of apartheid, which is disinvest. If everyone were to start pulling their money out of the worst-offending banks, that would have a profound effect on the markets and may function as a great short-cut to political change. Bank of America is a great place to start. All the TBTF banks suck equally, but as George Orwell would say, some banks are more equal than others. Withdrawals would be a great way for people to answer the Fed's decision to put depositors on the hook for Merrill Lynch's bad bets. From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 2 16:21:43 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:21:43 +0100 Subject: [THS] Glenn Greenwald: Middle East Propaganda 101 Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111102161949.052f5540@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29578.htm Middle East Propaganda 101 By Glenn Greenwald November 01, 2011 "Salon" - - When it comes to American propaganda about the Middle East, this New York Times article ? detailing U.S. plans to bolster its influence in the region after it ?withdraws? from Iraq ? is a masterpiece. Here?s the crux of the new American strategy and its ostensible rationale: With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council ? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new ?security architecture? for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense. The U.S. has Iran completely encircled. It has over 100,000 troops in the nation on Iran?s eastern border (Afghanistan, where, just incidentally, the U.S. continued through this year to turn over detainees to a prison notorious for torture) and has occupied the nation on Iran?s western border (Iraq) for eight years, and will continue to maintain a ?small army? of private contractors and CIA officials after it ?withdraws.? The U.S. continuously flies drone aircraft over and drops bombs on the nation on Iran?s southeastern border (Pakistan). Its NATO ally (Turkey) is situated on Iran?s northwestern border. The U.S. has troops stationed in multiple countries just a few hundred miles across the Persian Gulf from Iran, virtually all of which are client states. The U.S. has its Fifth Fleet stationed in a country less than 500 miles from Iran (Bahrain) containing ?US warships and contingents of U.S. Marines.? And the U.S. routinely arms Iran?s two most virulent rivals (Israel and Saudi Arabia) with sophisticated weaponry. But, New York Times readers were told today, the U.S. must increase its military presence still further in that region because . . . it is Iran (which has no military bases in countries bordering the U.S. or fleets stationed off its coast) that is ?belligerent? and poses a ?threat? (after all, they just dispatched a failed Texan used car salesman who constantly loses his own keys and can?t pay his bills to hire teams of Mexican drug cartel gunmen to attack a Saudi ambassador on American soil!). But the best proclamation in this article comes from the Secretary of State in explaining why this increased American presence is so very needed and so very noble: ?We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president?s announcement. The U.S. will remain in that region to protect and defend the region?s ?pathway to democracy? ? something it will achieve by further strengthening its ?cooperative military relationships? with the tyrannical regimes in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman (White House, October 12: ?the President and the King reaffirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia?). But, explained Secretary Clinton, the ultimate U.S. goal in increasing its military presence in the region is to prevent ?outside interference? in the region ? just as U.S. officials spent the last decade decrying ?outside interference? in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously invading and occupying those nations. The only conceivable assumption which can produce this sort of pronouncement is that this region is the property of the U.S., and when it increases its military presence there, that is akin to an owner fencing in his yard to prevent trespassing. That belief ? and only it ? is why American officials can announce with a straight face: we?re interfering further in this region in order to prevent ?outside interference? in this region (from nations that are actually in that region). I don?t expect Hillary Clinton to point any of that out, but perhaps the New York Times might, rather than just publishing these laughable official decrees without comment. As I noted yesterday, I?ll be on the West Coast this week, and there are two events I want to highlight: one in San Francisco, on November 2 at 6:00 p.m., that is free and open to the public, where I?ll be discussing my new book with Salon Founder and CEO David Talbot (event information is here), and a just finalized event in Los Angeles, the morning of November 2, at UCLA School of Law (event information here). It?s been several years since I was at an event in San Francisco and I really think the November 2 night event will be worth attending, so I hope to see as many readers in the Bay Area as possible there. UPDATE [Tues.]: The Kindle version of my new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, is now available for ordering here. And Antiwar.com this morning has published an excerpt from the book examining why the political and media classes joined together to demand no investigations or prosecutions of Bush-era crimes; that excerpt can be read here. - Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.More Glenn Greenwald Copyright ? 2011 Salon Media Group, Inc. From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 2 23:03:43 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:03:43 +0100 Subject: [THS] Naomi Wolf: The People Versus the Police Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111102230123.052bdba0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.nationofchange.org/people-versus-police-1320158599 Naomi Wolf Project Syndicate / Op-Ed Published: Tuesday 1 November 2011 ?Around the world, peaceful protesters are being demonized for being disruptive. But democracy is disruptive.? The People Versus the Police America?s politicians, it seems, have had their fill of democracy. Across the country, police, acting under orders from local officials, are breaking up protest encampments set up by supporters of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement ? sometimes with shocking and utterly gratuitous violence. In the worst incident so far, hundreds of police, dressed in riot gear, surrounded Occupy Oakland?s encampment and fired rubber bullets (which can be fatal), flash grenades, and tear-gas canisters ? with some officers taking aim directly at demonstrators. The Occupy Oakland Twitter feed read like a report from Cairo?s Tahrir Square: ?they are surrounding us?; ?hundreds and hundreds of police?; ?there are armored vehicles and Hummers.? There were 170 arrests. My own recent arrest, while obeying the terms of a permit and standing peacefully on a street in lower Manhattan, brought the reality of this crackdown close to home. America is waking up to what was built while it slept: private companies have hired away its police (JPMorgan Chase gave $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation); the federal Department of Homeland Security has given small municipal police forces military-grade weapons systems; citizens? rights to freedom of speech and assembly have been stealthily undermined by opaque permit requirements. Suddenly, America looks like the rest of the furious, protesting, not-completely-free world. Indeed, most commentators have not fully grasped that a world war is occurring. But it is unlike any previous war in human history: for the first time, people around the world are not identifying and organizing themselves along national or religious lines, but rather in terms of a global consciousness and demands for a peaceful life, a sustainable future, economic justice, and basic democracy. Their enemy is a global ?corporatocracy? that has purchased governments and legislatures, created its own armed enforcers, engaged in systemic economic fraud, and plundered treasuries and ecosystems. Around the world, peaceful protesters are being demonized for being disruptive. But democracy is disruptive. Martin Luther King, Jr., argued that peaceful disruption of ?business as usual? is healthy, because it exposes buried injustice, which can then be addressed. Protesters ideally should dedicate themselves to disciplined, nonviolent disruption in this spirit ? especially disruption of traffic. This serves to keep provocateurs at bay, while highlighting the unjust militarization of the police response. Moreover, protest movements do not succeed in hours or days; they typically involve sitting down or ?occupying? areas for the long hauls. That is one reason why protesters should raise their own money and hire their own lawyers. The corporatocracy is terrified that citizens will reclaim the rule of law. In every country, protesters should field an army of attorneys. Protesters should also make their own media, rather than relying on mainstream outlets to cover them. They should blog, tweet, write editorials and press releases, as well as log and document cases of police abuse (and the abusers). There are, unfortunately, many documented cases of violent provocateurs infiltrating demonstrations in places like Toronto, Pittsburgh, London, and Athens ? people whom one Greek described to me as ?known unknowns.? Provocateurs, too, need to be photographed and logged, which is why it is important not to cover one?s face while protesting. Protesters in democracies should create email lists locally, combine the lists nationally, and start registering voters. They should tell their representatives how many voters they have registered in each district ? and they should organize to oust politicians who are brutal or repressive. And they should support those ? as in Albany, New York, for instance, where police and the local prosecutor refused to crack down on protesters ? who respect the rights to free speech and assembly. Many protesters insist in remaining leaderless, which is a mistake. A leader does not have to sit atop a hierarchy: a leader can be a simple representative. Protesters should elect representatives for a finite ?term,? just like in any democracy, and train them to talk to the press and to negotiate with politicians. Protests should model the kind of civil society that their participants want to create. In lower Manhattan?s Zuccotti Park, for example, there is a library and a kitchen; food is donated; kids are invited to sleep over; and teach-ins are organized. Musicians should bring instruments, and the atmosphere should be joyful and positive. Protesters should clean up after themselves. The idea is to build a new city within the corrupt city, and to show that it reflects the majority of society, not a marginal, destructive fringe. After all, what is most profound about these protest movements is not their demands, but rather the nascent infrastructure of a common humanity. For decades, citizens have been told to keep their heads down ? whether in a consumerist fantasy world or in poverty and drudgery ? and leave leadership to the elites. Protest is transformative precisely because people emerge, encounter one another face-to-face, and, in re-learning the habits of freedom, build new institutions, relationships, and organizations. None of that cannot happen in an atmosphere of political and police violence against peaceful democratic protesters. As Bertolt Brecht famously asked, following the East German Communists? brutal crackdown on protesting workers in June 1953, ?Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?? Across America, and in too many other countries, supposedly democratic leaders seem to be taking Brecht?s ironic question all too seriously. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work. Is Digg defining a new direction for the curation economy? And could the new site help us cope with information overload? Tweet Get Email Alerts from NationofChange ABOUT Naomi Wolf Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 2 16:16:04 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:16:04 +0100 Subject: [THS] !!!!! Beware: Israel Air Force conducts drills for long-range attacks Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111102160812.05331008@mail.messagingengine.com> From: Michael Carmichael An interesting message from Solomon Davidson, a American scholar of international relations now based in Paris (see below). Netanyahu's manipulative reactions to the Palestinian UN strategy are causing the US incalculable damage. First Bibi accelerates settlement construction (2 days ago) and orders the US to default on $60 million to UNESCO (one of the most important facets of the UN - it is not solely about landmarks, it is educative, scientific and cultural, as well). Now, Bibi is brandishing a new plan to attack Iran, probably sooner than later, with a massive air-strike involving more than 200 aircraft. Obama never brought Netanyahu to heel, now the world will suffer the consequences, while the Congress that voted 407 strong to de-fund Palestinian aid if they went to the UN (a paltry $600 million per year) backs Bibi's self-destructive and potentially suicidal plans. It is rapidly evolving into the script for a future horror movie filled with gore and a rampage of anti-Semitism that could lead to the devastation of Israel. A sideshow - Bibi has ordered a massive upgrading of his nuclear arsenal with new fitments to his long range missiles bringing them up to ICBM standards with 5000 mile ranges - repeat 5000 mile ICBMs -- bringing in range New York, Washington DC, Beijing, Moscow, Indonesia, Hong Kong and North Korea as well as all the oilfields of the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. The point being, Bibi is swiftly becoming the most powerful man on earth wielding an arsenal that is the virtual equivalent of Dr. Strangelove?s doomsday machine -- and there is no effective American control over him, none whatsoever. (Romney is already Bibi?s avowed lapdog.) The situation is suicidal and reminiscent of Masada and the resultant Masada Complex that metamorphosed into The Samson Option through the miracles of modern science. I'm not making this up. Where is Sy Hersh now that we need him? Solomon Davidson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Iran military head warns of 'heavy damage' after an Israeli attack Tehran responds to recent reports of Israeli leaders' efforts to gain support for an attack on Iran's nuclear development sites. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-military-head-warns-of-heavy-damage-after-an-israeli-attack-1.393318 Israel Air Force conducts drills for long-range attacks While the media and political sphere is abuzz with news on a potential attack on Iran's nuclear development facilities, the Israel Air Force conducts comprehensive drills on long-range attacks at Italy NATO base. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-air-force-conducts-drills-for-long-range-attacks-1.393325 Lieberman: Iran poses most dangerous threat to world order FM responds to recent reports that Netanyahu is trying to gain cabinet support to attack Iran, says international community must prove its resolve against the regime in Tehran. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lieberman-iran-poses-most-dangerous-threat-to-world-order-1.393303 European Poll: Israel Biggest Threat To World Peace By Jewish Federations of North America Results of a new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29581.htm IDF test-fires ballistic missile in central Israel Defense Ministry says trial was preplanned, has no connection to recent media publications on possible attack on Iran. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-test-fires-ballistic-missile-in-central-israel-1.393306 Report: Israel seeking to upgrade its nuclear weapons capabilities Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 missiles and upgrading its sea-based cruise missiles, according to an independent U.K. commission report published in the Guardian. http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/report-israel-seeking-to-upgrade-its-nuclear-weapons-capabilities-1.392957?trailingPath=2.169,2.216,2.217, A Glimpse Into Israeli Nuclear Madness By Gilad Atzmon Why does Israel need so many nuclear bombs? Why does it need 'transcontinental missiles'? Why does the Jewish State think it terms of 'second strike nuclear option'? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29582.htm Israel is a strategic asset for U.S. national interests, according to new report Report issued by Washington Institute for Near East Policy describes how the benefit of the U.S.-Israel relationship far exceeds the cost. http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/israel-is-a-strategic-asset-for-u-s-national-interests-according-to-new-report-1.393309 U.S. Cuts Off UNESCO Funding After Palestine Vote By AP That decision will have an immediate effect: The United States won't make a $60 million payment scheduled for November, according to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29572.htm From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 2 16:18:43 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:18:43 +0100 Subject: [THS] Gilad Atzmon: A Glimpse Into Israeli Nuclear Madness Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111102161718.053281f8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29582.htm A Glimpse Into Israeli Nuclear Madness Introduction by Gilad Atzmon November 01, 2011 "Gilad Atzmon" -- Please read the following Haaretz report and ask yourself why does Israel need so many nuclear bombs? Why does it need ?transcontinental missiles?? Why does the Jewish State think in terms of ?second strike nuclear option?? I am afraid that the answer is pretty devastating. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State. It is shaped by Jewish culture and driven by Jewish ideology. Israeli militarized madness is devastatingly consistent with the Biblical Samson story. God granted Samson supernatural strength in order to combat his enemies but it didn?t take long before he killed himself in action while committing a genocide. 'Let me die with the Philistines!' (Judges 16:30) says Samson as he pulls down the temple killing thousands of elders, women and children. Devastatingly enough, ?suicidal genocide? is well imbued in the Israeli strategic and tactical vision. But Israel is also driven by a unique collective mental condition namely the Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder (Pre-TSD). Israel?s actions in the present are shaped by a future imaginary phantasmic trauma. I guess that the combination of Samson?s ideology, Pre TSD and hundreds of nuclear warheads may as well mean an inevitable disaster. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Report: Israel seeking to upgrade its nuclear weapons capabilities Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 missiles and upgrading its sea-based cruise missiles, according to an independent U.K. commission report published in the Guardian. By Haaretz Israel is working on improving its nuclear weapons capabilities, according to a report by the independent Trident commission in the United Kingdom that was published in the Guardian newspaper on Monday. According to the report in the Guardian, Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 land-to-land missiles so they will have the capabilities of transcontinental missiles. Transcontinental missiles are generally thought of as missiles with ranges of about 5,000 miles. The Guardian also reported that Israel is also striving to improve and expand the capabilities of its cruise missiles, designed to be launched from submarines. Israel currently has three submarines and two more are under construction in Germany. Israel and Germany are holding talks about the construction of a sixth submarine. According to foreign media reports, Israel's submarines are meant to give Israel a "second strike" nuclear option, meaning that Israel can strike back with nuclear weapons from submarines at hidden locations at sea even if its nuclear weapons stored on land are harmed in an enemy nuclear strike. According to the report in the Guardian, the world's nuclear states are planning to spend more than $800 billion in the coming years to modernize and upgrade their nuclear arsenals. The United States itself will spend $700 billion dollars on such projects. Other countries that will reportedly invest in upgrading their nuclear arsenals are Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France and Britain. ???? ???? ?? ??????: ????? ????????: ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? This story is by: - Haaretz From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 12:55:43 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:55:43 +0100 Subject: [THS] UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103125322.04760008@mail.messagingengine.com> [Got "nuclear fears"? I do. But mine are of the newcular variety, viz., made in USA bombs - THS] The Guardian UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential militaryaction against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned. The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government. In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign. They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East. The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya. They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election. But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking. Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran. The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime. One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought. He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran. In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium. Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing. Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom. The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base. Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level. "Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't. "So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure. "President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election." Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran. The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too. The RAF could also provide air-to-air refueling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to. An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution ? but all options should be kept on the table." The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time. One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning." Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late. Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek. It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons. Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system. British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month. "There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one. Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device. It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions. At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran. According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear Haaretz poll: Israelis evenly split over attacking Iran Haaretz-Dialog poll shows 52 percent of Israelis trust PM Netanyahu and DM Barak's 'on the Iranian issue,' while 37 percent do not, only 11 percent had no opinion. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-poll-israelis-evenly-split-over-attacking-iran-1.393378 Haaretz Senior Israeli Ministers clash over military option against Iran Barak supports military strike on Iran, Ya'alon favors U.S. intervention. Israelis are almost evenly split on whether Israel should attack Iran's nuclear facilities, with 41 percent supporting such a strike and 39 percent opposed, a new Haaretz-Dialog poll has found. The remaining 20 percent said they were undecided. . . . "We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them," Iranian Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi told the ISNA new agency. "In case of an attack by the Zionist regime, the United States would also be hit," he added, without elaborating. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/senior-israeli-ministers-clash-over-military-option-against-iran-1.393383 Haaretz Report: U.K. preparing for military strike on Iran nuclear facilities The Guardian newspaper says U.K. increasingly concerned over Iran's enrichment program, and is preparing to deploy warships to assist a possible U.S. strike. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-k-preparing-for-military-strike-on-iran-nuclear-facilities-1.393361 From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 13:01:18 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:01:18 +0100 Subject: [THS] Study: legalizing medical marijuana does not increase use among youth Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103130031.045271d0@mail.messagingengine.com> Study finds legalizing medical marijuana does not increase use among youth November 2nd, 2011 in Health A Rhode Island Hospital physician/researcher will present findings from a study investigating whether legalizing medical marijuana in Rhode Island will increase its use among youths. Lead author Esther Choo, M.D., M.P.H., will present the findings of the study at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting and Exposition on November 2. Choo, an emergency medicine physician with Rhode Island Hospital, and her coauthors explain that the state-level legalization of medical marijuana has raised concerns about increased accessibility and appeal of the drug to youth, who are most vulnerable to public messages about drug use and to the adverse consequences of marijuana. Their study was performed to assess the impact of medical marijuana legalization in Rhode Island in 2006. The researchers compared trends in adolescent marijuana use between Rhode Island and Massachusetts using a self-report called the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System. In their study, they included surveys completed between 1997 and 2009. Based on their analysis of 32,570 students, they found that while marijuana use was common throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in marijuana use between states in any year. Choo says, "Our study did not find increases in adolescent marijuana use related to Rhode Island's 2006 legalization of medical marijuana; however, additional research may follow future trends as medical marijuana in Rhode Island and other states becomes more widely used." The study was funded by a grant from the Rhode Island Foundation. Choo's principal affiliation is Rhode Island Hospital, a member hospital of the Lifespan health system in Rhode Island, and direct financial and infrastructure support for this project was received through the Lifespan Office of Research Administration. Choo also holds an academic appointment, assistant professor of emergency medicine, at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Provided by Lifespan "Study finds legalizing medical marijuana does not increase use among youth." November 2nd, 2011. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-11-legalizing-medical-marijuana-youth.html From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 13:05:13 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:05:13 +0100 Subject: [THS] OWS Oakland Takes Over City, Shutting Down One of the Biggest Ports Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103130333.045b9e90@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.alternet.org/story/152939/ows_oakland_takes_over_city_--_thousands_show_up%2C_shutting_down_businesses_and_one_of_the_biggest_ports_in_the_country?page=entire AlterNet / By Joshua Holland OWS Oakland Takes Over City, Shutting Down One of the Biggest Ports in the Country...But Nightfall Brings More Chaos and Teargas Calling the protests a "general strike" resulted in an unbelievable amount of media coverage -- a victory for the Occupy Movement. November 2, 2011 | As many as 15,000 people participated in actions across Oakland yesterday, with small marches peeling off to protest in front of banks or "occupy" foreclosed homes. There were probably eight to ten times the number of people in the streets of Oakland today as I'd seen during past OWS actions. Police maintained a minimal presence throughout the day. There were a few scattered acts of vandalism -- windows were broken at two banks but there was no violence, and the protests were remarkably up-beat throughout the day. But that changed when night fell as the streets of Oakland once again resonated with the sharp cracks of tear gas canisters and "less lethal" projectiles being fired, and flash-bang grenades scattering the crowd. First, did a small group of activists manage in just 5 short days of organizing to bring about the first general strike in the United States in generations? Not exactly. But while there was no broad, city-wide general strike of the sort last seen in this country in 1946, the effort was anything but a failure. A day of scattered actions across the city culminated in a massive "occupation" that shut down the Port of Oakland, the fifth busiest container port in the country. When it was announced that operations had been suspended for the night, thousands of people partied around trucks halted in their tracks, celebrating a victory in their struggle with authorities that began with the violent eviction of Occupy Oakland last week. The Oakland police, and Mayor Jean Quan, stung by negative press stemming from the clashes, essentially gave the port to the movement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947, unions have been forbidden from participating in general strikes, but there was no doubt that the longshoremen were firmly on the side of the protesters. The occupiers arrived in waves, and at first small groups blocked the entrances to port facilities, letting workers out at the end of their shifts, but preventing their replacements from taking the next shift. One by one, longshoremen arrived to find a picket line blocking their entrance. In every case, they expressed solidarity -- honking their horns and in some instances getting out and talking to the protesters, and then pulled a u-turn and went home -- their contracts specified that they wouldn't be required to work if there was a disturbance at the port. Throughout the day, about half of the businesses in downtown Oakland are shuttered, many with signs expressing solidarity with the occupiers. The city's economy may not have been brought to a halt, but it was not functioning to full capacity. Angela Davis gave a rousing speech at 9:30 this morning to kick off the day's proceedings. A "children's march" circled Frank Ogawa Plaza - renamed Oscar Grant plaza by the protesters in honor of the young man shot to death by BART police on New Year's 2009. They chanted "Play Nice and Share!" A group of high school students told me that their principal had circulated a memo giving them the day off. Calls to the school district to find out today's attendance figures weren't returned at press time, but the Los Angeles Times reported that 16 percent of the city's teachers didn't show up for work. There were many children and young people in the crowd, many attended by their parents. Calling this day of protests and direct actions a "general strike" may have raised the bar too high, but it also resulted in an almost unbelievable amount of media coverage - far more attention than protests against the Iraq war attended by hundreds of thousands ever received. In that sense today could be seen as a major victory for the Occupy Movement. This may have provided a model for other occupations to follow in the coming months. But at around midnight, the peaceful protests that had marked the day devolved into something uglier. It began when a group of activists "occupied" an abandoned building. Soon after, word spread that police were preparing to evict the squatters. A call went out to defend the site, and about 100-200 people answered it, filling the street a few blocks away where the building was located and erecting a barricade out of whatever was at hand in an effort to prevent police from reaching the scene. About an hour later, 16 vans filled with police clad in riot gear arrived at an adjacent corner and began to stage. They formed into several lines and prepared to move in (forgive the blurry pictures). At that point, somebody set the barrier on fire, an order to disperse was given, and for the next 2-3 hours, a series of clashes followed in which numerous rounds of teargas, flash-bangs and non-lethal rounds were fired at protesters. Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 13:09:45 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:09:45 +0100 Subject: [THS] James Petras: Argentina: Depression, Revolt and Recovery Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103130927.049d5d60@mail.messagingengine.com> Argentina: Depression, Revolt and Recovery Why President Fernandez Wins and Obama Loses By Prof. James Petras URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27368 Global Research, October 30, 2011 Introduction On October 23rd of this year, President Cristina Fernandez won re-election receiving 54% of the vote, 37 percentage points higher than her nearest opponent. The President?s coalition also swept the Congressional, Senatorial, Gubernatorial elections as well as 135 of the 136 municipal councils of Greater Buenos Aires. In sharp contrast President Obama, according to recent polls is trailing leading Republican Presidential candidates and is likely to lose control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming 2012 election. What accounts for the monumental difference in voter preferences of incumbent presidents? A comparative historical discussion of socio-economic and foreign policies as well as responses to profound economic crises is at the center of any explanation of the divergent results. Methodology In comparing the performance of Fernandez and Obama it is necessary to locate them in an historical context. More specifically, both presidents and their immediate predecessors, George Bush in the US and Nestor Kirchner (deceased husband of Fernandez) in Argentina confronted major economic and social crises. What is telling, however, are the diametrically opposing responses to the crises and the divergent results. On the one hand sustained growth with equity in Argentina and deepening crises and failed policies in the US . Historical Context: Argentina : Depression, Revolt and Recovery Between 1998 ? 2002, Argentina experienced the worse socio-economic crises in its history. The economy nose-dived from recession to full scale depression, culminating in double digit negative growth in 2001 ? 2002. Unemployment reached over 25% and in many working class neighborhoods, over 50%. Tens of thousands of impoverished middle class professional lined up to receive bread and soup only blocks away from the Presidential palace. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, ?piqueteros? (picketers), blocked major highways and some raided trains shipping cattle and grain overseas. Banks closed depriving millions of depositors of their savings. Millions of middle class protestors organized radical neighborhood councils and linked up with unemployed assemblies. The country was heavily indebted, the people deeply impoverished. The popular mood was moving toward a revolutionary uprising. Incumbent President Fernando De la Rua was overthrown (2001) scores of protestors were killed and wounded, as a popular rebellion threatened to seize the Presidential palace. By the end of 2002, hundreds of bankrupt factories were ?occupied?, taken over and run by workers. Argentina defaulted on its external debt. In early 2003, Nestor Kirchner was elected President, in the midst of this systemic crisis and proceeded to reject efforts to enforce debt payment or repress the popular movements. Instead he inaugurated a series of emergency public works programs. He authorized payments to unemployed workers (150 pesos per month) to meet the basic needs of nearly half the labor force. The most popular slogan, of the multitudinous movements occupying the financial districts, factories, public buildings and the streets was ?Que se vayan todos? (?All politicians get out?). The entire political class, parties and leaders, Congress and presidents were rejected outright. But while the movements were vast, militant and united in what they rejected, they had no coherent program for taking state power, nor national political leadership to lead them. After two years of turmoil, the populace turned to the ballot box and elected Kirchner with a mandate to produce or perish. Kirchner heard the message, at least the part which demanded growth with equity. Context: The US under Bush-Obama The last years of the Bush administration and the Obama presidency presided over the worse socio-economic crises since the Great Depression of the 1930?s. Unemployment and underemployment rose to almost a third of the labor force by 2009. Millions of homes were foreclosed. Bankruptcies multiplied and banks were on the verge of collapse. Negative growth rates and a sharp decline in income, increased poverty and multiplied the number of food stamp recipients. Unlike Argentina , discontented citizens took to the ballot box. Attracted by the demagogic ?change? rhetoric of Obama, they placed their hopes in the new president. The Democrats won the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress. The first priority of Obama and Congress was to pour trillions of dollars in bailing out the banks, even as unemployment deepened and the recession continued. Their second priority was to deepen and expand overseas imperial wars. Obama increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by 30,000; expanded the military budget to $750 billion dollars; launched new military operations in Somalia , Yemen , Libya , Pakistan and elsewhere; augmented military aid to Israeli colonial armed forces; signed military pacts with Asian countries ( India , Philippines , Australia ) proximate to China . In sum Obama gave maximum priority to expanding the militarized empire, depleting the public treasury of funds to finance the recovery of the domestic economy and reducing unemployment. In contrast, Kirchner/Fernandez curtailed the power of the military, cut military spending and channeled state revenues toward employment programs, productive investments and non-traditional exports. Under Obama the crises became an opportunity to revive and consolidate the financial power of Wall Street. The White House augmented the military budget to expand imperial wars by deepening the budget deficit and then proposed to cut essential social programs to ?reduce the deficit?. Argentina from Crises to Dynamic Growth In Argentina the economic catastrophe and popular uprising provided Kirchner with an opportunity to bring about a basic shift from militarism and speculative pillage to social programs and sustained economic growth. The electoral victories of both Kirchner and Fernandez reflect their success in creating a ?normal? capitalist welfare state. After 30 years of US backed predator neo-liberal regimes, this was a great positive change. Between 1966 and 2002, Argentina suffered brutal military dictatorships culminating in the genocidal generals who murdered 30,000 Argentines from 1976to 1982. From 1983to 1989 Argentina ?s suffered under a neo-liberal regime (Raul Alfonsin) which failed to deal with the dictatorial legacy and which presided over triple digit hyper-inflation. From 1989 ? 1999 under President Carlos Menem Argentina witnessed the biggest sell-off of its most lucrative public firms, natural resources (petrol included), banks, highways, zoo and public toilets to foreign investors and kleptocratic cronies for bargain basement prices. Last but not least, Fernando De la Rua (2000 ? 2001), promised change and proceeded to deepen the recession that led to the final catastrophic crash of December 2001 and the closing of the banks, the bankruptcy of 10,000 firms and the collapse of the economy. Against this background of total and unmitigated failure and the human disaster of US ? IMF promoted ?free-market? policies, Kirchner/Fernandez defaulted on the external debt, re-nationalized several privatized firms and the pension funds, intervened the banks and doubled social spending, expanded public investment in production and increased popular consumption, on the road to economic recovery. By the end of 2003 Argentina turned from negative to 8% growth. Human Rights, Social Programs and Independent Foreign Economic Policy Argentina ?s economy has grown over 90% from 2003 ? 2011, over three times that of the United States . Its recovery has been accompanied by a tripling of social spending, especially on programs reducing poverty. The percentage of poor Argentines has declined from over 50% in 2001 to less than 15% in 2011. In contrast US poverty has risen over the same decade from 12% to 17% and is on an upward trajectory over the same period. The US has become the country with the greatest inequalities in the OECD with 1% controlling 40% of the country?s wealth, (up from 30% in less than a decade). In contrast, Argentina ?s inequalities have shrunken by half. The US economy has failed to recover from the deep recession of 2008-2009, during which it declined by over 8%. In contrast Argentina declined less than 1% in 2009, and has been growing at a healthy 8% (2010-2011). Argentina has nationalized pension funds, doubled basic pensions and introduced a universal child welfare program to counter malnutrition and guarantee school attendance. In contrast 20% of children in the US are now suffering from poor diets, drop-out rates are increasing for adolescents and malnutrition affects over 25% of minority children. With more social cuts in health/education under way, social conditions can only worsen. In Argentina the income of wage and salaried workers has increased over 50% over the decade in real terms, while in the US they have declined by nearly 10%. Argentina ?s dynamic growth of GNP has been fueled by growing domestic consumption and dynamic export earnings. Argentina has a consistent large trade surplus based on favorable market prices and increased competitiveness. In contrast domestic consumption has stagnated in the US , the trade deficit is close to $1.5 trillion dollars and revenues are wasted on non-productive military expenditures of over $900 billion a year. While in Argentina the impulse for a policy of default with growth came about because of a popular rebellion and mass movements, in the US popular discontent was channeled toward the election of a Wall Street financial con-man named Obama. He proceeded to pour resources into rescuing the financial elite instead of letting them go bankrupt and funding growth, competitiveness and social consumption. The Argentine Alternative to Bailouts and Poverty The Argentine experience goes counter to all the precepts of the international financial agencies (the IMF, World Bank), their political backers, and publicists in the financial press. From the first year (2003) of Argentina ?s recovery to the present, the economic experts have ?predicted? that its growth was ?not sustainable? ? it has continued robustly for over a decade. The financial writers claimed the default would lead to Argentina being shut out of financial markets and that its economy would collapse. Argentina relied on self-financing based on export earnings and re-activation of the domestic economy and confounded the prestigious economists. As growth continued, the critics in the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal claimed it would end once ?unused capacity was exhausted?. Instead growth earnings financed the expansion of the domestic market and created new capacity for growth especially to new markets in Asia and Brazil . Even as late as October 25, 2011, Financial Times columnists still prattle about ?the coming crises? in the manner of messianic fundamentalists who predict the pending apocalypse. They harp on ?high inflation?, ?unsustainable social programs?, ?overvalued currency?, and more predictions of ?the end of prosperity?. All these dire warnings occur in the face of continued growth of 8% in 2011 and the overwhelming electoral victory of President Fernandez.. Anglo-American financial scribes should focus on the demise of their free market regimes in Europe and North America instead of denigrating an economic experience from which they might learn. In refutation of the Wall Street critics, Mark Weisbrot and his associates point out (?The Argentina Success Story?, Center for Economic Bad Policy Research, Oct. 2011) that Argentina ?s growth was based on the expansion of domestic consumption, increased manufacturing exports to regional trading partners as well as traditional agro-mineral exports to Asia . In other words Argentina is not totally dependent on primary exports; it has balanced trade and is not over dependent on commodity prices. In regard to high inflation, Weisbrot points out that ?inflation may be high in Argentina but it is real growth and income distribution that matter with regard to the well-being of the vast majority of population?, (page 14) (my emphasis). The US under Bush-Obama has pursued a totally perverse and divergent path to that of Kirchner-Fernandez. They have prioritized military spending and expanded the security apparatus over the productive economy. Obama and Congress have vastly increased the police state apparatus, reinforced their political influence over regressive budgetary policies while increasingly violating human and civil rights. In contrast Kirchner/Fernandez have prosecuted dozens of human rights violators in the military and police and weakened the military?s political power. In other words the Argentine Presidents have weakened the militarist pressure bloc which demands greater arms and security expenditures. They created a state more accommodative to their political project of financing economic competitiveness, new markets and social programs. Bush-Obama revived the parasitical financial sector further unbalancing the economy. Kirchner/Fernandez ensured that the banking sector financed the growth of the export sector, manufactures and domestic consumption. Obama slashes social consumption to pay creditors. Kirchner-Fernandez imposed a 75% ?haircut? on bondholders in order to finance social spending. Kirchner-Fernandez have won three presidential elections, each by a larger margin. Obama may be a one-term president, even with the billion dollar campaign funding from Wall Street, the military industrial complex and the pro-Israel power configuration. The popular opposition to Obama, especially the ?Occupy Wall Street movement? has a long way to go to emulate the success of the Argentine movements that rousted incumbent presidents, blocked highways paralyzing production and circulation and imposed a social agenda that prioritized production over finance, social consumption over military expenditures. The ?Occupy Wall Street Movement? has taken a first step toward mobilizing millions of active participants necessary to creating the social muscle that turned Argentina from a US style client state into a dynamic independent welfare state. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 13:19:22 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:19:22 +0100 Subject: [THS] Earth Is Not Revolving Around the Sun! Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103131903.04460468@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/astrophysics/earth-is-not-revolving-around-the-sun.html#.TqtMYFC0qxA.hotmail Earth Is Not Revolving Around the Sun! From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 13:26:53 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:26:53 +0100 Subject: [THS] William Blum: The Anti-Empire Report - War in Libya Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103132501.0406f548@mail.messagingengine.com> http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer99.html The Anti-Empire Report November 1st, 2011 by William Blum www.killinghope.org It doesn't matter to them if it's untrue. It's a higher truth. "We came, we saw, he died." ? US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, giggling, as she spoke of the depraved murder of Moammar Gaddafi Imagine Osama bin Laden or some other Islamic leader speaking of 9-11: "We came, we saw, 3,000 died ... ha- ha." Clinton and her partners-in-crime in NATO can also have a good laugh at how they deceived the world. The destruction of Libya, the reduction of a modern welfare state to piles of rubble, to ghost towns, the murder of thousands ... this tragedy was the culmination of a series of falsehoods spread by the Libyan rebels, the Western powers, and Qatar (through its television station, al-Jazeera) ? from the declared imminence of a "bloodbath" in rebel-held Benghazi if the West didn't intervene to stories of government helicopter-gunships and airplanes spraying gunfire onto large numbers of civilians to tales of Viagra-induced mass rapes by Gaddafi's army. (This last fable was proclaimed at the United Nations by the American Ambassador, as if young soldiers needed Viagra to get it up!)1 The New York Times (March 22) observed: ... the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior. The Los Angeles Times (April 7) added this about the rebels' media operation: It's not exactly fair and balanced media. In fact, as [its editor] helpfully pointed out, there are four inviolate rules of coverage on the two rebel radio stations, TV station and newspaper: * No pro-[Qaddafi] reportage or commentary * No mention of a civil war. (The Libyan people, east and west, are unified in a war against a totalitarian regime.) * No discussion of tribes or tribalism. (There is only one tribe: Libya.) * No references to Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism. (That's [Qaddafi's] propaganda.) The Libyan government undoubtedly spouted its share of misinformation, but it was the rebels' trail of lies, both of omission and commission, which was used by the UN Security Council to justify its vote for "humanitarian" intervention; followed in Act Three by unrelenting NATO/US bombs and drone missiles, day after day, week after week, month after month; you can't get much more humanitarian than that. If the people of Libya prior to the NATO/US bombardment had been offered a referendum on it, can it be imagined that they would have endorsed it? In fact, it appears rather likely that a majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi. How else could the government have held off the most powerful military forces in the world for more than seven months? Before NATO and the US laid waste to the land, Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, and highest UN Human Development Index in Africa. During the first few months of the civil war, giant rallies were held in support of the Libyan leader.2 For further discussion of why Libyans may have been motivated to support Gaddafi, have a look at this video. If Gaddafi had been less oppressive of his political opposition over the years and had made some gestures of accommodation to them during the Arab Spring, the benevolent side of his regime might still be keeping him in power, although the world has plentiful evidence making it plain that the Western powers are not particularly concerned about political oppression except to use as an excuse for intervention when they want to; indeed, government files seized in Tripoli during the fighting show that the CIA and British intelligence worked with the Libyan government in tracking down dissidents, turning them over to Libya, and taking part in interrogations.3 In any event, many of the rebels had a religious motive for opposing the government and played dominant roles within the rebel army; previously a number of them had fought against the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.4 The new Libyan regime promptly announced that Islamic sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation, and laws that contradict "the teachings of Islam" would be nullified; there would also be a reinstitution of polygamy; the Muslim holy book, the Quran, allows men up to four wives.5 Thus, just as in Afghanistan in the 1980-90s, the United States has supported Islamic militants fighting against a secular government. The American government has imprisoned many people as "terrorists" in the United States for a lot less. What began in Libya as "normal" civil war violence from both sides ? repeated before and since by the governments of Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria without any Western military intervention at all (the US actually continues to arm the Bahrain and Yemen regimes) ? was transformed by the Western propaganda machine into a serious Gaddafi genocide of innocent Libyans. Addressing the validity of this very key issue is another video, "Humanitarian War in Libya: There is no evidence". The main feature of the film is an interview with Soliman Bouchuiguir, Secretary-General, and one of the founders in 1989, of the Libyan League for Human Rights, perhaps the leading Libyan dissident group, in exile in Switzerland. Bouchuiguir is asked several times if he can document various charges made against the Libyan leader. Where is the proof of the many rapes? The many other alleged atrocities? The more than 6,000 civilians alleged killed by Gaddafi's planes? Again and again Bouchuiguir cites the National Transitional Council as the source. Yes, that's the rebels who carried out the civil war in conjunction with the NATO/US forces. At other times Bouchuiguir speaks of "eyewitnesses": "little girls, boys who were there, whose families we know personally". After awhile, he declares that "there is no way" to document these things. This is probably true to some extent, but why, then, the UN Security Council resolution for a military intervention in Libya? Why almost eight months of bombing? Bouchuiguir also mentions his organization's working with the National Endowment for Democracy in their effort against Gaddafi, and one has to wonder if the man has any idea that the NED was founded to be a front for the CIA. Literally. Another source of charges against Gaddafi and his sons has been the International Criminal Court. The Court's Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is shown in this film at a news conference discussing the same question of proof of the charges. He refers to an ICC document of 77 pages which he says contains the evidence. The film displays the document's Table of Contents, which shows that pages 17-71 are not available to the public; these pages, apparently the ones containing the testimony and evidence, are marked as "redacted". In an appendix, the ICC report lists its news sources; these include Fox News, CNN, the CIA, Soliman Bouchuiguir, and the Libyan League for Human Rights. Earlier, the film had presented Bouchuiguir citing the ICC as one of his sources. The documentation is thus a closed circle. Historical footnote: "Aerial bombing of civilians was pioneered by the Italians in Libya in 1911, perfected by the British in Iraq in 1920 and used by the French in 1925 to level whole quarters of Syrian cities. Home demolitions, collective punishment, summary execution, detention without trial, routine torture ? these were the weapons of Europe's takeover" in the Mideast.6 The worldwide eternal belief that American foreign policy has a good side that can be appealed to On April 6, 2011 Moammar Gaddafi wrote a letter to President Obama, in which he said: "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. ... Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu Oubama, your intervention in the name of the U.S.A. is a must, so that Nato would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair."7 Before the American invasion in March 2003, Iraq tried to negotiate a peace deal with the United States. Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction and offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search; they also offered full support for any US plan in the Arab-Israeli peace process, and to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. If this is about oil, they added, they would also talk about US oil concessions.8 ... Then came shock and awe! In 2002, before the coup in Venezuela that briefly ousted Hugo Ch?vez, some of the plotters went to Washington to get a green light from the Bush administration. Ch?vez learned of this visit and was so distressed by it that he sent officials from his government to plead his own case in Washington. The success of this endeavor can be judged by the fact that the coup took place shortly thereafter.9 In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos, said that "he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians." "Finally," Marcos said, "they are going to conclude that this is a Mexican problem, with just and true causes."10 Yet for many years, the United States provided the Mexican military with all the training and tools needed to crush the Zapatistas. The Guatemalan foreign minister in 1954, Cheddi Jagan of British Guiana in 1961, and Maurice Bishop of Grenada in 1983 all made their appeals to Washington to be left in peace.11 The governments of all three countries were overthrown by the United States. In 1945 and 1946, Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh, a genuine admirer of America and the Declaration of Independence, wrote at least eight letters to President Harry Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French. He wrote that world peace was being endangered by French efforts to reconquer Indochina and he requested that "the four powers" (US, USSR, China, and Great Britain) intervene in order to mediate a fair settlement and bring the Indochinese issue before the United Nations.12 Ho Chi Minh received no reply. He was, after all, some sort of communist. America's presstitutes Imagine that the vicious police attack of October 25 on the Occupy Oakland encampment had taken place in Iran or Cuba or Venezuela or in any other ODE (Officially Designated Enemy) ... Page One Righteous Indignation with Shocking Photos. But here's the Washington Post the next day: A three-inch story on page three with a headline: "Protesters wearing out their welcome nationwide"; no mention of the Iraqi veteran left unconscious from a police projectile making contact with his head; as to photos: just one ? an Oakland police officer petting a cat that was left behind by the protesters. And here's TV comedian Jay Leno the same night as the police attack in Oakland: "They say Moammar Gaddafi may have been one of the richest men in the world ... 200 billion dollars. With all of the billions he had, he spent very little on education or health care for his country. So I guess he was a Republican."13 The object of Leno's humor was of course the Republicans, but it served the cause of further demonizing Gaddafi and thus adding to the "justification" of America's murderous attack on Libya. If I had been one of Leno's guests sitting there, I would have turned to the audience and said: "Listen people, under Gaddafi health care and education were completely free. Wouldn't you like to have that here?" I think that enough people in the audience would have applauded or shouted to force Leno to back off a bit from his indoctrinated, mindless remark. And just for the record, the 200 billion dollars is not money found in Gaddafi's personal bank accounts anywhere in the world, but money belonging to the Libyan state. But why quibble? There's no business like show business. The Iraqi Lullabye On February 17, 2003, a month before the US bombing of Iraq began, I posted to the Internet an essay entitled "What Do the Imperial Mafia Really Want?" concerning the expected war. Included in this were the words of Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, then at the American Enterprise Institute, which was one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq: If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now. After a year of the tragic farce that was the American intervention in Iraq I could not resist. I sent Mr. Ledeen an email reminding him of his words and saying simply: "I'd like to ask you what songs your children are singing these days." I received no reply. Has there ever been an empire that didn't tell itself and the world that it was unlike all other empires, that its mission was not to plunder and control but to enlighten and liberate? The United Nations vote on the Cuba embargo ? 20 years in a row For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling Cuba an "international pariah". We don't hear that any more. Perhaps one reason is the annual vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the resolution which reads: "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba". This is how the vote has gone (not including abstentions): Year Votes (Yes-No) No Votes 1992 59-2 US, Israel 1993 88-4 US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay 1994 101-2 US, Israel 1995 117-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1996 138-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1997 143-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1998 157-2 US, Israel 1999 155-2 US, Israel 2000 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2001 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2002 173-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2003 179-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2004 179-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2005 182-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2006 183-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2007 184-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2008 185-3 US, Israel, Palau 2009 187-3 US, Israel, Palau 2010 187-2 US, Israel 2011 186-2 US, Israel Each fall the UN vote is a welcome reminder that the world has not completely lost its senses and that the American empire does not completely control the opinion of other governments. How it began: On April 6, 1960, Lester D. Mallory, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in an internal memorandum: "The majority of Cubans support Castro ... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. ... every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba." Mallory proposed "a line of action which ... makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."14 Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the suffocating embargo against its eternally-declared enemy. Notes 1. Viagra: Reuters, April 29, 2011 ? 2. See, for example, "Million Man, Woman and Child March in Tripoli, Libya", June 20, 2011? 3. The Guardian (London), September 3, 2011 ? 4. Washington Post, September 15, 2011, "Islamists rise to fore in new Libya" ? 5. USA Today, October 24, 2011 ? 6. Rashid Khalidi, professor of Arab studies, Columbia University, Washington Post, November 11, 2007 ? 7. Associated Press, April 6, 2011, some obvious errors in the original have been corrected ? 8. New York Times, November 6, 2003 ? 9. New York Times, April 16, 2002 ? 10. Los Angeles Times, February 24, 1994, p.7 ? 11. Guatemala: Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (1982), p.183; Jagan: Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days (1965), p.774-9; Bishop: Associated Press, May 29, 1983, "Leftist Government Officials Visit United States" ? 12. The Pentagon Papers (NY Times edition, 1971), pp.4, 5, 8, 26; William Blum, Killing Hope, p.123) ? 13. Washington Post, October 26, 2011 ? 14. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba (1991), p.885 ? ? William Blum is the author of: * Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 * Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower * West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir * Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. (Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.) Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 14:14:23 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:14:23 +0100 Subject: [THS] The Elite Plan for a New World Social Order Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103135356.0462ff40@mail.messagingengine.com> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27188 [The biggest conspiracy theory ever writ. Unfortunately, it seems accurate -ths] The Elite Plan for a New World Social Order by Richard K Moore Global Research, October 28, 2011 New Dawn Magazine - 2011-10-20 This article was first published in New Dawn Magazine When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland had been the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically. In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favour investors over landowners. It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character, a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism. The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world. Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile ? it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain. This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can ?explain? the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandisement of monarchs and nations. A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time ?explaining? World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives. In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house ? the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests. Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments. From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the elite banking gang (the ?banksters?) is both absolute and subtle... "Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." ? President Woodrow Wilson The End of Growth ? Banksters vs. Capitalism It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialisation has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally the paradigm of perpetual growth has reached the point of diminishing returns. Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalisation, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatisation, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world. For almost forty years, the capitalist system was kept going by these various mechanisms, none of which were productive in any real sense. And then in September 2008 this house of cards collapsed, all of a sudden, bringing the global financial system to its knees. If one studies the collapse of civilisations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Is our civilisation falling into that trap? We had two centuries of real growth, where the growth-dynamic of capitalism was in harmony with the reality of industrial growth. Then we had four decades of artificial growth ? capitalism being sustained by a house of cards. And now, after the house of cards has collapsed, every effort is apparently being made to bring about ?a recovery? ? of growth! It is very easy to get the impression that our civilisation is in the process of collapse, based on the failure-to-adapt principle. Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the bankster elite are well aware of that fact ? and they are adapting. Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the banksters to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared. Thus, capitalism was not allowed to die a natural death. Instead it was brought down by a controlled demolition. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalisation, privatisation, currency markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of real-estate bubbles and toxic derivatives. Finally, the Bank of International Settlements in Basel ? the central bank of central banks ? pulled the plug on the life-support system: they declared the ?mark-to-market rule?, which made all the risk-holding banks instantly insolvent, although it took a while for this to become apparent. Every step in this process was carefully planned and managed by the central-banking clique. The End of Sovereignty ? Restoring the Ancien R?gime Just as the financial collapse was carefully managed, so was the post-collapse scenario, with its suicidal bailout programs. National budgets were already stretched; they certainly did not have reserves available to salvage the insolvent banks. Thus the bailout commitments amounted to nothing more than the taking on of astronomical new debts by governments. In order to service the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial system that was being bailed out! It?s not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the banksters were too powerful to fail: they made politicians an offer they couldn?t refuse. In the USA, Congress was told that without bailouts there would be martial law the next morning. In Ireland, the Ministers were told there would be financial chaos and rioting in the streets. In fact, as Iceland demonstrated, the sensible way to deal with the insolvent banks was with an orderly process of receivership. The effect of the coerced bailouts was to transfer insolvency from the banks to the national treasuries. Banking debts were transformed into sovereign debts and budget deficits. Now, quite predictably, it is the nations that are seeking bailouts, and those bailouts come with conditions attached. Instead of the banks going into receivership, the nations are going into receivership. In his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins explains how the third world has been coerced over the past several decades ? through pressure and trickery of various kinds ? into perpetual debt bondage. By design, the debts can never be repaid. Instead, the debts must be periodically refinanced, and each round of refinancing buries the nation deeper in debt ? and compels the nation to submit to even more drastic IMF diktats. With the orchestrated financial collapse, and the ?too big to fail? scam, the banksters have now crossed the Rubicon: the hit-man agenda is now operating here in the first world. In the EU, the first round of nations to go down will be the so-called PIGS ? Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. The fiction, that the PIGS can deal with the bailouts, is based on the assumption that the era of limitless growth will resume. As the banksters themselves know full well, that just isn?t going to happen. Eventually the PIGS will be forced to default, and then the rest of the EU will go down as well, all part of a controlled-demolition project. When a nation succumbs to debt bondage, it ceases to be a sovereign nation, governed by some kind of internal political process. Instead it comes under the control of IMF diktats. As we have seen in the third world, and is happening now in Europe, these diktats are all about austerity and privatisation. Government functions are eliminated or privatised, and national assets are sold off. Little by little ? again a controlled demolition ? the nation state is dismantled. In the end, the primary functions left to government are police suppression of its own population, and the collection of taxes to be handed over to the banksters. In fact, the dismantling of the nation state began long before the financial collapse of 2008. In the USA and Britain, it began in 1980, with Reagan and Thatcher. In Europe, it began in 1988, with the Maastricht Treaty. Globalisation accelerated the dismantling process, with the exporting of jobs and industry, privatisation programs, ?free trade? agreements, and the establishment of the regulation-busting World Trade Organisation (WTO). Events since 2008 have enabled the rapid acceleration of a process that was already well underway. With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery program, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected ?solution?. As the nation state is being dismantled, a new regime of global governance is being established to replace it. As we can see with the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and the other pieces of the embryonic world government, the new global system will make no pretensions about popular representation or democratic process. Rule will be by means of autocratic global bureaucracies, which will take their orders, directly or indirectly, from the bankster clique. In his book, The Globalization of Poverty, Michel Chossudovsky explains how globalisation, and the actions of the IMF, created massive poverty throughout the third world over the past several decades. As we can see, with the dramatic emphasis on austerity following the collapse and bailouts, this poverty-creation project has now crossed the Rubicon. In this new world system there will be no prosperous middle class. Indeed, the new regime will very much resemble the old days of royalty and serfdom (the ancien r?gime). The banksters are the new royal family, with the whole world as their dominion. The technocrats who run the global bureaucracies, and the mandarins who pose as politicians in the residual nations, are the privileged upper class. The rest of us, the overwhelming majority, will find ourselves in the role of impoverished serfs ? if we are lucky enough to be one of the survivors of the collapse process. "Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." ? Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderbergers meeting The End of Liberty ? The Global Police State For the past four decades, since about 1970, we?ve been experiencing a regime-change process, from an old global system to a new global system. In the old system, first world nations were relatively democratic and prosperous, while the third world suffered under police state tyranny, mass poverty, and imperialism (exploitation by external powers). As discussed above, the transition process has been characterised by ?crossing the Rubicon? ? the introduction of policies and practices into the first world, that were formerly limited, for the most part, to the third world. Thus debt bondage to the IMF crossed the Rubicon, enabled by the collapse-bailout scam. In turn, mass poverty is crossing that same Rubicon, due to austerity measures imposed by the IMF, with its new bond-holding powers. Imperialism is also crossing the Rubicon, as the first world comes under the exploitative control of banksters and their bureaucracies, a power nexus that is external to all national identities. Unsurprisingly, police state tyranny is also crossing the Rubicon: the imposition of third world poverty levels requires third world methods of repression. The anti-globalisation movement can be taken as the beginning of popular resistance to the process of regime change. Similarly, the police response to the Seattle anti-globalisation demonstrations, in November 1999, can be taken as the ?crossing of the Rubicon? for police state tyranny. The excessive and arbitrary violence of that response ? including such things as holding people?s eyes open and spraying pepper into them ? was unprecedented against non-violent demonstrators in a first world nation. Ironically, that police response, particularly as it was so widely publicised, actually strengthened the anti-globalisation movement. As demonstrations grew in size and strength, the police response grew still more violent. A climax of sorts was reached in Genoa, in July 2001, when the levels of violence on both sides began to resemble almost a guerilla war. In those days the anti-globalisation movement was dominating the international news pages, and opposition to globalisation was reaching massive proportions. The visible movement was only the tip of an anti-systemic iceberg. In a very real sense, general popular sentiment in the first world was beginning to take a radical turn. Movement leaders were now thinking in terms of an anti-capitalist movement. There was a political volatility in the air, a sense that, just maybe possibly, enlightened popular sentiment might succeed in shifting the course of events. All of that changed on September 11, 2001, the day the towers came down. The anti-globalisation movement, along with globalisation itself, disappeared almost totally from public consciousness on that fateful day. Suddenly it was a whole new global scenario, a whole new media circus ? with a new enemy, and a new kind of war, a war without end, a war against phantoms, a war against ?terrorism?. Earlier we saw how the orchestrated financial collapse of September 2008 enabled certain ongoing projects to be rapidly accelerated, such as the dismantlement of sovereignty, and the imposition of austerity. Similarly, the events of September 2001 enabled certain ongoing projects to be greatly accelerated, such as the abandonment of civil liberties and international law. Before the towers had even come down, the ?Patriot Act? had already been drafted, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that the police state was here (in the USA) in force and here to stay ? the Bill of Rights was null and void. Before long, similar ?anti-terrorist? legislation had been adopted throughout the first world. If any anti-systemic movement were to again raise its head in the first world (as it did, for example, recently in Greece), arbitrary police powers could be brought to bear ? as much as might be necessary ? to put the resistance down. No popular movement would be allowed to derail the banksters? regime-change designs. The anti-globalisation movement had been shouting, ?This is what real democracy looks like?. With 9/11, the banksters replied: ?This is what real oppression looks like?. The events of 9/11 led directly to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in general helped create a climate where invasions of sovereign nations could be readily justified, with one excuse or another. International law was to be as thoroughly abandoned as was civil liberties. Just as all restraint was removed from domestic police interventions, so was all restraint being removed from geopolitical military interventions. Nothing was to stand in the way of the banksters? regime-change agenda. "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behaviour Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the stepping-stones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society In addition, it may be possible ? and tempting ? to exploit for strategic political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behaviour." ? Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America?s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970 The Post-Capitalist Era ? New Myths for a New Culture 2012 might not be the exact year, but it?s difficult to see the endgame lasting much beyond that ? and the masters of the universe love symbolism, as with 911 (both in Chile and in Manhattan), KLA 007, and others. 2012 is loaded with symbolism, eg. the Mayan Calendar, and the Internet is buzzing with various 2012-related prophecies, survival strategies, anticipated alien interventions, etc. And then there is the Hollywood film, 2012, which explicitly portrays the demise of most of humanity, and the pre-planned salvation of a select few. One never knows with Hollywood productions, what is escapist fantasy, and what is aimed at preparing the public mind symbolically for what is to come. Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system. Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonised in a new mythology. In the Garden of Eden story the serpent is demonised ? a revered symbol in paganism, the predecessor to monotheism. With the rise of European nation states, the Catholic Church was demonised, and Protestantism introduced. When republics came along, the demonisation of monarchs was an important part of the process. In the post-2012 world, democracy and national sovereignty will be demonised. This will be very important, in getting people to accept arbitrary totalitarian rule In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no long-term coherence; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did anyone ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions for the whole globe. Capitalism is about growth, progress, and change. Under capitalism the virtues of ambition, initiative, and competitiveness are praised, because those virtues serve the dynamics of capitalism. People are encouraged to always accumulate more, and never be satisfied with what they have. Under capitalism, people need to have a bit of liberty, and a bit of prosperity, so that the dynamics of capitalism can operate. Without some liberty, ambition cannot be pursued; without some prosperity, how could accumulation be pursued? In the post-capitalist world, the capitalist virtues will be demonised. This will be very important, in getting people to accept poverty and regimentation The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently corrupt and wasteful. Anarchy reined in the marketplace, as corporations blindly pursued profit, with no concern for human needs or for the Earth. How much more sensible are our production brigades, producing only what is needed, and using only what is sustainable. Capitalism encouraged greed and consumption; people struggled to compete with one another, to ?get ahead? in the rat race. How much wiser we are now, to live within our ration quotas, and to accept our assigned duties, whatever they might be, in service to humanity. In this regime change, ushering in the post-capitalist era, we?re seeing a conscious orchestration of economics, politics, geopolitics, and mythology ? as one coordinated project. A whole new reality is being created, a whole new global culture. When it comes down to it, the ability to transform culture is the ultimate form of power. In only a single generation, a new culture becomes ?the way things are?. And what, we might inquire, might stand in the way of any future manipulations of the cultural regime that the bankster royal family might contemplate? Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning ? and it is in childhood that culture is transmitted to the next generation. In the micromanaged post-capitalist future, we?ll most likely see the ?final solution? of social control, which is for the state to monopolise child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives, just fellow members of the hive. The family must be demonised. Already, here in Ireland, there are daily TV spots dramatising the plight of children who are being abused or neglected by their parents How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of child abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognised for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught discipline and healthy values. The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 128 (September-October 2011). RIchard K Moore, an expatriate from Silicon Valley, retired and moved to Ireland in 1994 to begin his ?real work? ? trying to understand how the world works, and how we can make it better. Many years of researching and writing culminated in his widely acclaimed book Escaping the Matrix: How We the People Can Change the World (The Cyberjournal Project, 2005). His cyberjournal email list has been going since 1994 (cyberjournal.org). The book?s website is http://escapingthematrix.org, while his website http://quaylargo.com/rkm/ contains an extensive biography plus list of his articles. Richard can be contacted via email at rkm at quaylargo.com. This article appears in New Dawn 128: www.newdawnmagazine.com. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 14:21:57 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:21:57 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Uri_Avnery=3A_=93Hold_me_back!=94?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103142113.078750f0@mail.messagingengine.com> Uri Avnery November 5, 2011 ?Hold me back!? EVERYBODY KNOWS the scene from school: a small boy quarrels with a bigger boy. ?Hold me back!? he shouts to his comrades, ?Before I break his bones!? Our government seems to be behaving in this way. Every day, via all channels, it shouts that it is going, any minute now, to break the bones of Iran. Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb. We cannot allow this. So we shall bomb them to smithereens. Binyamin Netanyahu says so in every one of his countless speeches, including his opening speech at the winter session of the Knesset. Ditto Ehud Barak. Every self-respecting commentator (has anyone ever seen a non-self-respecting one?) writes about it. The media amplify the sound and the fury. ?Haaretz? splashed its front page with pictures of the seven most important ministers (the ?security septet?) showing three in favor of the attack, four against. A GERMAN proverb says: ?Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.? Same goes for wars. Nuclear affairs are subject to very strict military censorship. Very very strict indeed. Yet the censor seems to be smiling benignly. Let the boys, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense (the censor's ultimate boss) play their games. The respected former long-serving chief of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, has publicly warned against the attack, describing it as ?the most stupid idea? he has ever heard?. He explained that he considers it his duty to warn against it, in view of the plans of Netanyahu and Barak. On Wednesday, there was a veritable deluge of leaks. Israel tested a missile that can deliver a nuclear bomb more then 5000 km away, beyond you-know-where. And our Air Force has just completed exercises in Sardinia, at a distance larger than you-know-where. And on Thursday, the Home Front Command held training exercises all over Greater Tel Aviv, with sirens screaming away. All this seems to indicate that the whole hullabaloo is a ploy. Perhaps to frighten and deter the Iranians. Perhaps to push the Americans into more extreme actions. Perhaps coordinated with the Americans in advance. (British sources, too, leaked that the Royal Navy is training to support an American attack on Iran.) It is an old Israeli tactic to act as if we are going crazy (?The boss has gone mad? is a routine cry in our markets, to suggest that the fruit vendor is selling at a loss.) We shall not listen to the US any more. We shall just bomb and bomb and bomb. Well, let?s be serious for a moment. ISRAEL WILL not attack Iran. Period. Some may think that I am going out on a limb. Shouldn?t I add at least ?probably? or ?almost certainly?? No, I won?t. I shall repeat categorically: Israel Will NOT Attack Iran. Since the 1956 Suez adventure, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an ultimatum that stopped the action, Israel has never undertaken any significant military operation without obtaining American consent in advance. The US is Israel?s only dependable supporter in the world (besides, perhaps, Fiji, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.) To destroy this relationship means cutting our lifeline. To do that, you have to be more than just a little crazy. You have to be raving mad. Furthermore, Israel cannot fight a war without unlimited American support, because our planes and our bombs come from the US. During a war, we need supplies, spare parts, many sorts of equipment. During the Yom Kippur war, Henry Kissinger had an ?air train? supplying us around the clock. And that war would probably look like a picnic compared to a war with Iran. LET?S LOOK at the map. That, by the way, is always recommended before starting any war. The first feature that strikes the eye is the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which every third barrel of the worlds seaborne oil supplies flow. Almost the entire output of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq and Iran has to run the gauntlet through this narrow sea lane. ?Narrow? is an understatement. The entire width of this waterway is some 35 km (or 20 miles). That?s about the distance from Gaza to Beer Sheva, which was crossed last week by the primitive rockets of the Islamic Jihad. When the first Israeli plane enters Iranian airspace, the strait will be closed. The Iranian navy has plenty of missile boats, but they will not be needed. Land-based missiles are enough. The world is already teetering on the verge of an abyss. Little Greece is threatening to fall and take major chunks of the world economy with her. The elimination of almost a fifth of the industrial nations? supply of oil would lead to a catastrophe hard even to imagine. To open the strait by force would require a major military operation (including ?putting boots on the ground?) that would overshadow all the US misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can the US afford that? Can NATO? Israel itself is not in the same league. BUT ISRAEL would be very much involved in the action, if only on the receiving end. In a rare show of unity, all of Israel?s service chiefs, including the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet, are publicly opposing the whole idea. We can only guess why. I don?t know whether the operation is possible at all. Iran is a very large country, about the size of Alaska, the nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground. Even with the special deep penetration bombs provided by the US, the operation may stall the Iranian efforts ? such as they are - only for a few months. The price may be too high for such meager results. Moreover, it is quite certain that with the beginning of a war, missiles will rain down on Israel ? not only from Iran, but also from Hizbollah, and perhaps also from Hamas. We have no adequate defense for our towns. The amount of death and destruction would be prohibitive. Suddenly, the media are full of stories about our three submarines, soon to grow to five, or even six, if the Germans are understanding and generous. It is openly said that these give us the capabilities of a nuclear ?second strike?, if Iran uses its (still non-existent) nuclear warheads against us. But the Iranians may also use chemical and other weapons of mass destruction. Then there is the political price. There are a lot of tensions in the Islamic world. Iran is far from popular in many parts of it. But an Israeli assault on a major Muslim country would instantly unite Sunnis and Shiites, from Egypt and Turkey to Pakistan and beyond. Israel could become a villa in a burning jungle. BUT THE talk about the war serves many purposes, including domestic, political ones. Last Saturday, the social protest movement sprang to life again. After a pause of two months, a mass of people assembled in Tel Aviv?s Rabin Square. This was quite remarkable, because on that very day rockets were falling on the towns near the Gaza Strip. Until now, in such a situation demonstrations have always been canceled. Security problems trump everything else. Not this time. Also, many people believed that the euphoria of the Gilad Shalit festival had wiped the protest from the public mind. It didn?t. By the way, something remarkable has happened: the media, after siding with the protest movement for months, have had a change of heart. Suddenly all of them, including Haaretz, are sticking knives in its back. As if by order, all newspapers wrote the next day that ?more than 20,000? took part. Well I was there, and I do have some idea of these things. There were at least 100,000 people there, most of them young. I could hardly move. The protest has not spent itself, as the media assert. Far from it. But what better means for taking people?s minds off social justice than talk of the ?existential danger?? Moreover, the reforms demanded by the protesters would need money. In view of the worldwide financial crisis, the government strenuously objects to increasing the state budget, for fear of damaging our credit rating. So where could the money come from? There are only three plausible sources: the settlements (who would dare?), the Orthodox (ditto!) and the huge military budget. But on the eve of the most crucial war in our history, who would touch the armed forces? We need every shekel to buy more planes, more bombs, more submarines. Schools and hospitals must, alas, wait. So God bless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Where would we be without him? From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 14:28:21 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:28:21 +0100 Subject: [THS] Viral storm: why factory farming is bad for your health Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103142600.077a4090@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/food_and_gardening/1110019/viral_storm_why_factory_farming_is_bad_for_your_health.html Viral storm: why factory farming is bad for your health Matilda Lee 28th October, 2011 As the new 'outbreak' film Contagion, starring Kate Winslet and Gwyneth Paltrow is released, Matilda Lee reports on the book linking the threat of global disease pandemics and industrial animal farming Microbes are finally getting the attention they deserve: albeit through the glossy veneer of a Hollywood ?outbreak film', Contagion, released on October 21. The film stars Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne and is loosely based on research by Nathan Wolfe (pictured below), whose new book, Viral Storm: the dawn of a new pandemic age, tells why modern life has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the threat of a global pandemic. In the film, the origin of a deadly global virus is linked back to a nesting bat whose home is destroyed by forest clearing from a mining company. The homeless bat then infects a pig, which is slaughtered and the chef, who carries the pig blood on his hands, passes it on to an unsuspecting first victim (played by Gwyneth Paltrow). What comes out much clearer in the book, Viral Storm, is the complex and evolving relationship between humans and animals - both wild and domesticated. For example, Wolfe recounts the story of the first human victim of ?bird flu' or H5N1, in 2003. A boy in Thailand happens to carry a sick chicken home and after 11 days of fever and respiratory distress, he dies, lungs drowning in fluids. Wolfe warns that infectious diseases like bird flu are a growing threat. The transmission of animal microbes to humans is the source of most global pandemics. By way of a microbiological tutorial, Wolfe explains the varying deadliness of viruses and how, in order to be threatening to humans on a global scale, a virus need to be able to kill (e.g. rabies) but also to spread easily from person to person (e.g. swine flu, SARS, HIV). Wolfe has been hailed as, ?the world's most prominent virus hunter' and, as Director of the Global Viral Forecasting, his work takes him across the globe in a search for the where, why and how of pandemics, ideally to nip them in the bud before they cause major havoc. But far from the tropical forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo or the traditional villages of Malaysia, Wolfe identifies a more ordinary, but equally dangerous threat: factory farms. ?The combination of high human population densities, intense livestock production, close contact with the diverse microbes of wild animals and a massive, efficient transportation network gives us a good sense of where the world is heading with regard to pandemics', he writes. The D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute recently reported that global meat production increased by 2.6 per cent in 2010 to 290.6 million tons. Since 2000, global meat production has risen by 20 per cent. Worldwatch point out that while better control methods have reduced the burden of livestock diseases, new diseases have emerged that are considerable cause for concern for human health - they name bird flu (H5N1), swine flu (H1N1), foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease. ?Many diseases are spread through industrial farming, which forces livestock to live in crowded, dirty environments,' Worldwatch state. ?Cramped and filthy conditions in factory farms contribute to antibiotic resistance, making it more difficult to treat human as well as animal diseases. Eight per cent of all antibiotics sold in 2009 were used on livestock and poultry, meaning that just 20 per cent were used for human illnesses'. Worldwatch adds that seventy-five per cent of antibiotics are not absorbed by animals and are excreted in their waste, posing a serious risk to public health. Wolfe has done his own research on factory farming, stating that more than half of the livestock produced globally now originate in industrial farm settings. The numbers of livestock boggle the mind: over one billion cattle, one billion pigs and over twenty billion chickens live on our planet. Industrial farms can be more than settings to grow meat; they can be ?incubators' for infectious agents that could move into human populations, he writes. The Ecologist has reported widely on the growing threat of deadly antibiotic-resistant infections from animals to humans. Only this summer, there were fresh concerns of the spread of a deadly MRSA bacteria found in UK dairy cows being transmitted to humans. Yet the calls so far for the reduction of the use of antibiotics have gone largely ignored, primarily because factory farming wouldn't be possible without them. In the UK, a decision on the controversial Foston 'mega' pig farm is due late this year, and could largely set the stage for the inevitable future of these types of farms in the UK. Alternatives include rethinking our love affair with meat as meat diets have been linked to high cancer and heart disease rates. Equally on the horizon, though somewhat far off, is the introduction of laboratory grown meat to enable a meat-loving but low-fat, low-carbon, cruelty-free 'farming' system. Of course there is equally the need to return to sensible, sustainable, small farming systems. There are more and more warnings that a viral storm is on the horizon, and to be fair, industrial farming is just one of a number of threats - but the warnings about factory farming are coming from many camps now and we must heed them. The Viral Storm: the dawn of a new pandemic age (Allen Lane, ?14.99) From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 22:21:20 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:21:20 +0100 Subject: [THS] Paul Craig Roberts: Western Democracy: A Farce And A Sham Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103221816.065edba0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29606.htm Western Democracy: A Farce And A Sham By Paul Craig Roberts November 03, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Every day that passes adds to the fraudulent image of what is called Western democracy. Consider that the entire Western world is outraged that the Greek prime minister announced that he is going to permit the Greek people to decide their own fate instead of having it decided for them by a handful of banksters, politicians, and bureaucrats living it up at taxpayer expense at ?talks? in the French resort of Cannes on the Mediterranean. The Greek economy is facing its fourth year of decline and lacks the revenues to service its national debt held by private European banks. The banks don?t want to lose any money, so a handful of power brokers reached an agreement with representatives of the Greek government to write off some of the debt in exchange for EU capital subsidies to be financed by inflicting severe austerity on the Greek population. Wages, salaries, pensions and medical care are being cut while the rate of unemployment rises to depression levels. Government employees are laid off. Valuable public properties are to be sold to private parties for pennies on the dollar. In short, Greece is to be looted. Large numbers of Greeks have been in the streets protesting the austerity policy and have reached the point of anger of throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Greece is disintegrating politically. The Greek people sense that the EU ?bailout? is not bailing out Greece. It is bailing out the French, Dutch, and German banks at the expense of the Greek people. The Greek prime minister, watching his party?s support and power crumble, announced that he would let the people decide in a referendum. After all, allegedly that?s what democracies do. But it turns out that ?we have freedom and democracy? is not supposed to be taken literally. It is merely a propagandistic slogan behind which people are ruled through back-room deals decided by powerful private interests. The Greek prime minister?s announcement that he would put the back-room bailout deal to a referendum shocked the EU hierarchy, Washington, and investors. Who does this Greek guy think he is permitting the people, who bear the cost of the deal, to have a say in it? Who let this Greek guy out of his cage? This is not the way democracies are ruled. The EU power brokers are outraged over the Greek prime minister?s departure from normal procedure. But the Greek PM is relying on the Greek people to approve the deal, and not without reason. The Greek people have been brainwashed for decades as to the importance of ?being part of Europe.? That means being a member of the European Union. When the Greeks realize that voting down the bailout of the banksters means being thrown out of the European Union, which is what they will learn between now and the referendum, they will vote for the back room deal. Polls already indicate this. A poll for a Greek newspaper indicates that whereas 46% oppose the bailout, 70% favor staying in the EU, which the Greeks see as a life or death issue. If this poll is a reliable indicator, the Greek PM has made a brilliant political decision. The Greek people will vote in favor of what they have been protesting violently in the streets. As the Greek people will do themselves in, the politicians are off the hook. This is the bet that the Greek PM has placed. Whatever the outcome, keep in mind that the entire Western political and investor world was shocked that a politician, instead of simply imposing a back room deal, said he would let the people decide. Letting the people decide is a no-no in Western democracies. If you need more evidence of this mythical creature called ?Western democracy,? consider that Western governments are no longer accountable to law. Contrast, for example, the sexual harassment charges that are plaguing US presidential candidate Herman Cain?s campaign with the pass given to high government officials who clearly violated statutory law. What follows is not a defense of Cain. I take no position on the charges. The real point is different. In America the only thing that can ruin a politician is his interest in sex. A politician, for example, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, B. Omama, cannot be ruined by violating United States and international law or by treating the US Constitution as a ?mere scrap of paper.? Bush and Cheney can take America to wars based entirely on lies and orchestrated deceptions. They can commit war crimes, murdering large numbers of civilians in the cause of ?the war on terror,? itself a hoax. They can violate US and international laws against torture simply ?because the president said so.? They can throw away habeas corpus, the constitutional requirement that a person cannot be imprisoned without evidence presented to a court. They can deny the right to an attorney. They can violate the law and spy on Americans without obtaining warrants. They can send due process to hell. In fact, they can do whatever they want just like Hitler?s Gestapo and Stalin?s secret police. But if they show undue interest in a woman or proposition a woman, they are dead meat. Very few commentators have said a word about this. The House of Representatives did not impeach President Bill Clinton for his war crimes against Serbia. They impeached him for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern. The US Senate, which had too many sexual affairs of its own to defend, didn?t bother to try to convict. This is Amerika today. A president without any authority whatsoever, not in law and certainly not in the Constitution, can assassinate US citizens based on nothing except an assertion that they are a ?threat.? No evidence is required. No conviction. No presentation of evidence in any court. Just a murder. That is now permissible to the Amerikan president. But let him try to get a woman who is not his wife into bed, and he is a cooked goose. In Amerika there is no such thing any longer as torture; there is only ?enhanced interrogation.? A mere word change has eliminated the crime. So torture is permissible. In Amerika today, or in the UK and the EU, anyone who tells the truth is a ?threat.? Julian Assange of Wikileaks, who made public information leaked to him by US government sources horrified by the criminal actions of the United States government, is now, as a result of Amerikan pressure on UK courts, being turned over to Sweden, which, for favors from the ?world?s only superpower,? will turn him over to the US regardless of law to be prosecuted on trumped-up charges. Western ?civilization? is totally corrupted by American money. There is no integrity anywhere. For a decade Washington has been murdering women, children, village elders, and journalists in the name of the hoax ?war on terror.? What terror does the world actually see? The world sees the terror that Israel, protected by Washington, inflicts on the Palestinians. The world sees the terror that the US inflicts on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Latin America and now Africa, with Syria, Lebanon, and Iran waiting in the wings. The ?war on terror? is nothing but an orchestrated invented excuse for Amerika-Israel to achieve hegemony while enriching their armaments industries. In Greece, at least the PM committed to giving the people a say in their fate. In America the people have no voice whatsoever. The sheeple are content to be protected by ?security,? porno-scanners, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and sexual groping. To carry on the hoax ?war on terror,? the US government has elevated itself above the law. The American effort to achieve accountability to law, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, if not shut down by cold weather, ice, and snow, is likely to be shut down by police violence. One riot begun by provocateurs is all it takes to transform protesters into ?domestic extremists,? the number one concern of Homeland Security. The presstitute media will make the case against the rioters, and the sheeple will buy it. The police have been militarized by Washington. Community police forces no longer represent the local public that pays their salaries. Local police represent Washington?s war against America. American citizens are all suspects. Anyone who goes through airport security knows this. The only law that the US government obeys is not even a law. It is a bureaucratic regulation that prevents, even in dire wartime, any profiling of suspects by ethnicity or country of origin. Consequently, all native born, flag-waving, American super-patriots are suspects when they board commercial airliners. Americans who have a life time of security clearances are subject to being porno-scanned or sexually groped. Airport Security cannot tell a ?terrorist? from a CIA analyst, a Marine general or a US Senator. Well-connected members of the ruling elite, such as Michael Chertoff, can become rich from selling the porto-scanners to taxpayers in order ?to protect the public from terrorists.? The only terrorists Americans will ever experience are those funded by their own tax dollars within their ?own? government. A people incapable of perceiving its real peril has no chance of surviving. America might be a military superpower, but it no longer exists as a free country with accountable government and a rule of law. Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts at yahoo.com From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 3 22:25:29 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:25:29 +0100 Subject: [THS] Wikileaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111103222445.065761e0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15549985 2 November 2011 Last updated at 14:45 GMT Wikileaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal Julian Assange outside the High Court: "I have not been charged with any crime in any country" * Wikileaks halts file publishing * Poor sales for Assange's memoir * Anger at Wikileaks mass release Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has failed in his appeal against extradition from the UK to Sweden over allegations of rape and sexual assault. Two judges at the High Court in London decided that a previous ruling in favour of extradition must be upheld. Swedish authorities want him to answer accusations of raping one woman and sexually molesting and coercing another in Stockholm last year. Mr Assange's lawyers say they will appeal at the Supreme Court. They have 14 days to bring the case to the highest court in the land, on the grounds that it raises issues of general public importance. However, Mr Assange's legal team will first need to seek permission from the High Court to launch the appeal. 'Accurate description' In February, District Judge Howard Riddle ruled that Mr Assange should be extradited to face investigation following a hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. Continue reading the main story ?Start Quote This is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences. ? End Quote Sir John Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley High Court judges The 40-year-old Australian denies the allegations and says they are politically motivated. However, in their ruling the judges, the President of the Queen's Bench Division Sir John Thomas, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley, said that the issuing of the European arrest warrant (EAW) that led to Mr Assange's arrest and all subsequent proceedings to achieve extradition was "lawful" and "proportionate". They dismissed Mr Assange's argument that the warrant was invalid because it had been issued by a prosecutor, and not a "judicial authority". They also said the action of the prosecutor was subject to the independent scrutiny of Swedish judges, "which, as judges of another (EU) member state, we must respect". Continue reading the main story Analysis image of Clive Coleman Clive Coleman BBC News legal correspondent Mr Assange's lawyers have 14 days to go back to the High Court and apply for a certificate of law of general public importance. In other words, to frame a question whereby they say there is a point of law that is important and goes beyond Julian Assange the individual, and is of general public importance. If that certificate is not granted, that's it - he will be on a plane back to Sweden within 10 days. If it is granted, then his lawyers have to seek leave to appeal on the basis of that question to the Supreme Court. That hearing will probably take place around January. Again, if he fails there, Julian Assange will be put on a plane back to Sweden within 10 days of the decision. If he is successful, a full appeal hearing would be likely to take place at the Supreme Court in around May of next year. The judges said: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did." The court also rejected Mr Assange's assertion that the descriptions of the offences were not a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged against him. They added: "This is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences. "Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there is for the [appeal] argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." Speaking after the judgement, Mr Assange said: "I have not been charged with any crime in any country. "Despite this, the European arrest warrant is so restrictive that it prevents UK courts from considering the facts for a case. "We will be considering our next steps in the days ahead." The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said Mr Assange's difficulty has always been that he was being extradited on an EAW, which is a scheme brought in after the terrorism outrages to fast-track extraditions amongst European countries. "The idea that underpins it is that every justice system within the scheme is as good as any other - he will get as fair a trial in Sweden as he would get here. "That means it's very, very, difficult to resist extradition because as long as an allegation is made in relation to an extraditable offence and there's an intention to prosecute, then you pretty much have to give the person up for extradition," our correspondent said. 'Level playing field' Wikileaks has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables which have embarrassed several governments and international businesses. Mr Assange's supporters outside the court Mr Assange's supporters said they were "outraged" at the judge's decision American soldier Bradley Manning is being held in US custody for allegedly leaking information to the website. Mr Assange appeared in court wearing a smart suit and Remembrance Day poppy but sat silently through the judgement, said BBC News home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani. Upon his arrival, Mr Assange was mobbed and police redirected him away from the crowd who had fixed to the iron railings of the court banners reading "Free Assange! Free Manning! End the wars". Speaking after the appeal hearing, his supporters outside the court said they were "outraged" by the judges' decision. Ciaron O'Reilly, 51, said: "Assange is probably the most amazing person in recent history who's upset so many powerful people in such a short space of time so it's obviously not a level playing field." But extradition expert Julian Knowles QC, told BBC Russian.com he was not surprised by the decision in the Assange case. "Although it's huddled some media attention and although some people have tried to make a lot of it, at heart it's an allegation that somebody has raped and sexually assaulted two women in Sweden," he said. "The European Arrest Warrant system was invented so that these sorts of allegations could be dealt with speedily." More on This Story Related Stories * Wikileaks halts file publishing 24 OCTOBER 2011, EUROPE * Poor sales for Assange's memoir 28 SEPTEMBER 2011, ENTERTAINMENT & ARTS * Anger at Wikileaks mass release 02 SEPTEMBER 2011, US & CANADA From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 4 13:28:02 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:28:02 +0100 Subject: [THS] Michel Chossudovsky: The Battle for Oil in the South China Sea Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111104132602.0667a4f8@mail.messagingengine.com> China-US Energy Geopolitics: The Battle for Oil in the South China Sea By Michel Chossudovsky URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27385 Global Research, October 31, 2011 A new area of potential confrontation is developing between China and the U.S. According to reports, Exxon Mobil which has acquired exploration and production rights from Vietnam has discovered substantial gas reserves in the South China Sea off the coast of North Vietnam. "U.S. oil company ExxonMobil is reporting a "potentially significant" gas discovery off the coast of Vietnam, stating in a press release, "We can confirm ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Vietnam Limited drilled its second exploration well offshore Danang in August 2011 and encountered hydrocarbons." (See John C.K. Daly, Apocalypse Redux? U.S. Natural Gas Find off Vietnam Could Raise Tensions with China, http://oilprice.com ) It is important to note that these off-shore reserves are located between the North Vietnam coastline and China's Hainan island in an area of disputed jurisdiction between Vietnam and China. (see map above) The contested area is made up of blocks 117, 118 and 119, which according to Hanoi fall within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone under international maritime law (Ibid) On October 31, following the ExxonMobil discovery announcement, China responded by warning foreign companies not to meddle "in areas also claimed by China." (China again warns foreign oil firms on South China Sea exploration | Reuters, October 31, 2011) "We hope foreign companies do not get involved in disputed waters for oil and gas exploration and development. This position has been consistent," Hong said, when asked whether China plans to ask Exxon Mobil to withdraw from its oil and gas deal with Vietnam. He did not elaborate, nor single out Exxon Mobil by name. Exxon Mobil has a licence from the Vietnamese government to explore blocks 117, 118 and 119 off the Danang coast, falling within what Vietnam claims is its 200-mile exclusive economic zone under international maritime law, the Financial Times reported last week. But the blocks also fall within China's vast claim to almost the entire South China Sea, also claimed in part by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan. The sea and areas such as the Spratly Islands and other atolls are believed to have rich deposits of oil and gas and is also a rich fishing ground. One of China's most popular newspapers, the Global Times, cautioned last week that nations involved in territorial disputes in the waters should "mentally prepare for the sounds of cannons" if they remain at loggerheads with Beijing. ExxonMobil finds significant gas off Vietnam ? Energy Delta Institute, October 27, 2011) The conflict is not between Vietnam and China. Vietnam is a junior partner. The Hanoi government is serving Western oil interests against those of China. It is important to view the confrontation between US and Chinese oil and gas interests in the broader geopolitical context. The potential clash between Washington and Beijing in the south China sea is intimately related to the broader battle for oil waged in the Middle East-Central Asian chessboard, where China has significant interests in oil, natural gas as well as pipeline routes. The South China sea is an area of potential military confrontation. The South China sea is in the area of deployment of the Seventh Fleet, which, in a bitter irony played a central role during the Vietnam war. In the wake of the Vietnam war, Vietnam has become a de facto proxy State controlled by Western and Japanese corporate interests In July, the US Navy together with Japan and Australia conducted major military exercises in the South China sea in maritime areas contiguous to the contested offshore oil and gas exploration concessions. These drills were followed by joint naval exercises between the US and Vietnam in August, which were were seen by Beijing as constituting a veiled threat to China. Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers. Your endorsement is greatly appreciated Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com ? Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2011 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27385 From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 4 22:28:24 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:28:24 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Greg_Palast_=3A_Chapter_One_of_Vultures=27_P?= =?iso-8859-1?q?icnic_=AD_Read_it_Now?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111104222613.04812518@mail.messagingengine.com> Chapter One of Vultures' Picnic ? Read it Now by Greg Palast Thursday, November 3, 2011 After some tense discussion (Penguin was partly owned by Gaddafi, so you can imagine...), my publisher has given me the unusual right to give all my readers, for no charge, the entire first chapter of my new book Vultures' Picnic. Even if you don't get the book, I really want you to read the first chapter. Read it or download it. Never before, in my decades as an investigator, have I taken you with me undercover, on the hunt into the lives, secret files, shopping bags and back rooms of the cruel and whacky One Percent. And, for the first time, I've decided to let you in on Greg Palast, to open up my life and the inside of my operation, without censorship or BS. In Chapter One, you will first encounter the MI6 agent who carried the bribes for British Petroleum and the Kalashnikovs; the billionaire's ex-trophy wife ready to burn the bed and open the files; the Radioactive Brick from address unknown, with documentation of a massive fraud by Tokyo Electric Power, arriving ten months before Fukushima melted; the secret memo of Treasury Secretary Geithner waiting for the go-ahead from Goldman Sachs and Citibank; the CIA spook turned billionaire with a score to settle and a devastating document from Kazakhstan; and a punch in the face just before an appearance on Amy Goodman's show. (I deserved it, I suppose. You read it and tell me.) Chapter One takes you from a stake-out at dawn in New York, to the King of Mardi Gras to a shopping spree with a short dictator in Geneva, to suicide and murder in a Native Village in Alaska that is a key to the Deepwater Horizon investigation. Vultures' Picnic is the sum of my life and work getting even with the One-Percent, the cruelty merchants posing as captains of industry. I go after these guys because for me, it's personal. I admit, it's revenge. You should know why. I've been called America's top investigative reporter and the funniest. I admit, the book has as many laughs as it has tears?because the ultra-rich whom I track across the globe are clowns?except with really terrific shoes and bodyguards. So, just step into the Vultures' Picnic circus tent for a few pages. Read it or download it. I think you'll want the rest of the tale (I don't eat the whale until Chapter Three, or get caught with my pants off in Ms. Jamaica's room until Chapter 9 or encounter The Hamsah in Africa until....) Read the chapter, and if you want a copy of the book, you can pre-order it or donate $60 and I will send you a personally signed copy. The book hits the stores on November 14. This is full frontal Palast, for good or bad. If you can handle Goldfinger, you can survive the rest. *** Greg Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, which will be released on November 14 by Penguin USA. Pre-order it now! For more information about Palast's brand new book and his book-signing events in your city, go to www.VulturesPicnic.org From ths at psalience.org Sat Nov 5 01:09:22 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 01:09:22 +0100 Subject: [THS] Clarence Thomas's conservatism: the first 20 years Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111105010723.049ad988@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/13/clarence-thomas-conservatism-20-years?INTCMP=SRCH Clarence Thomas's conservatism: the first 20 years The enigmatic judge keeps a low profile; yet, time is very much on the side of the supreme court's most reactionary justice o Jason Farago o guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 October 2011 22.16 BST This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 22.16 BST on Thursday 13 October 2011. It was last modified at 14.03 BST on Tuesday 18 October 2011. Anita Hill testifying to the Senate judiciary committee hearing on the nomination of Clarence Thomas for the supreme court, 1991. Photograph: AP/Greg Gibson) Twenty years ago this Saturday, the Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas to the US supreme court, installing the nation's second black justice by the narrowest margin for a century. Everything about those days in 1991 is grim. The sexual harassment allegations of Anita Hill, who bravely faced down not only Thomas and an all-white, all-male Senate judiciary committee, but a hostile media as well, have passed into history. Thomas's furious condemnation of his "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks" marked a low point in the public discussion of race in America, not least as he was being questioned to take over the seat of the great Thurgood Marshall. Even before a National Public Radio reporter disclosed Hill's accusations, the confirmation was already a shambles. Thomas and his supporters had learned from Robert Bork's crashed-and-burned nomination in 1987 that frankness is not a virtue for a prospective justice. Thomas played it coy, telling the committee that he "could not remember" ever discussing Roe v Wade or other landmark supreme court cases. He set a precedent that all other nominees have since followed: say nothing, for as many days as it takes. Thomas turned the Senate confirmation history into a ballet de cour, with the court's newest justice, Elena Kagan, taking content-free testimony to breathtaking extremes last year. Since those very angry, very public days two decades ago, however, Thomas has largely disappeared from view. Recent controversy surrounding his wife Ginni, a Tea Party advocate and a staunch opponent of "Obamacare", began to revive interest in his personal life, but he remains an enigmatic presence. He refuses to attend the president's State of the Union addresses with the other justices, and unlike his benchmates Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, he has never relished the public eye. Thomas is the supreme court's quiet man. He has not asked a question at oral arguments since 2006, preferring to sit back in silence ? sometimes gazing up at the ceiling ? while his colleagues barrage petitioners on constitutional matters of the day. His public reserve, combined with his hugely contentious ascent to the high court and his tendency to vote in lockstep with the much more loquacious Scalia, have turned Thomas in the public imagination into a lightweight or a cipher. Not even close. Thomas is nobody's sidekick: he may be mute, but he isn't dumb. More than any justice on the conservative bloc, Thomas has shown a desire and preparedness to strike down entire bodies of the law he disagrees with, even those dating to the founding of the republic. According to Scalia himself, Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." (The Latin phrase refers to the basic principle that contemporary justices should uphold precedent and only rarely overturn earlier decisions, allowing law to develop over time.) He is the court's true radical, and his carefully argued dissents, often buttressed with pages of discussion of colonial- and revolutionary-era life and law, envision an America free from equality protections, environmental regulation, prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, and pretty much anything else you might have thought the courts had accomplished since the invention of the radio. In 2009, for example, eight of the nine justices signed a major ruling that upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the hallmark of civil rights legislation dating to 1965. The provision in question requires states and regions with a history of racial discrimination ? not just southern states, but Alaska, parts of California and New Hampshire, and even Manhattan ? to clear any changes to the voting system with a federal authority, in order to ensure that they do not disadvantage blacks and (latterly) other racial minorities. In his majority opinion, John Roberts, the chief justice, intentionally avoided the larger constitutional question the case posed, settling the case on narrow grounds. Scalia concurred, as did Samuel Alito, the court's other rightwing justice. Not Thomas. The whole thing should go, he argued: racial discrimination is a thing of the past, and the federal government shouldn't be meddling in the first place with local electoral authorities. So why take it slow? Thomas was also the lone wolf in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, one of the court's ringing decisions on limits to executive power. A majority of the court found that President Bush did not have the right to hold an American citizen indefinitely without trial by designating him an "illegal enemy combatant". Though the justices disagreed about the exact remedy, eight out of nine agreed that an American prisoner, regardless of what the executive calls him, retains his right to due process. Thomas, on the other hand, wrote a solo dissent: the president is commander-in-chief and can do whatever he needs to, including hold an American without charges or even the possibility of judicial redress. And even when Thomas finds himself in the majority, he has not hesitated to try to broaden the scope of its decisions, placing his radical cards on the table when the circumstances don't remotely require it. Consider the 2007 case of Morse v Frederick ? which you might remember as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, after the bizarre phrase written in duct tape on a 14-foot banner that a student unfurled outside his school. When the student was suspended for a week, he claimed the school violated his right to free speech. Roberts, writing for the court's conservative bloc, held otherwise: a school has a responsibility to discourage drug use, and the first amendment didn't require the school to tolerate such a sign. Thomas signed that opinion. But he also authored his own. The petitioner's first amendment argument was unfounded, Thomas wrote ? because students have no first amendment rights at all. It becomes clear, Thomas insists, if you go back to the 18th-century schoolhouse, where, as he wrote, "teachers commanded, and students obeyed." Throwing out the student's petition was not enough, Thomas argued; the court should throw out all earlier protections for students' speech, which, so far as the justice was concerned, had no basis in the constitution. It's a fun world Thomas envisions, even if much of his most radical thinking remains confined to his dissents. But time is on his side. Thomas, we should not forget, was the youngest person in decades to reach the US supreme court bench when he was confirmed so narrowly 20 years ago. He is now only 63: a decade younger than Stephen Breyer, 15 years younger than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barring a disaster or a highly unlikely change of heart, he will probably match John Paul Stevens's extended tenure. It seems plausible that he could become the longest-serving justice of all time. There is something almost perversely admirable about Thomas's sweeping jurisprudence ? so long as it never becomes the law of the land. If the anniversary of the confirmation of our cruelest justice has any upside, perhaps it can remind us that presidential and legislative elections have serious judicial consequences. And long-term ones. Judges on the German constitutional court serve a fixed 12-year span; in the two-year-old British supreme court, law lords will be bounced out at age 70. But here in America, our justices are with us for life. And if the court's next member is chosen not by Barack Obama, but a Republican successor, then we might all soon be living in Thomas's brave new world. From ths at psalience.org Sat Nov 5 10:53:25 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:53:25 +0100 Subject: [THS] Cigarette Smoking Leads to Coke? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111105105310.0411f5e8@mail.messagingengine.com> Cigarette Smoking Leads to Coke? Nicotine may alter the brain?s response to cocaine, supporting the idea that the legal drug may serve as a ?gateway? to the use of illegal substances. By Jef Akst | November 4, 2011 Wikimedia Commons, HendrikeWikimedia Commons, Hendrike Cigarette smokers may be more inclined to crave cocaine, according to a study published this week (November 2) in Science Translational Medicine, which found that the nicotine can result in gene regulation changes that boost the response of mouse brains to the drug. Scientists have long recognized the trend that drug users tend to start with cigarettes and alcohol before moving on to harder drugs, thus tagging the legal substances with the label ?gateway drugs.? But there was no mechanism to explain the trend, and the idea has been a continued source of controversy. In the current study, epidemiologist Denise Kandel at Columbia University, New York, who originally reported on the ?gateway drug? idea in 1975, and her husband Eric, a Nobel Prize-winning neurobiologist who spoke with The Scientist just last month about his research, teamed up with other colleagues to see if there was a molecular basis for the theory. The researchers found that mice first treated with nicotine showed enhanced addiction-related behaviors in response to cocaine?specifically, they were 78 percent more likely to go to locations where they had received cocaine previously and 98 percent more active overall. ?We found that nicotine works on the DNA-packaging system, known as chromatin,? lead author Amir Levine of Columbia told Nature, resulting in the increased expression of drug-addiction-related gene called FosB. The researchers also analyzed epidemiological data of 1,160 high school students and found that most cocaine users begin using coke after they start smoking, and that smoking increased the risk of addiction to the drug. ?This paper is exciting because it is one of the first well-defined characterizations of gene priming by a drug,? neurobiologist Alfred Robison of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York told Nature. Source: TheScientist http://the-scientist.com/2011/11/04/cigarette-smoking-leads-to-coke/ From ths at psalience.org Sat Nov 5 10:59:17 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:59:17 +0100 Subject: [THS] Chris Hedges Arrested in Front of Goldman Sachs Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111105105549.049c10e0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_arrested_in_front_of_goldman_sachs_20111103/ Chris Hedges Arrested in Front of Goldman Sachs Posted on Nov 3, 2011 David Shankbone (CC-BY) Chris Hedges made this statement in New York City?s Zuccotti Park on Thursday morning during the People?s Hearing on Goldman Sachs, which he chaired with Dr. Cornel West. The activist and Truthdig columnist then joined a march of several hundred protesters to the nearby corporate headquarters of Goldman Sachs, where he was arrested with 16 others. Chris Hedges? statement in Zuccotti Park: Goldman Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to become a bank holding company under its ?emergency situation,? has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18 billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes. Goldman Sachs? commodities index is the most heavily traded in the world. Goldman Sachs hoards rice, wheat, corn, sugar and livestock and jacks up commodity prices around the globe so that poor families can no longer afford basic staples and literally starve. Goldman Sachs is able to carry out its malfeasance at home and in global markets because it has former officials filtered throughout the government and lavishly funds compliant politicians?including Barack Obama, who received $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs in 2008 when he ran for president. These politicians, in return, permit Goldman Sachs to ignore security laws that under a functioning judiciary system would see the firm indicted for felony fraud. Or, as in the case of Bill Clinton, these politicians pass laws such as the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that effectively removed all oversight and outside control over the speculation in commodities, one of the major reasons food prices have soared. In 2008 and again in 2010 prices for crops such as rice, wheat and corn doubled and even tripled, making life precarious for hundreds of millions of people. And it was all done so a few corporate oligarchs, the 1 percent, could make personal fortunes in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite a damning 650-page Senate subcommittee investigation report, no individual at Goldman Sachs has been indicted, although the report accuses Goldman of defrauding its clients. When the government in the fall 2008 provided the firm with billions of dollars in the form of cheap loans, FDIC debt guarantees, TARP, AIG make-wholes, and a late-night label-shift from investment bank to bank holding company, giving the firm access to excessive Federal Reserve aid, access [the corporation] still has, it enabled and abetted Goldman?s criminal behavior. Goldman Sachs unloaded billions in worthless securities to its clients, decimating 401(k)s, pension and mutual funds. The firm misled investors about the true nature of these worthless securities, insisted the securities they were pushing on their clients were sound, and hid the material fact that, simultaneously, they were betting against these same securities?$2 billion against just one of their deals. The firm then had the gall to extort from its victims?us?to make good on its bets when the global economy it helped trash lost $40 trillion in worldwide wealth and huge insurance firms were unable to cover their bad debts. The Securities Act of 1933, established in the wake of the massive fraud that pervaded the securities market before the 1929 Crash, was written to ensure that ?any securities transactions are not based on fraudulent information or practices.? The act ?prohibits deceit, misrepresentation, and other fraud in the sale of securities.? The subcommittee report indicates that Goldman Sachs clearly broke security laws. As part of the political theater that has come to replace the legislative and judicial process, the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to a $550 million settlement whereby Goldman Sachs admitted it showed ?incomplete? information in marketing materials and that it was a ?mistake? to not disclose the nature of its portfolio selection committee. This fine was a payoff to the SEC by Goldman Sachs of about four days? worth of revenue, and in return they avoided going to court. CEO Lloyd Blankfein apparently not only lied to clients, but to the subcommittee itself on April 27, 2010, when he told lawmakers: ?We didn?t have a massive short against the housing market, and we certainly did not bet against our clients.? Yet, they did. And yet nothing has been done. No Goldman Sachs officials have gone to trial. This is because there is no way within the corporate state to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs. There is no way through the formal mechanisms of power to restore the rule of law. There is no way to protect the ordinary citizen and the poor around the globe from the predatory activity of financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs. Since our courts refuse to put on trial the senior executives at Goldman Sachs, including Blankfein, who carried out these crimes and lied to cover them up, we will. Speculators like those in Goldman Sachs?who in the 17th century when speculation was a crime would have been hanged?must be prevented by law from again destroying our economy, preying on ordinary citizens, hoarding food so the poor starve and running our political process. We are paying for these crimes?not those who orchestrated perhaps the most massive fraud in human history. Our teachers, police, firefighters and public employees are losing their jobs so speculators like Blankfein can make an estimated $250,000 a day. Working men and women are losing their homes and going into personal bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills. Our unemployed, far closer to 20 percent than the official 9 percent, are in deep distress all so a criminal class, a few blocks from where I speak, can wallow in luxury with mansions and yachts and swollen bank accounts. What we are asking for today is simple?it is a return to the rule of law. And since the formal mechanisms of power refuse to restore the rule of law, then we, the 99 percent, will have to see that justice is done. From ths at psalience.org Sat Nov 5 10:52:03 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:52:03 +0100 Subject: [THS] Fw: $600 Car - out next year Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111105105054.04b4a590@mail.messagingengine.com> ------ Forwarded Message This is not a joke and they do sell for $600.00. They wont be able to make them fast enough--be good just to run around town. Here's a car that will get you back and forth to work on the cheap....... $600 for the car. 258 miles per gallon... Only a one seater however Talk about cheap transportation ....... Volkswagen's $600 car gets 258 mpg -- It looks like Ford, Chrysler and GM missed the boat again! [] China launches $600 car that will get 258mpg This $600 car is no toy and is ready to be released in China next year. The single seater aero car totes VW (Volkswagen) branding. Volkswagen did a lot of very highly protected testing of this car in Germany, but it was not announced until now where the car would make it's first appearance. The car was introduced at the VW stockholders meeting as the most economical car in the world is presented. The initial objective of the prototype was to prove that 1 liter of fuel could deliver 100 kilos of travel. [] Spartan interior doesn't sacrifice safety The aero design proved essential to getting the desired result. The body is 3.47 meters long and just 1.25 meters wide, and a little over a meter high. The prototype was made completely of carbon fiber and is not painted to save weight. The power plant is a one cylinder diesel positioned ahead of the rear axle and combined with an automatic shift controlled by a knob in the interior. Safety was not compromised as the impact and roll-over protection is comparable to the GT racing cars. [] The Most Economic Car in the World will be on sale next year: Better than Electric Car ? 258 miles/gallon: IPO 2010 in Shanghai Thiis is a single seated car From conception to production: 3 years and the company is headquartered in Hamburg , Germany .. Will be selling for 4000 Yuan, equivalent to US$ 600.. Gas tank capacity = 1.7 gallons Speed = 62 ? 74.6 Miles/hour Fuel efficiency = 258 miles/gallon Travel distance with a full tank = 404 miles [] [] [] [] [] ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d5e0.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26955 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0008.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d5f0.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35706 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0009.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d600.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 20580 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0010.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d60f.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21195 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0011.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d61f.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26955 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0012.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d62e.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35706 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0013.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d63e.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 20580 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0014.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 83d64e.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21195 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.psalience.org/pipermail/ths/attachments/20111105/afc77511/attachment-0015.obj From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 6 14:06:54 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:06:54 +0100 Subject: [THS] Ismail Salami: Vicious Triangle Forming Against Iran Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111106140636.067760b0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29627.htm Vicious Triangle Forming Against Iran By Ismail Salami November 05, 2011 "Press TV" -- In recent days, there has been a vociferous interest in Israel, the US and the UK in fanning the flames of Iranophobia in what observers see as a political red herring to engage in a catastrophic war in the Middle East. The trio, which constitute a vicious triangle in their roguishly Iranophobic endeavors, have manifestly held secret meetings among the top security officials and formed a united front against Iran. A recent report by The Guardian has revealed that British Chief of Defense Staff Gen. David Richards visited Tel Aviv secretly during the week, held a number of meetings with top Israeli military and intelligence officials and reassured them of Britain's unwavering support in case of an attack on Iran's nuclear sites. Further to that, the British officials revealed that the US government was mulling accelerating plans for targeted attacks on the country's nuclear sites and that Britain was prepared to be part of the plan for a possible attack. Interestingly enough, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived in London on Wednesday to hold talks with his British counterpart, with Iran of course to top the agenda. The importance of these meetings is that Britain's senior military official had not visited Israel for a decade. So, the recent meetings indicate the cementing security and military ties between the two countries. Only recently, a senior US military official addressing a forum in Washington said that Iran had become the biggest threat to the United States. ?The biggest threat to the United States and to our interests and to our friends has come into focus and it's Iran.? Coincidentally (how so?), on the same day (Friday), Israel's president Shimon Peres also stated something virtually to the same effect, saying that the military option to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons was nearer. When asked by Channel Two News if events were moving toward to a military option rather than a diplomatic one, Peres replied, ?I believe so, I estimate that intelligence services of all these countries are looking at the ticking clock, warning leaders that there is not much time left.? In this regard, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a pea in the pod, graced a G-20 summit of world leaders in France with his pithy words, ?Iran's behavior and this obsessional desire to acquire nuclear military (capability) is in violation of all international rules. If Israel's existence were threatened, France would not stand idly by.? The trio (excluding France) have stepped up their rhetoric against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Threat is not a new word to Iran and the country is prepared for the worst and as Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has said on the sidelines of a news conference in the Libyan city of Benghazi, ?The US has unfortunately lost wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues. It depends only on power. They have lost rationality; we are prepared for the worst but we hope they will think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.? Time and again, the USA has renewed its hollow rhetoric against the Islamic Republic of Iran, repeating the same allegations again and again and again: that Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program; that Iran is supporting terrorism in the region; that Iran is violating human rights; that if Iran acquires the technology to produce nuclear weapons, it will create World War III. The recent allegation leveled against the Islamic republic ahead of the next week's report by the UN atomic watchdog is that Iran has ?built a large steel container for carrying out tests with high explosives that could be used in nuclear weapons,? and that Iran has made computer models of a nuclear warhead and other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms.? Allegation comes after allegation against the Islamic Republic and the vicious triangle is forming to set a stage for an all-out attack against the country with the intended purpose of plundering its natural resources. However, Iran will not sit quietly and leave the invaders in peace. In August 2011, a top IRGC commander Brigadier General Ali Shadmani envisaged three effective measures to counter any potential act of aggression. 1. As Israel is the USA's backyard, Iran will disturb peace there. (The absence of peace in Israel will certainly deny repose to the USA as well.) 2. It would take full control of the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where over 40 percent of all traded oil passes (thereby spiraling up the oil prices to a confounding level and dealing a heavy blow to the already deteriorating economy.) 3. It would keep a close watch on all American military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. In case of an attack, Iran will cripple the troops stationed in those bases and incapacitate them of any possible move. In the final analysis, the US hidden agenda in creating Iranophobia is to raise a specter of a nuclear apocalypse in the world, invade the country in alliance with Israel and the UK and other nefarious powers and eventually get their hands on Iran's myriad resources which they have coveted for so long. In the unholy Israel-US-UK alliance, one cannot say with surety who is the most responsible party for these anti-Iran provocative acts but it seems that the Israeli tail is wagging the US-UK dog. ismail Salami is an Iranian author and political analyst. A prolific writer, he has written numerous books and articles on the Middle East. From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 6 14:10:30 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:10:30 +0100 Subject: [THS] Former Mossad Chief: Hareidi Jews Bigger Threat than Iran Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111106140716.067752a0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29628.htm Former Mossad Chief: Hareidi Jews Bigger Threat than Iran Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy knows it all: Israel?s Hareidi Jews radicalization is a bigger threat to Israel than Iran. By Elad Benari November 05, 2011 "Arutz Shiva" - - Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, known for his penchant for provocative statements, attacked Israel?s hareidi-religious Jews on Thursday, saying they are ?a bigger existential threat to Israel than Iran and Ahmadinejad.? It turned out that his main problem was that boys and girls do not dance together in hareida-religious circles. Speaking a reunion of military academy graduates, Halevy said, ?The existential danger to Israel, more than Iran?s nuclear program, is the radicalization of the hareidi Jews which is getting worse.? He added, ?The hareidi extremism is a greater danger than Ahmadinejad. I was educated in Bnei Akiva, and there we used to dance, girls and boys together. Were the rabbis back then so wanton? Extremist Orthodoxy has darkened our lives.? He seems to have failed to realize that religious Zionists, for the most part, do not engage in mixed dancing either, as it is clearly forbidden halakhically, although in the early days of Bnei Akiva that did occur. Halevy, who was born in the United Kingdom in 1934 to an Orthodox family, emigrated to Israel in 1948. He attended Ma'aleh, a religious high school in Jerusalem. He joined the Mossad in 1961, and headed it between 1998 and 2002. He took an active part in a special mission by former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin which helped forge the Israel-Jordan peace treaty in 1994. Halevy, who is known as a hard-headed pragmatist on issues involving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, is always willing to ruffle feathers on both the right and the left. He has said in the past that Israel should include the terror group Hamas in negotiations with PA. The Eretz Yisrael Shelanu movement sharply criticized Halevy?s anti-hareidi rant on Friday, comparing it to the Nazi ideology which brought about World War II. ?Ephraim Halevy?s remarks are a kind of inferior European anti-Semitism which was used in the Europe in 1930s to delegitimize millions of Jews,? the movement said in a statement. ?The anti-Semitic cartoons in the Nazi Der St?rmer used to depict Jews in a hareidi appearance.? ?It should be made clear that Ephraim Halevy?s words are directed at the entire religious population, which part of the establishment in Israel sees as a threat to its continued domination,? the movement added. (Arutz Sheva?s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.) ? Arutz Sheva, All Rights Reserved From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 6 23:18:00 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Wayne_Madsen=3A_America=92s_Death_Pornograph?= =?iso-8859-1?q?y__Culture?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111106231733.0644c510@mail.messagingengine.com> America?s Death Pornography Culture: Celebrating brutal deaths of Qaddafi and Saddam By Wayne Madsen URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27430 Global Research, November 2, 2011 Strategic Culture Foundation The United States government and military revels in death and pornographic intimidation. The videos and photographs of howling Iraqis celebrating the hanging of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein after his U.S.-administered kangaroo court trial in Iraq and the physical abuse, alleged sodomizing, and execution of Libya?s Muammar Qaddafi by NATO-armed and directed rebels after his convoy in Sirte was reportedly struck by a U.S. drone-launched missile, exemplify America?s fixation with pornographic death scenes... The George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama administrations share a fascination for displaying the dead bodies of their vanquished enemies. For Bush, it was the gruesome stone-slabbed corpses of Qusay and Uday Hussein, Saddam?s sons, after they were killed in a firefight with U.S. troops in. That was followed by the body of Sadaam after his hanging in. Of course, it did not suit President Obama to broadcast a photograph of Osama Bin Laden, allegedly killed while resisting arrest in Abbotabad, Pakistan. In the case of Bin Laden, there is a strong reason to believe that Osama?s body could not be shown because there was no body of Osama. Whether an Osama Bin Laden look-a-like was killed or not may never be known, but what is certain is that the Obama administration?s explanation for ?Osama?s? burial at sea from a U.S. aircraft carrier appears dubious. There was also the curious designation of the operation to kill Bin Laden as ?Geronimo.? President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were in the White House Situation Room when they heard the news from the strike team: ?We?ve ID?d Geronimo,? followed by ?Geronimo EKIA? or ?Geronimo enemy killed in action.? There was outrage among Native Americans over the designation of Bin Laden as Geronimo. But the code name has its own ghastly history. In 1918, in another macabre display of ghoulishness by America?s political elite, Prescott Bush, the future U.S. senator and father and grandfather of two future presidents, allegedly dug up the grave of the famed Apache leader Geronimo and stole his skull and some bones. The remains are said to be among the prized possession of Yale?s elite and secretive Skull and Bones society, along with the skull of former President Martin van Buren, the only president of the United States who was not in the blood line, close or distant, of the British royal family. As Qaddafi?s body, along with those of his son, Mo?tassim, and the former Libyan army commander, Abu Bakr Yunis, rotted in a meat freezer in Misrata ? for the whole world to see -- more details emerged about Qaddafi?s last hours in Sirte. On October 19, at around 8:00 am in Sirte, a convoy of 70 vehicles departed the heavily-bombed out city, heading west. There were also Twitter messages coming out of Sirte reporting that several white flags of surrender were seen in the city at day break. However, a CIA Predator drone tracking the convoy passed its coordinates on to NATO. French and other NATO jets pounded the convoy, incinerating many of the drivers and passengers. Many of those killed were black Libyans. There are now reports of mass graves in Sirte containing the bodies of scores of Qaddafi supporters and fellow tribal members. There have been some reports that a truce and a surrender by Qaddafi and his forces was worked out between some rebel leaders and Qaddafi?s entourage through the auspices of the Qaddadfa (the tribe to which Qaddafi belonged) tribal leaders in Sirte. After the convoy was on the highway heading west, with reported white flags from some of the vehicles, the motorcade, which was not engaging in fire with rebel or NATO forces, was set upon by NATO forces. Witnesses to the surrender and/or safe passage negotiations will be hard to come by, since one of those murdered in his home in Sirte by Libyan rebels was reportedly the chief of the Qaddadfa tribe who was part of the negotiations for surrender and safe passage. Reports that Qaddafi and his group were trying to make a dash through the offensive lines around Sirte make no sense since the convoy left after sun up and in broad daylight, when white flags could clearly be seen by the belligerents, and the Twitter messages out of Sirte indicated that rebels, pro-Qaddafi forces, and neutral observers could all see the white flags. If Qaddafi wanted to make a break for it, he would have done so at night with headlights out. One of the last things Qaddafi is heard asking his captors is ?Do you know right from wrong?? If the rebels or NATO reneged on a promise of safe passage and ignored the universally-recognized white flag signifying truce and surrender, it would constitute a gross violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and would, therefore, be a war crime. Under the conventions, the white flag is protected as a sign that an approaching party intends to surrender or negotiate the terms of surrender. Those displaying a white flag may not fire or be fired upon. If NATO and the rebels violated the white flag in Sirte, it would represent one of the first major violations of a practice that began with the Eastern Han dynasty in China in the year 25, and was recognized by the Roman Empire, armies during the Middle Ages, and every major and minor nation since. A violation by NATO of the flag of truce would represent a flagrant return to barbarism by the ?collective defensive? organization. Hillary Clinton reacted to news of Qaddafi?s death by chortling like a school girl. Preparing for an interview with CBS News, Clinton, who had just paid a visit to Libya, joked, ?We came, we saw, he died.? Other NATO leaders, including Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as well as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who all self-identify themselves as Christians, expressed relief and joy at the news of Qaddafi?s death, a very ?un-Christian? trait. The brutal treatment of Qaddafi and his forces matches the treatment meted out by American forces to detainees in Iraq, including the pornographic abuse of prisoners, including minors, at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. In the report by U.S. Army General Antonio Taguba, there are instances of U.S. guards forcing male and female prisoners into naked and explicit positions, including human piles, and taking photographs and video shots, forcing male prisoners to wear women?s underwear, forcing male prisoners to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped, and sodomizing detainees with broom sticks and chemical lights. One prisoner murdered by U.S. forces, Manadel al-Jamadi, was kept on ice to prevent decomposition and spirited away from investigators to cover up his suffocation by U.S. prison guards. The abuse at Abu Ghraib continues to have ramifications and has resulted in a lawsuit in California, Ford v. CAARNG (California Army Reserve National Guard). The suit charges that ?retired Sergeant Frank G. Ford who, in 2003, was assigned to Iraq with the 223 Military Intelligence Unit under the 205 Military Intelligence Brigade as a Counter Intelligence Agent and Medic, was strapped to a gurney against his will and kidnapped. He was then sent from a war zone [Iraq] to Germany . . . because he reported the torture going on at Abu Ghraib prison as well as the death by torture of a prisoner while in custody.? The suit also alleges that ?Ford cared for and treated, as an onsite medic, numerous victims of torture.? A video currently circulating of a Libyan rebel sodomizing Qaddafi with what appears to be a rifle barrel brings back the scenes of the U.S. house of horrors at Abu Ghraib. Obama?s decision to become judge, jury, and executioner in the death sentences (?targeted killings?) carried out by a CIA drone flying over Yemen on September 30, on U.S. citizens Anwar al Awalaki (a former Islamic confidante of the Pentagon), and Samir Khan, and an additional October 14 drone strike in Yemen that killed Awlaki?s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, reinforces a growing belief that Obama lords over a voodoo-like death cult that has taken over U.S. military and foreign policy. By word and action, the U.S. military and its NATO underlings have discarded thousands of years of chivalric military tradition, common practices, and law against a backdrop of ghoulish and pornographic behavior.