From ths at psalience.org Mon Nov 14 00:33:24 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:33:24 +0100 Subject: [THS] Saddam's Throne Repatriated Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111114002938.063b1090@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175467/tomgram%3A_andrew_ Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich, The Passing of the Postwar Era Posted by Andrew Bacevich at 5:32pm, November 13, 2011. Sometimes, just when you least expect it, symbolism steps right up and coldcocks you. So how about this headline for -- in the spirit of our last president -- ushering America?s withdrawal from Iraq right over the nearest symbolic cliff: ?U.S. empties biggest Iraq base, takes Saddam?s toilet.? They?re talking about Victory Base, formerly -- again in the spirit of thoroughly malevolent symbolism -- Camp Victory, the enormous American military base that sits at the edge of Baghdad International Airport and that we were never going to leave. If you want to measure the size of American pretensions in Iraq once upon a time, just consider this: that base, once meant -- as its name implied -- to be Washington?s triumphalist and eternal military command post in the oil heartlands of the planet, is encircled by 27 miles of blast walls and razor wire. (By comparison, the island I live on, Manhattan Island to be exact, is just 13.4 miles long.) So that?s big. It was, in fact, the biggest of the 505 bases the U.S. built in Iraq. By the way, it does seem just a tad ironic that only at the moment of departure are Americans given an accurate count of just how many bases ?we? built in that country to the tune of billions of dollars. Previous published figures were in the ?more than 300? range. In recent months, Victory Base has been stripped of much and locked down. You can almost hear taps playing for the closing of its Burger King, Subway, Taco Bell, and Cinnabon franchises, its bottled water plant, its electric grid (which delivered power with an effectiveness the occupation was otherwise incapable of providing for the people of Baghdad), its ?mother of all PXs,? its hospital, and so many of the other ?improvements? now valued at $100 million or more. Anyway, I was talking about toilets, wasn?t I? Not to belabor the point, but back in 2003 George W. Bush was given Saddam Hussein?s pistol as a trophy after the Iraqi dictator was captured by U.S. forces in his ?spider hole.? Now, it seems, Americans get the ultimate trophy: the stainless steel toilet Saddam used during his imprisonment in one of his old palaces at Camp Victory for the three years before he was hanged. On the theory that we installed it, so it?s ours to keep, it was removed in August and shipped back to the United States, destined for the Military Police Museum at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. So, close enough to a trillion dollars later (with so much more to come in, among other things, bills for the care of the American war-wounded and traumatized), don?t let anyone say that the United States got nothing out of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. When our trophy for the eight-year debacle is a commode, you know that we?re in a new era, even if that's news in Washington, as TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich, author of Washington Rules: America?s Path to Permanent War, indicates. (To catch Timothy MacBain?s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Bacevich discusses how his students have come to accept perpetual American war as normalcy click here, or download it to your iPod here.) - Tom Big Change Whether We Like It or Not Only Washington Is Clueless By Andrew Bacevich In every aspect of human existence, change is a constant. Yet change that actually matters occurs only rarely. Even then, except in retrospect, genuinely transformative change is difficult to identify. By attributing cosmic significance to every novelty and declaring every unexpected event a revolution, self-assigned interpreters of the contemporary scene -- politicians and pundits above all -- exacerbate the problem of distinguishing between the trivial and the non-trivial. Did 9/11 ?change everything?? For a brief period after September 2001, the answer to that question seemed self-evident: of course it did, with massive and irrevocable implications. A mere decade later, the verdict appears less clear. Today, the vast majority of Americans live their lives as if the events of 9/11 had never occurred. When it comes to leaving a mark on the American way of life, the likes of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg have long since eclipsed Osama bin Laden. (Whether the legacies of Jobs and Zuckerberg will prove other than transitory also remains to be seen.) Anyone claiming to divine the existence of genuinely Big Change Happening Now should, therefore, do so with a sense of modesty and circumspection, recognizing the possibility that unfolding events may reveal a different story. All that said, the present moment is arguably one in which the international order is, in fact, undergoing a fundamental transformation. The ?postwar world? brought into existence as a consequence of World War II is coming to an end. A major redistribution of global power is underway. Arrangements that once conferred immense prerogatives upon the United States, hugely benefiting the American people, are coming undone. In Washington, meanwhile, a hidebound governing class pretends that none of this is happening, stubbornly insisting that it?s still 1945 with the so-called American Century destined to continue for several centuries more (reflecting, of course, God?s express intentions). Here lies the most disturbing aspect of contemporary American politics, worse even than rampant dysfunction borne of petty partisanship or corruption expressed in the buying and selling of influence. Confronted with evidence of a radically changing environment, those holding (or aspiring to) positions of influence simply turn a blind eye, refusing even to begin to adjust to a new reality. Big Change Happening Now The Big Change happening before our very eyes is political, economic, and military. At least four converging vectors are involved. First, the Collapse of the Freedom Agenda: In the wake of 9/11, the administration of George W. Bush set out to remake the Greater Middle East. This was the ultimate strategic objective of Bush?s ?global war on terror.? Intent on accomplishing across the Islamic world what he believed the United States had accomplished in Europe and the Pacific between 1941 and 1945, Bush sought to erect a new order conducive to U.S. interests -- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources, dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally) allow Israel a free hand in the region. Key to the success of this effort would be the U.S. military, which President Bush (and many ordinary Americans) believed to be unstoppable and invincible -- able to beat anyone anywhere under any conditions. Alas, once implemented, the Freedom Agenda almost immediately foundered in Iraq. The Bush administration had expected Operation Iraqi Freedom to be a short, tidy war with a decisively triumphant outcome. In the event, it turned out to be a long, dirty (and very costly) war yielding, at best, exceedingly ambiguous results. Well before he left office in January 2009, President Bush himself had abandoned his Freedom Agenda, albeit without acknowledging its collapse and therefore without instructing Americans on the implications of that failure. One specific implication stands out: we now know that U.S. military power, however imposing, falls well short of enabling the United States to impose its will on the Greater Middle East. We can neither liberate nor dominate nor tame the Islamic world, a verdict from the Bush era that Barack Obama?s continuing misadventures in ?AfPak? have only served to affirm. Trying harder won?t produce a different result. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates caught the new reality best: ?Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ?have his head examined,? as General MacArthur so delicately put it.? To be sure, Freedom Agenda dead-enders -- frequently found under K in your phone book -- continue to argue otherwise. Even now, for example, Kagans, Keanes, Krauthammers, and Kristols are insisting that ?we won? the Iraq War -- or at least had done so until President Obama fecklessly flung away a victory so gloriously gained. Essential to their argument is that no one notice how they have progressively lowered the bar defining victory. Back in 2003, they were touting Saddam Hussein?s overthrow as just the beginning of American domination of the Middle East. Today, with Saddam?s departure said to have ?made the world a better place,? getting out of Baghdad with U.S. forces intact has become the operative definition of success, ostensibly vindicating the many thousands killed and maimed, millions of refugees displaced, and trillions of dollars expended. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia remains in the field, conducting some 30 attacks per week against Iraqi security forces and civilians. This we are expected not to notice. Some victory. Second, the Great Recession: In the history of the American political economy, the bursting of speculative bubbles forms a recurring theme. Wall Street shenanigans that leave the plain folk footing the bill are an oft-told tale. Recessions of one size or another occur at least once a decade. Yet the economic downturn that began in 2008 stands apart, distinguished by its severity, duration, and resistance to even the most vigorous (or extravagant) remedial action. In this sense, rather than resembling any of the garden-variety economic slumps or panics of the past half-century, the Great Recession of our own day recalls the Great Depression of the 1930s. Instead of being a transitory phenomenon, it seemingly signifies something transformational. The Great Recession may well have inaugurated a new era -- its length indeterminate but likely to stretch for many years -- of low growth, high unemployment, and shrinking opportunity. As incomes stagnate and more and more youngsters complete their education only to find no jobs waiting, members of the middle class are beginning to realize that the myth of America as a classless society is just that. In truth, the game is rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the many -- and in recent years, the fixing has become ever more shamelessly blatant. This realization is rattling American politics. In just a handful of years, confidence in the Washington establishment has declined precipitously. Congress has become a laughingstock. The high hopes raised by President Obama?s election have long since dissipated, leaving disappointment and cynicism in their wake. One result, on both the far right and the far left, has been to stoke the long-banked fires of American radicalism. The energy in American politics today lies with the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street, both expressing a deep-seated antipathy toward the old way of doing things. Populism is making one of its periodic appearances on the American scene. Where this will lead remains, at present, unclear. But ours has long been a political system based on expectations of ever-increasing material abundance, promising more for everyone. Whether that system can successfully deal with the challenges of managing scarcity and distributing sacrifice ranks as an open question. This is especially true when those among us who have been making out like bandits profess so little willingness to share in any sacrifices that may be required. Third, the Arab Spring: As with the floundering American economy, so with Middle Eastern politics: predicting the future is a proposition fraught with risk. Yet without pretending to forecast outcomes -- Will Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya embrace democracy? Can Islamic movements coexist with secularized modernity? -- this much can be safely said: the ongoing Arab upheaval is sweeping from that region of the world the last vestiges of Western imperialism. Europeans created the modern Middle East with a single purpose in mind: to serve European interests. With the waning of European power in the wake of World War II, the United States -- gingerly at first, but by the 1980s without noticeable inhibition -- stepped in to fill the void. What had previously been largely a British sphere now became largely an American one, with the ever-accelerating tempo of U.S. military activism testifying to that fact. Although Washington abjured the overt colonialism once practiced in London, its policies did not differ materially from those that Europeans had pursued. The idea was to keep a lid on, exclude mischief-makers, and at the same time extract from the Middle East whatever it had on offer. The preferred American MO was to align with authoritarian regimes, offering arms, security guarantees, and other blandishments in return for promises of behavior consistent with Washington?s preferences. Concern for the wellbeing of peoples living in the region (Israelis excepted) never figured as more than an afterthought. What events of the past year have made evident is this: that lid is now off and there is little the United States (or anyone else) can do to reinstall it. A great exercise in Arab self-determination has begun. Arabs (and, arguably, non-Arabs in the broader Muslim world as well) will decide their own future in their own way. What they decide may be wise or foolish. Regardless, the United States and other Western nations will have little alternative but to accept the outcome and deal with the consequences, whatever they happen to be. A Washington inhabited by people certain that decisions made in the White House determine the course of history will insist otherwise, of course. Democrats credit Obama?s 2009 Cairo speech with inspiring Arabs to throw off their chains. Even more laughably, Republicans credit George W. Bush?s ?liberation? of Iraq for installing democracy in the region and supposedly moving Tunisians, Egyptians, and others to follow suit. To put it mildly, evidence to support such claims simply does not exist. One might as well attribute the Arab uprising to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those expecting Egyptians to erect statues of Obama or Bush in Cairo?s Tahrir Square are likely to have a long wait. Fourth, Beleaguered Europe?s Quest for a Lifeline: To a considerable extent, the story of the twentieth-century -- at least the commonly-told Western version of that story -- is one of Europe screwing up and America coming to the rescue. The really big screw-ups were, of course, the two world wars. In 1917 and again after December 1941, the United States sent large armies to deal with those who had disturbed the peace. After the first war, the Americans left. After the second, they stayed, not only providing soldiers to safeguard Western Europe, but also rejuvenating the shattered economies of the European democracies. Even with the passing of a half-century, the Marshall Plan stands out as a singular example of enlightened statecraft -- and also as a testimonial to America?s unsurpassed economic capacity following World War II. Saving continents in dire distress was a job that only the United States could accomplish. That was then. Today, Europe has once again screwed up, although fortunately this time there is no need for foreign armies to sort out the mess. The crisis of the moment is an economic one, due entirely to European recklessness and irresponsibility (not qualitatively different from the behavior underlying the American economic crisis). Will Uncle Sam once again ride to the rescue? Not a chance. Beset with the problems that come with old age, Uncle Sam can?t even mount up. To whom, then, can Europe turn for assistance? Recent headlines tell the story: * ?Cash-Strapped Europe Looks to China For Help? * ?Europe Begs China for Bailout? * ?EU takes begging bowl to Beijing? * ?Is China the Bailout Saviour in the European Debt Crisis?? The crucial issue here isn?t whether Beijing will actually pull Europe?s bacon out of the fire. Rather it?s the shifting expectations underlying the moment. After all, hasn?t the role of European savior already been assigned? Isn?t it supposed to be Washington?s in perpetuity? Apparently not. Back to the Future In the words of the old Buffalo Springfield song: ?Something?s happening here. What it is ain?t exactly clear.? American politicians stubbornly beg to differ, of course, content to recite vapid but reassuring clich?s about American global leadership, American exceptionalism, and that never-ending American Century. Everything, they would have us believe, will remain just as it has been -- providing the electorate installs the right person in the Oval Office. ?To those nations who continue to resist the unstoppable march of human, political and economic freedom,? declares Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, ?we will make clear that they are on the wrong side of history, by ensuring that America?s light shines bright in every corner of the globe, representing a beacon of hope and inspiration.? ?This is America's moment,? insists Mitt Romney. ?We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America's time has passed . I will not surrender America's role in the world.? With an unsurprising absence of originality, the title of Romney?s campaign ?white paper? on national security is An American Century. Governor Rick Perry?s campaign web site offers this important insight: ?Rick Perry believes in American exceptionalism, and rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country but instead believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength.? For his part, Newt Gingrich wants it known that ?America is still the last, best hope of mankind on earth.? The other Republican candidates (Ron Paul always excepted) draw from the same shallow and stagnant pool of ideas. To judge by what we might call the C. Wright Mills standard of leadership -- ?men without lively imagination are needed to execute policies without imagination devised by an elite without imagination? -- all are eminently qualified for the presidency. Nothing is wrong with America or the world, they would have us believe, that can?t be fixed by ousting Barack Obama from office, thereby restoring the rightful order of things. ?Is America Over?? That question adorns the cover of the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, premier organ of the foreign policy establishment. As is typically the case with that establishment, Foreign Affairs is posing the wrong question, one designed chiefly to elicit a misleading, if broadly reassuring answer. Proclaim it from the rooftops: No, America is not ?over.? Yet a growing accumulation of evidence suggests that America today is not the America of 1945. Nor does the international order of the present moment bear more than a passing resemblance to that which existed in the heyday of American power. Everyone else on the planet understands this. Perhaps it?s finally time for Americans -- starting with American politicians -- to do so as well. Should they refuse, a painful comeuppance awaits. Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author, among other works, of Washington Rules: America?s Path to Permanent War and the editor of The Short American Century: A Postmortem, forthcoming from Harvard University Press. To listen to Timothy MacBain?s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Bacevich discusses how his students have come to accept perpetual American war as normalcy click here, or download it to your iPod here. Copyright 2011 Andrew Bacevich From ths at psalience.org Mon Nov 14 00:42:52 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:42:52 +0100 Subject: [THS] Gideon Levy: A new Israel in the making Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111114004230.0639fe10@mail.messagingengine.com> A new Israel in the making The future is now. The revolution is in progress; just wait for what's to come. By Gideon Levy One day not long from now we will wake up to a different kind of country, the country that's now in the making. It won't look like the country we know, which already has its share of flaws, distortions and ills. And when we become aware of this, it will be too late. At that point, the old Israel will be described in glowing terms, a model of democracy and justice, compared to the new version that is taking shape as we close our eyes to it, day after day, new law after law. The way of life in the new Israel where we will live and die won't remind us in the least of the country we're used to. Even this article won't be publishable. Only proper opinions will be put into print, the ones approved by the new government-sponsored journalists' association, whose people will sit in every newsroom so there is no divergence from the accepted chorus of opinion. Laws and regulations (clearly they will be passed as "emergency" regulations ) will bar publication of anything that could, in the eyes of the authorities, harm the state. A new law will bar defamation of the state, and the newspaper you will hold in your hands will be different. It will only report good news. Radio and television broadcasts won't be what you're familiar with either. No media outlet will be able to go beyond the bounds of the law due to the draconian penalties for running afoul of them. The word "occupation" will be illegal, as will the expression "Palestinian state." Treasonous journalists will be pilloried or arrested, or at least fired. That day is not long in coming. In the not too distant future, the urban landscape will look different. What is happening today in Jerusalem will play itself out in the whole country tomorrow, when the likeness of women will be banished from public view. Today Jerusalem, tomorrow the whole country. Separate buses and streets for men and women. Radio and television will only broadcast men singing. At some point, women will be required to cover their heads. Then it will be the men's turn. They will be barred from appearing clean-shaven or without a head covering. That day is not long in coming. The cities will be shut down on Shabbat. Not a store or movie theater will be open. Then will come the ban on driving on Shabbat. Non-kosher restaurants will be illegal. Mezuzahs will be required on the doorpost of every room in every home. Couples not registered with the rabbinate will not be allowed to live together, and couples in which only one party is Jewish will be deported immediately. Unmarried couples will be barred from walking arm-in-arm in public. Once a month all the country's schoolchildren will make solidarity visits to West Bank settlements. Every lesson will begin with the singing of the national anthem and a salute to the flag. Those who don't serve in the army will lose their citizenship and be deported. And the Jewish state will have a Jewish Knesset. First Arabs will be barred from running for parliament in their own parties. Then they won't be allowed to be elected at all. Until then, MKs who at the beginning of every Knesset session don't sing the national anthem's words about the "yearning of the Jewish soul" will be permanently removed. Arabs will be denied the right to a university education, with the exception of a symbolic quota approved by the Shin Bet security service. It will be illegal to rent to Arabs, other than in their own towns and villages, and the Arabic language will be banned. The poetry of Arab poet Mahmoud Darwish and his Jewish compatriots Aharon Shabtai and Yitzhak Laor will also be banned. Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman will have to decide. They, and all the country's citizens, will be required to declare themselves Zionists to get published. The West Bank will be annexed, but the Palestinians living there will not be. Left-wing organizations will be made illegal and their leaders arrested. The government will publish a blacklist of those with offensive views who will not be allowed to leave the country or speak to the foreign media. Only someone who murders Jews will be deemed a real murderer, and the statute books will be divided into two parts, one for Jews and one for non-Jews. The death penalty will only apply to Arabs. Special legislation will give settlers the right to take control of any land in the West Bank, and military censorship will ban any news item that could "harm the strength of the Israel Defense Forces." The Supreme Court will only serve as a court of appeals and will not consider direct petitions on civil rights violations. Supreme Court justices will be selected by the Knesset and slots on the bench will be reserved for West Bank settlers, rabbis and members of the party in power. Only religious justices will be able to serve as chief justice. Rabbis will have legal immunity similar to what MKs have. Any declaration of war or a peace agreement will need the approval of the Council of Torah Sages. Actually, you don't need much imagination to come up with all this. The future is now. The revolution is in progress; just wait for what's to come. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-new-israel-in-the-making-1.395241 From ths at psalience.org Mon Nov 14 18:13:05 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:13:05 +0100 Subject: [THS] Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111114181139.0459bde8@mail.messagingengine.com> Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran by craig on Nov 14th in Uncategorized http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ matthew-gould-leeds-event-july2010-copy This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto "Speaking Up for Israel." A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force. On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: "British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday". Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important. The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together ? only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell in his "investigation" into Werritty's unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence ? raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair's determination to drive through a war on Iraq.. This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O'Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party. Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour's garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould. Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy. I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould's name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty's funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups. I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O'Donnell's report. But Gus O'Donnell's report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O'Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them. This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O'Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O'Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed. Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why? The first meeting to which O'Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O'Donnell says this was "a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD's perspective." O'Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that "Mr Gould's meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls." All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do. For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty's presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O'Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox's office, but in the MOD dining room. O'Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O'Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that: "Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter's capacity as shadow Defence Secretary." So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was ? what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed? The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn's question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information ? yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted. Hague replied to Corbyn that: "Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present." Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O'Donnell had completely mischaracterised the "Briefing meeting" between Fox, Werritty and O'Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before ? once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for "a social engagement." The FCO did not answer Corbyn's question as to who else was present at this "social engagement". This was also key because Gould's other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised ? albeit falsely ? as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at "a private social engagement" was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other's company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that. That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox's office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting. My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O'Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important. O'Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011: "in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present." There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be "private". You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O'Donnell's astonishing description of this as a "private" dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy. I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card ? if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn's parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply. Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on "Israel's security", which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event. Yet again, the liar O'Donnell does not mention it. I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the "We believe in Israel" conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference. I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul's cathedral. This is the story I was given. Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould's responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period. According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present ? and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet. My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed. On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran. There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O'Donnell's report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative's coalition partners? The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy. Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt? There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel. Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as "Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador". That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen. It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox. There is no doubt that the O'Donnell report's deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO's blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does? Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information. __._,_.___ From ths at psalience.org Mon Nov 14 21:43:32 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:43:32 +0100 Subject: [THS] Guardian: Israeli secret service the Mossad linked to Iran military blast Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111114214255.065c1c90@mail.messagingengine.com> Israeli secret service the Mossad linked to Iran military blast Israeli media report claims the Mossad was behind 'huge blast' at Bid Ganeh base that killed leading Iranian missile researcherPhoebe Greenwood in Tel Aviv guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 November 2011 13.20 GMT Article history Qom suspected nuclear facility Iran's suspected nuclear enrichment facility under construction at Qom. Reports claim the Mossad was behind a huge blast at a facility which killed a missile development pioneer. Photograph: AP A series of news reports linking Israel's intelligence agency the Mossadto a blast at a military facility in Iran, in which 17 people were killed and a further 15 wounded, has gained widespread coverage in the Israeli media on Monday. While Iranian officials insist the explosion at the Bid Ganeh base was accidental, caused by the movement of ammunition, claims from anonymous western and Israeli officials that Saturday's blast was a covert Israeli operation have gained momentum. Leading Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot picked up a post by US blogger Richard Silverstein claiming the Mossad had teamed up with Iranian militant group Mujahidee n e-Khalq (MEK) to execute the alleged attack. The article quotes Silverstein's unsubstantiated assertion that Israel's use of the MEK for acts of espionage and "terror" is common knowledge among intelligence circles, "ranging from fraudulent Iranian memos alleging work on nuclear trigger devices to assassinations of nuclear scientists and bombings of sensitive military installations". Leftwing broadsheet Ha'aretz also led with reports that a western intelligence source quoted in Time magazine had claimed the Mossad carried out the attack in an attempt to stall Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. The official is said to have warned: "There are more bullets in the magazine." The blast at the base, which is reported to have been a storage facility for long-range missiles, was so powerful that it was said to have been felt 30 miles away in the capital, Tehran. Among those killed was Major General Hassan Moghaddam, the Revolutionary Guard Commander charged with "ensuring self-sufficiency" in armaments, and described by Iranian media as a pioneer in Iranian missile development. Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, responded to news of Moghaddam's death by saying: "May there be more like it." Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office refused to comment on growing speculation of the Mossad's involvement. Ilan Mizrahi, former head of the national security council and former deputy head of the Mossad, also would not be drawn into substantiating the claims: "I have no idea whether this blast was accidenta l or whether it was sabotage. But I will say God bless those who were behind it, because the free world should be doing its best to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear military capability." A recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, based on the intelligence of 10 governments, presented images, letters and diagrams that suggested Iran was secretly working on nuclear weaponry. Both the US and France have offered close co-operation with Israel, threatening increased sanctions unless Iran responds with transparency to the nuclear watchdog report. Earlier this month, the Knesset debated the bombing of Iran to prevent further nuclear development, with Netanyahu and Bar ak said to supporting military strikes. "There is nothing in this latest IAEA report that Israel hasn't known for a long time. Their arsenal of long-range missiles is also too often overlooked. I believe a military strike is an option that should be put clearly on the table," Mizrahi said. "Something should be done to stop Iran. I think in the end [Israel] will stand alone." Iran's envoy to the IAEA says any nuclear development is for peaceful means and that the material evidence against has been fabricated by the US. Israel has been linked to several previous incidents in Iran similar to Saturday's explosion, including an explosion at a Shahab facility in south-western Iran in 2010 and a bomb attack earlier that year in Tehran, in which Iranian physicist Masoud Ali Mohammadi was killed. From ths at psalience.org Mon Nov 14 23:16:25 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:16:25 +0100 Subject: [THS] Glenn Greenwald: U.S. takes the lead on behalf of cluster bombs Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111114231246.045aca48@mail.messagingengine.com> Saturday, Nov 12, 2011 11:16 AM 11:11:10 EST U.S. takes the lead on behalf of cluster bombs After long refusing to join the convention banning these weapons, Obama now works to overturn it By Glenn Greenwald Slightly more than two months after he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama secretly ordered a cruise missile attack on Yemen, using cluster bombs, which killed 44 innocent civilians, including 14 women and 21 children, as well as 14 people alleged to be ?militants.? It goes without saying that ? unless you want Rick Perry to win in 2012 ? this act should in no way be seen as marring Obama?s presidency or his character: what?s a couple dozen children blown up as a part of a covert, undeclared air war? If anything, as numerous Democrats have ecstatically celebrated, such acts show how Tough and Strong the Democrats are: after all, ponder the massive amounts of nobility and courage it takes to sit in the Oval Office and order this type of aggression on defenseless tribal regions in Yemen. As R.W. Appel put it on the front page of The New York Times back in 1989 when glorifying George H.W. Bush?s equally courageous invasion of Panama: ?most American leaders since World War II have felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood? and doing so has become ?a Presidential initiation rite.? But one aspect of the December, 2009, attack that perhaps did merit some more critical scrutiny was the use of cluster bombs, weapons which ?scatter hundreds of bomblets over a large area but with limited accuracy and high failure rates.? The inevitability of ?duds? ? ?unexploded ordnance? ? poses a great risk to civilians, often well after the conflict has ended, since ? like land mines ? they often detonate when stumbled into by children and other innocents long after they disperse. According to the Cluster Munitions Coalition, cluster bombs ?caused more civilian casualties in Iraq in 2003 and Kosovo in 1999 than any other weapon system.? As Wired pointed out, while the U.S. used these weapons in both Iraq and Afghanistan, ?neither the Taliban nor Saddam used cluster bombs against U.S. troops.? And here is how the Council on Foreign Relations describes the impact these weapons had in the 2006 Israeli bombing campaign in Lebanon: They left dozens dead or maimed on both sides of the conflict. The reason . . . is because the ?fighting in southern Lebanon was often in villages and towns where people were living.? Israel dropped up to four million submunitions on Lebanese soil, one million of which remain unexploded ?duds,? according to the UN Mine Action Coordination Center. Throughout the thirty-four-day conflict, the United States resupplied Israel?s arsenal of cluster bombs, which prompted an investigation by the State Department to examine if Israel had violated secret agreements it signed with the United States governing their use. Hezbollah, meanwhile, fired thousands of cluster munitions?a Chinese-made Type 81 122mm rocket?into northern Israel, a number of which targeted civilian populations, according to human rights groups. Given how indiscriminate and civilian-threatening these weapons are, more than 100 countries have signed a treaty banning their production and use and compelling compensation to their victims. Needless to say, the U.S. has categorically refused to join the Convention, along with the other biggest stockpilers of these weapons, such as Russia, Israel and China. The Obama administration?s refusal to join the Convention has caused tension and controversy even with its most subservient allies, such as Britian, a signatory to the treaty. The British Parliament had insisted that the U.S. rid itself of all cluster munitions at American bases on British soil, but a WikiLeaks cable revealed that ?British and American officials colluded in a plan to hoodwink parliament? through ?the use of a loophole to manoeuvre around the ban and allow the US to keep the munitions on British territory.? But now the Obama administration is moving far beyond a mere refusal to join the convention banning these munitions. According to The Independent, the U.S. is playing the leading role ?to torpedo the global ban on cluster bombs? through a ?proposal that would permit the use of cluster bombs as long as they were manufactured after 1980 and had a failure rate of less than one per cent.? The paper also reports that despite Britain?s long-time role in supporting the ban, its conservative government is now backing the Obama administration?s efforts to codify their use. The Pentagon claims that newer cluster bombs can be used more safely, but activists have documented that ?many modern cluster bombs have far higher failure rates on the field of battle than manufacturers claim.? So it isn?t only massively increased, secret drone attacks in numerous Muslim countries around the world that will be an enduring foreign policy legacy of the Obama presidency. Nor will it be merely the death knell of the War Powers Resolution from his prosecution of the war in Libya even in the face of a Congressional vote against its authorization, nor the continuation and ? in some cases expansion ? of the most controversial Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies. We will also be ensured of living in a world where the use of cluster bombs continues unabated. * * * * * Speaking of Change: Don Rumsfeld, November 21, 2002, on Iraq: ?All I can say is if history has taught anything, it?s that weakness is provocative. It entices people into doing things that they otherwise would not do.? [especially a weakness between the ears -ths] Bill Kristol, July 24, 2006, on Iran and Syria: ?We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative.? [another weakling] Leon Panetta, yesterday: ?Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been steadily escalating his warnings about the impact of the deep cuts facing the Pentagon if the congressional super committee fails to reach a deal. On Thursday, he played the last ? and strongest ? card in his deck, arguing that the hundreds of billions of dollars of mandatory cuts would directly imperil U.S. national security. . . . Mandatory defense cuts, he warned, would weaken the armed forces to the point that enemies would be emboldened to attack the U.S. ?In effect, it invites aggression,? Panetta said during the new conference, just his second since taking office in July.? Yes, President Obama?s Defense Secretary is actually running around the country trying to scare Americans into believing that if the U.S. cuts military spending, then the nation will be attacked. After all, weakness is provocative, just like Rumsfeld and Kristol have long taught us. I have no doubt that this is the same reason we must have cluster bombs: if we no longer have them, we will be overrun by hordes of aggressive invaders. Is that something that you want? I doubt it: so you better support cluster bombs and demand that your Social Security benefits and other domestic services ? rather than military spending ? be cut. From ths at psalience.org Mon Nov 14 23:23:14 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:23:14 +0100 Subject: [THS] James Howard Kunstler: a wicked people who deserve to be punished Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111114232125.0461de48@mail.messagingengine.com> In James Kunstler's homily, I hear the echoes of the sagacious warnings of William Friday about college athletics and the Chinese whispers swirling around the searing Catholic sex scandals that rock the Vatican to this very day. Doubtless, Penn State is merely the first of such monstrous atrocities to rear its ugly maw. The systematic putrefaction of American academia via capitalistic exploitation of college athletics legitimizes the rude title of Kunstler's Jeremiad. CLUSTERFUCK NATION Comment on Current Events by the Author of "The Long Emergency" By James Howard Kunstler on November 14, 2011 7:42 AM The Penn State football sex scandal, and the depraved response of the university community at all levels, tells whatever you need to know about the spiritual condition of this floundering, rudderless, republic and its ignoble culture. For nine years, head coach Joe Paterno covered up a grad student's report of having witnessed former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky anally raping a ten-year-old boy in the athletic department's shower room. The grad student, Mike McQueary, didn't bother to call the police. He was later hired as Paterno's defensive coordinator. Two other Penn State administrators were informed about the rape and let the incident slide, after which Sandusky went on to a lively career in serial child homosexual rape. For many years after the witnessed incident, he was permitted regular access to Penn State's gyms, fields, and locker rooms, while cherry-picking victims from his own foundation, Second Mile, for needy children. The intersection of America's fake warrior culture of football with the nation's fake moral and ethical culture is instructive. It has many levels, like a convoluted freeway intersection of on-ramps, off-ramps, and merge-ramps. First is the pretense that college football is a character-building endeavor. Rather it's an odious money-grubbing racket that chews up and spits out quasi-professional players who, with rare exceptions, only pretend to be students. It corrupts everyone connected with it. College football is little more than a giant conduit for vacuuming money out of alumni, hawking brand merchandise, and generating TV revenues. At Penn State, the racket sucked in about $70 million a year net profit. All over America, the old land-grant diploma mills pay their coaches million-dollar salaries, while academic adjunct professors can't even get health insurance. At SUNY-Albany, the flagship campus of New York's system, they got rid of the department of foreign languages, but the football team plays on. Meanwhile ordinary students rack up tens of thousands of dollars in unpayable college debt via a related racket in which free-flowing government-backed Sallie Mae loan money prompts colleges to boost tuition rates way beyond inflation rates. Then there is the merge-ramp between religion and football. Was I the only person revolted by video of the phony "prayer" session held in the Penn State stadium just before Saturday's "big game" with the University of Nebraska? Players from both teams led by Jesus-shouting cheerleaders affected to "pray" for Jerry Sandusky's rape victims, an exercise that was joined and legitimized by the crowd with all the passion of a Nuremberg rally. When that easy little ritual was out of the way they could settle back and enjoy the game's ersatz heroics with a clear conscience, and the tailgate barbeques that followed. A genuine sense of collective shame would have produced a different course of events - for instance cancelling the game, maybe the rest of the season, or perhaps even the entire football program in plain recognition of how foul and corrupt it is. That decision would have been up to the university's board of directors and tells you all you need to know about corporate leadership in America today. Perhaps even more disgusting than the pre-game prayer show was the rash of demonstrations the night the story broke. These weren't about shame and repentance, just violent displays of sanctimonious "moral" support for an entire system in disgrace. Do you suppose these people could not have endured a night or two of uncomfortable silent reflection. And why didn't the new president, or any other campus executive, make a pubic statement that all the prideful carrying-on was indecent? I wonder how many of the same students will be ground down to dust by the weight of their unpayable college loans. Equally disgusting was the cable news media's wall-to-wall coverage of the Penn State story, as if there weren't other important events going on in the world - for instance the resignation of two European prime ministers due to a political crisis that could sink the global economic system. CNN turned the Penn State story into an instant reality-TV show, with play-by-play action and spin-o-rama scenario-flogging aimed mainly, it seemed, at how Coach Joe Paterno might manage to wiggle out of culpability in the civil lawsuits that are sure to dog him now until the end of his days. What the public doesn't know is how soon the sun will be setting on these giant universities in their entirety - football, classrooms, alumni golden circles, and all - as we enter the age of intense energy and capital scarcities. Remember: institutions, just like living organisms, often reach their greatest scale just before they go extinct. Resource constraints would be enough to get the job done, but it's interesting to see how our programming failures and internal moral contradictions have reached the last limits of flamboyant grotesquerie in the same exact moment. This is a nation with psychological boundary problems in every realm - the family, the school, the government, the corporation, the diocese, the police station, you name it. Meanwhile the so-called fine arts branch of our culture valorizes "transgressive" behavior - as if there were any behavioral boundaries left to cross. Maybe Jerry Sandusky should be sentenced to a one-man show at the Whitney Museum. Then just wait a week or so: we'll get Jeffrey Dahmer, the Musical on Broadway. Every new day that dawns lately gives further proof that we are a wicked people who deserve to be punished. http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/11/-the-penn-state.html#comments From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 15 13:09:51 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:09:51 +0100 Subject: [THS] Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111115130757.07477328@mail.messagingengine.com> [more likely it'll be the other way around. and as one famous neuroscientist dude said, free will may in doubt, but for sure, we do have free won't -ths] November 13, 2011, 5:25 pm Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? By EDDY NAHMIAS Is free will an illusion? Some leading scientists think so. For instance, in 2002 the psychologist Daniel Wegner wrote, ?It seems we are agents. It seems we cause what we do It is sobering and ultimately accurate to call all this an illusion.? More recently, the neuroscientist Patrick Haggard declared, ?We certainly don?t have free will. Not in the sense we think.? And in June, the neuroscientist Sam Harris claimed, ?You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain.?. Such proclamations make the news; after all, if free will is dead, then moral and legal responsibility may be close behind. As the legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen wrote in The New York Times Magazine, ?Since all behavior is caused by our brains, wouldn?t this mean all behavior could potentially be excused? The death of free will, or its exposure as a convenient illusion, some worry, could wreak havoc on our sense of moral and legal responsibility.? Indeed, free will matters in part because it is a precondition for deserving blame for bad acts and deserving credit for achievements. It also turns out that simply exposing people to scientific claims that free will is an illusion can lead them to misbehave, for instance, cheating more or helping others less. [1] So, it matters whether these scientists are justified in concluding that free will is an illusion. Here, I?ll explain why neuroscience is not the death of free will and does not ?wreak havoc on our sense of moral and legal responsibility,? extending a discussion begun in Gary Gutting?s recent Stone column. I?ll argue that the neuroscientific evidence does not undermine free will. But first, I?ll explain the central problem: these scientists are employing a flawed notion of free will. Once a better notion of free will is in place, the argument can be turned on its head. Instead of showing that free will is an illusion, neuroscience and psychology can actually help us understand how it works. Leif Parsons When Haggard concludes that we do not have free will ?in the sense we think,? he reveals how this conclusion depends on a particular definition of free will. Scientists? arguments that free will is an illusion typically begin by assuming that free will, by definition, requires an immaterial soul or non-physical mind, and they take neuroscience to provide evidence that our minds are physical. Haggard mentions free will ?in the spiritual sense a ghost in the machine.? The neuroscientist Read Montague defines free will as ?the idea that we make choices and have thoughts independent of anything remotely resembling a physical process. Free will is the close cousin to the idea of the soul? (Current Biology 18, 2008).[2] They use a definition of free will that they take to be demanded by ordinary thinking and philosophical theory. But they are mistaken on both counts. We should be wary of defining things out of existence. Define Earth as the planet at the center of the universe and it turns out there is no Earth. Define what?s moral as whatever your God mandates and suddenly most people become immoral. Define marriage as a union only for procreation, and you thereby annul many marriages. The sciences of the mind do give us good reasons to think that our minds are made of matter. But to conclude that consciousness or free will is thereby an illusion is too quick. It is like inferring from discoveries in organic chemistry that life is an illusion just because living organisms are made up of non-living stuff. Much of the progress in science comes precisely from understanding wholes in terms of their parts, without this suggesting the disappearance of the wholes. There?s no reason to define the mind or free will in a way that begins by cutting off this possibility for progress. Our brains are the most complexly organized things in the known universe, just the sort of thing that could eventually make sense of why each of us is unique, why we are conscious creatures and why humans have abilities to comprehend, converse, and create that go well beyond the precursors of these abilities in other animals. Neuroscientific discoveries over the next century will uncover how consciousness and thinking work the way they do because our complex brains work the way they do. These discoveries about how our brains work can also explain how free will works rather than explaining it away. But first, we need to define free will in a more reasonable and useful way. Many philosophers, including me, understand free will as a set of capacities for imagining future courses of action, deliberating about one?s reasons for choosing them, planning one?s actions in light of this deliberation and controlling actions in the face of competing desires. We act of our own free will to the extent that we have the opportunity to exercise these capacities, without unreasonable external or internal pressure. We are responsible for our actions roughly to the extent that we possess these capacities and we have opportunities to exercise them. These capacities for conscious deliberation, rational thinking and self-control are not magical abilities. They need not belong to immaterial souls outside the realm of scientific understanding (indeed, since we don?t know how souls are supposed to work, souls would not help to explain these capacities). Rather, these are the sorts of cognitive capacities that psychologists and neuroscientists are well positioned to study. This conception of free will represents a longstanding and dominant view in philosophy, though it is typically ignored by scientists who conclude that free will is an illusion. It also turns out that most non-philosophers have intuitions about free and responsible action that track this conception of free will. Researchers in the new field of experimental philosophy study what ?the folk? think about philosophical issues and why. For instance, my collaborators and I have found that most people think that free will and responsibility are compatible with determinism, the thesis that all events are part of a law-like chain of events such that earlier events necessitate later events.[3] That is, most people judge that you can have free will and be responsible for your actions even if all of your decisions and actions are entirely caused by earlier events in accord with natural laws. Our studies suggest that people sometimes misunderstand determinism to mean that we are somehow cut out of this causal chain leading to our actions. People are threatened by a possibility I call ?bypassing? ? the idea that our actions are caused in ways that bypass our conscious deliberations and decisions. So, if people mistakenly take causal determinism to mean that everything that happens is inevitable no matter what you think or try to do, then they conclude that we have no free will. Or if determinism is presented in a way that suggests all our decisions are just chemical reactions, they take that to mean that our conscious thinking is bypassed in such a way that we lack free will. Even if neuroscience and psychology were in a position to establish the truth of determinism ? a job better left for physics ? this would not establish bypassing. As long as people understand that discoveries about how our brains work do not mean that what we think or try to do makes no difference to what happens, then their belief in free will is preserved. What matters to people is that we have the capacities for conscious deliberation and self-control that I?ve suggested we identify with free will. But what about neuroscientific evidence that seems to suggest that these capacities are cut out of the causal chains leading to our decisions and actions? For instance, doesn?t neuroscience show that our brains make decisions before we are conscious of them such that our conscious decisions are bypassed? With these questions, we can move past the debates about whether free will requires souls or indeterminism ? debates that neuroscience does not settle ? and examine actual neuroscientific evidence. Consider, for instance, research by neuroscientists suggesting that non-conscious processes in our brain cause our actions, while conscious awareness of what we are doing occurs later, too late to influence our behavior. Some interpret this research as showing that consciousness is merely an observer of the output of non-conscious mechanisms. Extending the paradigm developed by Benjamin Libet, John-Dylan Haynes and his collaborators used fMRI research to find patterns of neural activity in people?s brains that correlated with their decision to press either a right or left button up to seven seconds before they were aware of deciding which button to press. Haynes concludes: ?How can I call a will ?mine? if I don?t even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?? However, the existing evidence does not support the conclusion that free will is an illusion. First of all, it does not show that a decision has been made before people are aware of having made it. It simply finds discernible patterns of neural activity that precede decisions. If we assume that conscious decisions have neural correlates, then we should expect to find early signs of those correlates ?ramping up? to the moment of consciousness. It would be miraculous if the brain did nothing at all until the moment when people became aware of a decision to move. These experiments all involve quick, repetitive decisions, and people are told not to plan their decisions but just to wait for an urge to come upon them. The early neural activity measured in the experiments likely represents these urges or other preparations for movement that precede conscious awareness. This is what we should expect with simple decisions. Indeed, we are lucky that conscious thinking plays little or no role in quick or habitual decisions and actions. If we had to consciously consider our every move, we?d be bumbling fools. We?d be like perpetual beginners at tennis, overthinking every stroke. We?d be unable to speak fluently, much less dance or drive. Often we initially attend consciously to what we are doing precisely to reach the point where we act without consciously attending to the component decisions and actions in our complex endeavors. When we type, tango, or talk, we don?t want conscious thinking to precede every move we make, though we do want to be aware of what we?re doing and correct any mistakes we?re making. Conscious attention is relatively slow and effortful. We must use it wisely. We need conscious deliberation to make a difference when it matters ? when we have important decisions and plans to make. The evidence from neuroscience and psychology has not shown that consciousness doesn?t matter in those sorts of decisions ? in fact, some evidence suggests the opposite. We should not begin by assuming that free will requires a conscious self that exists beyond the brain (where?), and then conclude that any evidence that shows brain processes precede action thereby demonstrates that consciousness is bypassed. Rather, we should consider the role of consciousness in action on the assumption that our conscious deliberation and rational thinking are carried out by complex brain processes, and then we can examine whether those very brain processes play a causal role in action. For example: suppose I am trying to decide whether to give $1,000 to charity or buy a new TV. I consciously consider the reasons for each choice ? e.g., how it fits with my goals and values. I gather information about each option. Perhaps I struggle to overcome my more selfish motivations. I decide based on this conscious reasoning (it certainly would not help if I could magically decide on no basis at all), and I act accordingly. Now, let?s suppose each part of this process is carried out by processes in my brain. If so, then to show that consciousness is bypassed would require evidence showing that thosevery brain processes underlying my conscious reasoning are dead-ends. It would have to show that those brain processes do not connect up with the processes that lead to my typing my credit card number into the Best Buy Web site (I may then regret my selfish decision and re-evaluate my reasons for my future decisions). None of the evidence marshaled by neuroscientists and psychologists suggests that those neural processes involved in the conscious aspects of such complex, temporally extended decision-making are in fact causal dead ends. It would be almost unbelievable if such evidence turned up. It would mean that whatever processes in the brain are involved in conscious deliberation and self-control ? and the substantial energy these processes use ? were as useless as our appendix, that they evolved only to observe what we do after the fact, rather than to improve our decision-making and behavior. No doubt these conscious brain processes move too slowly to be involved in each finger flex as I type, but as long as they play their part in what I do down the road ? such as considering what ideas to type up ? then my conscious self is not a dead end, and it is a mistake to say my free will is bypassed by what my brain does. So, does neuroscience mean the death of free will? Well, it could if it somehow demonstrated that conscious deliberation and rational self-control did not really exist or that they worked in a sheltered corner of the brain that has no influence on our actions. But neither of these possibilities is likely. True, the mind sciences will continue to show that consciousness does not work in just the ways we thought, and they already suggest significant limitations on the extent of our rationality, self-knowledge, and self-control. Such discoveries suggest that most of us possess less free will than we tend to think, and they may inform debates about our degrees of responsibility. But they do not show that free will is an illusion. If we put aside the misleading idea that free will depends on supernatural souls rather than our quite miraculous brains, and if we put aside the mistaken idea that our conscious thinking matters most in the milliseconds before movement, then neuroscience does not kill free will. Rather, it can help to explain our capacities to control our actions in such a way that we are responsible for them. It can help us rediscover free will. FOOTNOTES [1] It?s not clear what exactly drives these behavioral effects of telling people free will is an illusion. Along with the two psychologists who originally discovered these effects, Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler, philosopher Thomas Nadelhoffer and I are currently following up on this research to better understand what information leads people to alter their beliefs about free will and how that then influences their behavior. [2] In an influential article, Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, similarly conclude, ?Free will, as we ordinarily understand it, is an illusion.? They reach this conclusion in part by assuming that people ordinarily understand free will and responsibility to require dualism (i.e., a non-physical soul) and libertarianism (i.e., powers to cause decisions without being caused to do so). [3] See Nahmias and Murray ?Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions? and Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer, and Turner ?Is Incompatibilism Intuitive?? which, along with other x-phi work on free will, have recently been discussed in articles in Science and NewScientist. Eddy Nahmias Eddy Nahmias is an associate professor at Georgia State University in the department of philosophy and the Neuroscience Institute. He is the author of many articles, including ?Scientific Challenges to Free Will? and ?Intuitions about Free Will, Determinism, and Bypassing.? He is the co-editor of the book, ?Moral Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings,? and is currently writing another, titled ?Rediscovering Free Will.? Source: The New York Times http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/ From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 15 13:29:19 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:29:19 +0100 Subject: [THS] Work of Genius! Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111115132827.03e7ed60@mail.messagingengine.com> Announcement! The Great Cornholio is Back!! 903 Holy Cornholio 720pAACH264.mkv (346.4 MB) http://www.multiupload.com/GQHLR93VDG From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 15 15:38:20 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:38:20 +0100 Subject: [THS] Tomgram: Bill McKibben, Puncturing the Pipeline Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111115152443.04613a70@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175468/tomgram%3A_bill_mc [A reminder, James Lovelock's latest and probably last book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, is available quite cheap these days, and is a must read. Few would agree with everything he says, for example that we should further develop nuclear energy (it was written before Fukushima), but I can guarantee it'll nuke a few cherished notions about being "green" and how we should try to "save the planet" -ths] Tomgram: Bill McKibben, Puncturing the Pipeline Posted by Bill McKibben at 8:07am, November 15, 2011. What's the biggest story of the last several weeks? Rick Perry?s moment of silence, all 53 seconds' worth? The Penn State riots after revered coach JoePa went down in a child sex abuse scandal? The Kardashian wedding/divorce? The European debt crisis that could throw the world economy into a tailspin? The Cain sexual harassment charges? The trial of Michael Jackson?s doctor? The answer should be none of the above, even though as a group they?ve dominated the October/November headlines. In fact, the piece of the week, month, and arguably year should have been one that slipped by so quietly, so off front-pages nationwide and out of news leads everywhere that you undoubtedly didn?t even notice. And yet it?s the story that could turn your life and that of your children and grandchildren inside out and upside down. On the face of it, it wasn?t anything to shout about -- just more stats in a world drowning in numbers. These happen to have been put out by the U.S. Department of Energy and they reflected, as an Associated Press headline put it, the ?biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases.? In other words, in 2010, humanity (with a special bow to China, the United States, and onrushing India) managed to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than at any time since the industrial revolution began -- 564 million more tons than in 2009, which represents an increase of 6%. According to AP?s Seth Borenstein, that?s ?higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.? He?s talking about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which is, if anything, considered "conservative" in its projections of future catastrophe by many climate scientists. Put another way, we?re talking more greenhouse gases than have entered the Earth?s atmosphere in tens of millions of years. Consider as well the prediction offered by Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency: without an effective international agreement to staunch greenhouse gases within five years, the door will close on preventing a potentially disastrous rise in the planet?s temperature. You?re talking, that is, about the kind of freaky weather that will make October?s bizarre snowstorm in the Northeast look like a walk in the park. (That storm had all the signs of a climate-change-induced bit of extreme weather: New York City hadn?t recorded an October snowfall like it since the Civil War and it managed to hit the region in a period of ongoing warmth when the trees hadn?t yet had the decency to lose their leaves, producing a chaos of downed electrical wires.) And don?t get me started on what this would mean in terms of future planetary hot spells or sea-level rise. Honestly, if we were sane, if the media had its head in the right place, this would have been screaming headlines. It would have put Rick Perry and Herman Cain and the Kardashians and Italy and Greece and Michael Jackson?s doctor in the shade. The only good news -- and because it unsettled the politics of the 2012 election, it did garner a few headlines -- was that the movement Bill McKibben and 350.org spearheaded to turn back the tar-sands pipeline from Hades (or its earthly global-warming equivalent, which is Alberta, Canada) gained traction in our Occupy Wall Street moment. Think of it as a harbinger. Mark my words on this one: sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to climate change, just as they have this year on the issue of inequality, and when they do, watch out. There will be political hell to pay. Tom Obama?s Positive Flip and Romney?s Negative Flop Is Global Warming an Election Issue After All? By Bill McKibben Conventional wisdom has it that the next election will be fought exclusively on the topic of jobs. But President Obama?s announcement last week that he would postpone a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election, which may effectively kill the project, makes it clear that other issues will weigh in -- and that, oddly enough, one of them might even be climate change. The pipeline decision was a true upset. Everyone -- and I mean everyone who "knew" how these things work -- seemed certain that the president would approve it. The National Journal runs a weekly poll of ?energy insiders? -- that is, all the key players in Washington. A month to the day before the Keystone XL postponement, this large cast of characters was ?virtually unanimous? in guaranteeing that it would be approved by year?s end. Transcanada Pipeline, the company that was going to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the tar-sands fields of Alberta, Canada, through a sensitive Midwestern aquifer to the Gulf of Mexico, certainly agreed. After all, they?d already mowed the strip and prepositioned hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pipe, just waiting for the permit they thought they?d bought with millions in lobbying gifts and other maneuvers. Happily, activists across the country weren?t smart enough to know they?d been beaten, and so they staged the largest civil disobedience action in 35 years, not to mention ringing the White House with people, invading Obama campaign offices, and generally proving that they were willing to fight. No permanent victory was won. Indeed, just yesterday Transcanada agreed to reroute the pipeline in Nebraska in an effort to speed up the review, though that appears not to change the schedule. Still, we're waiting for the White House to clarify that they will continue to fully take climate change into account in their evaluation. But even that won't be final. Obama could just wait for an election victory and then approve the pipeline -- as any Republican victor certainly would. Chances are, nonetheless, that the process has now gotten so messy that Transcanada?s pipeline will die of its own weight, in turn starving the tar-sands oil industry and giving a boost to the global environment. Of course, killing the pipeline will hardly solve the problem of global warming (though heavily exploiting those tar sands would, in NASA scientist James Hansen?s words, mean ?game over for the climate.?) In this line of work, where victories of any kind are few and far between, this was a real win. It began with indigenous activists, spread to Nebraska ranchers, and eventually turned into the biggest environmental flashpoint in many years. And it owed no small debt to the Occupy Wall Street protesters shamefully evicted from Zuccotti Park last night, who helped everyone understand the power of corporate money in our daily lives. That these forces prevailed shocked most pundits precisely because it?s common wisdom that they?re not the sort of voters who count, certainly not in a year of economic trouble. In fact, the biggest reason the realists had no doubts the pipeline would get its permit, via a State Department review and a presidential thumbs-up of that border-crossing pipeline, was because of the well-known political potency of the jobs argument in bad economic times. Despite endless lazy reporting on the theme of jobs versus the environment, there were actually no net jobs to be had from the pipeline. It was always a weak argument, since the whole point of a pipeline is that, once it's built, no one needs to work there. In addition, as the one study not paid for by Transcanada made clear, the project would kill as many jobs as it would create. The Washington Post?s Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson finally demonstrated this late in the game with a fine report taking apart Transcanada?s job estimates. (The 20,000 jobs endlessly taken for granted assumed, among other stretches, that modern dance troupes would move to Nebraska, where part of the pipeline would be built, to entertain pipeline workers.) Still, the jobs trope remained, and you can be sure that the Chamber of Commerce will run 1,000 ads during the 2012 presidential campaign trying to hammer it home. And you can be sure the White House knew that, which was why it was such a tough call for them -- and why the pressure of a movement among people whose support matters to them made a difference. Let?s assume the obvious then: that one part of their recent calculations that led to the postponement decision might just be the suspicion that they will actually win votes thanks to the global-warming question in the next election. For one thing, global warming denial has seen its apogee. The concerted effort by the fossil-fuel industry to underwrite scientific revision met its match last month when a team headed by Berkeley skeptic and prominent physicist Richard Muller -- with funding from the Koch Brothers, of all people -- actually found that, what do you know, all the other teams of climate-change scientists were, um, right. The planet was indeed warming just as fast as they, and the insurance companies, and the melting ice had been insisting. Still, scientific studies only reach a certain audience. Weird weather is a far more powerful messenger. It?s been hard to miss the record flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and across the Northeast; the record drought and fires across the Southwest; the record multi-billion dollar weather disasters across the country this year; the record pretty-much everything-you-don?t-want across the nation. Obama certainly noticed. He?s responsible for finding the cash every time some other state submerges. As a result, after years of decline, the number of Americans who understand that the planet is indeed warming and that we?re to blame appears to be on the rise again. And ironically enough, one reason may be the spectacle of all the tea-partying GOP candidates for the presidency being forced to swear fealty to the notion that global warming is a hoax. Normal people find this odd: it?s one thing to promise Grover Norquist that you?ll never ever raise taxes; it?s another to promise that you?ll defeat chemistry and physics with the mighty power of the market. Along these lines, Mitt Romney made an important unforced error last month. Earlier in the primaries, he and Jon Huntsman had been alone in the Republican field in being open to the idea that global warming might actually be real. Neither wanted to do anything about it, of course, but that stance itself was enough to mark them as realists. It was also a sign that Romney was thinking ahead to the election itself, and didn?t want to be pinned against this particular wall. In late October, however, he evidently felt he had no choice but to pin himself to exactly that wall and so stated conclusively: ?My view is that we don?t know what?s causing climate change on this planet.? In other words, he not only flip-flopped to the side of climate denial, but did so less than six months after he had said no less definitively: ?I don?t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world?s getting warmer And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.? Note as well that he did so, while all the evidence, even some recently funded by the deniers, pointed the other way. If he becomes the Republican presidential candidate as expected, this may be the most powerful weathervane ad the White House will have in its arsenal. Even for people who don?t care about climate change, it makes him look like the spinally challenged fellow he seems to be. But it?s an ad that couldn?t be run if the president had okayed that pipeline. Now that Obama has at least temporarily blocked Keystone XL, now that his team has promised to consider climate change as a factor in any final decision on the pipeline?s eventual fate, he can campaign on the issue. And in many ways, it may prove a surprise winner. After all, only people who would never vote for him anyway deny global warming. It?s a redoubt for talk-show rightists. College kids, on the other hand, consistently rank it among the most important issues. And college kids, as Gerald Seib pointed out in the Wall Street Journal last week, are a key constituency for the president, who is expected to need something close to the two-thirds margin he won on campus in 2008 to win again in 2012. Sure, those kids care about student loans, which threaten to take them under, and jobs, which are increasingly hard to come by, but the nature of young people is also to care about the world. In addition, independent voters, suburban moms -- these are the kinds of people who worry about the environment. Count on it: they?ll be key targets for Obama?s presidential campaign. Given the economy, that campaign will have to make Mitt Romney look like something other than a middle-of-the-road businessman. If he?s a centrist, he probably wins. If he?s a flip-flopper with kooky tendencies, they?ve got a shot. And the kookiest thing he?s done yet is to deny climate science. If I?m right, expect the White House to approve strong greenhouse gas regulations in the months ahead, and then talk explicitly about the threat of a warming world. In some ways it will still be a stretch. To put the matter politely, they?ve been far from perfect on the issue: the president didn?t bother to waste any of his vaunted ?political capital? on a climate bill, and he?s opened huge swaths of territory to coal mining and offshore drilling. But blocking the pipeline finally gave him some credibility here -- and it gave a lot more of the same to citizens' movements to change our world. Since a lot of folks suspect that the only way forward economically has something to do with a clean energy future, I?m guessing that the pipeline decision won?t be the only surprise. I bet Barack Obama talks on occasion about global warming next year, and I bet it helps him. But don?t count on that, or on Keystone XL disappearing, and go home. If the pipeline story (so far) has one lesson, it?s this: you can?t expect anything to change if you don?t go out and change it yourself. Bill McKibben is a founder of 350.org, a TomDispatch regular, and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College. His most recent book is Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. Copyright 2011 Bill McKibben From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 15 15:40:15 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:40:15 +0100 Subject: [THS] Bloomberg's Statement on Clearing of Zuccotti Park Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111115154001.06e678b8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/updates-on-the-clearing-of-zuccotti-park/?src=twt&twt=cityroom#bloombergs-statement-on-clearing-of-zuccotti-park 6:42 A.M. Bloomberg's Statement on Clearing of Zuccotti Park Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg released a statement early Tuesday morning on the police action that cleared protesters from Zuccotti Park, describing the protest site as "a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws": At one o'clock this morning, the New York City Police Department and the owners of Zuccotti Park notified protestors in the park that they had to immediately remove tents, sleeping bags and other belongings, and must follow the park rules if they wished to continue to use it to protest. Many protestors peacefully complied and left. At Brookfield's request, members of the NYPD and Sanitation Department assisted in removing any remaining tents and sleeping bags. This action was taken at this time of day to reduce the risk of confrontation in the park, and to minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhood. Protestors were asked to temporarily leave the park while this occurred, and have been told that they will be free to return to the park once Brookfield finishes cleaning it later morning. Protestors - and the general public - are welcome there to exercise their First Amendment rights, and otherwise enjoy the park, but will not be allowed to use tents, sleeping bags, or tarps and, going forward, must follow all park rules. The law that created Zuccotti Park required that it be open for the public to enjoy for passive recreation 24 hours a day. Ever since the occupation began, that law has not been complied with, as the park has been taken over by protestors, making it unavailable to anyone else. >From the beginning, I have said that the City had two principal goals: guaranteeing public health and safety, and guaranteeing the protestors' First Amendment rights. But when those two goals clash, the health and safety of the public and our first responders must be the priority. That is why, several weeks ago the City acted to remove generators and fuel that posed a fire hazard from the park. I have become increasingly concerned - as had the park's owner, Brookfield Properties - that the occupation was coming to pose a health and fire safety hazard to the protestors and to the surrounding community. We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park. But make no mistake - the final decision to act was mine. The park had become covered in tents and tarps, making it next to impossible to safely navigate for the public, and for first responders who are responsible for guaranteeing public safety. The dangers posed were evident last week when an EMT was injured as protestors attempted to prevent him and several police officers from helping a mentally ill man who was menacing others. As an increasing number of large tents and other structures have been erected, these dangers have increased. It has become increasingly difficult even to monitor activity in the park to protect the protestors and the public, and the proliferation of tents and other obstructions has created an increasing fire hazard that had to be addressed. Some have argued to allow the protestors to stay in the park indefinitely - others have suggested we just wait for winter and hope the cold weather drove the protestors away - but inaction was not an option. I could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or to injure another first responder before acting. Others have cautioned against action because enforcing our laws might be used by some protestors as a pretext for violence - but we must never be afraid to insist on compliance with our laws. Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others. There have been reports of businesses being threatened and complaints about noise and unsanitary conditions that have seriously impacted the quality of life for residents and businesses in this now-thriving neighborhood. The majority of protestors have been peaceful and responsible. But an unfortunate minority have not been - and as the number of protestors has grown, this has created an intolerable situation. No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities. The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out - but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others - nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here - the First Amendment protects speech - it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space. Protestors have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags. Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments. Let me conclude by thanking the NYPD, FDNY, and the Department of Sanitation for their professionalism earlier this morning. Thank you. From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 15 15:43:53 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:43:53 +0100 Subject: [THS] F. William Engdahl: Russia's High Stakes Energy Geopolitics Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111115154241.07292960@mail.messagingengine.com> http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=o8b4necab&v=001yFZRqoHoI_AgcHU3PZD1BoiyeInKqCOVW22EDGIPeP6ICpyalj0LrnwGrUqDlsfq7lAAvws549dtjtsUCoIUqcp0sjjZgKOJTPGVEarECWuxq5YpeJcAYw%3D%3D Russia's High Stakes Energy Geopolitics Nord Stream, the huge Russian-German pipeline project, began delivering gas to the EU By F. William Engdahl URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27653 Global Research, November 14, 2011 engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net On November 7 the first of two pipelines for Nord Stream, the huge Russian-German gas pipeline project, began delivery of gas. The event was no minor affair. German Chancellor Merkel and Russian President Medvedev along with the prime ministers of France and the Netherlands and the EU Energy Commissioner formally opened the first of two 1224-kilometre pipelines at Lubmin in northern Germany, beginning delivery of the first gas direct from Russia?s Yuzhno-Russkoye gas field in Siberia to Germany. Nord Stream was not cheap. It cost a total of more than $12 billion for the complex 760 mile long undersea pipeline through the Baltic Sea from Vyborg near Russia's St Petersburg to north eastern Germany. It was laid in remarkable time and with extraordinary environmental precautions to insure protection of sea life, a precondition set by several EU Baltic countries. When the second pipeline is finished in late 2012, Nord Stream will be able to deliver 55 billion cubic meters of Russian gas a year, almost ten percent the entire EU annual gas consumption, or roughly one third the entire current gas consumption of China. Nord Stream estimates it will provide enough energy to fuel 56 million West European households. With current EU political decisions over reducing CO? ?carbon footprint? emissions, the Russian gas giant argues its natural gas gives 50% less CO? than rival coal plants at as much as 50% greater energy efficiency. Even if Moscow is being more than somewhat opportunist and is not convinced about the shoddy science of global warming, Gazprom does not hesitate to use this as a shrewd political selling point. The EU is going for natural gas energy big time and Moscow intends to be a major, if not the major beneficiary of that push. In addition to delivering Siberian gas to Germany, Nord Stream will deliver to the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the Czech Republic. Moscow appears to hold a winning hand in the one important non-military lever it has to tip the global geopolitical balance of power in its direction and away from Washington's overwhelming dominance. Oil and natural gas are at the heart of the strategy. For some months Russian production of crude oil has surpassed Saudi Arabia?s to be the world?s largest oil producer with over 10.3 million barrels daily, nearly one million barrels more.[1] And in terms of known reserves of natural gas Russia is far away the world leader according to industry data. Russian natural gas has increasingly been the foundation for a brilliant series of Russian energy geopolitical initiatives for several years. Gazprom, a closely-held state company, is the centerpiece of this energy strategy. To counter the eastward march of NATO into countries of the former Warsaw Pact such as Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania and the various US attempts to lure Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, Russia?s Vladimir Putin, both as President and more recently as Prime Minister, has used the economic lever of Gazprom. With its enormous gas resources Russia seeks to win stronger economic ties in western Europe, thereby hopefully neutralizing somewhat the potential military strategic threat from the NATO encirclement. No country has been more the focus of this Russian pipeline diplomacy than former wartime foe Germany where Nord Stream lands. The undersea route across the Baltic to Germany was chosen by a German-Russian consortium including Gazprom with 51% and the German chemicals group BASF Wintershall and E.ON Ruhrgas of Germany each today with 15.5% share, giving the German-Russian partners a dominating 82% control. Further adding to the political support from key EU countries, later they were joined by N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and France?s GDF Suez which each own a 9% share. The Baltic undersea route was chosen deliberately to avoid potential geopolitical disruptions such as occurred several years ago when a pro-NATO Ukrainian government blocked Russian gas deliveries to Western Europe to undercut Russian attempts to come closer to western Europe. Behind Ukraine was the long arm of Washington. [2] Had Ukraine joined NATO as Washington urgently sought after Kiev?s 2004 "Orange Revolution" brought Washington?s man Viktor Yushchenko in as President, then Ukraine would have been in a strategic position to economically strangle Russia on command. Prior to opening of Nord Stream in November some 80% of all Russian gas exports to EU countries?mainly to Germany, Italy and France?were flowing across Ukrainian territory. Political instability and ongoing NATO meddling in Ukraine dictated the decision to build the new Nord Stream undersea route to Germany and other EU markets bypassing entirely Ukraine and Poland. Today some 40% of all state revenue in Russia comes from Russia's oil and gas exports.[3] South Stream vs Nabucco While few outside the energy industry and special political interest groups have paid much attention to it, at the same time Nord Stream was coming into play a ferocious geopolitical battle has also been raging over a second planned major Gazprom Russian gas pipeline project to EU countries called South Stream. South Stream gas pipeline will be laid on the Black Sea floor, pass through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia and on to west European markets from the southern part of the EU. To politically counter the growing Russian energy ties to the EU, with strong Washington backing, the EU Commission proposed an alternative in 2002 called the Nabucco pipeline, curiously named after the Verdi opera. To date Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria have agreed ?in principle? to build the 3,900 km Nabucco pipeline that theoretically would pump up to 31 billion cubic meters of gas annually from the Caspian and the Middle East across Turkey into western Europe. Nabucco partners to date include energy companies RWE of Germany; OMV of Austria; MOL of Hungary; Botas of Turkey; Bulgaria Energy Holding of Bulgaria; and Transgaz of Romania. The problem is that the Nabucco partners have yet to secure gas anywhere to fill the pipeline. Moscow has deftly locked up the gas from the obvious supplier Azerbaijan, and surplus gas from former Soviet Republic Turkmenistan is also secured in deals with Gazprom, leaving only Iran as an option, something politically Washington is not ready to consider, to put it mildly. Both Nord Stream and South Stream came into being when Ukraine's previous Yushchenko regime, with reported strong US behind-the-scenes backing, twice disrupted transit gas flows to European markets beginning 2006. To assure stability of supplies, Moscow created both new pipeline projects to bypass Ukraine.[4] The geopolitical problem for Washington and its allies in Brussels is the fact that its Nabucco project appears dead in the water before it even gets started. Not only has Gazprom locked up the major gas supply sources including Azerbaijan. Nabucco is also far more costly than its Russian rival. Latest estimates put Nabucco's ultimate construction cost at almost double that of South Stream. Tam?s Fellegi, Hungarian National Development Minister, recently stated that the cost of Nabucco gas pipeline will exceed original plans by four times. "No one can predict the final cost of Nabucco, but according to optimistic estimates, its cost may reach 24-26 billion euro," Fellegi said.[5] In late October Gazprom made a major move to secure partners for its South Stream in a Moscow meeting with its largest consortium partner, Italy?s ENI. [6] Some days before in September, Gazprom secured the significant participation into South Stream of its major Nord Stream German partner, BASF Wintershall, a major blow to Nabucco hopes. They joined the major French energy company EDF to give the South Stream project major clout versus the floundering Nabucco. Last April, Turkey, also at least on paper a key player in Nabucco, gave permission to Gazprom to begin offshore prospecting for the potential undersea route of South Stream, a first step to gain Turkish approval to begin construction in Turkish territorial waters on the Black Sea. Turkey is trying to play a new role as an energy crossroads between the EU and its neighbors. By giving Gazprom the green light to begin prospecting, Turkey?s Erdogan government clearly has decided not to put all its energy eggs into the NATO Nabucco basket.[7] Possible routes for Gazprom?s South Stream Pipeline Already Gazprom is the largest natural gas supplier to the EU. Gazprom with Nord Stream and other lines plans to increase its gas supply to Europe this year by 12% to 155 billion cubic meters. It now controls 25% of the total European gas market and aims to reach 30% with completion of South Stream and other projects. Rainer Seele, chairman of Wintershall, suggested the geopolitical thinking behind the decision to join South Stream: "In the global race against Asian countries for raw materials, South Stream, like Nord Stream, will ensure access to energy resources which are vital to our economy." [8] But rather than Asia, the real focus of South Stream lies to the West. The ongoing battle between Russia?s South Stream and the Washington-backed Nabucco is intensely geopolitical. The winner will hold a major advantage in the future political terrain of Europe. According to Andrei Polischuk, an energy analyst at the BKS Finance Group, Nabucco is in far the weaker position at present. ?This project is facing several problems. One of them is how to fill it with gas and how to find a resource basis. The second is its growing cost. Earlier, the project was estimated at 8 billion US dollars, but at present, it has grown up to 12 to 15 billion US dollars.? says Polischuk. ?All these projects have first and foremost a hidden political motive. By implementing them, Europe tries to lower its dependence on Russian gas.? [9] Reinhard Mitschek, director of Nabucco Gas Pipeline International, recently admitted that Nabucco now has been pushed back until 2017, three years later than originally planned. The construction work won?t begin until at least 2013. He feebly admitted in a recent press conference when pressed on a date for gas deliveries, that gas would flow, ?as soon as there are firm indications that gas supply commitments are in place.? [10] EU Nacht und Nebel Raid on Gazprom As if on cue, just days before the planned opening ceremony for Gazprom's Nord Stream pipeline the EU launched an unprecedented ?nacht und nebel? style raid on the offices of Gazprom and its EU partners covering ten countries. In response to a complaint by the Washington-friendly government of Lithuania, on September 28 EU officials raided Gazprom and associated offices in central and eastern European states to investigate firms involved in the supply, transmission and storage of natural gas. The Commission claimed the raids were linked to ?suspicions? about anti-competitive practices. The raids were an unprecedented use of new EU ?antitrust? weapons including the threat of fines up to 10% of a company's global turnover. Following a Thatcherite ?free market? model, the EU Commission has in recent years forced E.ON, RWE and ENI to open up or sell their energy pipelines to rivals. E.ON and GDF were also forced to dismantle their market-sharing deals. The EU is working a so-called Third Energy Package, which imposes limits on ownership of EU pipeline infrastructure by gas suppliers and calls for the "unbundling" of over-concentrated ownership. Under the rules, Russia could be forced to sell off parts of its pipeline network in the EU, something Moscow is understandably not about to do. It could open a Pandora?s box of geopolitical interference with potential for anti-Russian companies to in effect sabotage the vital and growing Russian gas trade with the EU, a mainstay today of Russian state finances. The Gazprom raids were explicitly political. The EU even admits it has little evidence: ?We're at the beginning of the investigation; we have our suspicions and we have to see whether these are confirmed on the basis of the evidence we find and our analysis," Commission spokeswoman Amelia Torres told press in Brussels.[11] According to Reuters, ?A Commission official, who declined to be named, told Reuters the raids were part of the EU's efforts to wean itself off reliance on Russian gas and concerns about Gazprom's power as a state-controlled entity.? Gazprom itself clearly links the raids to their recent progress on South Stream: ?My guess is that it comes as Russia is speeding up its projects, including the South Stream underwater link,? a Gazprom source said. [12] Vladimir Feigin, a member of the Russian delegation discussing the issue with EU officials, charges the European Commission with taking a "dangerous path" with the raids. ?It's not a simple demonstration of muscles ... There are lots of issues, which are highly politicized, including Gazprom's long-term contracts,? he insisted. [13] While free market game rules may sound attractive to market outsiders, for the future planning of Gazprom long-term fixed contracts are essential. As oil markets reveal in recent years, while prices sometimes fall, most often they are subject to manipulation by major Wall Street banks like JP MorganChase, Citigroup or Goldman Sachs, the gang that pushed oil prices above $147 a barrel in June 2008 at a time supply on the world market was in glut, making a literal killing in the process.[14] In anticipation of the larger export market for its gas to Europe, Gazprom has been making huge infrastructure investments across Europe which could be wiped out by an adverse EU decision. It is in the process of doubling its underground storage capacities for gas. It already operates gas storage facilities in Austria and leases facilities in Britain, France and Germany to handle the planned new flow from Nord Stream and South Stream. As well, Gazprom has built a joint venture storage facility with Serbia to serve gas exports to Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary. Feasibility studies are being done for similar joint storage projects in the Czech Republic, France, Romania, Belgium, Britain, Slovakia, Turkey and Greece. This, in addition to the major investment in the pipelines, makes it clear the EU raids are aimed at Moscow?s energy jugular.[15] Were Moscow to succeed in completing South Stream and retain its integral control over the delivery pipeline infrastructure, it would represent nothing less than a major geopolitical defeat for Washington. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990?s, Washington energy geopolitics in the Caspian region and across Eurasia into Russia have attempted to weaken if not permanently cripple the one major remaining geopolitical lever Moscow holds to counter Washington?s NATO encirclement strategy. Not letting itself be totally dependent on EU gas or oil revenues, Moscow has recently indicated it is greatly increasing its focus on building long-term energy partnerships with its eastern neighbors of Eurasia, most notably with China. The geopolitical implications for Washington of that shift will be examined in a subsequent article. F. William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics in the New World Order. He may be contacted through his website at www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net Notes: [1] News Wires, Russian Output Hits Post-Soviet Highs, 2 November 2011, accessed in http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article286798.ece . [2] F. William Engdahl, Ukraine Geopolitics and the US-NATO Military Agenda: Tectonic Shift in Heartland Power--Part I, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18128 . [3] Friedbert Pfl?ger, Russia and Europe: Time to bury the hatchet-and embrace the market, 20 October, 2011, European Energy Review. [4] RIA Novosti, Ukraine lost reputation of reliable gas transit country ? Yanukovych, 19 October, 2011, accessed in http://en.ria.ru/world/20111019/167874442.html [5] ABC.AZ, Nabucco project cost to exceed value of South Stream and make it world?s most expensive gas pipeline, 24 October 2011, http://abc.az/eng/news/main/58939.html [6] ENI, Gazprom CEOs discuss South Stream Development, October 17, 2011, accessed in www.offshoreenergy.com [7] Newswires, Turkey gives offshore permit to Gazprom for South Stream project, 11 April, 2011. [8] UPI, Wintershall joins South Stream consortium, September 16, 2011, accessed in http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/09/16/Wintershall-joins-South-Stream-consortium/UPI-92591316173513/#ixzz1dUq77i89 . [9] Moscow Times, Europe still wants to go around South Stream, September 30, 2011, accessed in http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/30/57380344.html . [10] M K Bhadrakumar, Russia redrawing Europe energy map, Asia Times Online, May 12, 2011, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ME12Ag02.html . [11] Reuters, EU raids Gazprom offices in anti-trust probe, 29 September 2011, accessed in http://www.euractiv.com/energy/eu-raids-gazprom-offices-anti-trust-probe-news-508007 . [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] F. William Engdahl, More on the real reason behind high oil prices: Part II, Global Research, May 21, 2008, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9042 . [15] M K Bhadrakumar, op. cit. 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 F. William Engdahl, engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net , 2011 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27653 ? Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia ? Copyright 2005-2007 Forward email http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=o8b4necab&m=1101807978350&ea=psalience%40fastmail.fm&a=1108609283438 From ths at psalience.org Tue Nov 15 20:23:30 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:23:30 +0100 Subject: [THS] NYC 8:08 A.M. Judge Says Protesters Can Return to Park for Now Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111115202243.0476ac18@mail.messagingengine.com> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/updates-on-the-clearing-of-zuccotti-park/?src=twt&twt=cityroom#judge-says-protesters-can-return-to-park-for-now 8:08 A.M. Judge Says Protesters Can Return to Park for Now A New York judge on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order allowing protesters to return to Zuccotti Park only hours after police forcibly removed them, arresting dozens. The order by Justice Lucy Billings set a hearing date for Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. and said that until the matter was considered at that hearing, the city and Brookfield Properties, the owners of Zuccotti Park, would be prohibited from evicting protesters or "enforcing 'rules' published after the occupation began or otherwise preventing protesters from re-entering the park with tents and other property previously utilized." It was not immediately clear what effect the order would have on the protesters meeting in nearby Foley Square. Some had advocated returning to the park. From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 00:10:23 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:10:23 +0100 Subject: [THS] Phil Rockstroh: The Police State Makes Its Move Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116000247.0477ba30@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29719.htm The Police State Makes Its Move: Retaining One's Humanity in the Face of Tyranny By Phil Rockstroh November 15, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- For days now, we have endured demonstrably false propaganda that the fallen soldiers of U.S. wars sacrificed their lives for "our freedoms." Yet, as that noxious nonsense still lingers in the air, militarized police have invaded OWS sites in numerous cities, including Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, and, in the boilerplate description of the witless courtesans of the corporate media, with the mission to "evict the occupiers". U.S soldiers died protecting what and who again? These actions should make this much clear: The U.S. military and the police exist to protect the 1%. At this point, the ideal of freedom will be carried by those willing to resist cops and soldiers. There have been many who have struggled and often died for freedom--but scant few were clad in uniforms issued by governments. Freedom rises despite cops and soldiers not because of them. And that is exactly why those who despise freedom propagate military hagiography and fetishize those wearing uniforms--so they can give the idea of liberty lip service as all the while they order it crushed. When anyone tells you that dead soldiers and veterans died for your freedom, it is your duty to occupy reality and inform them of just how mistaken they are. And if you truly cherish the concepts of freedom and liberty, you just might be called on to face mindless arrays of fascist cops and lose your freedom, for a time, going to jail, so others might, at some point, gain their freedom. I was born in Birmingham Alabama, at slightly past the mid-point of the decade of the 1950s. Many of my earliest memories involve the struggle for civil rights that was transpiring on the streets of my hometown. My father was employed at a scrap metal yard but also worked as a freelance photojournalist who hawked his work to media photo syndicates such as Black Star who then sold his wares to the major newsmagazines of the day. A number of the iconic photographs of the era were captured by his Nikon camera e.g., of vicious police dogs unleashed on peaceful demonstrators; of demonstrators cartwheeled down city streets by the force of fire hoses; of Dr. King and other civil rights marchers kneeled in prayer before arrays of Police Chief Bull Connor's thuggish ranks of racist cops. In Birmingham, racist laws and racial and economic inequality were the progenitors of acts of official viciousness. The social structure in place was indefensible. Reason and common decency held no dominion in the justifications for the established order that was posited by the system's apologists and enforcers; therefore, brutality filled the void created by the absence of their humanity. And the same situation is extant in the growing suppression of the OWS movement in various cities, nationwide, including Liberty Park in Lower Manhattan. The 1% and their paid operatives--local city officials--are striving to protect an unjust, inherently dishonest status quo. Lacking a moral mandate, they are prone to the use of police state forms of repression. Dr. King et al faced their oppressors on the streets of my hometown. Civil Rights activists knew that they had to hold their ground to retain their dignity that it was imperative to sit down in those Jim Crow-tyrannized streets when necessary in order to stand up against the forces of oppression. At present, we have arrived at a similar moment. If justice is to prevail, it seems, the air of U.S. cities will hold the acrid sting of tear gas, the jails will again be filled, the brave will endure brutality--yet the corrupt system will crumble. Because the system's protectors themselves will bring it down by revealing its empty nature, and the corrupt structure will collapse from within. Yet, when riot police attack unarmed, peacefully resisting protesters, the mainstream media often describes the events with standard boilerplate such as "police clash with demonstrators." This is inaccurate (at best) reportage. It suggest that both parties are equal aggressors in the situation, and the motive of the police is to restore order and maintain the peace, as opposed to, inflicting pain and creating an aura of intimidation. This is analogous to describing a mugging as simply: two parties engaging in a financial transaction. Although mainstream media demurred from limning the upwelling of mob violence at Penn. State as involving any criteria deeper than the mindless rage of a few football-besotted students unloosed by the dismissal of beloved sport figure. Yet there exists an element that the Penn. State belligerents and OWS activists have in common: a sense of alienation. Penn. State students rioted because life in the corporate state is so devoid of meaning...that identification with a sports team gives an empty existence said meaning These are young people, coming of age in a time of debt-slavery and diminished job prospects, who were born and raised in, and know of no existence other than, life as lived in U.S. nothingvilles i.e., a public realm devoid of just that--a public realm--an atomizing center-bereft culture of strip malls, office parks, fast food eateries and the electronic ghosts wafting the air of social media. Contrived sport spectacles provisionally give an empty life meaning Take that away, and a mindless rampage might ensue Anything but face the emptiness and acknowledge one's complicity therein, and then direct one's fury at the creators of the stultified conditions of this culture. It is a given, the cameras of corporate media swivel towards reckless actions not mindful commitment are attuned to verbal contretemps not thoughtful conviction--and then move on. And we will click our TV remotes and scan the Internet restless, hollowed out eating empty memes skimming the surface of the electronic sheen These are the areas we are induced to direct our attention--as the oceans of the earth are dying these massive life-sustaining bodies of water have less then 50 years before they will be dead. This fact alone should knock us to our knees in lamentation should sent us reeling into the streets in displays of public grief Accordingly, we should not only occupy--but inhabit our rage. No more tittering at celebrity/political class contretemps--it is time for focused fury. The machinery of the corporate/police state must be dismantled. If the corporate boardrooms have to be emptied--for the oceans to be replenished with abundant life--then so be it. If one must go to jail for committing acts of civil disobedience to free one's heart--then it must be done. Yet why does the act of challenging the degraded status quo provoke such a high decree of misapprehension, anxiety, and outright hostility from many, both in positions of authority and among so many of the exploited and dispossessed of the corporate/consumer state. For example, why did the fatal shooting incident in Oakland, California, Nov. 1, that occurred near the Occupy Oakland Encampment--but, apparently, was wholly unrelated to OWS activity cause a firestorm of reckless speculation and false associations. Because any exercise in freedom makes people in our habitually authoritarian nation damn uneasy a sense of uncertainty brings on dread--the feeling that something terrible is to come from challenging a prevailing order, even as degraded as it is. Tyrants always promise safety; their apologist warn of chaos if and when the soul-numbing order is challenged. Granted, it is a given that there exists a sense of certainty in a prison routine: high walls and guards and gun mounts ensure continuity; an uncertainty-banishing schedule is enforced. Moreover, solitary confinement offers an even more orderly situation uncertainty is circumscribed as freedom is banished. The corporate/national security state, by its very nature is anti-liberty and anti-freedom. Of course, its defenders give lip service to the concept of freedom...much in the manner a pick-pocket working a subway train is very much in favor of the virtues of public transportation. A heavy police presence has ringed Zuccotti Park from the get-go, and whose ranks have now staged a military style raid upon it, a defacto search and destroy mission--because the ruling elite want to suppress the very impulse of freedom. These authoritarian bullies don't want the concept to escape the collective prison of the mind erected and maintained by the corrupt jailers comprising the 1% who claim they offer us protection as, all the while, they hold our chains all for our own good, they insist for our safety and the safety of others. Although, from studying on these prison walls, the thought occurs to me that what we might need is protection from all this safety. Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: phil at philrockstroh.com. Visit Phil's website or at FaceBook. Violent Arrests Zuccotti Park - NY - 11/15/2011 From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 00:14:04 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:14:04 +0100 Subject: [THS] Iran Threat Reduction Act Actually Enhances Threat of War Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116001345.04733eb8@mail.messagingengine.com> Iran Threat Reduction Act Actually Enhances Threat of War Congress is taking up dangerous legislation which appears to be designed to pave the way for war by taking the unprecedented step of effectively preventing any kind of U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran. The Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 (H.R. 1905), sponsored by the right-wing chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, contains a provision (Section 601, subsection (c)) which would put into law a restriction whereby "No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that. . . is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran;" Never in the history of this country has Congress ever restricted the right of the White House or State Department to meet with representatives of a foreign state, even in wartime. If this measure passes, it will establish a dangerous precedent whereby Congress would likely follow with similar legislation effectively forbidding any contact with Palestinians, Cubans and others. Despite not having formal diplomatic ties since 1979, there has been frequent low-level contact between the two governments on such issues as combatting drug smuggling and Salafi terrorists. Recent examples include talks which facilitated cooperation in suppressing the Taliban and freeing three American hikers held in an Iranian prison. Such contacts would no longer be possible under this bill. More seriously, the legislation appears to be designed to push the country toward a military conflict with Iran. History has shown that governments that refuse to even talk with each other are far more likely to go to war. The bill passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week and, with 349 co-sponsors from both parties, is almost certain to pass the House of Representatives as a whole. As is often the case with legislation dealing with foreign affairs that puts limits on executive behavior, there is clause allowing for a presidential waiver. It is very limited, however, allowing the White House to waive the requirement only ". . . if the president determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States." The problem is that diplomatic encounters -- particularly with countries with which the United States has tense relations -- often need to be arranged in less than a 15-day period. The entire Cuban missile crisis lasted only 13 days, for example. In the event of a crisis that threatens a military confrontation between the United States and Iran, the Obama administration would have to wait more than two weeks before having any contact with any Iranian officials, which by then could be too late. Another problem is that meetings with governments with which the United States has no diplomatic relations are usually arranged secretly through back channels. Unfortunately, the odds that none of the 26 Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would leak news of such a meeting to Fox News or some other media outlet are rather slim. The relatively moderate elements within Iran's factious regime would presumably not want to risk any meetings with Americans becoming known to hard-liners. Indeed, their personal safety could be at risk if found out. Similarly, to avoid attacks from Republicans prior to elections, the Obama administration would presumably want to avoid making such meetings public as well. Fortunately, senior diplomats and intelligence officials are speaking out against this push for war. As veteran CIA analyst and Georgetown University professor Paul Pillar put it, "This legislation is another illustration of the tendency to think of diplomacy as some kind of reward for the other guy, rather than what it really is: a tool for our side." Similarly, veteran diplomats Thomas Pickering and William Luers observed, "Besides raising serious constitutional issues over the separation of powers, this preposterous law would make it illegal for the U.S. to know its enemy," a principle which has been understood by strategic planners since first articulated by Sun Tzu in The Art of War in the 6th century B.C. Another problematic clause in the bill, contained in the same sub-section, states that "No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that... presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations." Not only could what constitutes a "threat" to the United States or an "affiliate" with a "terrorist organization" be interpreted rather broadly, it could restrict investigation of possible terrorist attacks. It would have made illegal the recent sting operation that foiled the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador, for example. The march to war with Iran appears to have the support a sizable number of liberal Democrats. Indeed, more than 40 members of the so-called "Progressive Caucus" have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, including: Karen Bass, Robert Brady, Corrine Brown, Yvette Clark, William Clay, Emmanuel Cleaver, David Cicilline, Steve Cohen, Elijah Cummings, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Janice Hahn, Mazie Hirono, Michael Honda, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Hank Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, John Lewis, David Loebsack, Ben Ray Lujan, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Markey, Jerrold Nadler, Frank Pallone, Jared Polis, Charles Rangel, Laura Richardson, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Jan Schakowsky, Louise Slaughter, Peter Welch, and Frederica Wilson. It should be noted that these clauses were added to the bill by committee chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen at the end of October, subsequent to some of the co-sponsors signing on, yet so far no one has withdrawn their co-sponsorship. Unless the public mobilizes against this legislation, then, it will be passed and the risks of a disastrous war will be markedly increased http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/iran-threat-reduction-act-_b_1090132.html From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 00:28:33 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:28:33 +0100 Subject: [THS] I know somewhere in your person, Mayor Bloomberg, you have a soul and a moral conscience. Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116002226.041342d8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.kevinpowell.net/blog/2011/11/open-letter-to-mayor-michael-bloomberg-of-new-york/ Open Letter to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York by Kevin Powell Tuesday, November 15, 2011 Dear Mayor Bloomberg: I was awakened in the wee hours of this morning by texts and calls from friends and associates distraught that Occupy Wall Street protestors were being forcibly removed from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan. Even more troubling is that you chose to make a mockery of the First Amendment of our United States Constitution by not only evicting the peaceful activists, but also by blocking media outlets from recording the police raid. This is America, Mr. Bloomberg, a nation that through much effort, tears, blood, and, yes, deaths, has evolved from a slaveholding country that also destroyed much of Native American culture, to one where women, people of color, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, the physically challenged, Jews, Muslims, White ethnics from places like Ireland and Italy, and so many others have been able to gain some measure of freedom and democracy. We are not the nation we ought to be, yet, but we are also not the nation we once were, either. We do that history, and ourselves, a great disservice when we in leadership positions resort to tactics used to deny freedom and democracy, in the old America of Jim Crow laws, in the old South Africa of apartheid. As I watched the amateur video made of the raid online this morning, I got very choked up. I am a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street because it speaks directly to my history as a Black person in America. The occupation is nothing more than the bus boycotts, freedom rides, and sit-ins of the Civil Rights era. The nonviolent approach harkens back to the principles of Dr. King, borrowed, of course, from the great Indian leader Gandhi. The use of technology to spread the Occupy Wall Street messages is no different than how W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, and other visionaries used the media at their disposal in their day to communicate with the masses. So when we choose to walk down the path of repression, of removing and silencing those who would speak out, Mr. Mayor, we are saying that we are choosing to be on the wrong side of history. That we are choosing to be in bed with the devil, instead of on the side of God, of the noble promises of our America. As I said, I am a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, here in New York City, and across America. I have been a part of many rallies and marches the past two months. I have spent much time talking and listening to participants, at Zuccotti Park, at planning meetings, and in private one-on-one sessions with some of the leadership. They are mostly good and decent Americans and I have not witnessed a movement like this since the anti-apartheid protests of the 1980s when I was a college student. It is the same energy, the same sense of purpose, and the same fire-in-belly belief that what they are doing is right. They are not anti-American. They are not anti-business. They are not anti-wealthy folks. They are not anti-police. They are not anti-you, Mr. Mayor. They, we, merely want to see our nation be a place where people, regardless of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, religion, or educational level can have an opportunity to have an opportunity; to not struggle to get or keep a job or career; to not struggle to pay for an education which should be our birthright; to not suffer through housing woes, including foreclosures; to not have to spend our entire lives in debt, broke, or broken spiritually and emotionally because of our finances. But what message are we sending, Mayor Bloomberg, when we come like the thief in the night to remove people by extreme force? What message are we sending when we inhumanly destroy a community built to show what democracy can look like in our era? How condescending and nearsighted are we to state these people are dirty and unfocused, that they somehow are more of a public nuisance than certain banks and corporations that have wrecked the lives of so many Americans? How arrogant are we to assume, just because we may have a certain financial background, status, or title, to think we are above relearning lessons of democracy at various points in our American lives? And how can we ever again say it was not right for militaries in Middle Eastern and North African nations to crack down on the democracies there, then we turn around and do the same on our own shores, only months later, and to our own children, to our own people? Mayor Bloomberg, you said on your weekly radio show, several weeks ago, that it was inevitable for Americans to take to the streets because of the state of our economy. But is the solution to beat these people back with batons and gloved fists, or is the solution to listen to their voices, hear their concerns, and figure out a way, together, for us as a people, all people, to transform America for these times and beyond? I know somewhere in your person, Mayor Bloomberg, you have a soul and a moral conscience. You are going to have to ask yourself, billionaire or not, mayor of New York City or not, whose side you are on, because the Occupy Wall Street movement is here to stay, and will only get bigger and stronger when leaders like you attack the protestors, as you've done. Justice, Mr. Bloomberg, is not on the side of those who would misuse and abuse their power. Justice is, forever, on the side of those who would even sacrifice their own bodies because they believe so deeply in their cause. Those are the kind of people and the kind of Americans I stand with, Mayor Bloomberg. Those are the kind of people I know, from their tents, blankets, and makeshift occupied communities, will do for America exactly what those Civil Rights workers did with their shoes, overalls, songs of freedom, and voter registration cards a generation ago. And so it shall be, and so it shall be- Respectfully, Kevin Powell "I know somewhere in your person, Mayor Bloomberg, you have a soul and a moral conscience." [I'd place my bets elswhere, Kevin.] "They resemble inspired men: but it is not the heart that inspires them?it is revenge. And when they become refined and cold, it is not their mind, it is their envy that makes them refined and cold... Revenge rings in all their complaints, a malevolence is in all their praise; and to be judge seems bliss to them. Thus, however, I advise you my friends: Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong! They are people of a bad breed and a bad descent; the executioner and the bloodhound peer from out their faces. Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice! Truly, it is not only honey that their souls lack. And when they call themselves 'the good and just', do not forget that nothing is lacking to make them into Pharisees except?power!" Thus Spoke Zarathustra, "Of the Tarantulas" Kevin Powell is an activist, public speaker, and author or editor of 10 books. His 11th book, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and The Ghost of Dr. King: And Other Blogs and Essays, will be published by lulu.com in January 2012. You can reach him at kevin at kevinpowell.net, or follow him on Twitter @kevin_powell From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 13:40:47 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:40:47 +0100 Subject: [THS] If the West Attacks Iran, It Could Lead to World War III Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116134030.04263000@mail.messagingengine.com> If the West Attacks Iran, It Could Lead to World War III By Devon DB URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27669 Global Research, November 15, 2011 It was reported a week ago that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report that argued that Iran may have been attempting to build nuclear weapons based on the fact that it had computer models of a nuclear warhead, in addition with other information. On the matter, the report itself states Iran conducted computer model studies and the like, but gives no conclusive damning evidence. [1] This has led many to argue that Iran is in fact attempting to build a nuclear weapon. What many fail to realize is that not only does the UN report not state the Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon, but also the fact that the UN report may very well be biased due to the head of the IAEA's ties to the US and also that this report could be used as part of a media war for the US-NATO-Israeli alliance to wage war on Iran. The UN may seem like a neutral organization, but in reality, it can be influenced by outside forces. An example of this is with the head of the IAEA. It was reported last month by The Guardian that a cable released by Wikileaks stated that the new head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, "was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program." [2] In addition to this, when Amano had his first post-election meeting with the US, the Americans came away with the notion that the meeting "illustrate[d] the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and [America's] agenda at the IAEA" and that the coming transition period would "[provide] a further window for [the US] to shape Amano's thinking before his agenda collide[d] with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy." The fact that the US had plans to shape Amano's thinking should make one wonder how much influence the US had over him. The US and Israel could be using this report to argue that their countries should go to war with Iran. However, the information could potentially be false as it was noted by Russia Today that the UN ?has found no smoking gun, but has succeeded nonetheless in hyping up fears that Iran is continuing its research on nuclear weapons? [3] (emphasis added) and that the information could be false as some, like former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, have grave doubts about the value of the IAEA report. ?I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out from the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the IAEA doesn?t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel,? says Giraldi. The precedent of US intelligence presenting false evidence to build a case for the war in Iraq raises alarm bells as to the accuracy of the atomic agency?s latest report on Iran. ?You may have a piece of evidence of some kind, but that piece of evidence is subject to your interpretation,? Giraldi says. ?When they saw aerial photographs in Iraq showing certain things, they interpreted those photographs to mean something which was not correct.? [4] (emphasis added) The possibility that the IAEA report could be using false information is quite possible as the US-NATO-Israeli alliance has been looking to invade Iran for quite some time and has been waging a media war in support of this objective. One major example being the myth that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the map. This proved to be completely false as The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. [5] (emphasis added) While this was proven to be false, war hawks in America and Israel still used as an argument of Iranian aggression. However, the current situation is quite dangerous as Israel may be making moves to bomb Iran, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing with his Cabinet for Israel to take such an action. [6] In addition to this, the British military is currently ?stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme? [7] as the British Ministry of Defense thinks that the US may go ahead and strike key Iranian facilities via missile strikes and that Britain will unconditionally support the US. Despite their plans, however, the war mongerers may find it difficult to achieve their goals as Russia recently stated that it would ?do everything possible to prevent a military strike on Iran and push forward political dialogue on Iran's nuclear issue.? [8] The threat of a Western attack against Iran is extremely dangerous as it could potentially lead to a World War 3 scenario as ?Were Iran to be the object of a ?pre-emptive? aerial attack by allied forces, the entire region, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China's Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan, would flare up.? [9] We need to be knowledgeable of the fact that an attack on Iran would consist ?not only in reclaiming Anglo-American control over Iran's oil and gas economy, including pipeline routes, [but would] also [challenge] the presence and influence of China and Russia in the region.? [10] Russia has major interests in Iran as Russia has made a large amount of money off aiding Iran in building its nuclear facilities. In addition to this, Russia wants to back Iran as a counterweight to US influence in Central Asia. China also has an interest in Iran as China can get oil and natural gas from them. Both countries have been heavily involved in Iran economically and have a strategic interest in making sure that Iran is not attacked. If the West attacks Iran, it could lead to World War III. Notes 1: http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf 2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks 3: http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-iaea-us-871/ 4: Ibid 5: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/comment.usa 6: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-trying-to-persuade-cabinet-to-support-attack-on-iran-1.393214 7: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear 8: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/10/c_122263799.htm 9: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20403 10: Ibid Devon DB is 19 years old and studies political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University. In addition to contributing to Global Research, he has recently become a staff member at The Progresssive Playbook. From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 13:55:28 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:55:28 +0100 Subject: [THS] OWS NYC: Emotional Night In Liberty Square Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116135452.06ac0670@mail.messagingengine.com> Emotional Night In Liberty Square https://peopleslibrary.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/emotional-night-in-liberty-square/ As you probably know, Liberty Plaza was raided last night. An hour before the park was raided my friend, an older man, came up to me and let me know a cop had told him and an older woman that they should take notice of all the cops, press, and sanitation trucks that had taken to the nearby area. Before leaving, the cop ominously warned, ?remember Normandy?. He then relayed the information to me and I relayed the warning, but was met with much skepticism as we?ve heard the cops would raid us just about every night. And then the lights came on, the cops paraded to the edge of the steps in full riot gear and a sound canon fired, announcing our peaceful time protesting in the park for nearly two months had come to a screeching halt. Campers across the park quickly climbed out of their tents screaming, ?WAKE UP THE POLICE ARE HERE!? I ran into the library and let the handful of people sleeping in there know what was happening, then unlocked and pulled the OWS POETRY ANTHOLOGY from the shelves and strapped them to my body, then climbed atop a table in the park and read poems from the anthology. Immediately, the people of Liberty Plaza launched into action, a group of about a hundred protesters took to the kitchen and U-Locked/tied themselves down. After reading the third poem, the cops began to enter the park and I realized that I would most likely lose all of my possessions so I quickly grabbed a bag of my personal stuff, ran into the library and dumped a bunch of boxes of books onto the floor to make the cleaning up more difficult for the cops then ran my personal stuff and a few amazing books to a friends house around the corner. I naively thought I could get my stuff to my friends house and then re-enter the park but could only get to the corner of Liberty and Broadway after prepping myself for a long night. Once on the corner I immediately launched into action and again started reading from the OWS POETRY ANTHOLOGY. Someone in the crowd said the cops wouldn?t respond to the poems but I countered, it?s not about the cops, it?s about making the voices of all those that have sent poems to the anthology heard. A few cops then got in my face and began pushing the crowd I was in up Broadway. I kept reading poems as the waved batons in our faces, and fellow protesters cried as we realized they were forcing all witnesses away from the park. The further we were pushed away, it seemed the louder the park became as the police became increasingly brutal. We watched in horror as the police entered the park swinging billy-clubs and slashing tents, similar to how police in Oakland brutally assaulted the protesters that had taken Oscar Grant Plaza. A few moments later a man that had been tear gassed on the sidewalk ran in our direction and the group I was with took him to our friends place on Maiden Lane. I looked on in horror as his bloodshot eyes/face/body was directed into her apartment then into her shower. It reminded me of something that would happen in war-torn Eastern European country in the early nineties I couldn?t believe this was happening in New York City. Simultaneously, we realized the library was being destroyed. Helplessly we watched the news as it showed clips of the entire park being scooped up and thrown into trash trucks. It?s appalling to think that a city with over 40,000 homeless, would allow for a park full of great resources, such as tents, tarps, sleeping bags, clothing, food, electronics, ect. to be thrown into the garbage. And I must reiterate, the police explained upon entering the park that all materials in the park would be available to be picked up later at a police location and the park was being evacuated because it was unsanitary and unsafe for humans to inhabit. The NYPD lied again! Again I hit the streets, this time more librarians and fellow protesters had made it to the area and I went to CVS and picked up anti-acid to aid people that had been teargassed. I ran through the streets reading poems and looking out for wounded. Along the way, a main figure from the finance working group tapped me on the shoulder and demanded I join him on a secret mission, basically he told me that he had a very very large sum of cash in his backpack and needed to safely transport it several blocks away to get it into the hands of OWS lawyers. Michael, a fellow OWS occupier and poet joined us! We were given a number to call incase he was taken and he explained he would pass off the backpack to us so we could continue to run it to the lawyers. Luckily we were able to run it there undeterred. After safely moving the money, Michael and I landed infront of Trinity Church where I read poems to the 40 or so cops present for a half hour, finally screaming at them, ?STAND ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY! GO INTO THE PARK AND ARREST YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN BLUE THAT ARE TEAR GASSING AND BRUTALLY ASSAULTING PEACEFUL PROTESTERS. WAKE UP! STAND ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY. DO NOT STAND FOR THIS BRUTALITY! BE REVOLUTIONARY!? Surprisingly, a few of the cops seemed to really respond and their eyes twinkled as they crept up closer to me then Victoria, a key figure in the OWS movement, approached us and explained that the entire park had been tear gassed and that nothing was left. With this, I ran back around and down side streets to look for possibly wounded people. Surprisingly, everyone seemed okay. Later I learned that everyone that had been tear gassed had been arrested. We still do not know in what condition they are as they haven?t been heard from. I then made my way to Foley square to hear the G.A. that had formed, hung out there for an hour, ate some food, discussed the craziness that was the night with folks and then went back to Zucotti Park around 8am to see what it looked like. I heard rumors that bulldozers had run over the entire park, trees and all, luckily they were just rumors HOWEVER, everything we brought to the park is gone. The beautiful library is gone. Our collection of 5,000 books is gone. Our tent that was donated is gone. All the work we?ve put into making it is gone. I?ve spent the last month and a half there. Currently I?m homeless so I?ve been completely dependent on the community that has sprung up there. I don?t know what is next and I don?t know how these next few steps will play out, however, I know that the one thing no amount of cleaning and bullying and policing can destroy is the tenacity of the human spirit. WE WILL OVERCOME! I am so incredibly tired. I hope this account reads somewhat okay. I love you and will hopefully be getting you more books soon! Please send love poems to the OWS Poetry Anthology! We need your spirits to keep our spirits ablaze! Love, Stephen Boyer From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:00:31 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:00:31 +0100 Subject: [THS] RT: Libyan Scenario Unfolding in Syria Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116135735.04cc74c0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29707.htm Libyan Scenario Unfolding in Syria By RT - Russia Today = Best TV News Channel November 14, 2011 "RT" -- The ?illegitimate? decision to suspend Syria from the Arab League has received wide support from the EU and the US. Russia, however, has strongly opposed the measure, which is starting to look like another step on the road to a Libya-style scenario. During a press conference on Monday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moallem said that ?Libya's scenario will not be repeated? in Syria despite the Arab League's decision, which he called a ?conspiracy that is bound to fail.? ?The Arab League vote to suspend Syria's membership was an illegitimate decision prompted by American incitement,? al-Moallem said, as cited by Al-Arabiya. He added that it was reached ?under a plan announced about a month ago.? ?Syria has other cards to play if Arab states decide to become conspirators,? the Syrian FM stated. Nevertheless, Al-Moallem says he still believes in ?united Arab action? and said he would welcome Arab League officials and military and civilian observers to visit Syria this week to supervise the implementation of an Arab League roadmap for ending the bloodshed. Meanwhile in an interview carried by a British news outlet, Jordan?s King Abdullah has called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to resign. Before Syria was suspended, the two sides ? Assad?s regime and the Arab League committee ? reached an agreement on how to stop the violence in the country. The League demanded that tanks be pulled off the streets and that a dialogue be opened with the opposition ? measures which the authorities vowed to carry out. However since agreeing to the deal, more than 250 Syrian civilians are reported to have been killed amid a bloody siege of the city of Homs. The vote to suspend Syria came during an emergency session of the League on November 12 called to discuss Syria?s failure to end the violence. Eighteen countries supported the move while Lebanon, Yemen and Syria voted against it and Iraq abstained. On Monday, the European Union moved to impose additional sanctions on 18 Syrian ?individuals responsible for or associated with the repression and supporting or benefiting from the regime.? The statement said the EU continues to be deeply concerned by the deteriorating situation in Syria. ?The EU again condemns in the strongest terms the ongoing brutal repression and widespread human rights violations,? it read. Brussels had already imposed sanctions on 56 Syrians and 19 organizations over the ongoing government crackdown on the anti-Assad uprising. Isolate and invade Syria has called an emergency meeting of the League in an attempt to reverse the decision which saw it kicked out of the organization. The suspension and accompanying sanctions are due to come into force on Wednesday. Syria is the second nation to be expelled from the League this year. Libya?s suspension from the regional bloc in February was swiftly followed by a UN Security Council resolution which opened the way for NATO?s intervention in the sovereign state. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed Russia?s dismay at the League?s decision to suspend Syria. ?We think it is wrong, and it looks like a planned move,? Lavrov said. ?Those who took the decision have lost a very important opportunity to redirect the situation onto a more transparent course.? Lavrov added that a radical opposition movement in Syria had been incited to overthrow the government and said arms were being smuggled into the country for use by extremists. Russia has repeatedly pledged to prevent a Libya-style scenario unfolding in Syria and backed up its promise by vetoing the UN resolution on Syria on October 5. The move caused outrage among the majority of the UNSC member states. Syria was one of the founders of the Arab League, and its sudden suspension has triggered pro-Assad demonstrations in Syria and attacks on the Turkish, French and Saudi Arabian embassies in Damascus. Commenting on the attacks on its missions, Turkey said it would take a ?decisive attitude? and continue to support the Syrian people's rightful struggle for freedoms and reforms. Earlier, Turkey welcomed the decision of the Arab League. Independent web journalist James Corbett believes that the Arab League suspension of Syria brings the West a step closer to achieving its goal of regime change in Damascus. ?With this Arab League suspension I think we see a dangerous new moment where perhaps even a military intervention is definitely on the table,? he told RT. As Damascus is a key ally of Tehran, possible intervention in Syria would have to be seen as a ?pre-strike on Iran,? Corbett explains. ?Destabilization of the Syrian regime would further isolate Iran which is already surrounded by NATO forces.? From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:03:06 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:03:06 +0100 Subject: [THS] Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey: Libya: Media Blackout, Why? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116140115.06dbd138@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29703.htm "In plain English, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy supported terrorists, murderers and racists." [Oh, but terrorists, murderers and racists are a fine thing in the right hands! say this noble trio. -ths] Libya: Media Blackout, Why? By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey November 13, 2011 "PRAVDA" --Has anyone noticed the virtual silence on Libya among western news agencies? If Libya was today quiet, and without any conflict, we could believe the Lies on Sky and friends incorporated that a dictator had been toppled and his enraptured people freed, living now in peace, preparing for democracy. But this is not the case... What I am about to say comes as no surprise at all for those of us who know Libya, know Colonel Gaddafi and who warned NATO about the monumental mistake being made before the invasion began, as indeed was the case before Iraq in this column back in 2003. NATO, however, in its greed, just does not learn. As the IAEA invents lies about Iran, and includes in its team elements who are wholly unqualified for the task to monitor the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme (*), we see the same old story being repeated. It begins with the lies about a bloodthirsty dictator or a dangerous regime posing a threat to the USA or its allies, the UNO is bullied into naming NATO as the world policeman, skulduggery and blackmail then replace diplomacy, after which NATO bombs the crap out of a country, murdering men, women and children alike, using DU, using cluster munitions, and breaching every rule in the book. Then in swing the kangaroo courts to clear up the mess and lo and behold, a country's sovereign funds have been literally stolen, its infra-structures destroyed with NATO military hardware, rebuilding contracts are handed out to bolster the economies of the invading forces and a nice puppet regime is installed. However, in the case of Libya, the story is far from over. For a start the terrorist forces NATO launched, the RATS, are continuing their horrendous human rights abuses, torching buildings, raping women and girls, destroying public and private property, murdering, torturing, stealing and looting and sowing chaos among the beleaguered citizens who were perfectly happy with the Jamahiriya (government through people's councils, the country's assets deposited in the citizens' bank accounts). Witness of this is the 70 per cent approval rating from unofficial polls in favour of the Jamahiriya, were Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi to stand in the next election. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing. NATO's democratic deficit Would NATO allow the Libyans to include the Jamahiriya in a future election? No, because in a NATO-ruled Libya, no Government which protected the interests of the country would be allowed to participate, only a political force constituted by traitors willing to hand the resources over to foreigners. NATO's democratic deficit was shown most clearly by the refusal to allow the Jamahiriya to hold an election for people to choose between the old system and the RATS - bands of terrorists who sow havoc wherever they go. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing. NATO's terrorist darlings Graffiti has now appeared in Benghazi telling Negroes to leave or be executed - proof once more, as if any were needed, that the RATS are racists and murderers. These are precisely the "people" who Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy supported. In plain English, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy supported terrorists, murderers and racists. The RATS call it "slave cleansing". The Misrata Brigade already committed ethnic cleansing in Tawergha, murdering all people with black skin. What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing. The fight is not over, that is why NATO is still there Exactly, yet again breaching international law, with its remit expired, NATO continues present in Libya with troops on the ground and with bombing raids. The bill for the British public must be somewhere in the region of two billion pounds by now. Wonderful, isn't it? Where is your hospital, your school, your medical centre, your supplementary benefit? It is in Libya. "Sorry Mr. Johnson, the NHS simply does not have the financing for your son's leukaemia treatment, I am afraid he will just have to die. You see, the money we waste on his treatment has to be invested in murdering Down's Syndrome children in Libya, to make us popular and so that the UK can get the rebuilding contracts". What do Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have to say to that? Nothing. NATO and its mercenaries' aircraft are operating from Sudan and Chad, while there are reports of direct flights from Tel Aviv. Tuareg camps have been strafed, military centers in the south have been attacked, more civilians have been massacred. These crimes will be added to the indictment drawn up and delivered to the ICC and the ECHR (**). Sources inside Libya linked to the Green Resistance have indicated that in the last two weeks, these NATO forces have lost 37 aircraft - 8 Israeli fighter planes, 13 Qatar Apaches, 11 French Mirage, 5 French Rafael fighters, shot down trying to evade and invade the Libyan Southern Airspace, with all their pilots and crew killed and enter into green Libyan Jamahiriyah territory. Introducing the Libyan Green Resistance: The Libyan Liberation Front The Libyan Liberation Front (LLF) is composed of elements of the Libyan Armed Forces loyal to the legitimate anti-terrorist Government of Libya (the Jamahiriya), the armed tribal forces and the volunteers who have taken up arms to protect their villages, towns and cities against the terrorists unleashed by NATO. Despite 9,000 murderous terrorist bombing raids by NATO's missile diplomacy approach, these heroic forces have stood firm and have inflicted massive casualties on the terrorists, racists, murderers, looters, torturers, sexists, arsonists, rapists and thieves that NATO calls the "rebels". The Green Resistance recently liquidated the terrorist leader in Zlitan, Al-Berss Abuajaila; fighting was ongoing in Tripoli on Friday after prayers, in Green Square and Bab Al-Aziziya; Southern Misrata patriots are fighting against the terrorist traitors, North Misrata Brigades; LLF is active in Thawergah; LLF active in Tobruk, Zlitan, Gharyan and Sabha. Indeed, the LLF is active in all regions of Libya. The RATS know very well that without NATO's skirts to hide behind, they would not win a single battle. A traitor is basically a coward, the RATS are both. (*) http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/10-11-2011/119583-IAEA_report_on_Iran_BIG_fraud-0/ (**) http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-11-2011/119534-indictment_nato-0/ Another NATO disaster. This time, supporting terrorists and racists, murderers and rapists. How low can NATO get? This time it will have consequences. NATO's reputation, along with thousands upon thousands of RATS, are buried beneath the sands of Libya, in tatters, while from the desert emerges a pride of lions, chasing the RATS back to the sewers of Qatar, Misratah and Benghazi, from which they emerged. Pravda.Ru From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:05:41 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:05:41 +0100 Subject: [THS] Andrew Bacevich: Only Washington Is Clueless Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116140510.06dbcea8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29710.htm Big Change Whether We Like It or Not Only Washington Is Clueless By Andrew Bacevich November 14, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- In every aspect of human existence, change is a constant. Yet change that actually matters occurs only rarely. Even then, except in retrospect, genuinely transformative change is difficult to identify. By attributing cosmic significance to every novelty and declaring every unexpected event a revolution, self-assigned interpreters of the contemporary scene -- politicians and pundits above all -- exacerbate the problem of distinguishing between the trivial and the non-trivial. Did 9/11 ?change everything?? For a brief period after September 2001, the answer to that question seemed self-evident: of course it did, with massive and irrevocable implications. A mere decade later, the verdict appears less clear. Today, the vast majority of Americans live their lives as if the events of 9/11 had never occurred. When it comes to leaving a mark on the American way of life, the likes of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg have long since eclipsed Osama bin Laden. (Whether the legacies of Jobs and Zuckerberg will prove other than transitory also remains to be seen.) Anyone claiming to divine the existence of genuinely Big Change Happening Now should, therefore, do so with a sense of modesty and circumspection, recognizing the possibility that unfolding events may reveal a different story. All that said, the present moment is arguably one in which the international order is, in fact, undergoing a fundamental transformation. The ?postwar world? brought into existence as a consequence of World War II is coming to an end. A major redistribution of global power is underway. Arrangements that once conferred immense prerogatives upon the United States, hugely benefiting the American people, are coming undone. In Washington, meanwhile, a hidebound governing class pretends that none of this is happening, stubbornly insisting that it?s still 1945 with the so-called American Century destined to continue for several centuries more (reflecting, of course, God?s express intentions). Here lies the most disturbing aspect of contemporary American politics, worse even than rampant dysfunction borne of petty partisanship or corruption expressed in the buying and selling of influence. Confronted with evidence of a radically changing environment, those holding (or aspiring to) positions of influence simply turn a blind eye, refusing even to begin to adjust to a new reality. Big Change Happening Now The Big Change happening before our very eyes is political, economic, and military. At least four converging vectors are involved. First, the Collapse of the Freedom Agenda: In the wake of 9/11, the administration of George W. Bush set out to remake the Greater Middle East. This was the ultimate strategic objective of Bush?s ?global war on terror.? Intent on accomplishing across the Islamic world what he believed the United States had accomplished in Europe and the Pacific between 1941 and 1945, Bush sought to erect a new order conducive to U.S. interests -- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources, dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally) allow Israel a free hand in the region. Key to the success of this effort would be the U.S. military, which President Bush (and many ordinary Americans) believed to be unstoppable and invincible -- able to beat anyone anywhere under any conditions. Alas, once implemented, the Freedom Agenda almost immediately foundered in Iraq. The Bush administration had expected Operation Iraqi Freedom to be a short, tidy war with a decisively triumphant outcome. In the event, it turned out to be a long, dirty (and very costly) war yielding, at best, exceedingly ambiguous results. Well before he left office in January 2009, President Bush himself had abandoned his Freedom Agenda, albeit without acknowledging its collapse and therefore without instructing Americans on the implications of that failure. One specific implication stands out: we now know that U.S. military power, however imposing, falls well short of enabling the United States to impose its will on the Greater Middle East. We can neither liberate nor dominate nor tame the Islamic world, a verdict from the Bush era that Barack Obama?s continuing misadventures in ?AfPak? have only served to affirm. Trying harder won?t produce a different result. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates caught the new reality best: ?Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ?have his head examined,? as General MacArthur so delicately put it.? To be sure, Freedom Agenda dead-enders -- frequently found under K in your phone book -- continue to argue otherwise. Even now, for example, Kagans, Keanes, Krauthammers, and Kristols are insisting that ?we won? the Iraq War -- or at least had done so until President Obama fecklessly flung away a victory so gloriously gained. Essential to their argument is that no one notice how they have progressively lowered the bar defining victory. Back in 2003, they were touting Saddam Hussein?s overthrow as just the beginning of American domination of the Middle East. Today, with Saddam?s departure said to have ?made the world a better place,? getting out of Baghdad with U.S. forces intact has become the operative definition of success, ostensibly vindicating the many thousands killed and maimed, millions of refugees displaced, and trillions of dollars expended. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia remains in the field, conducting some 30 attacks per week against Iraqi security forces and civilians. This we are expected not to notice. Some victory. Second, the Great Recession: In the history of the American political economy, the bursting of speculative bubbles forms a recurring theme. Wall Street shenanigans that leave the plain folk footing the bill are an oft-told tale. Recessions of one size or another occur at least once a decade. Yet the economic downturn that began in 2008 stands apart, distinguished by its severity, duration, and resistance to even the most vigorous (or extravagant) remedial action. In this sense, rather than resembling any of the garden-variety economic slumps or panics of the past half-century, the Great Recession of our own day recalls the Great Depression of the 1930s. Instead of being a transitory phenomenon, it seemingly signifies something transformational. The Great Recession may well have inaugurated a new era -- its length indeterminate but likely to stretch for many years -- of low growth, high unemployment, and shrinking opportunity. As incomes stagnate and more and more youngsters complete their education only to find no jobs waiting, members of the middle class are beginning to realize that the myth of America as a classless society is just that. In truth, the game is rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the many -- and in recent years, the fixing has become ever more shamelessly blatant. This realization is rattling American politics. In just a handful of years, confidence in the Washington establishment has declined precipitously. Congress has become a laughingstock. The high hopes raised by President Obama?s election have long since dissipated, leaving disappointment and cynicism in their wake. One result, on both the far right and the far left, has been to stoke the long-banked fires of American radicalism. The energy in American politics today lies with the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street, both expressing a deep-seated antipathy toward the old way of doing things. Populism is making one of its periodic appearances on the American scene. Where this will lead remains, at present, unclear. But ours has long been a political system based on expectations of ever-increasing material abundance, promising more for everyone. Whether that system can successfully deal with the challenges of managing scarcity and distributing sacrifice ranks as an open question. This is especially true when those among us who have been making out like bandits profess so little willingness to share in any sacrifices that may be required. Third, the Arab Spring: As with the floundering American economy, so with Middle Eastern politics: predicting the future is a proposition fraught with risk. Yet without pretending to forecast outcomes -- Will Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya embrace democracy? Can Islamic movements coexist with secularized modernity? -- this much can be safely said: the ongoing Arab upheaval is sweeping from that region of the world the last vestiges of Western imperialism. Europeans created the modern Middle East with a single purpose in mind: to serve European interests. With the waning of European power in the wake of World War II, the United States -- gingerly at first, but by the 1980s without noticeable inhibition -- stepped in to fill the void. What had previously been largely a British sphere now became largely an American one, with the ever-accelerating tempo of U.S. military activism testifying to that fact. Although Washington abjured the overt colonialism once practiced in London, its policies did not differ materially from those that Europeans had pursued. The idea was to keep a lid on, exclude mischief-makers, and at the same time extract from the Middle East whatever it had on offer. The preferred American MO was to align with authoritarian regimes, offering arms, security guarantees, and other blandishments in return for promises of behavior consistent with Washington?s preferences. Concern for the wellbeing of peoples living in the region (Israelis excepted) never figured as more than an afterthought. What events of the past year have made evident is this: that lid is now off and there is little the United States (or anyone else) can do to reinstall it. A great exercise in Arab self-determination has begun. Arabs (and, arguably, non-Arabs in the broader Muslim world as well) will decide their own future in their own way. What they decide may be wise or foolish. Regardless, the United States and other Western nations will have little alternative but to accept the outcome and deal with the consequences, whatever they happen to be. A Washington inhabited by people certain that decisions made in the White House determine the course of history will insist otherwise, of course. Democrats credit Obama?s 2009 Cairo speech with inspiring Arabs to throw off their chains. Even more laughably, Republicans credit George W. Bush?s ?liberation? of Iraq for installing democracy in the region and supposedly moving Tunisians, Egyptians, and others to follow suit. To put it mildly, evidence to support such claims simply does not exist. One might as well attribute the Arab uprising to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those expecting Egyptians to erect statues of Obama or Bush in Cairo?s Tahrir Square are likely to have a long wait. Fourth, Beleaguered Europe?s Quest for a Lifeline: To a considerable extent, the story of the twentieth-century -- at least the commonly-told Western version of that story -- is one of Europe screwing up and America coming to the rescue. The really big screw-ups were, of course, the two world wars. In 1917 and again after December 1941, the United States sent large armies to deal with those who had disturbed the peace. After the first war, the Americans left. After the second, they stayed, not only providing soldiers to safeguard Western Europe, but also rejuvenating the shattered economies of the European democracies. Even with the passing of a half-century, the Marshall Plan stands out as a singular example of enlightened statecraft -- and also as a testimonial to America?s unsurpassed economic capacity following World War II. Saving continents in dire distress was a job that only the United States could accomplish. That was then. Today, Europe has once again screwed up, although fortunately this time there is no need for foreign armies to sort out the mess. The crisis of the moment is an economic one, due entirely to European recklessness and irresponsibility (not qualitatively different from the behavior underlying the American economic crisis). Will Uncle Sam once again ride to the rescue? Not a chance. Beset with the problems that come with old age, Uncle Sam can?t even mount up. To whom, then, can Europe turn for assistance? Recent headlines tell the story: * ?Cash-Strapped Europe Looks to China For Help? * ?Europe Begs China for Bailout? * ?EU takes begging bowl to Beijing? * ?Is China the Bailout Saviour in the European Debt Crisis?? The crucial issue here isn?t whether Beijing will actually pull Europe?s bacon out of the fire. Rather it?s the shifting expectations underlying the moment. After all, hasn?t the role of European savior already been assigned? Isn?t it supposed to be Washington?s in perpetuity? Apparently not. Back to the Future In the words of the old Buffalo Springfield song: ?Something?s happening here. What it is ain?t exactly clear.? American politicians stubbornly beg to differ, of course, content to recite vapid but reassuring clich?s about American global leadership, American exceptionalism, and that never-ending American Century. Everything, they would have us believe, will remain just as it has been -- providing the electorate installs the right person in the Oval Office. ?To those nations who continue to resist the unstoppable march of human, political and economic freedom,? declares Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, ?we will make clear that they are on the wrong side of history, by ensuring that America?s light shines bright in every corner of the globe, representing a beacon of hope and inspiration.? ?This is America's moment,? insists Mitt Romney. ?We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America's time has passed . I will not surrender America's role in the world.? With an unsurprising absence of originality, the title of Romney?s campaign ?white paper? on national security is An American Century. Governor Rick Perry?s campaign web site offers this important insight: ?Rick Perry believes in American exceptionalism, and rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country but instead believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength.? For his part, Newt Gingrich wants it known that ?America is still the last, best hope of mankind on earth.? The other Republican candidates (Ron Paul always excepted) draw from the same shallow and stagnant pool of ideas. To judge by what we might call the C. Wright Mills standard of leadership -- ?men without lively imagination are needed to execute policies without imagination devised by an elite without imagination? -- all are eminently qualified for the presidency. Nothing is wrong with America or the world, they would have us believe, that can?t be fixed by ousting Barack Obama from office, thereby restoring the rightful order of things. ?Is America Over?? That question adorns the cover of the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, premier organ of the foreign policy establishment. As is typically the case with that establishment, Foreign Affairs is posing the wrong question, one designed chiefly to elicit a misleading, if broadly reassuring answer. Proclaim it from the rooftops: No, America is not ?over.? Yet a growing accumulation of evidence suggests that America today is not the America of 1945. Nor does the international order of the present moment bear more than a passing resemblance to that which existed in the heyday of American power. Everyone else on the planet understands this. Perhaps it?s finally time for Americans -- starting with American politicians -- to do so as well. Should they refuse, a painful comeuppance awaits. Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author, among other works, of Washington Rules: America?s Path to Permanent War and the editor of The Short American Century: A Postmortem, forthcoming from Harvard University Press. To listen to Timothy MacBain?s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Bacevich discusses how his students have come to accept perpetual American war as normalcy click here, or download it to your iPod here. Copyright 2011 Andrew Bacevich This item was first published at www.tomdispatch.com From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:07:17 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:07:17 +0100 Subject: [THS] "A Pair of Testicles Fell Off the President After Election Day" Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116140635.06dbcb90@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29704.htm Former Guantanamo Chief Prosecutor: "A Pair of Testicles Fell Off the President After Election Day" By Jason Leopold November 14, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Morris Davis speaks bluntly about some of President Barack Obama's policy decisions. "There's a pair of testicles somewhere between the Capital Building and the White House that fell off the president after Election Day [2008]," said Davis, an Air Force colonel who spent two years as the chief prosecutor of Guantanamo military commissions, during an interview at his Washington, DC, office over the summer and in email correspondence over the past several months. "He got his butt kicked. Not just with Guantanamo but with national security in general. I'm sure there are a few areas here and there where there have been 'change,' but to me it seems like a third Bush term when it comes to national security." Davis is "hugely disappointed" that Obama reneged on a campaign promise to reject military commissions for "war on terror" detainees, which human rights advocates and defense attorneys have condemned as unconstitutional. The first military commission initiated by the Obama administration got underway earlier this week with the arraignment of Abd Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, who is facing terrorism and murder charges, began earlier this week. If convicted, Nashiri, one of three so-called high-value detainees that the Bush administration admitted was subjected to the drowning technique known as waterboarding and other brutal torture methods at CIA black site prisons, could be executed. George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing military commissions for terrorist suspects captured after 9/11 ten years ago today. Davis, recalling a speech Obama gave during an August 2007 campaign stop at the Wilson Center in Washington, said it seemed Obama was on track to make good on his campaign promise of halting the discredited tribunals. "I will reject a legal framework that does not work," candidate Obama said. "I have faith in America's courts and I have faith in our [Judge Advocate Generals] ... As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions ... Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists ... Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers and that justice is not arbitrary." Davis shakes his head. "What happened to that guy?" Obama "has now embraced and kissed on the lips the whole Bush concept [of military commissions]. He failed to keep a single promise he made in that speech." A White House spokesman declined to comment for this story. In the past, administration officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have blamed Democrats and Republicans in Congress for thwarting the government's efforts to prosecute terrorist suspects in federal courts by withholding funding to hold trials. While that is true in the case of self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators, it does not explain the decision Obama made in May 2009--four months after he was sworn in as president--to resurrect military commissions. What is clear is that Obama succumbed to pressure from Defense Department officials and Republicans in Congress, notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), to hold the tribunals. Moreover, when Obama announced the return of military commissions he had just endured a month of blistering attacks from Republicans and former Vice President Dick Cheney for releasing the infamous "torture memos" drafted by Bush administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee. Criticism Leads to Firing Davis resigned in protest as Guantanamo's chief prosecutor in October 2007, because he said Bush administration officials politicized the high-profile military commissions cases of alleged 9/11 conspirators and al-Qaeda members he was gearing up to prosecute. Turning his back on military commissions ended his military career. He was denied a meritorious service award because he was told he served dishonorably by speaking out about the tribunals. Davis continued to publicly oppose the military commission process and he also criticized the Obama administration for refusing to hold accountable key Bush officials who implemented a policy authorizing the torture of "war on terror" detainees. But, as Davis discovered, it's no safer criticizing a Democratic administration's policies than it was when a Republican was in the White House. Indeed, two years ago, Davis was fired from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), where he began working in December 2008 as the assistant director of the defense, trade and foreign affairs division, after he wrote an op-ed in November 2009 for The Wall Street Journal and a letter to the editor published in The Washington Post that were highly critical of military commissions and the decision the Obama administration made to sidestep federal courts in favor of the flawed tribunals for some alleged terrorists. CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan, who fired Davis, said he "failed to adhere to the CRS policy on Outside Speaking and Writing," showing "poor judgment and discretion ... not consistent with 'acceptable service.'" Davis sued Mulhollan and the Library of Congress, which oversees CRS, claiming they violated his First Amendment rights. A hearing in the case was held earlier this week. Davis said he's "optimistic that by 2018 I will be reinstated to my former position." "On Veteran's Day, it [was] two years since I wrote the Wall Street Journal op-ed and we're not even at the discovery stage yet," Davis said. "The wheels of justice grinds fine, but it grinds slowly." "Broken Beyond Repair" While Davis is one of the most visible and verbal critics, he's not the only military prosecutor who has been outspoken about Obama and Bush's detainee policies. Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld is a former military commissions prosecutor who also resigned in protest. In 2009, after Obama embraced the legal framework he rejected as a presidential candidate, Vandeveld testified before Congress, stating, "the military commission system is broken beyond repair." "The military commissions cannot be fixed, because their very creation - and the only reason to prefer military commissions over federal criminal courts for the Guantanamo detainees - can now be clearly seen as an artifice, a contrivance, to try to obtain prosecutions based on evidence that would not be admissible in any civilian or military prosecution anywhere in our nation," Vandeveld said. Davis said, "Obama knows what the right thing to do is." "But let's face it, this is all about politics," Davis said. "Nobody is going to get reelected in 2012 campaigning on standing up for the rights of detainees. Nobody wants to be seen as being soft on terrorism." One of the fundamental questions that has yet to be answered in the debate over the merits of military commissions, Davis noted, is what is the source of the rights for the detainees facing trial? "If it's the Constitution, then a military commission is deficient and it would require a court-martial or a trial in federal court to pass constitutional muster," Davis said. "If the basis is in the Geneva Conventions, then a military commission - one run by the military without political interference - could meet the requirement." Davis said the changes to the Military Commissions Act (MCA) Congress passed in 2009 is far from a major improvement over the October 2006 law, which was passed in response to a landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down as unconstitutional the military tribunal system Bush set up after 9/11. "The biggest change [in the 2009 law] was the hearsay rule," Davis said. "Under the 2006 Act, hearsay about a detainee's activities could be offered by the prosecution and the burden was on the detainee to show that it was unreliable. In the 2009 version, the party offering the statements obtained from hearsay has to prove that it?s reliable. In other words, they shifted the burden of proof. It?s 1/100th of a change from what was previously in place and Obama held that up as a major improvement." But, Davis said, after a decade "failure and fumbling, it's no longer a question of whether we could do military commissions or could keep Gitmo open; the question is should we?" "I think Gitmo and military commissions have become too toxic in the public psyche to ever regain credibility," he said. "I believe we need to abandon both and rely on our traditional prisons and traditional courts." "Nuremberg of Our Times" That's a radical departure from Davis's previous stance as one of the leading advocates of military commissions. "I did at one time have tremendous confidence in the military commissions and the people who were selected to preside over the process," Davis said. "But it was politicized by the Bush administration who had no respect for the rule of law." Davis said he "answered a service-wide call for volunteers" sent out by the Bush administration in early 2002 for military lawyers to handle terrorist cases at Guantanamo because "I was concerned about what I was seeing" and that he "initially volunteered to be chief defense counsel" for detainees. "The law was clearly being undermined by the Bush administration," Davis said. "All of a sudden 9/11 comes along and we do everything we can to avoid the law. For example, picking Guantanamo to hold detainees was thought of as the perfect law-free site. I knew it was a hugely unpopular effort defending terrorists in the wake of this terrible atrocity but I felt it was important that somebody was on hand to do it right." The job of chief defense counsel, however, went to Col. Will Gunn, who is now the general counsel for the Veterans Administration. Still, Davis said when he accepted the position of Guantanamo's chief prosecutor three years later he brought with him "the same attitude that we needed to do this right." But Davis was quickly put into his place. He recalls being told by Pentagon General Counsel William "Jim" Haynes during a meeting in Haynes' office in the summer of 2005 that "these trials are going to be the Nuremberg of our times." "I told Haynes, 'at Nuremberg not everyone was convicted,'" Davis said. "'There were some acquittals.' Davis said Haynes' "eyes got big and he leaned back in his chair." "'Acquittals!'" Haynes said, according to Davis, "'we can't have acquittals! We have been holding these guys for years. How are we going to explain to world we have been holding these guys for this long if we don't have convictions? We have to have convictions!'" Davis said it was then that he understood "the mindset of the Bush administration was that we had to through the motions of having trials and ensure there was a preordained outcome." Haynes, now the chief counsel for Chevron Corp., did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment. Show Trials Under Obama, a "preordained outcome" is still the expectation for terror suspects facing a military commission as evidenced by the fact the administration has signaled that Nashiri could still be detained even if he were acquitted. Brig. Gen. Mark Martins is the new chief prosecutor at Guantanamo. Davis noted he is the sixth chief prosecutor in eight years. During that time, there have only been six trials. "I don't know Brig. Gen. Martins, but it usually doesn't bode well when a team is on its sixth quarterback in eight years," Davis said. "Who knows, perhaps the sixth time is the charm." In an effort to sell its revamped version of military commissions to the public, the Pentagon aunveiled a new $500,000 military commissions web site last month, which boasts the banner, "Fairness - Transparency - Justice." "There was a time when the world might have believed the slogan, but that was years ago," Davis said. "Now, the [Department of Defense] may as well throw in a box meal and call it dinner theater." Davis added that the administration's claims of "fairness" were undercut when it released the rules for Nashiri's trial only two days before it was set to begin. "In April 2010, on the eve of [Canadian detainee Omar] Khadr's [war crimes] trial, the Defense Department published the Manual for Military Commissions," Davis said. "To some, it was like the NFL saying 'oh, by the way, here's the rule book for the game' after the players were already lined up for the kickoff and just waiting for the whistle to blow. At least this time they managed to publish their new rules two days before Nashiri's trial." Looking back over the past decade, Davis said, there has been a "presidential military order, two acts of Congress, a DoD directive signed by the Secretary of Defense, seven military commission orders signed by the Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense, 15 commissions instructions signed by Haynes, three appointing authority instructions, 19 presiding officer memorandums, two Manuals for Military Commissions, two Regulations for Trial by Military Commission, a Military Commission Trial Judiciary Rules of Court, and Rules of Practice for the Court of Military Commission Review with two amendments." "Now Nashiri goes to court under rules that have again been modified," Davis continued. "Each time whoever is in charge says this time it's fair. I think it's a problem that's inherent when you begin with the premise that the whole operation is outside the reach of any law. It takes some craft lawyering to try to slap a veneer of fairness on that." "One of the Dirtiest Cases" of Torture During his tenure, Davis butted heads with Haynes and appointees in the Office of Military Commissions over their insistence that he use evidence obtained through torture in cases he was working on, which he said he refused to do and which ultimately led to his resignation. "I was told 'President Bush says we don't torture so what makes you think you have the authority to say we do?'" Davis said, recalling a conversation he had with Brigadier Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, formerly the legal adviser to the convening authority for military commissions, who he said ordered him to use evidence obtained from torture in military commissions. Davis would not identitfy the cases. The military commissions rules passed by Congress in 2009 prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture, but the fact that Nashiri was tortured by CIA interrogators will likely be used to challenge the government's evidence against him. Davis said in his revivew of detainee files he saw documented evidence of torture. "Pretty much every document I saw laid out what was taking place" during interrogations, Davis said. "I don't recall seeing any document that didn't detail the [interrogation] methods being used." Davis said he also discovered that at least one detainee was "disappeared." When he inquired about the detainee's whereabouts with a Guantanamo intelligence official he was told he did not have a "need to know." A Defense Department spokesperson did not return calls for comment. Davis said one of the "dirtiest cases" he saw and was personally involved in was that of alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker Mohamed al-Qahtani. "I never got to meet him," Davis said. "But there was another lawyer who was in the office a lot longer than me who did and he said, '[interrogators] fucked with him so bad he's crazy as a shithouse rat.' This guy did not want to touch the Qahtani case. He thought Qahtani was pushed past the point of being mentally competent." Emails released several years ago by the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act describe Qahtani's torture, which took place at Guantanamo and was sanctioned by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In January 2009, Susan Crawford, the retired judge and a close confidant of Dick Cheney, who, until last year, was the convening authority for military commissions at Guantanamo, said al-Qahtani's interrogation met the legal definition of torture and, as a result, she would not allow a war crimes tribunal against him to proceed. Obama's Crimes Davis, now the the executive director of the Crimes of War Education Project, a nonprofit organization that seeks to raise awareness of the laws of armed conflict worldwide, said the admission by Crawford should have immediately led to an investigation under the Convention Against Torture. But "the Obama administration was whistling by the graveyard on that one and pretended like nothing happened." "We're a party to the Convention Against Torture and clearly we tortured people," Davis said, angrily. "There is an affirmative duty under the convention to investigate and prosecute. It doesn't say when it's convenient or when you get around to it or if it's not politically detrimental to your administration. It says it's a duty. And it also says, in addition to prosecuting people that were tortured the person that is the victim has to have a right to compensation and the Obama administration refuses to investigate and prosecute the allegations of torture. But when the victims go to court to try and get civil remedies they're entitled to under the Convention Against Torture the Obama administration asserts the state secrets privilege to knock them out of court." Davis said former Vice President Dick Cheney, his daughter Liz Cheney and the vice president's former counsel, David Addington, "did a very effective job pandering to fear by claiming the detainees we're still holding are the 'worst of the worst.' That's the narrative that was sold." "They painted this picture that I think the public to this day still buys and as a result a large section of the population says 'screw them, keep them at Guantanamo,'" Davis said. "It's unfortunate, but 99 percent of the public could care less about these issues." Davis said he's not sure, at this point, if the country would be prepared "if one day somebody in this administration decided to launch an investigation and prosecution of the Bush officials who implemented these [torture and detention] policies." "But I'll tell you this, if we're not going to do it then we need to repudiate the ratification of the Convention Against Torture and stop being hypocrites," Davis said. "Here you have an administration lecturing countries like Iran and Libya on human rights. How do you, with a straight face, lecture other people when we do the exact same thing? We're great at preaching but not practicing." Obama established a "terrible precedent" by stating publicly that he was only interested in looking "forward," a decision that has "undermined whatever moral authority we had left," Davis said. Inconsistencies Although Davis appears to be an advocate for the detainees who have been tortured while in custody of the US government, his comments over the years have been inconsistent. Most notably, in 2006, Davis remarked that the sympathetic portrayal of Canadian Omar Khadr by the then-teenager's defense counsel was "nauseating," and he dismissed as a defense strategy allegations at the time that Khadr had been tortured physically and psychologically. Davis referred to Khadr as a "terrorist" and "murdrerer" during a news conference and told the media at the time that members of al-Qaeda and the terrorist organization's sympathizers were taught to lie about being tortured in order to win public sympathy. Khadr, whose war crimes charges Davis had personally approved, was the first "child soldier" to be prosecuted by military commission since World War II. Khadr was a teenager when he was captured in Afghanistan in July 2002 and charged with killing a US medic after he tossed a grenade at him. In a plea deal hammered out with military prosecutors last year, Khadr pled guilty to five terrorism-related charges including murder in violation of the laws of war. Furthermore, just four months before he resigned as chief prosecutor, Davis had prasied military commissions, stating in an op-ed published in The New York Times, "Guantanamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes." Davis said he's well aware comments he had previously made about "certain detainees" and the military commissions process under does not jibe with the statements he has made since he decided to publicly criticize the Bush and Obama administrations. "People ask me all the time, 'were you lying then?' My answer is 'no.' That's what I believed at the time." What Davis believes now is that the rest of world will be skeptical of the claim that military commissions have "suddenly gone from woeful to wonderful." "So much for change you can believe in," Davis said. "Or for that matter change you'd even notice." Jason Leopold is an investigative reporter and the deputy managing editor of Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. This item was first published at www.truth-out.org From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:10:41 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:10:41 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?_Bachmann_=3A_Iraq_Should_Pay_=91Several_Mil?= =?iso-8859-1?q?lion___Dollars_Per_US_Soldier_Killed_In_Iraq?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116140803.06dbc900@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29705.htm Bachmann : Iraq Should Pay ?Several Million Dollars Per US Soldier Killed In Iraq By Ian Millhiser November 14, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- In an interview this morning with Meet the Press? David Gregory, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) repeated her claim that the Iraq should pay America for the privilege of having their nation invaded and occupied for most of the last decade ? and then doubled down by calling for Iraq to pay millions of dollars for each American killed in that country: [video] It?s over 800 billion dollars that we have expended [in Iraq]. I believe that Iraq should pay us back for the money that we spent, and I believe that Iraq should pay the families that lost a loved one several million dollars per life, I think at minimum. It?s important to understand exactly what kind of burden Iraq has already shouldered because of our presence there. Iraq did not ask to be invaded by the United States, and the Iraqi people have wanted American forces out of their country for a very long time. Estimates on the number of Iraqi civilian casualties due to our presence in Iraq vary from just under 35,000 to well into the hundreds of thousands, according to a 2008 Congressional Research Service report, but there is little question that tens of thousands more Iraqis would still be alive today if not for our decision to invade their country. The families of these Iraqi men, women, and children suffer just as deeply as the families of the nearly five thousand American and other coalition troops who died in this unnecessary war. If the families of people who died in the Iraq war require compensation, than the Iraqi victims have at least as strong a claim to compensation as the Americans who died in this ill-conceived invasion. Bachmann?s broader proposal would also add a crushing fiscal burden to these casualties and to the already staggering cost of rebuilding Iraq?s many destroyed cities and towns. In 2010, Iraq?s entire gross domestic product was only about $82 billion per year. So requiring the Iraqi people to pay the over $800 billion Bachmann claims they owe us would mean that every single Iraqi man, woman and child would have to turn over every single penny they earn from now until about 2021. The Iraq war is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the American and other coalition troops who died in a war that never should have occurred in the first place. It is a tragedy for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives to our invasion, and it is a tragedy for the millions of Iraqis who now have to pick up the pieces in their war torn nation. Bachmann?s proposal to ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people and force every single Iraqi into a decade of serfdom would only compound this tragedy. This item was first published at www.thinkprogress.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ They resemble inspired men: but it is not the heart that inspires them?it is revenge. And when they become refined and cold, it is not their mind, it is their envy that makes them refined and cold... Revenge rings in all their complaints, a malevolence is in all their praise; and to be judge seems bliss to them. Thus, however, I advise you my friends: Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong! They are people of a bad breed and a bad descent; the executioner and the bloodhound peer from out their faces. Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice! Truly, it is not only honey that their souls lack. And when they call themselves 'the good and just', do not forget that nothing is lacking to make them into Pharisees except?power! Thus Spoke Zarathustra, "Of the Tarantulas" From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:35:05 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:35:05 +0100 Subject: [THS] OWS Library Safe and Sound; Held Captive By City Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116143433.0419acb0@mail.messagingengine.com> See also Rachel Maddow's report, w/ Jeff Sharlet at Occupy Writers: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45316274#45316274 MCM OWS Library Safe and Sound; Held Captive By City http://www.observer.com/2011/11/ows-library-safe-and-sound-held-captive-by-city/ By Drew Grant 11/15 4:30pm While Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are waiting to hear the verdict on whether or not they?ll be let back in to Zuccotti Park this evening, there?s at least a glimmer of good news. Mayor Bloomberg did not burn all their books out of spite! Thirty minutes ago, @NYCMayorsOffice, the city?s official Twitter account, posted the picture on the left along with the following text: Property from #Zuccotti, incl #OWSlibrary, safely stored @ 57th St Sanit Garage; can be picked up Weds This should be heartening news to book lovers like Rolling Stone?s Jeff Sharlett, who tweeted earlier that he saw the books being thrown in dumpsters, and OWS itself, which tweeted about the People?s Library being ?destroyed.? Ironically, the NYPD seems to have handled the books with more care than the actual protesters. As one person on Twitter put it, ?I guess this is like a kidnapper?s proof of life picture to show us our books are still alive.? For the rest of the stuff that was confiscated from OWS earlier today, keep checking back on the mayor?s office Twitter feed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. If you'd like to donate to News From Underground, please visit http://markcrispinmiller.com/donate - we appreciate your ongoing support. Ways to unsubscribe, 1) send a blank email to newsfromunderground+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. PLEASE NOTE: you must unsubscribe using the SAME email with which you subscribed; 2) go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:35:56 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:35:56 +0100 Subject: [THS] An Update from Zuccotti Park By Dave Kelley Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116143540.0419adf8@mail.messagingengine.com> OWS Survives the Eviction: An Update from Zuccotti Park By Dave Kelley http://www.planetarymovement.org/go/newsflash/ows-survives-the-eviction%3a--an-update-from-zuccotti-park-by-dave-kelley/ From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 14:39:45 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:39:45 +0100 Subject: [THS] High childhood IQ linked to subsequent illicit drug use Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116143843.06dbb540@mail.messagingengine.com> [It ain't my fault, my IQ made me do it!! -ths] High childhood IQ linked to subsequent illicit drug use November 15th, 2011 in Health A high childhood IQ may be linked to subsequent illegal drug use, particularly among women, suggests research published online in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The authors base their findings on data from just under 8,000 people in the 1970 British Cohort Study, a large ongoing population based study, which looks at lifetime drug use, socioeconomic factors, and educational attainment. The IQ scores of the participants were measured at the ages of 5 and 10 years, using a validated scale, and information was gathered on self reported levels of psychological distress and drug use at the age of 16, and again at the age of 30 (drug use only) . Drug use included cannabis; cocaine; uppers (speed and wiz); downers (blues, tanks, barbiturates); LSD (acid); and heroin. By the age of 30, around one in three men (35.4%) and one in six women (15.9%) had used cannabis, while 8.6% of men and 3.6% of women had used cocaine, in the previous 12 months. A similar pattern of use was found for the other drugs, with overall drug use twice as common among men as among women. When intelligence was factored in, the analysis showed that men with high IQ scores at the age of 5 were around 50% more likely to have used amphetamines, ecstasy, and several illicit drugs than those with low scores, 25 years later. The link was even stronger among women, who were more than twice as likely to have used cannabis and cocaine as those with low IQ scores. The same associations emerged between a high IQ score at the age of 10 and subsequent use of cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, multiple drug use and cocaine, although this last association was only evident at the age of 30. The findings held true, irrespective of anxiety/depression during adolescence, parental social class, and lifetime household income. "Although most studies have suggested that higher child or adolescent IQ prompts the adoption of a healthy lifestyle as an adult, other studies have linked higher childhood IQ scores to excess alcohol intake and alcohol dependency in adulthood," write the authors. Although it is not yet clear exactly why there should be a link between high IQ and illicit drug use, the authors point to previous research, showing that highly intelligent people are open to experiences and keen on novelty and stimulation. Other research has also shown that brainy children are often easily bored and suffer at the hands of their peers for being different, "either of which could conceivably increase vulnerability to using drugs as an avoidant coping strategy," explain the authors. Provided by British Medical Journal "High childhood IQ linked to subsequent illicit drug use." November 15th, 2011. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-11-high-childhood-iq-linked-subsequent.html From ths at psalience.org Wed Nov 16 17:02:45 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:02:45 +0100 Subject: [THS] !!!!!!! F. William Engdahl: SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111116164921.04448280@mail.messagingengine.com> [A note from THS newsletter] Here is more evidence that my previously stated certainty that the only global theory of world politics that can handle all the facts is this: The big-money and big-power clique in control of just about everything they CAN control has a conscious and wilfull agenda of genocide - radical population reduction. That, in fact, is the author's penultimate paragraph in the afterword: "Population reduction and genetically engineered crops were part of the same broad strategy: drastic targeted reduction of the world's population?genocide?the systematic elimination of entire population groups was the result of a wilful policy, promulgated under the name of "solving the world hunger problem." - F. William Engdahl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ copyright 2007 by Global Research Buy this book and read it! SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Chapter 14 The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl Chapter 14 Genetic Armageddon: Terminator and Patents on Pigs Monsanto Finally Takes Delta & Pine Land On a Summer day in August 2006, as much of the world was lost in vacation distractions, a corporate acquisition took place which was to set the stage for the final phase of the Rockefeller Foundation's decades-long dream of controlling the human species. On August 15, 2006, Monsanto Corporation, the Goliath of GMO agribusiness, announced that it had made a new bid to take ownership of Delta & Pine Land of Scott, Mississippi. The disclosed purchase price was $1.5 billion in cash.1 Unlike when it had tried the same ploy in 1999 and was forced to back down by a storm of public protest, this time the takeover went almost unnoticed. The timing of the second takeover bid by Monsanto coincided with statements by Delta & Pine Land as to when they would be ready to commercialize Terminator. The NGOs which had drawn attention to the Terminator issue in 1999 were hardly to be heard beyond a brief perfunctory press release or two. The Major US and international media ran the story under headlines similar to that in the New York Times: "Monsanto Buys Delta and Pine Land, Top Supplier of Cotton Seeds in US."2 Only far down in the last sentence of the article did the Times even note that Delta & Pine Land held "a controversial genetic engineering technology that makes sterile seeds." The once-vocal public voice of the Rockefeller Foundation was this time silent. In 1999, Foundation President, Gordon Conway, a passionate advocate of what he even dubbed the Gene Revolution, made a concerted intervention. He personally argued with the board of Monsanto that Delta & Pine Land's Terminator patents, in the hands of a giant GMO company like Monsanto, risked a public revolution against spread of GMO.3 This time around, the influential Rockefeller Foundation did not even bother to issue a press release opposing the planned second try to capture Terminator rights by Monsanto. Foundation Press Spokesman Peter Costiglio, in reply to a public question tersely replied: "We don't have a statement to share with you.... The Rockefeller Foundation still opposes the use of Terminator technology in developing (sic) countries."4 They declined to oppose Terminator universally, despite the fact that farmer-saved seeds are a major factor throughout the industrialized world as well. The general yawn of reaction to the second Terminator takeover bid by Monsanto tended to confirm the fears of skeptics who warned in 1999 that Monsanto's Terminator dreams had anything but "terminated." They were only dormant until public opposition had weakened. Wall Street stock traders greeted the takeover with jubilation and the price of stock of D&PL went ballistic from $27 a share in early August to over $40, a jump of more than 50% in days. Monsanto crop-biotech competitors DuPont and Swiss-based Syngenta, both in a bitter battle to gain market share from Monsanto, lobbied for Justice Department involvement to block the D&PL takeover by rival Monsanto. DuPont said in a statement, "we have serious concerns about the impact that it would have on farmers, the agriculture industry and ultimately consumers." Their "concern" appeared to be more directed at the staggering implications of Monsanto now controlling world rights for Terminator, a process aided and abetted by the US Government, through the cooperation of the US Department of Agriculture in Delta & Pine Land's Terminator research.5 EU Patent Office Approves Terminator In the intervening seven years since the first attempt by Monsanto to acquire Delta & Pine Land and its global Terminator patent rights, D&PL had not been idle. It had aggressively and successfully extended its patent rights on GURTs. In October 2005 Delta & Pine Land together with the US Department of Agriculture won a major new patent on its Terminator technology from the European Union's European Patent Office, Patent no. EP775212B. The patent would cover all 25 nations in the European Union from Germany to Poland and Italy to France, some of the world's most abundant food-producing regions. Several days later D&PL and the US Government also secured patent protection for its Terminator technology in Canada under CA 2196410. The advance of Terminator technology to global commercialization had hardly ceased despite the de facto worldwide UN ban imposed years before.6 The advent of GMO patented seeds on a commercial scale in the early 1990's had allowed companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow AgroSciences to go from supplying agriculture chemical herbicides like Roundup, to patenting genetically altered seeds for basic farm crops like corn, rice, soybeans or wheat. For almost a quarter century, since 1983, the US Government had quietly been working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. At the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group of the international Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations Environment Program in Granada in January 2006, a group of indigenous farmers from Peru filed a submission on their concerns over possible introduction of Terminator seed technology: "As traditional indigenous farmers we are united to defend our livelihoods which are dependant on seeds obtained from the harvest as a principal source of seed to be used in subsequent agricultural cycles. This tradition of seed conservation underpins Andean and Amazonian biodiversity and livelihood strategies, the traditional knowledge and innovation systems customarily administered by indigenous women who have made such biodiversity and livelihood strategies possible and indigenous cultural and spiritual values that honor fertility and continuity of life." Their petition to ban Terminator internationally argued several points cogently. Perhaps the most important was that on the danger to the biological diversity of hundreds of varieties of plants and crops. They argued: "Andean and Amazonian biodiversity, both domesticated and wild, is put at risk for contamination through gene flow from Terminator crops, and, as Terminator seeds would not be 100% sterile in the second generation, this risk is great. Indigenous farmers who save the seeds of contaminated varieties for replanting may find that a percentage of their seeds do not germinate, potentially translating into significant yield losses. Such contamination could cause farmers to lose trust in their own seed stock, turn their backs on traditional varieties, and increasingly depend on the purchase of Terminator varieties for harvest security so that they can guarantee at least one germination period. Similarly, the introduction of foreign genes into uncultivated varieties through gene flow from Terminator could irreversibly alter the wild varieties on which indigenous peoples have traditionally depended for important medicines and food. As a center of origin for potatoes, Peru is home to over 2,000 varieties of potatoes and is considered one of twelve megadiverse countries where 70% of the world's biodiversity resides. Biodiversity forms the basis of global food security and sovereignty for peoples and communities around the world. The spread of Terminator to indigenous agricultural systems in Peru could force indigenous farmers to abandon their traditional role as stewards of biodiversity and in doing so threaten current and future global food security. Considering that Terminator patents on potatoes have recently been claimed (Syrgenta, US Patent 6,700,039, March, 2004), the introduction of GURTs to Peru presents a high risk for irreparable contamination of this center of origin of potato."7 The Peruvian farmers also stressed that Terminator threatened traditional exchange of knowledge and invaluable experience among farmers: "Traditional knowledge and innovation systems of Andean and Amazonian indigenous peoples are built around seed saving and seed exchange between plant breeders, particularly as evidenced by the extensive crop and seed exchanges at the popular weekly barter markets in the communities of Qachin, Choquecancha, Lares and Wakawasi in the district of Lares. Terminator technology would have a concrete impact on these knowledge systems by jeopardizing the availability of fertile seeds for collective exchange and breeding. As a consequence of Terminator, the very processes of adaptive interaction between man and the climatically complex Andean and Amazonian ecosystems which has allowed for the evolution and current vitality of a highly specialized body of indigenous knowledge would be paralyzed."8 In fact, GURTs, more popularly referred to as Terminator seeds, were also a threat to the food security of North America, Western Europe, Japan and anywhere Monsanto and its elite cartel of GMO agribusiness partners entered a market.9 What few were aware of, however, was that the proliferation of deadly Terminator seeds might have already inadvertently been released as a result of a natural disaster. In August 2005, two of Delta & Pine Land's greenhouses were destroyed and eleven others were damaged by a tornado. Delta & Pine Land was testing Terminator seeds in greenhouses. The company declined to inform the public whether there were Terminator tests in the houses that were destroyed or what bio-safety risks, if any, might be posed. The event showed that even seemingly secure physical containment was vulnerable. It also may have unleashed a Terminator pollution plague on the world. That would take years to determine.10 Selling Seeds of Destruction Everywhere The Terminator deal closed the circle for Monsanto to emerge as the overwhelming monopolist of agricultural seeds of nearly every variety. A year before the Delta & Pine Land bid, Monsanto had paid more than $1.4 billion for a loss-making California GMO seed giant, Seminis. Seminis, active in the patenting of GMO seeds for fruit and vegetable varieties, was the world leader in marketing vegetable and fruit plant seeds. Seminis boasted at the time, "if you've had a salad, you've had a Seminis product."11 At the time Monsanto took it over, the company controlled over 40% of all US vegetable seeds sold and 20% of the world market. They supplied the genetics for 55% of all lettuce on US supermarket shelves, 75% of all tomatoes and 85% of all peppers, with large shares of spinach, broccoli, cucumbers, and peas. Their seeds, primarily sold to large supermarket chains, were also widely used by conventional and organic farmers.12 The purchase pushed Monsanto past rival, DuPont (Pioneer Seed), to create the world's largest seed company, first in vegetables and fruits, second in agronomic crops, and the world's third largest agrochemical company. With the final acquisition of Delta & Pine Land in 2007, Monsanto was moving itself into position to hold absolute control over the majority of the planet's agricultural seeds for plants. That was not sufficient however. They were also moving into a highly controversial genetic engineering and patenting of animal seeds. Patents on the Semen of Pigs and Bulls? In August 2005 researchers in Germany uncovered a European patent application by Monsanto Corporation which set off new alarm bells over the scope of the attempt by private agribusiness giants to control, patent and license the entire food supply of the planet. Monsanto had filed application for patent rights internationally with the World Intellectual Property Organization on what it claimed was its development through genetic engineering of a means to identify specific genes in pigs. Of course, the genes had come from semen provided by genetically-altered Monsanto-patented boars or male swine.13 Monsanto spokesperson, Chris Homer, claimed that the company merely wanted protection for its selective breeding processes, apparently a kind of eugenics for pigs, including the means to identify specific genes in pigs and use of a specialized insemination device. "We're talking about the process itself, Horner stated."14 The actual wording of the patent application refuted Horner's claims. In addition to seeking to patent pig breeding methods, Monsanto sought patent rights and hence, the right to collect license fees for "pig offspring produced by a method..." a "pig herd having an increased frequency of a specific ... gene..." a "pig population produced by the method...," and a "swine herd produced by a method ..." respectively.15 If accepted, these patents would grant Monsanto intellectual property rights to particular farm animals and particular herds of livestock. "Any pigs that would be produced using this reproductive technique would be covered by these patents," Horner admitted in a Reuters interview. The practices Monsanto wanted to patent involved identifying genes that result in desirable traits in swine, breeding animals to achieve those traits and using a specialized device to inseminate sows deeply in a way that uses less sperm than is typically required. "We've come up with a protocol that wraps a lot of these techniques together," said Monsanto swine molecular breeding expert Mike Lohuis.16 There were several techniques being used to genetically engineer animals. One method used viruses, particularly so-called retro-viruses, as "vectors" to introduce new genetic material into cells because they are naturally well equipped to infiltrate them. Retroviruses are a type of virus which replicates by integrating itself into the host DNA and is then copied with the host genetic material as the cell divides. A second method involves use of embryonic stem cells. To date however, despite many attempts to obtain ES cells from rats and farm animals, ES cells had only been isolated from some strains of mice. The technique allowed for more selective modification techniques with some control over the integration site. For example, modification can be targeted so that a transgene replaced the equivalent native gene or so that genes were "knocked out"?made ineffective by removal or disruption. A third technique was called "sperm mediated transfer." Genetically modified sperm was used as a vector for introducing foreign DNA into the egg. It had obvious attractions as artificial insemination of livestock and poultry was routine. These were the kinds of techniques being patented as fast as the GMO industry lawyers could file patent applications.17 1980 US Supreme Court Ruling The Rockefeller Foundation's decades long nurturing of the field of molecular biology, its financing of the project for sequencing of genomes and the development of cloning, had led biotech giants such as Monsanto or Cargill to spend huge sums of money to genetically modify animals. The companies were focussed on one goal: patents and license rights to the results. This constituted a radical and highly controversial arena for the battle for patenting life. The door had first been opened wide to recognition of such patents by the US Supreme Court. In 1980, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, declared that "anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable. The case concerned the patenting of genetically engineered bacteria that eat oil sludge. In 1987, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a pronouncement of the patentability, in principle, of non-human multi-cellular organisms that were not naturally occurring. It was followed by a landmark patent on the so-called "Harvard mouse" which was engineered to be susceptible to cancer.18 Monsanto was not alone in attempting to control entire animal genetic seed lines. In July 2006, Cargill Corporation of Minnesota, the world's largest agriculture trading company, and one of the dominating firms in beef, pork, turkey and broiler production and processing, applied for a patent, no. US 2007/0026493 A1, with the US Patent and Trademark Office. The application was titled, "Systems and Methods for Optimizing Animal Production using Genotype Information," and the application stated its purpose was to "optimize animal production based on the animal genotype information."19 Cargill had been engaged in a joint venture with Monsanto, Renessen Feed & Processing, near Chicago, to use advanced breeding techniques and transgenics for patented sorts of feedgrains, oilseeds and other crops.20 With stealth, system, and a well-supported campaign of lies and distortions, the four major GMO agribusiness giants?Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow?were moving towards the goal once dreamed of by Henry Kissinger as ultimate control: If you control the oil, you can control nations; if you control food, you control people." The relentless pursuit of global control over oil had been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Few realized that pursuit of Kissinger's second goal, control over food, was also well advanced and at a dangerous point for the future of the global population. Perhaps the most effective tool in the effort of the powerful and arrogant elites behind the spread of GMO agribusiness was their calculated cultivation of the dangerous myth that "science," in the abstract, is always "progress." This naive popular belief in the idea of scientific progress as axiom had been one of the essential tools in the process of taking control of world food as the end of the first decade of the new century neared. Notes 1. Monsanto Corporation, Monsanto Company to Acquire Delta and Pine Land Company for $1.5 Billion in Cash, Press Release, 15 August 2006, in http:// monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=211. 2. Andrew Pollack, "Monsanto Buys Delta and Pine Land, Top Supplier of Cotton Seeds in US", The New York Times, 16 August 2006. 3. See Chapter 12, endnote 9. for details. 4. Peter Costiglio, untitled email reply to author, 12 February 2007, and 9 February 2007. 5. See Chapter 12, endnote 12. 6. Cited in Lucy Sharatt, "The Public Eye Awards 2006: Delta & Pine Land", Ban Terminator Campaign, http://www.evb.ch/cm_data/NOM-DELTAPINE.pdf. 7. United Nations Development Program, The Convention on Biological Diversity, Fourth meeting, Granada, 23-27 January 2006, Potential Socio-economic Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (Gurts) on Indigenous and Local Communities, ii, Submissions from Indigenous and local communities, Indigenous Peoples of Cusco, Peru, http://www.biodiv.org. 8. Ibid. 9. F. William Engdahl, "Monsanto Buys 'Terminator' Seeds Company", Financial Sense Online, 28 August 2006, http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/eng-dahl/2006/0828.html. 10. WoodrowWilkins Jr.,"D&PL Storm Losses Top $1 Million", Delta Democrat Times, 30 August 2005. 11. Matthew Dillon, "And We Have the Seeds: Monsanto Purchases World's Largest Vegetable Seed Company", The Seed Alliance, http://www.seedalliance.org/ index.php?page=SeminisMonsanto, 24 January 2005. 12. Ibid. 13. Carey Gillam, "Crop King Monsanto Seeks Pig-Breeding Patent Clout", Reuters, 10 August 2005. 14. Jeff Shaw, "Monsanto Looks to Patent Pigs Breeding Methods", New Standard, 18 August 2005, http://newstandardnews.net. 15. Ibid. 16. Carey Gillam, op. cit. 17. Gene Watch UK, Techniques for the Genetic Modification of Animals, http://www.genewatch.org. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 11:59:48 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:59:48 +0100 Subject: [THS] Update: 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117115936.04384408@mail.messagingengine.com> _http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-a Update: 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials Rick Ellis&#039; photo Rick Ellis , Minneapolis Top News Examiner November 15, 2011 - Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates. Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies. The official, who spoke on background to me late Monday evening, said that while local police agencies had received tactical and planning advice from national agencies, the ultimate decision on how each jurisdiction handles the Occupy protests ultimately rests with local law enforcement. According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present. The FBI has so far failed to respond to requests for an official response, and of the 14 local police agencies contacted in the past 24 hours, all have declined to respond to questions on this issue. But in a recent interview with the BBC," Oakland Mayor Jean Quan mentioned she was on a conference call just before the recent wave of crackdowns began. "I was recently on a conference call of 18 cities who had the same situation, where what had started as a political movement and a political encampment ended up being an encampment that was no longer in control of the people who started them." At the time this story was updated, Mayor Quan's office had declined to discuss her comments. UPDATE: Wednesday, 2:40 p.m. CT. The White House is declining to comment publicly on the recent wave of 'Occupy' countdowns, and is pointing reporters to a brief statement made late yesterday on Air Foce One by presidential spokesperson Jay Carney. When asked about the crackdown in NYC, Carney told reporters on the plane that President Obama was "aware" of the events, but believed that each local municipality should make their own decisions on how to proceed: "We would hope and want, as these decisions are made, that it balances between a long tradition of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in this country, and obviously of demonstrating and protesting, and also the very important need to maintain law and order and health and safety standards, which was obviously a concern in this case." UPDATE: Wednesday, 12:45 p.m. CT. Speaking of Homeland Security, the department's Federal Protective Service (which is tasked with protecting federal buildings) has been spotted at a couple of 'Occupy' crackdowns, including one in Portland. UPDATE: Wednesday, 11:15 a.m. CT. Here are a couple of relevant links that are related to this story. Filmmaker Michael Moore was on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" last night talking about this very issue. Click here to see the video. The Associated Press has published a great piece on another set of conference calls about strategy, these organized by the Police Executive Research Forum. UPDATE: Wednesday, 10:10 am CT. I'm working on at least one new story for today, but I wanted to try and clear up a couple of questions I've gotten since this original story posted yesterday. I have a hunch that Mayor Quan might have been referring to a conference call between a number of U.S. mayors in her interview, not one with law enforcement officials. But that's just a hunch on my part, since her office has so far declined to offer any explanation of her comments to me. My original source for the story (who still works at the Justice Dept.) stands behind the original story and we're working to flesh it out in more detail today. I also have some other aspects of the story I'm working on as well. I'll post a link to my next story here or if you want to be automatically notified, subscribe to my feed here. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at rellisfall at gmail.com. Continue reading on Examiner.com Update: 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials - Minneapolis Top News | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies#ixzz1dvYWv9E8 From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 11:57:47 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:57:47 +0100 Subject: [THS] UPDATE: State of Seized Library Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117115709.04384698@mail.messagingengine.com> UPDATE: State of Seized Library http://peopleslibrary.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/update-state-of-seized-library-items/ . We?re getting our first report back from the folks who went to the Sanitation Garage. Mayor Bloomberg?s office tweeted: ?Property from #Zuccotti, incl #OWS library, safely stored @ 57th St Sanit Garage; can be picked up Weds? But it turns out, not surprisingly, that this was a lie. Our folks on the ground say: ?There are only about 25 boxes of books; many of the books are destroyed. Laptops here but destroyed. Can?t find tent or shelves.? Update 11:00am ?Many books destroyed. Most equipment -and structures missing. . . most of library is missing (ALL of the reference section btw), damaged or destroyed. ? Update 11:14am One of our librarians Zach came up with a partial list of what was taken (see below) and it?s looking like only a few boxes of books and our (destroyed) laptops and one chair were at Sanitation. Our people on the ground report that ?A lot is destroyed . . . more may (or may not) be coming out of their giant trashpile at back of building.? But it?s obvious to me that by recklessly throwing the contents of the park into dumpsters, the NYPD and DSNY working under Bloomberg?s orders destroyed what we built. And that their claim that the library was ?safely stored? was a lie. So Mayor Bloomberg: where is the People?s Library? Between 2,000 and 4,000 books (we?ll know if it looks right when we see it ), this includes five boxes of ?Reference? materials many of which were autographed by the authors; Our custom made ?OWS library stamps;? 5 (4?) laptop computers; Our wifi device; miscellaneous paper supplies; A round portable table; a rectangular portable table; 6 metal shelves (five of which had been set up in two pieces); three sets of wooden drawers; a periodicals spinning rack; Approximately 60 plastic tubs/bins of varying sizes (most small, but several big); archival materials (I was starting to collect some stuff in the library); posters (including many original posters created by OWS participants); two lamps; four solar lights; 7 (or so) chairs; a wooden dinner table (that was our?s right?); periodicals/newspapers/zines (not counted in our book total); our awesome tent; signage; personal belongings of librarians; http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/news/11162011/occupy-wall-street-library-regrows-manhattan The Occupy Wall Street Library Regrows in Manhattan What remains of the Occupy Wall Street Library, What remains of the Occupy Wall Street Library, as of the morning of November 16. Photo courtesy of the People?s Library blog Printer-friendly versionPrint ShareThis By Christian Zabriskie The People?s Library at Occupy Wall Street was destroyed in the early morning hours of November 15. Without warning or provocation hundreds of militarized New York police officers cleared the park starting at 1 a.m. The library was torn down in the dark of night and its books, laptops, archives, and support materials were thrown into dumpsters by armed police and city sanitation workers. Numerous library staff were arrested, and, in one case, a librarian strapped the notebooks of original poetry from the library?s poetry readings to her body before lending aid to comrades who had been pepper-sprayed. Prior to its destruction, the library had reached new levels of growth with laptops, a Wi-Fi hub, and a tent donated by author and rock legend Patti Smith and dubbed ?Fort Patti.? The library also had thousands of circulating volumes. Library staff rightfully prided themselves on their collection, the entirety of which was donated by private citizens and corporations for the general public good. The collection included the holy books of every faith, books reflecting the entire political spectrum, and works for all ages on a huge range of topics. These were thrown into dumpsters amidst tents, tables, blankets, and anything else on the Zuccotti Park site. Library staff were assured that they would be able to recover their materials from a city sanitation depot. Indeed, the firestorm of public hue and cry that followed the clearing of the park, the destruction of the library was the only aspect of the action to which the city directly responded. However, when library staff attempted to collect the library?s property on the morning of November 16, they found the laptops smashed, much of the collection missing, and many of the books that were recovered damaged beyond recovery. The damage to the library?s archives of zines, writings, art, and original works is devastating and irreparable. Protesters were allowed back into Zuccotti Park less than 24 hours after they were cleared out, following a variety of legal decisions. The library was immediately restarted with a half a dozen paperbacks. Within two hours the collection was up to over 100 volumes and the library was fully functioning?cataloging, lending, and providing reference services. ?The library is still open? was repeated like a mantra. ?This is why I became a librarian, this is why I went to library school,? Library Working Group member Zachary Loeb said of the rebuilding. He was also quick to point out that, while he had helped to build and maintain the collection knowing full well that the park would probably be cleared eventually, the manner in which it was done hit him hard. Tents and tarps are strictly forbidden in Zuccotti Park now. During the reoccupation on the evening of November 15, it started to rain so library staff put a clear plastic trash bag over the collection. Within minutes a detail of about 10 police descended and demanded that the covering be removed because they deemed the garbage bag to be a tarp. There were a few tense minutes as staff tried to convince them otherwise, but ultimately it was removed?leaving the collection open to the elements. As the police withdrew, scores of people chanted ?BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS.? There was still concern that the park might be cleared again that night, and one officer made it clear that ?unclaimed property will be removed and disposed of? in reference to the collection. Library staff quickly set up umbrellas over the bulk of the books and began sending librarians home with bags of books to keep the collection safe in remote locations. Nonetheless, the library remains open. Zuccotti Park looks very different now. The various stations for food, information, comfort, first aid, and the like had created a village atmosphere. Now all of that has been cleared away, the park is practically just another sterile stretch of stone in the city. ?You can clear the tents but you cannot clear the people? has become a new OWS slogan. Within hours of the park reopening, and despite strict access and security protocols, more than 1,000 people were there for the first General Assembly and their claps and shouts echoed off the skyscrapers around the site. Amidst it all, there was also a functioning library, a small one under fire, but a library just the same. While the future of the Wall Street occupation is unclear, these protesters still believe in what libraries offer everyone. For these activists ?The library is open? has become a battle cry. CHRISTIAN ZABRISKIE is the founder of Urban Librarians Unite and coauthor of Grassroots Library Advocacy: A Special Report (ALA Editions, 2012). Ed. note: Late Wednesday morning, the Occupy movement launched Occupy Educated, explaining the action as ?an emergency response to the destruction of the library at Occupy Wall Street, a clear attempt to destroy the education of passionate people who are tired of living in a deeply flawed system. Razing libraries and burning books has historically failed every time; this will be the most colossal failure to repress education in history, because the education will not be centralized.? American Libraries, Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:05 From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 13:39:13 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:39:13 +0100 Subject: [THS] Monsanto, Bayer and Dow face trial for 'systematic human rights abuses' Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117133839.04384030@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1122020/monsanto_bayer_and_dow_face_trial_for_systematic_human_rights_abuses.html Monsanto, Bayer and Dow face trial for 'systematic human rights abuses' THE ECOLOGIST Matilda Lee 16th November, 2011 Permanent Peoples' Tribunal accuses biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF of promoting dangerous pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids The world's major agrochemical companies, Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF, will face a public tribunal in early December accused of systematic human rights violations. They are accused of violating more than 20 instruments of international human rights law through promoting reliance on the sale and use of dangerous and unsafe pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids. The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (PPT), an international opinion tribunal created in 1979, will hear expert testimony from scientists, medical doctors and lawyers to prove the charges. Victims who have been injured by these products - from farmers, farmworkers, mothers and consumers from around the world - will also testify to the causes and nature of their injuries. The cases will be heard over a four-day trial in Bangalore, India beginning December 3. While the Tribunal has no legal weight, and cannot force sanctions on companies, it aims to expose and raise awareness of large-scale human rights violations. Pesticides Action Network (PAN) International, a global network comprised of 600 organisations in 90 countries, has spent years collecting information to bring about the indictments and is seeking justice for more than 25 specific cases - such as Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-old from Paraguay who died days after breathing in a cloud of Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide sprayed by a crop duster. The trial will also hear evidence of the link between pesticide use and a decline in bees. The corporations, known as the 'Big 6' control 74 per cent of the global pesticide market, as well as dominating the global seed market. Bayer reject the allegations saying they are a, 'wholesale distortion of the role of pesticides in our society.' Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow, after being contacted by the Ecologist, were unavailable for comment. Pesticide poisonings An estimated 355,000 people are believed to die each year from unintentional toxic chemical poisoning, according the World Health Organization, many of these from use or exposure to pesticides and other agrochemicals. Nick Mole from PAN UK said the trial would give a voice to the otherwise voiceless victims of pesticides. ?The pesticide industry is massive and incredibly powerful. It is difficult to prove corporate manslaughter even when these products are killing hundreds of people a year,' he says. ?We've spoken to people who have been abused and we are allowing them to give voice to their individual stories. We will be presenting the outcome of the Tribunal to the corporations and will be inviting their response,' he says. It is hoped that the verdict, to be delivered on December 6, will lead to greater discussions at UN institutions on holding agrochemical corporations accountable for crimes relating to the impact of their products. Peoples' Tribunal The PPT grew out of the work by Italian Senator Lelio Basso, and serves as a grassroots, ad hoc court to consider charges and to issue verdicts on complaints of human rights violations submitted by victims or their representative groups. Since 1979, the PPT has held 35 sessions exposing various forms of human rights abuses in cases from the Bhopal disaster, Tibet sovereignty and the intervention of the US in Nicaragua. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 13:42:01 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:42:01 +0100 Subject: [THS] Dylan Ratigan/Greg Palast: How Goldman Sacked Greece Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117134109.063c48a8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-goldman-sacked-greecedylan.html [Video] How Goldman Sacked Greece Dylan Ratigan/Greg Palast fal2grace on Nov 15, 2011 MSNBC?Nov. 15, 2011?From the Dylan Ratigan Show. BBC Investigatiave Journalist Greg Palast discusses how Goldman Sachs ruined the Greek economy. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 13:59:24 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:59:24 +0100 Subject: [THS] !!! The American Legal System: A Ball Game Played by Lawyers and Jurists Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117135134.04bf9e48@mail.messagingengine.com> The American Legal System: A Ball Game Played by Lawyers and Jurists The Why of Not Doing the Right Thing By Prof. John Kozy URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27684 Global Research, November 15, 2011 The unfairness of American society is being recognized by many. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say they don't trust their government; Congress has a mere 9% approval rating; America's financial institutions are widely considered to be corrupt; the Occupy movement has emerged, some are seeking to enact an amendment to the Constitution to undo the Court's decision in Citizen's United. But not doing the right thing, unfairness, injustice has deep roots in America. Oliver Wendell Holmes once confirmed that fairness or justice is not the concern of the Supreme Court. Only playing the game according to the rules is. Since the Court cannot be relied upon to "do the right thing," why should anyone believe that any American institution can be counted on to do it? What is required is a complete overhaul of the legal system. Half a century ago, I served on a commission in the state of North Carolina which was tasked with revising the state's criminal code. The commission was comprised of law school professors, prominent judges, and practicing attorneys. We were appointed by the state's newly elected attorney general who had hoped that the commission would improve the law in substantive ways that would reduce the injustice that had been written into statutes and case law. He and I both quickly learned, however, that the members of the legal community on the commission were not about to do that; they insisted that no changes be made that would burden the legal community by requiring it to relearn even parts of the code and adjust practices and procedures accordingly. As a result, all that was done was that some ambiguous sentences were rewritten to be less ambiguous and some outdated diction was changed to more modern locutions. Chalk one up for changeless change. If the law was unjust, well, it was left so. Now it is being reported that when fairness and the law collide, Justice Alito is troubled: "the Supreme Court considered the case of Cory R. Maples, a death row inmate in Alabama whose lawyers had missed a deadline to file an appeal. 'Mr. Maples lost his right to appeal,' Justice Alito said, 'through no fault of his own. . . . But a ruling for Mr. Maples,' Justice Alito continued, 'could require the court to adopt principles that would affect many, many cases and would substantially change existing law.' He said he was reluctant to impose new burdens on government officials and to allow clients to second-guess their lawyers' decisions in order to provide relief to Mr. Maples." Notice how easy it is for Mr. Alito to justify denying Mr. Maples justice because of a "reluctance to impose new burdens on government officials." My, my, those poor overburdened governmental officials! Does their need for protection from their being overburdened trump a plaintiff's need for just treatment? Apparently so. The Court's justices claim that "error correction" in particular cases is not their function but that the Court's task is to "establish legal principles that will apply in countless cases." But the Constitution never tasks the judicial system with that function, although it does direct not only the Court but the nation to "establish Justice." Furthermore, if the establishment of legal principles were the Count's primary function, after almost two and a half centuries, one would expect to have on hand a list or booklet of such principles that have been established. But no such booklet or list exists. Establishing legal principles is not what the court does. To understand what the Court does do, see my piece, The Supreme Court's "Make Believe Law." Cases such as Cory R. Maples, Petitioner v. Kim T. Thomas, Interim Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections where a conflict exists between some legal principle and justice are not rare. At the present time several such cases are before the Court: a Georgia case about whether government officials are protected from civil lawsuits even if they tell lies that lead grand juries to vote for indictments, and an appeal from Charles Rehberg who was indicted three times involving charges that he harassed doctors affiliated with a politically connected south Georgia hospital system. After the third indictment was dismissed even before a trial, Rehberg sued local prosecutors and their investigator, James Paulk arguing that Paulk's false grand jury testimony led to the indictments. In two other cases, the Court has shown little enthusiasm for reopening the cases of criminal defendants who lost good plea deals because of bad advice or bungling by their lawyers. At issue is whether to extend the right to competent legal advice to plea deals. Most of the justices seem to be reluctant to give defendants a new trial or a shorter prison term because a lawyer's mistake caused them to miss out on a favorable plea. Most people, I suspect, would say that it is unfair, and in a legal context unjust, to penalize someone for someone else's mistakes. But not the Court. Fairness or justice is not it's concern as Oliver Wendell Holmes once confirmed: In a 1958 lecture, Judge Learned Hand, a towering presence on the federal appeals court in New York, recalled saying goodbye to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. as the justice left for the Supreme Court. "I wanted to provoke a response," Judge Hand said, so as he walked off, I said to him: "Well, sir, goodbye. Do justice!" Justice Holmes gave a sharp retort: ?That is not my job. My job is to play the game according to the rules." Well, there you have it, plain and simple, straight from a horse's mouth. The American legal system is nothing but a game played by lawyers and jurists to rules they have made up themselves. Justice, fairness, doing the right thing, has nothing to do with it. How could this ever have come about? Well, it happened a long time ago. In 1803, the Court issued what is often referred to as a "landmark" decision that is a paradigm for the Court's unjust opinions. William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered, petitioned the Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver it. Although the Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, held that Marbury had a right to the commission, the petition was denied. Marshall held that the part of the statute upon which Marbury based his claim was unconstitutional. So here, in this "landmark" case, the Court denies a plaintiff what he is entitled to. No justice here! Of course, Marshall provided an argument, but it is entirely specious. What this case is most famous for is not what was done to Marbury but for what the Court did to the Constitution. This case was used by the Court to establish its superiority over the other two branches of the government. Marshall claimed that, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is," thus establishing what is known as the doctrine of judicial review in American jurisprudence. However, nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly or even implicitly grants that power to the Court. There is much dispute over the origins of the doctrine, but it certainly can be traced to England in the 1600s, a time when the Monarch was supreme and the legislature was subordinate. But the English abolished this practice in the Glorious Revolution (1688) when the idea that courts could declare statutes void was abolished as King James II was removed and the elected Parliament declared itself supreme. The Glorious Revolution began modern English parliamentary democracy; never since has the monarch held absolute power, but Marshall introduced this anti-democratic practice into America by making the Court's decisions absolute. There is no procedure for voiding them. So John Marshall destroyed democracy in America a century after the principle he relied upon was removed from English law as the English progressed toward becoming a democracy. Marshall gave America the monarchial legal system of England that was in effect in the 1600s, and since the American constitution presented no easy way to overturn this decision, America has been stuck with a 17th Century legal system ever since. The backwardness of American society was insured in 1803. Marshall usurped the young nation's constitution and made the United States into just another reactionary seventeenth century European authoritarian society adorned with the trappings of democracy. At that moment, America's fate as a failed state was assured, if success is measured by the goals set forth for the nation in the Constitution's Preamble. Marshall knew this, of course. He knew that he and his colleagues on the Court could rule any way they wanted to and nothing could be done about it. They could just as easily have granted Marbury's petition and justified it on the grounds of having to "establish justice." But they didn't! In a sense, what the Court did can be viewed as unconstitutional. This decision opened the door for the Court's long history of unjust and spuriously argued opinions issued by people, such as Louis Powell and the members of the current Court, with personal agendas. These decisions stand only because no method of rejecting them exists. So the Court cannot be relied upon to ever "do the right thing." It will always do merely what the majority of the Court's justices want to. A long line of justices have used this power to write their own predilections and opinions into American case law, a result of which is a plethora of unjust principles embedded in American jurisprudence which results in the injustices being repeated over and over. So not doing the right thing, unfairness, injustice has deep roots in America. And since that is so, why should anyone believe that any American institution can be counted on to do the right thing if the courts cannot? The unfairness of American society is being recognized by many. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say they don't trust their government; Congress has a mere 9% approval rating; America's financial institutions are widely considered to be corrupt; some are seeking to enact an amendment to the Constitution to undo the Court's decision in Citizen's United. But the overturning one decision will not ameliorate no less solve America's problem with unfairness. It requires a complete overhaul of the legal system. What's most difficult to understand, however, is why no one respected in the legal community will stand up and say, "It's wrong"! Where are the deans of our law schools, our eminent legal scholars, our judges, our practicing attorneys? Why have none either the moral courage or the intellectual honesty to stand up for "doing the right thing"? Is a legal education so brain washing that these people have no minds of their own? (If you want an example of the type of student that is attracted to law, read, Massachusetts Law Professor Calls Care Packages for U.S. Troops 'Shameful'. The framers of the Constitution wanted to insure that the government created by it could never become strong enough to become tyrannical. They sought to put checks and balances on the branches of government; however, they neglected to place a check on the Court and the Court's justices quickly used that failure to become an absolute oligarchy whose opinions could not be overturned. They became James II puppets. The only way to correct this problem is to place a check on the Court's power, not overturn a decision here or there. The Court's power needs to be limited. I can think of at least a half dozen ways of doing that, but I suspect that the most effective would be by giving the American people the power to reject Court decisions by means of referenda. Such a practice would put the power right in the hands of the people; thus, not only limiting the Court's power but enriching American democracy at the same time. Marbury v Madison would be undone. What this piece presents is not especially new. Thoughtful people have known it since Marbury v. Madison was promulgated. Thomas Jefferson knew it immediately, and said so. Was he the only true patriot America ever had? It's certainly possible. John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage. 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 John Kozy, Global Research, 2011 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27684 ? Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia ? Copyright 2005-2007 From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 14:13:24 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:13:24 +0100 Subject: [THS] Was George H.W. Bush Involved in Assassination of JFK? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117140850.04384030@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-george-h-w-bush-involved-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/ [several illustrations at url above] Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Fetzer Was George H.W. Bush Involved in Assassination of JFK? George Herbert Walker Bush was there by Jim Fetzer and John Hankey Perhaps the strongest case implicating George H.W. Bush (#41) in the assassination of JFK has been presented by John Hankey, an independent student of the crime, who has produced several documentaries laying out the case against him, the latest of which is ?The Dark Legacy?. John has become very controversial, especially on the basis of attacks launched against him by an organization called ?CITKA?, which has published a severe critique authored by one Seamus Coogan. While I do not believe that Hankey has everything right?in particular, his skepticism about the identity of a man seen standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository does not appear to be justified nor do his doubts about Fletcher Prouty?s identification of USAF Gen. Edward Lansdale in a photograph of ?the three tramps?, which was confirmed by no less a personage than Gen. Victor Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, where other photos show the same man having walked up to George H.W. Bush, which, ironically, is about the strongest possible confirmation of Hankey?s thesis that anyone could want?he has been on the right track. Lansdale was famous in the CIA for his skill at arranging assassinations, where many of us believe that he organized the actual execution that took place in Dealey Plaza. In CITKA?s critique, ?The Dark Legacy of John Hankey?, however, Seamus Coogan commits so many serious blunders in his discussion of the assassination that anyone less familiar with the eddies and currents of JFK research might suspect it was a work of disinformation. Since the CITKA site is supervised by Jim DiEugenio, I should observe that I have not been uniformly impressed by his own research on JFK. He published a well-regarded book on Jim Garrison, Destiny Betrayed (1992), and co-edited Assassinations (2003) with Lisa Pease, which reprinted many excellent essays that had previously been published in PROBE, the journal of CITKA. But I have found his work on other matters highly uneven, including, in particular, his defense of the research by Jefferson Morley and David Talbot into the revelations by Shane O?Sullivan, which substantiated the identification of three persons at the Ambassador Hotel the evening that Bobby was shot, which I have discussed in detail in ?RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador?. Even on the basis of my mixed experience with them in the past, I have been surprised by the blunders that are committed in the course of their critique of Hankey?s work. Here I will illustrate with three. (1) Coogan faults him for reporting 6 or 7 wounds That there be no doubt of what Coogan is claiming, I will cite the specific passages vertatim: 18:43 Hankey tries to sell the idea that, in all, there were 6 wounds in Kennedy and Connally. Yet you may recall that at the time of 14:23 Hankey had already utilised the iconic courtroom clip from ?JFK? in which Garrison (Kevin Costner) utilises Alven Oser (Gary Grubbs) and Numa Bertel (Wayne Knight) to demonstrate the trajectory of the 7 wounds in both Kennedy and Connally. Hankey somehow missed the fact that, most of the time, entrance wounds leave exits. But JFK had an entry wound to his throat (#1), an entry wound to his back 5.5? below his collar just to the right of the spinal column (#2), an entry at the back of his head in the vicinity of the external occipital protuberance (#3), and another entry in the vicinity of his right temple (#4), while Gov. John Connally was hit at least once in the back (#5) and perhaps as many as twice more, once in the right wrist (#6) and once in his left thigh (#7). While there is room to argue that (#7) may have resulted from (#6), even then there are 6 or 7 hits?plus we know that 3 other shots missed! The evidence can be found in Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), but more effortlessly in ?Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK??, for example, which is easily accessible on-line. For Coogan to imply that Hankey is wrong strikes me as a rather important blunder. These shots were fired from in front, from the side, and from behind. Lansdale walking past "the three tramps" (2) Coogan assumes that the Zapruder film is authentic In another passage, Coogan takes for granted that the Zapruder film is authentic as a resource: You may be asking: ?So what if Connally had used the incorrect term, and anyhow Hankey did eventually admit Kennedy slumped.? Well actually it?s quite an issue. Because Hankey uses the slump to launch into a diatribe about Connally seeing Kennedy ?choking on a bullet and being shot in the head? when there is no evidence for this on the Zapruder film. As adjudged by the Z film, everybody in the world ? except Hankey ? can clearly determine that Connally only gives Kennedy a brief glance. And he is clearly turning back around at the time of the fatal headshot. But the proofs that the film has been reconstructed to remove the limo stop and conceal the blow-out to the back of JFK?s head is abundant and compelling. I organized the first symposium on Zapruder film alteration at the Lancer Conference in Dallas in 1996 and have published a book and many articles about it, including ?JFK: Who?s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?? and ?US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication? on Veterans Today. The Zapruder camera used a 16mm strip of celluloid by shooting the ?A? side and then flipping over to shoot the ?B? side. To be projected in an 8mm projector, it had to be split and spliced together. But an 8mm split film developed in Dallas was brought to NPIC in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, 23 November, while a 16mm unsplit film developed in Rochester was brought there the following day. There are five physical differences between the original and the extant version. As though that were not enough, Clint Hill has been describing his actions that day the same way for 47 years, including rushing forward, climbing on the limo, pushing Jackie down and lying across their bodies while peering down into a massive, fist-sized hole in the back of JFK?s head, then turning to his colleagues and giving them a ?thumb?s down? before the vehicle reaches the Triple Underpass?yet none of this is in the extant film. Anyone who compares frame 374, in which that blow-out can be seen, with frames following 313 can determine for themselves that it has been blackened out in earlier frames. And Connally also reported in his early testimony that he looked over his right shoulder to see what was going on, but then turned back to his left to get a better view when he felt a doubling-up in his chest from a shot fired from the side. Which means that Connally?s own testimony provides another proof of Zapruder fakery. Those who write without understanding this much about these things appear to be either incompetent or dissembling. (3) Coogan denies the body was secretly removed from the plane The occurrence of body alteration has been established by the meticulous research of David S. Lifton, Best Evidence (1980), which has now been corroborated?in spades!?by the ARRB, as Douglas Horne, who served as its Chief Analyst for Military Records, has demonstrated in his five-volume study, Inside the ARRB (2009). That, however, does not inhibit Coogan from taking Hankey to task over the prospect that JFK?s body was secretly removed from Air Force One while the official, ceremonial bronze casket was being off-loaded under the glare of the bright lights of the national new media. He is thus moved to make observations such as the following: Lansdale waiting to speak with Bush I have to wonder how many people have ever watched the arrival of Kennedy?s coffin? It?s virtually impossible for anything to have gone on. Now while the runway suddenly goes black and there is mention of a power cut as the plane comes in, the plane is still very much in motion when the lights are restored making it pretty hard to disembark a ton worth of casket. What most authorities believe today is that there was post-autopsy fakery in the x-rays, and perhaps the photos. And clearly, some of the photos are missing. (See for example, Gary Aguilar?s excellent essay in Murder In Dealey Plaza, pgs. 175-218) But the throat wound, which was described as a small, round wound of entry by Malcolm Perry, M.D., three times during the Parkland Press Conference at Parkland Hospital, which I published as Appendix C in Assassination Science (1998) but was not provided to the Warren Commission, is very different than the large, ragged wound photographed during the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, as I display in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), page 14 (but also in my public presentations). Perhaps the most stunning indication of the incompetence of Coogan, however, is his favorable citation of the chapter by Gary Aguilar in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). Aguilar?s study is devoted to demonstrating consistency between the observations of the massive blow-out at the back of the head as it was observed at Parkland and the descriptions of the wound as they were reported from Bethesda. We know from Horne?s work that Aguilar has exaggerated their consistency, since James Humes, USN-MC, who was in charge of the autopsy, actually took a cranial saw to the head to enlarge the wound. More importantly, however, is that, if Aguilar were right, then the film has to have been altered, since the blow-out he documents is not visible in most of the film. As I have explained to others who have wanted to endorse Aguilar?s work while denying that the film has been altered, you can?t consistently do both. If Aguilar is right, then the film is fake; and if the film is authentic, then Aguilar is wrong. There are other blunders in Coogan?s critique, including his taking at face value Richard Nixon?s contentions that he only learned of the assassination when he arrived in New York?of which he gave several versions, one of which was that ?Nixon says he heard a screaming woman, stopped the cab, and wound down the window?. But if the window was up, how could Nixon have heard the woman scream? And surely screaming is not so uncommon in New York that it would have attracted the attention of this very self-centered and devious man. Like Bush and LBJ, Nixon was also complicit in the assassination of JFK. I am not saying that Seamus Coogan got everything wrong or that John Hankey got everything right. But I do believe that the role of George Herbert Walker Bush in the assassination of JFK is a subject that deserves a great deal more attention than it has received in the past and which, I must infer, it most certainly is not going to receive from Jim DiEugenio and Seamus Coogan. And this, in turn, makes me think that, when CITKA was being formed, my decision not to join was wiser than I could have known at the time. I am increasingly disturbed by the role it has taken in suppressing what we know about the medical evidence, including the alteration of the body, and the Zapruder film, which has been massively revised. If those who run CITKA can?t get even the most basic of our important scientific findings about the assassination right, then it is hardly surprising that they are going to trash those who are doing decidedly better than they are at pursuing the truth about JFK. It Never Ends ? MORE Startling Evidence of Bush in Dallas by John Hankey I don?t think we are much encouraged to see History as science. Quite the opposite, actually. And of course, that?s all politics. The winners write history, and the truth be damned. Even science can have trouble trying to act like science when political issues are involved, as we see with evolution, tobacco-and-cancer, and global warming. But I think History does have a lot in common with physical science. For example, I can remember when ?Continental Drift?, the idea that Africa and America were once stuck together, was very much considered ?just a theory?; ridiculed by some, and regarded with amusement by many, and promulgated as likely by a tiny minority. But as time goes by, the evidence accumulates; and the meaning of old evidence begins to settle in; and ideas that were once considered outrageous gradually get worn in and start to be regarded as obvious common sense. Part of this process is the continual accumulation of new evidence. New pieces are added to the puzzle and the picture becomes more clear. And sometimes the hidden meaning of old evidence, that has been lying around for years, suddenly jumps out. Evidence of the fossils and minerals that can be found on the east coast of Africa, and on the west coast of Brazil, may have been lying around for years, before someone decided to look and see if they matched, and found that they did; and proved conclusively that west Africa and Brazil were once attached. With regard to George HW Bush and the murder of John Kennedy, Joseph McBride found this memo in 1988: J. Edgar memo mentioning "George Bush" FBI director J. Edgar Hoover wrote this memo 5 days after the assassination, naming George Bush as a CIA officer. The last, and most crucial paragraph, is very hard to read. The following is a transcription: ?The substance of the forgoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. V.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.? When it was first released in 1978, George Bush was an obscure bureaucrat, a virtual unknown. So when the best researchers on the planet saw this memo in 1978, they didn?t pay much attention to it. When Bush became vice president two years later, no one was able to connect his now well-known name to this obscure memo. But when Joseph McBride was messing around in 1988, Bush was running for president; and when McBride saw the memo, he jumped up and shouted ?Hey, this memo is about Bush! It says he was in the CIA, way back in 1963!? And for the longest time, the focus was on this simple isolated fact: that Hoover said Bush was in the CIA in ?63. Bush said the memo must be referring to another ?George Bush,? because he wasn?t in the CIA at that time. But over the years, people were able to assemble the facts from Bush?s personal life, showing his deep involvement with the CIA at that time, and with the CIA?s anti-Castro Cubans (in the memo, Hoover calls them ?misguided anti-Castro Cubans?). And over time, it has become undeniable; that Hoover was referring, in his memo, to none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. And for a while, that was it. End of story. RUSH TO JUDGMENT (2nd edition, 1992) But the title of this Hoover memo is, ?Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy?. Isn?t that important? Well, you?d think so. But for the longest time, no one made much out it. Besides, Hoover scarcely mentions the assassination in the memo, instead focusing on these ?misguided anti-Castro Cubans.? The body of the memo does not appear, at first, to be in any way related to the title of the memo ?the assassination of President John F Kennedy?. But then Mark Lane, in Rush to Judgment , did the fabulous work of demonstrating, and in fact persuading a jury, that E. Howard Hunt, a major lieutenant in the CIA?s ?misguided anti-Castro Cuban? program, was in Dallas and involved in the assassination. With this background?with this framework to guide the researcher?it was then possible to assemble the evidence linking Bush to Hunt. People might have taken some notice before that Bush made the unusual request, as Nixon?s ambassador to the UN, to be given an office in the White House. They may have noticed that Hunt, although he was not being paid by anyone in the White House, or answering to anyone that we know of in the White House, also had a White House office. But with the Hoover memo in hand, establishing Bush as a supervisor of the CIA?s ?misguided anti-Castro Cuban? operation, it is possible to connect Bush to Hunt at the Bay of Pigs. With this memo in hand, it is possible to connect Bush and Hunt as two CIA operatives with offices inside the White House. With this memo in hand, it is possible to answer who it was that Hunt answered to inside the White House; and how he got the office in the first place. And with all that, it is possible to connect Bush to Hunt, and therefore to Dallas, to Hunt in Dallas, and to the ?misguided anti-Castro Cuban? assassins of John Kennedy. Which is what Hoover did for us when he wrote the title of the memo. Little by little, the pieces start to fall into place. And pieces that in isolation meant nothing, become key parts of a whole picture. But even so, this is not a rock-solid connection: Hunt was directly involved in the murder of JFK. And Bush supervised Hunt. But Bush probably supervised a lot of CIA people, not all of whom were directly involved in the assassination. A high-ranking officer may be connected to all of the acts of all of his troops, by reason of his being their commander. But it?s not a direct connection. It doesn?t establish that the officer knew about, or approved of, or was involved in, all the actions of those troops. Enter FBI memo # 2: Another memo about George Bush, "an independent oil man from Houston" It will come up again in a minute, so please read the first line carefully. Bush identifies himself to the FBI as an independent oil man from Houston. This memo establishes that sort of direct connection between Bush and Hunt, in Dallas, on the day of the assassination. This memo records Bush?s phone call to the FBI, precisely an hour and fifteen minutes after the assassination. When I first encountered this memo, and when I first put it into my movie, JFK II, I simply called it ?weird?. I saw it only in isolation, a weird, isolated connection between Bush and the assassination. It took me years to see it in context. That is, to see that this phone call demonstrates, clearly, that George Bush, was on duty that day. He was staying at the Dallas Sheraton because his duty assignment was in Dallas. His phone call to the FBI cannot have been random. This James Parrott worked for Bush as a sign-painter; he was not an assassin; this phone call is not what it purports to be; Bush was fulfilling some obscure under-cover function in making this call. So the phone call has to be seen as part of his CIA assignment; which was clearly connected to the assassination. This memo then establishes that Bush was in the Dallas area, and on duty; and that his duty assignment was connected to the assassination. And if his men were in Dallas shooting the President, as they were, he was certainly on duty supervising them. If he were not supposed to be supervising them, his bosses would have assigned him to be at his home office in Houston, Texas; or on his oil rigs in the Caribbean. But, even in context, this memo and the phone call it describes is still weird, no? I mean, how could Bush have been so stupid as to make this insanely incriminating phone call? Without this FBI memo, recording this phone call, we don?t know, or even have a good clue as to where Bush was, or what he was doing the day of the assassination. Do we? Bush has, until recently, simply said that he did not remember what he was doing the day of the assassination. But with this memo, Bush tells us where he was and what he was doing ? he hands us his head on a silver platter. What could possibly have motivated him to make such a stupid error as making this phone call to the FBI? It?s a valid question. It?s not an essential question. We can still value this memo, and extract a great deal of important content from it without answering the question of why, but the question remains. Why the phony phone call? And we can make a stab at answering it. Russ Baker in his fine book, Family of Secrets, suggests that Bush was attempting to establish an alibi. Now, by making this phone call, he, in fact, establishes that he was in the Dallas area, and that he was on duty, related to the assassination. So if he?s trying to establish an alibi to cover-up where he actually was and what he was actually doing, what he is trying to cover up must be some pretty bad stuff, some pretty incriminating stuff, if it?s worse than what he gives us with this alibi. And what could be worse than what he gives us? Well, obviously, he must have actually been in Dallas. In fact, I think, this situation suggests he must have actually been in Dealey Plaza. I mean seriously. Think about it. He?s so panicked about the truth coming out, that he puts his head in a noose and hands it to us. It makes me think he must have been in Dealey Plaza, he must have been in the company of the shooters, and he must have felt that there would be evidence to prove that. We?re just speculating at the moment. We?ll get to the evidence right now, but I?m trying to set the scene. If a guilty party is in a panic, trying to cover evidence connecting them to a crime, they may invent an explanation, or an alibi, that seems like a good idea at the time; but that in fact constitutes a very damaging admission. Anyway, stew on that while you consider this photo: A familiar figure on 22 November 1963 You see this tall thin man in a suit, with a receding hair line. Many people claim this is Bush, standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. And it might be. It might be a lot of people. And perhaps, when he called the FBI and incriminated himself, Bush was concerned that he might show up in a better picture than this, where he was positively recognizable, looking towards the camera. Personally, I don?t think this photo looks much like Bush; and in fact, I didn?t think he?d be stupid enough to just be hanging around the murder scene. I thought he was sufficiently high ranking that he?d leave such on-scene stuff to his underlings. Right? At least in my mind, if you?re an officer like Bush, you?re the coach. You plan, you train and prepare your people, and then you stand back and watch it happen. Or so I thought. Fletcher Prouty was certain that he saw pictures of Ed Lansdale, a military operative of the highest rank, signaling to the ?tramps? arrested behind the grassy knoll to ?be cool,? that everything was alright. Hunt was a high-ranking CIA officer, chief of the CIA?s Mexico station; and his son says he is one of the ?tramps? who show up in several photos of men who were arrested behind the grassy knoll. So, some of the highest ranking members of the killers? operation were apparently there, on the front line, to make sure that when things went wrong, as they inevitably do, these high ranking officers could be there to fix whatever the problem was. So, given that high- and low- ranking CIA officers were present, this photo of this thin man in a suit might, indeed, be Bush. It?s possible. Shooters at the Dal-Tex And now, look at this picture of the Dal-Tex building. The Dal-Tex building is across the street from the Book Depository, and many leading researchers into the assassination, including Jim Garrison, say there was certainly a team of shooters in this building: Altgens photo with close-up of Dal-Tex window Colorized version of blow-up of the Dal-Tex window And as you can see, some imaginative individual has added some color to indicate three men in this window. Very creative, very imaginative; and at least plausible. Still, it takes way too much imagination and effort, to see Bush?s face. But now observe this link about Roger Craig. Actually, you don?t have to stop and read it, because I?ll quote the relevant part. It?s a statement from Roger Craig, winner of the deputy of the year award for Dallas in 1960, and one of the most honest men working that day in Dallas. He?s an amazing and heroic fellow, worthy of all the time you could take looking into his background and character. And here, in the following passage, he is describing a conversation he had with Jim Garrison, and he says, ?Jim also asked me about the arrests made in Dealey Plaza that day. I told him I knew of twelve arrests, one in particular made by R. E. Vaughn of the Dallas Police Department. The man Vaughn arrested was coming from the Dal-Tex Building across from the Texas School Book Depository. The only thing which Vaughn knew about him was that he was an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas. The prisoner was taken from Vaughn by Dallas Police detectives and that was the last that he saw or heard of the suspect.? (emphasis added) Holy Moe Lee! Please notice that, in speaking to Jim Garrison, Craig says ?in particular?. Apparently he and Vaughn thought this was the most significant arrest made that day; pretty amazing given that E.Howard Hunt was arrested in the rail yard behind the grassy knoll. And the only thing Craig knew about this ?particular? arrestee was that he had exactly the same singular CIA-cover, ?an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas?, that George Bush had used that same day in his contact with the FBI. Now, there are a very limited number of possible explanations for who this ?independent oil operator? was. Let?s look at them. Who was the ?independent oil operator?? It is conceivable that the CIA had two men in Dallas area that day, supervising the shooters, who both had the designated cover of being an ?independent oil operator from Houston.? Bush was one, as the evidence above clearly shows; and perhaps there was another who was with the shooters in the Dal-Tex building, supervising them directly. But unless the CIA overlords were trying to set Bush up, they would not have told anyone else to use Bush?s CIA cover to identify themselves to the police. If another man was involved in the crime, and was arrested for it, and he told the cops he was an ?independent oil operator from Houston,? this would tend to throw suspicion in Bush?s direction. Bush?s association with the CIA?s Cubans was already widely known. Fletcher Prouty knew and wrote of it. Fabian Escalante, the head of Cuban counter intelligence, knew and has written about it. James Files, who claims very credibly, to have been a driver for the Mafia shooters in Dallas, has spoken on-camera about it. And FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, knew about it and wrote about it in his memo. So Bush was already a suspect in Hoover?s eyes. The CIA planners, then, would not have told anyone else, ?in case you get arrested, tell the cops you?re an independent oil man from Houston?. Right? They would not have done this, since it would tend to incriminate Bush, who was already in a highly visible, highly suspicious position. Another unlikely possibility is that this ?independent oil operator from Houston? was just some innocent oil operator, who somehow managed to attract suspicion, and was arrested. Do you think it?s possible that another oil man from Houston just happened to be in that corner of Dealey Plaza? I hope you think it?s possible. Because, as unlikely as it seems, if you think it was possible, then certainly Bush would have been reasonable in thinking that, as he was being arrested, there were other independent oil operators in the crowd who witnessed his arrest. You see, Bush spoke to a group of oil men in Dallas the night before the assassination (*2). If it were possible that some of them were in Dealey Plaza, he would need to be terrified of the possibility that some of them might actually have seen the arrest, and would have been able to identify him as the object of that arrest. No wonder, then, that Bush freaked out and made this stupid incriminating phone call to the FBI. Even if it showed that he was not in Houston, or in the Caribbean, but in Dallas, at least it suggested that he was not in police custody for the murder of the President, in Dealey Plaza. But now stop and think a minute: why was he arrested? What was he doing that drew this cop?s attention at all? What could he possibly have been doing to make this cop think that he needed to arrest Bush? Perhaps walking out of a building without attracting attention is harder than it sounds; and it reasonable to suppose that the crowd outside the Dal-Tex building had heard the shots, had heard that the President had been wounded, and they were carefully scrutinizing anyone who came out of the building. But this story shows clearly that Bush was not the sort of cold-blooded killer who could take part in the murder of a man, and then act and look like nothing was going on as he tried to leave the scene of the crime. And it turns out that as an old man, Bush continues to suffer from this character trait, of being unable to hide feelings that need to be kept secret. As you can see in this link, at Gerry Ford?s funeral, Bush suddenly breaks into a wide grin while speaking of the Kennedy assassination. This is not a Mona Lisa smile. This is face-wrenching spasm of glee. In a minute we?ll take up the question of why Bush would grin at his recollection of watching John Kennedy?s brains splatter; the point for us now is that he apparently had a similarly inappropriate, show-stopping expression on his face as he attempted to exit the Dal-Tex building; he had the look of a murderer in his eye, so clearly that it could not be missed; as this funereal-grin could not be missed. And the guilt plastered all over Bush?s face drew people?s attention. And this cop, Vaughn, arrested him. Now remember, Roger Craig tells this story in the context of his discussions with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison about the suspects who were arrested that day and who then evaporated without leaving a mugshot, interview, fingerprint, or name. Garrison spoke not only to Roger Craig, but he no-doubt spoke to Vaughn, who made the arrest. And Garrison adds the following: ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS (1991) ?At least one man arrested immediately after the shooting had come running out of the Dal-Tex Building and offered no explanation for his presence there. Local authorities hardly could avoid arresting him because of the clamor of the onlookers. He was taken to the Sheriff?s office, where he was held for questioning. However, the Sheriff?s office made no record of the questions asked this suspect, if any were asked; nor did it have a record of his name. Later two uniformed police officers escorted him out of the building to the jeers of the waiting crowd. They put him in a police car, and he was driven away. Apparently this was his farewell to Dallas, for he simply disappeared forever.? (On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 238) This vision of the panicked Bush being arrested, no-doubt terrified as he was taken to the police station, and possibly even booked (though the record of any such booking has been destroyed) provides a context that explains a number of Bush?s otherwise-mysterious actions. Certainly Bush was freaked out and panic-stricken! An angry crowd clamored for his arrest, and jeered his release. Being a newbie in these dark affairs, Bush didn?t have confidence in the ability of the old devils at CIA to make water run uphill, to make time run backwards, to silence the witnesses, to destroy the records, and make it all go away. And so he panicked; he acted on his own, stupidly; he called the FBI, thinking that he was ?cleverly? providing evidence that it wasn?t him who was arrested in front of the Dal-Tex building that day. In his panic-stricken state, this seemed like a good idea. He was unable to see that he was actually creating a permanent absolutely-positive record of his involvement. We can now also explain the grin. He grins ridiculously at Gerry Ford?s funeral, at the mention of John Kennedy?s murder, not because he is such a ghoul that he thinks splattering the contents of Kenney?s head all over Jackie Kennedy was funny; but because mentioning the assassination causes him to recall the comedy of errors that produced his own ridiculous panic, arrest, more panic, and so on. Garrison wrote his paragraph about Bush?s arrest in 1988. Deputy Craig?s article was written in 1971 and posted in 1992. But the significance of these paragraphs was discovered last week. There hardly was an internet in 1992 when Craig?s article was posted. And for 19 years, no one noticed that this phrase, ?independent oil man from Houston?, is a very unique description of Bush. No one noticed until last month, when one of the moderators of JFKMurderSolved showed it to me. And I wrote about it to some friends, and one of them suggested I read what Jim Garrison had to say. THE FAMILY: THE REAL STORY OF THE BUSH DYNASTY (2004) So the pieces continue to fall into place. Little by little, the picture is filled in, the questions get answered. And the conclusions become more incontrovertible. This is just the sort thing that happened with the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory; and the theory of continental drift. And someday they may start to teach history, as a science, based on evidence, in the universities. Really! It could happen! At which point, Bush?s involvement in JFK?s murder will be taught, like evolution, as the only plausible explanation of the available reliable evidence. Final note: Until recently, Bush had nothing more to say about his whereabouts the day of the assassination than that he doesn?t remember where he was. That in itself is extraordinarily incriminating. Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were on 9-11, and on the day Kennedy was murdered. But, saying that he doesn?t remember, however improbable, is at least consistent with Bush?s autobiography, which mentions nothing. The Oil Man?s Cover Story Lately, however, perhaps at least partly in response to my work, Bush and Co. have concocted a story that he was speaking in Tyler, Texas to the Rotary Club. The vice-president of the Rotary Club, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush was speaking when the bellhop came over and told him, that Kennedy was dead (*1). Mr. Irby passed the information on to Mr. Wendell Cherry, who passed it on to Bush; who stopped his speech. Irby says that Bush explained that he thought a political speech, under the circumstances, was inappropriate; and then he sat down. As a would-be alibi proving Bush?s innocence, there are at least three huge problems with this story. PROBLEM 1: The first is that it is inconceivable that Bush would not have remembered such an event; or that he would have left it out of his autobiography, since it shows what a fine and respectful fellow he is. If he didn?t remember it sooner, or include it in his autobiography, it?s clearly because it never happened. PROBLEM 2: The second huge problem with this story is that it couldn?t possibly have happened; that is, it is made impossible by Bush?s original alibi, his phone call to the FBI, as you?ll see: The witness who tells this story, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush excused himself and sat down. It doesn?t say that he rushed out of the room in a frantic search for a phone. The problem is that Walter Cronkite?s announcement to the world that Kennedy was dead came at 1:38. Certainly, no one was listening to Walter Cronkite in the same room in which Bush was speaking. Therefore we can be sure that this bellhop, who told Irby that Kennedy was dead, was in another room. The bellhop had to make the decision that he had heard enough of the news to leave off listening to the news. This is no small point. Texas governor Connally was severely wounded. Lyndon Johnson was reportedly wounded. There was much other news to be confirmed. At some point, then, the bellhop decided to stop listening and go make an announcement. There?s no reason to think Irby would be the first person he would tell. But at some point he went to the room where Bush was speaking and informed Mr. Irby that the president was dead. This walk to find Irby took time, of course. Mr. Irby had to receive the information, and then he had to decide to inform Mr. Wendell Cherry, the president of the Kiwanis. Mr. Cherry had to decide that he should interrupt Bush?s speech; Mr. Cherry had to then walk over to Bush and tell him the news. FAMILY OF SECRETS (2008) Bush had to decide what to say; and he had to say it. And, according to the only witness, Mr. Irby, Bush ?then sat down?. Somehow, when he was finished sitting, without attracting Mr. Irby?s attention, Bush had to seek and find a phone. This would have been a hotel phone, so he would likely have had to go through the hotel switchboard to get an outside line. Do you suppose the switchboard was busy after the announcement of the President?s death? It?s a good guess. In Washington D.C. so many people rushed to make a phone call that the phone system went down. In any case, once he got through to the hotel operator and got an outside line, Bush then had to call information and get the number of the FBI. After getting through to information, and getting the number, he then had to call the FBI; and penetrate their switchboard, which was, no doubt, very busy; and he had to locate an agent, on what must have been the busiest day in the history of the Dallas bureau. How many minutes do you suppose that would take? Twenty seems a fair guess, though it seems implausible that a civilian could even get through, given all the official police business going on at the time. We know that the Dallas FBI was all over the murder scene, confiscating camera film and intimidating witnesses; so it?s hard to imagine how Bush, an hour after the shooting, was able to reach an agent at all. Given the ?sitting? that Mr. Irby observed Bush doing, for all this to have transpired in 45 minutes would be tidy work. But Bush had to do all of this, as the FBI memo states, by 1:45, seven minutes after the news of Kennedy?s death first went out; which is blatantly impossible. PROBLEM 3: The third problem is this question of why Bush would feel that it was necessary to concoct such a story at all? Why does he have to tell us this lie? Why does he have to get others, like Irby, to lie for him? The irony is that the harder he tries to make himself appear innocent, by lying, the more evidence he gives us of his guilt. (*1) Kitty Kelley, The Family: the Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, p.213; cited by Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, p. 54 (*2) There are some people who manage to point to this and say ?ahah! That?s why Bush was in Dallas! Not to kill the President, but to speak to the other oilmen!? But as the Hoover memo shows, being an oilman was just a cover for Bush?s real occupation as a CIA supervisor of trained killers. He needed an excuse for being in Dallas. This speaking engagement provided him with one. ???????- FROM THE DIRECTOR George Bush killed Kennedy. Or was it the Mafia? Maybe Castro did it. Who cares? It was 40 years ago. What difference does it make? It matters. The day he died we lost an invaluable treasure. This video documents that we lost a man of peace, who tried to cool off the cold war, and to get the American people to see their Russian enemies, not as despicable inhuman monsters, but as people like us. On November 22, 1963, you lost the man who saved your life on October 17, 1962. At the height of the missile crisis, Kennedy?s generals and advisors were urging him to launch a first strike attack against Cuba. They assured Kennedy that the Russian missiles in Cuba were not nuclear and were not ready; but that he and they should quietly slip away to the safety of bomb shelters anyway, just to be safe; and then launch an attack, leaving the rest of us out to die. Kennedy thought about it. And then he told them that nobody was going anywhere. If anyone died, they would be the first to go, sitting as they were in the Whitehouse, the prime target of those Russian missiles. Together they then figured out a safer plan. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense at the time, recently learned from the Russians that the missiles were armed, were ready, were nuclear, and that their commanders were authorized to use them in case of an attack. If you live in the northern hemisphere, the lives of your parents, and your future, were certainly saved by John Kennedy on that day. It matters that his killers be exposed. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower had warned Kennedy, and the rest of us, of the threat posed to democracy by what Eisenhower called ?the military industrial complex.? And while Kennedy famously went after the CIA, and refused to commit troops to Vietnam, I always wondered why he didn?t more openly attack this military industrial complex. And then I stumbled upon a speech he gave at the United Nations. As you will see in the video, he called upon the Russians, and United Nations, to help him to take on this military industrial complex, in order to ?abolish all armies and all weapons.? But he was swept away. And in the years since, millions have died in needless wars, trillions of dollars have been wasted on ?defense?, and millions more people have lived and died needlessly in poverty. It matters that we lost him. In 2007, Bruce Willis told Vanity Fair magazine, ?They still haven?t caught the guy that killed Kennedy. I?ll get killed for saying this, but I?m pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted.? Now Willis probably would not mind my suggesting that he?s no genius. At best, his observation is common sense. 80% of the American people agree with him. Indeed, this video, proving that Kennedy was brought down by the most powerful men in the world and their hired thugs, is not based on secret documents. It is all information that has merely been suppressed. Oswald allegedly shot Kennedy from behind. But the day he died, the NY Times carried the story, told by the doctors in Dallas, that Kennedy had an entrance wound in his throat, another in his right temple, and a large gaping exit wound in the back of his head. After talking to the emergency room doctors, Kennedy?s press secretary described, to the assembled press, a shot to the right temple from the right front that went ?right through the head.? All of the witnesses near the right front, the grassy knoll, described hearing shots from that direction, and dozens of witnesses raced up the knoll in pursuit of the shooters. These witnesses talked to the press. But all of this information has been suppressed for the last 50 years. By whom? Who could? You will also see in this video the overwhelming best evidence, from the best witnesses, proving beyond a reasonable dispute, that Kennedy?s body was stolen from Air Force One, and the wound to his throat was mutilated, before the autopsy. Jackie Kennedy kept watch over an empty casket on the flight from Dallas to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Then the body was quietly taken to Bethesda for the autopsy, arriving 20 minutes before Jackie and the empty casket. Who had the power to arrange this? Who HAS the power today to suppress all this evidence and to continue to bombard us with ridiculous lies about a lone gunman? It?s a short list, isn?t it? It doesn?t include the mafia, or the Russians, or Castro. It does include the Bush family ? or rather their masters in Big Oil; the banking elite; the backbone of the military industrial complex. These men, and their successors, carried out the attacks of 9-11. It matters. Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. John Hankey has been teaching history and English in the LA City Schools for nearly three decades, including alternative approaches that suggest revisions to what passes for ?history?. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 14:15:03 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:15:03 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?OCW_Primer=3A_Real_Veterans_Join_=93Occupy?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=94?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117140132.049d1d60@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/13/ocw-primer-real-veterans-join-occupy/#.TsFJt1v8ZQw.hotmail [several illustrations at url above] Sunday, November 13th, 2011 | Posted by Gordon Duff OCW Primer: Real Veterans Join ?Occupy? SOON THERE WILL BE NONE Veteran Death In Vermont, All ?Occupy? Protestors Veterans by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor This is another veterans day (now two days late) and I am expected to do radio and TV spots about our disabled vets, castigate the government for ignoring those who sacrificed so much and ask the public to remember vets. As a Marine combat veteran of Vietnam and coined ?king? of the alternative ?infotainment? independent news, I have a big audience. I hope I have the following more because what I say is right and not because I tell people what they want to hear. Veterans Today, what has become the ?other? news network, is not just for vets but 28 countries where we are widely read and translated in many languages but because we are the ?real news,? or should I say ?real real news.? It is impossible to tell people in America or around the world, the truth without upsetting many and receiving endless threats. Enough of this, let?s see why I started a ?Veterans Day? piece with a warning and ?saddle up and move out.? Veterans Today - What is Their Future? It is only civilians that forget those who died in battle. Veterans remember every day. They are our missing friends. A whole new generation of vets are joining us, forgotten by America except on veterans day, thousands in poverty, thousands homeless and thousands choosing suicide. Thousand more are in prisons, over half quite likely for no other reason than poverty. Never before have so many veterans been together as today. A decade ago, Americans got behind the Global War on Terror. Ten years later, veterans who marched into the Middle East to hunt terrorists now know they were there to conquer, intimidate, build a drug empire, help steal oil and, in the interim, kill off a population of freedom loving people who we now know to be fellow veterans. Today, a member of the Taliban is more a ?brother in arms? than a police officer in, for instance, Oakland, California or Burlington, Vermont. What are veterans really? We are dupes. I am one of them, my friends are mostly veterans, in fact the best people I know are veterans and, war after war, the same ?gang? sends us out to kill for peace, kill to make some political ideal, long betrayed, safe and strong. Americans are supposed to be fighting for our constitution. When you hear the word, ?constitution,? as with seeing the flag and I am as big a sucker as any, you are supposed to feel something rise in your chest, tears come to your eyes. Okland Police - Heavy Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, Flash Grenades Today those tears are from tear gas, not pride in America. What kind of constitution allows America to send its military around the world for reasons we know are lies. The big one was Iraq. Have a ?truth? moment. Back in 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had the permission of President Bush. We can prove it, Rep. Ron Paul has. The whole war was a scam and, though few died in the war, tens of thousands since are sick, we have no idea how many have died but the numbers are thousands. We have a sister publication that keeps count. Vietnam, my war, was obvious. We were simply on the wrong side. Vietnam is now a favored vacation spot for Americans, a dreamland for American industry, all run by the enemy that America lost 2 million of its best and brightest to destroy. Two million dead from Vietnam? Actually, I think the number of American dead is closer to 1.8 million with around 3 million Vietnamese dead. The reason for the war? None. The Dufster in Vietnam - Early in Tour I was there. It was obvious from the day I arrived and we all knew it. We tried to laugh, Marines are like that. What we weren?t, however, is stupid. Over 6 decades later, World War II, the largest conflict in world history, is being declassified and examined without the propaganda. Those who fought in the war were my heroes, still are. Their military accomplishments are still untarnished. The war itself could have easily have been prevented, we now know and our enemies, the Germans and Japanese, soon our best friends after the war, may well never have been who we say they were nor were the majority of their leaders. The issues of the war itself? All lies. It was all about money, the rest was all made up, same as with the War on Terror. So, what do we know about Hitler, Churchill, Ho Chi Minh, Osama bin Laden, the Kaiser or Woodrow Wilson and a hundred other names? We know nothing because our history of these people their beliefs, who they were is a pollution of lies. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler - A Marine I would call Veterans Day or ?Remembrance Day? as it is in the British Empire or what is left of it, ?Smedley Butler Day.? He is the former Marine General who stood out and told the truth, ?War is a Racket.? War is a racket. I am saying it now. It took me years to catch on. I always tried to find a ?good war? somewhere, honor in something. There is no honor. The Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. World War II had nothing to do with saving Jews or the ?holocaust.? Today we go further. I know a group of global gangsters starts every war. Our last ones were begun on 9/11, 2001 when NORAD was told to stop defending America. Gangsters, none of them ?Muslim hijackers? planned and executed 9/11. Then they hired criminals to run Iraq, created phony intelligence, invaded and started stealing oil and bilking the American people out of trillions in defense expenditures, all stolen. Bush was put into office in a stolen election, easily overturned our useless constitution, all they needed was 5 crooked judges, passed a series of illegal laws and began the police state that the world today sees as the biggest threat in history. We are now the real Nazi Germany, us and the State of Israel. The entire world thinks so. This is how we honor our veterans. Years ago, I had been told new, highly secret nuclear weapons had been used to destroy the World Trade Center and a missile had been used to attack the Pentagon. Some reputable scientists claim our government used other means to dissolve the thousands of tons of steel to collapse the 3 towers. American 'Suitcase' Nuke - SDAM Two weeks ago, we got scientific proof that America had used nuclear weapons in Iraq, indisputable proof. As with Agent Orange in Vietnam and Gulf War Syndrome, as with the nuclear tests that killed so many American soldiers in the 1940s and 1950s, our government had been lying all along. Proof is worthless. There are no courts. Courts require laws, laws require a constitution and ours was thrown on the garbage heap in 2001. There is no one to take to court, no form of redress, no way to find justice, no one to investigate anything from war crimes and murder to torture to the murder of Pat Tillman or the strange suicide of a poor veteran in Vermont, suicide maybe, police murder, maybe. My good friend Mike Harris, former candidate for governor of Arizona just finished a talk show this morning. He called for a ?regime change? in America. I do the same, in the name of our veterans, our brothers around the world and one other group. Those of ?occupy? who stormed the Israeli Consulate in Boston, who have been in city after city for months now, beaten, hit with fire hoses, military grade canister munitions, fully lethal, those who have stopped to feed the starving. Wait, I have to stop here. Fifteen million Americans are now starving, according to official estimates. A month ago, it was estimated that 46 million Americans lived in poverty. That number is now closer to 100 million. Time for a regime change. Anti-war US veterans march along with protesters for Occupy Wall Street on November 11, 2011 at Zuccotti Park in New York. I can?t expect every veteran or every other American to suddenly wake up from a nightmare but something very genuine is happening. People are waking up, some at first, more every day, and they are asking questions. Grandfathers and Grandkids - On the Street Not everyone is asking the right question but when ?Occupy? began asking about Israeli influence in the US, they began on a path toward a larger truth than just ?Wall Street.? When it became clear that veterans were going to have to put their lives on the line to protect freedom of speech, the constitution has long been gone, we now have casualties. This week, in Ohio, the people stood up to defend the police and their union against an attack from the right. At the same time, police we protected much more than they have protected us, around the country, are violating laws to defend criminal financial organizations, crooked governments, the real ?bad guys? against those of us who want to restore law and order, from the top down, in the US. In a nation of people facing starvation, a nation one or two paychecks away from homelessness, exploiting police, fearful of losing their jobs or shamefully taking bribes from banks as with NYPD, has proven that regime change in the US has to begin, and removing the arrest powers of our police is a vital part of it. Police are not police if they have lost our trust and confidence. They are simply no more than an armed occupation army. We are at that point now. The realists among us know the police are prisoners too. We are sorry they are in that position but they aren?t the ones having lethal military ordnance fired at them. If a veteran is one who faces combat, who risks his life and freedom, who sacrifices for this country then those of ?Occupy,? in every country, our vets, out kids, are all really veterans, really fighting a very real enemy and, as we have proven, are putting their lives and freedom on the line against an enemy that needs to be utterly destroyed to save humanity. This is the biggest war of our history, much more important than World War II or the Vietnam demonstrations. The target of the enemy is clear, the destruction, the enslavement of all mankind, they want nothing less. Millions of those around us, out of cowardice, out of ignorance out of sick cruelty, have sided against humanity. John McCain in Hanoi What should we all be doing? We should all be asking the hard questions. This week, even John McCain pointed out that our two political parties are totally useless. He also knows the constitution has long been suspended. What is not admitted is that it was written with so many loopholes that it was virtually useless from the start. The ?Federalists? saw to that, those of the ?founding fathers? who didn?t so much like the idea of democracy and freedom and secretly hoped the British had won the revolution. It was their job to undermine the new nation. Their ilk is still around.Today, one of their organizations is called ?The Federalist Society.? It?s job is to see that our lawyers and judges are indoctrinated into belief in human suffering, totalitarian control and total evil. They call themselves patriots. We?ve all heard that one before. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 14:23:58 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:23:58 +0100 Subject: [THS] The Great GOP Primary Crash and Burn: 5 Republican Would-Be Saviors Flame Out Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117141713.063c40f8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.alternet.org/story/153097/the_great_gop_primary_crash_and_burn%3A_5_republican_would-be_saviors_flame_out_in_hilarious_ways?page=entire AlterNet / By Brad Reed The Great GOP Primary Crash and Burn: 5 Republican Would-Be Saviors Flame Out in Hilarious Ways The GOP's "anyone but Romney" strategy has backfired. November 16, 2011 | In a normal democracy, a competent opposition party would have no difficulty in defeating Barack Obama next year. After all, unemployment is still around 9 percent, economic growth is sluggish at best and the Democratic base feels disenchanted with the hope and change they voted into office a mere three years ago. A competent opposition party shouldn?t have to nominate a superlative candidate in this environment; instead it can win by simply nominating someone with decent hair, who can string together words in a language vaguely resembling English and who has no obvious debilitating mental illnesses. For Republicans, this generic good-hair, able-to-talk, not-overtly-insane candidate is Mitt Romney. But there?s just one problem with this scenario: The Republican base hates Mitt Romney. The reasons for this are pretty obvious since Romney?s work establishing a universal health care system in Massachusetts provided the main blueprint for Obamacare, the healthcare law passed in 2010 that the GOP base feels is the ultimate symbol of an overreaching and tyrannical government. And that?s in addition to Romney?s assorted flip-flops on issues such as abortion and gay rights that have given social conservatives fits over the years. In fact, Multiple Choice Mitt is such a notorious opportunist that his entire political career can be summed up by paraphrasing a classic Snoop Dogg song: ?Take a stance when it?s popular, but drop it when it?s not, drop it when it?s not.? So the Republican base has spent the past year looking for someone, anyone, who can be the anti-Mitt Romney in the GOP primary. The problem is that the GOP has been unable to find even one half-normal human to stand in against him. The result has been a hysterical roller-coaster of a primary season where new candidates rise rapidly as GOP ?front runners? for a month before flaming out in spectacular and hilarious ways. In this article we?ll chronicle the assorted saviors that Republican voters have fallen in love with for brief periods of time before quickly recoiling in horror upon realizing they?ve become smitten with a unelectable lunatic. Failed Savior #1: Donald Trump. How he rose: Ugh. Remember this? Trump?s major appeal to the GOP base was akin to G.G. Alin?s appeal to teenage boys: They loved him because he would say whatever the hell he wanted no matter how many media squares would get offended. Want to publicly question the validity of Barack Obama?s birth certificate? Trump went there. Want to speculate that Obama was hiding his birth certificate because it listed him as a Muslim? Yeah, that was Trump territory, too. Want to imply that Obama only got accepted into Columbia and Harvard Law due to the dread specter of affirmative action? Trump was your guy. The result was that Trump depressingly surged to the head of the GOP pack in April, according to a CNN poll. But the Donald?s rapid rise in the polls was only matched by his epic crash less than two weeks later. How he fell: It became more difficult for Trump to publicly crow about his birther credentials after Obama actually released his long-form birth certificate. Making matters worse, the release of Obama?s birth certificate came just days before Trump attended the White House correspondents? dinner where he was roasted relentlessly both by the president and by comedian Seth Meyers. This sort of public humiliation took away a lot of Trump?s mojo since he was no longer viewed as an all-American bad boy with the guts to speak truth to power. Instead he was seen, correctly, as a clown. He announced that he was not going to run for the presidency shortly afterward. Failed Savior #2: Newt Gingrich How he rose: The very idea of Newt Gingrich being a legit presidential candidate should be enough to violate at least 23 different laws of quantum mechanics and collapse our universe into a tiny puddle of cosmic gloop. But the GOP field in 2011 is a warped incarnation of Andy Warhol?s vision of the future where every has-been right-wing crank is allowed to nationally humiliate himself for 15 minutes. At any rate, Newt?s entire appeal, if it can be called that, was that he?s supposed to be a ?man of ideas.? It doesn?t matter that most of his ideas involved going to war with Iran or privatizing Medicare -- in the current GOP field anyone who put on shoes without causing themselves critical bodily harm is considered a visionary. So Newt was to be the primary race?s leading intellectual, which is about as useful an honor as being named the world?s most well-hung eunuch. How he fell: He was Newt. That?s pretty much all there was to it and it was entirely predictable to anyone who knows his history. Let?s go over the grisly recap: Newt got in trouble during the very first week of his campaign when he sought to flash his ?Man of Ideas? credentials by critiquing Paul Ryan?s Satanic Randroid plan to boot seniors off Medicare and force them into the private insurance market. For many conservatives this was like standing up in the middle of a church and shouting out, ?Man, this Jesus dude ain?t all that, people.? Newt had to backtrack pretty quickly after this heresy and he did indeed back away from his statements in the only way he knows how: Through shameless bullshitting. You see Newt can never just say he's sorry and be done with it. No, that?s something that shows weakness and if people start thinking Newt is weak then dark-skinned foreigners all over the world will start pointing and laughing at him and implying that he is lacking in the manhood department. So instead of apologizing, Newt went on the attack against the media by saying it was now out of bounds to accurately quote his criticism of Ryan?s plan. No, seriously, he actually said this: ?Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate.? And just as the nation had stopped laughing about this, Gingrich flack Rick Tyler added insult to injury by putting out a statement portraying Newt as a noble paragon in the style of Ulysses and William Wallace who would lead America to its former standard of greatness through the sheer force of his magical ideas. ?A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught,? wrote Tyler of the torrent of mockery directed at his boss. ?But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won't be intimidated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.? Whoooa, slow down there, Homer. I don?t recall the part in the Odyssey where Ulysses decides to divorce Penelope when she?s struck with an illness so he can go shack up with a hot young Siren. Failed Savior #3: Michele Bachmann How she rose: Ah, why not? With Trump and Gingrich out of the picture, Bachmann was there to fill the ?anyone-but-Romney? void for a brief time. Bachmann had all the credentials the base was looking for: A born-again Christian who supported outlandish conspiracy theories and who called Obama anti-American before it was cool. So over the summer Bachmann got her brief period in the spotlight and regularly came in second place in many national polls. As I said, why not? How she fell: There was no real defining moment that marked Bachmann?s slide in the polls, which leads me to believe that the GOP faithful slowly started getting spooked about Bachmann?s electability. To be fair, this is a very legitimate concern since she comes off as a cross between Dana Carvey?s Church Lady character and Charles Manson. You see, many people generally like politicians who talk about their religious faith because it makes them feel as though their leaders identify with them culturally. But if a candidate seems convinced that she?s actually receiving messages from God about whom to appoint to her campaign staff, voters start to get concerned. While Bachmann has been known to say a lot of loopy things over the years, she first really started to freak out the normals when she attacked Rick Perry because he mandated girls in Texas schools get HPV vaccinations to prevent them from contracting cervical cancer. Although Bachmann could have reasonably attacked this policy as a prime example of Perry?s crony capitalism, she decided to go Full Metal Wingnut and suggest that the vaccine could be responsible for causing mental retardation in children. The medical community was quick to condemn Bachmann?s remarks since they had precisely zero basis in reality. "There are people out there who, because of this kind of misinformation, aren't going to get their daughter immunized," said Dr. Kenneth Alexander, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Chicago Medical Center, during an interview with Rueters. "As a result, there will be more people who die from cervical cancer.? To sum up: If you watch enough Michele Bachmann, you can legitimately see her starting a war with the entire Middle East in an attempt to kickstart the Rapture. Failed Savior #4: Rick Perry How he rose: For a wee bit it looked as though Rick Perry was the perfect Republican candidate: He was a three-term governor of deep-red Texas, he?d executed lots and lots and lots of people, he wrote a book describing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and to top it off, he had good hair. Perry?s entrance into the race in August immediately shook up the field and he surged to the head of national polls, topping Mitt Romney by more than 10 points in late August. But then something bad happened to Perry: He began to talk. How he fell: As evidenced by George W. Bush, Republican voters don?t put too much stock in being articulate. At the same time, a candidate should be able to put words together in such a manner that people can at least guess the type of language he?s trying to speak. Sadly, this task has proven to be far too difficult for Perry to handle. For example: At this point in the campaign season, anyone over the age of five can come up with a stinging critique of Mitt Romney?s serial flip-flops over the years. Hell, just point out that he?s running against Obamacare despite signing a law in Massachusetts that was essentially the same piece of legislation. It's not at all difficult. But when Perry tried to execute this extremely simple maneuver he... well, I?ll just let the man himself say it: ?I think Americans just sometimes don?t know which Mitt Romney they?re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it before he was before the social programs from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe versus Wade before he was against verse, uh, Roe versus Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he?s, uh, for Obamacare and now he?s against it.? And there are other problems for Perry as well: When asked what he?d do if terrorists within Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons he said he?d call India to ?make sure they know they?re an ally of the United States.? Yeah, I?m sure the first things the Indian government would want in that situation is a friendly pick-me-up phone call. Perry also said that ?sharing a border with Mexico? was the primary reason his state has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. And unlike Perry, we?ll never forget the time he couldn?t remember which three federal agencies he?d abolish upon becoming president. Even in our currently debased political culture that sort of thing just won?t cut it. Americans may not like voting for high-fallutin? intellectuals much, but we thankfully still have enough sense to support candidates that are marginally smarter than ficus plants. Savior #5: Herman Cain How he rose: As a Tea Party favorite who has never held political office, Herman Cain can credibly claim to be a Washington outsider who has never taken part in the dirty profession of governing. And it must be said, the former CEO of Godfather?s Pizza and the National Restaurant Association has a certain goofy charm to him at first. He comes across as a lighthearted guy with a good sense of humor and he has a knack for catchy slogans. Let?s face it, his ?9-9-9? tax plan, as absurdly regressive and unworkable as it is, rolls off the tongue much easier than, say, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. How he fell: Well, four women have accused Cain of sexually harassing them. That?s never a good thing. Nor was it good when Cain said he was unaware if the National Restaurant Association had paid out any settlements to two of his accusers despite the fact that they both received settlements of roughly a year?s pay. It was also not good when Cain quickly backtracked and said that he knew there was an agreement between the association and his accusers, but that the agreement was not the same thing as a settlement. ?When I first heard the word ?settlement,? I thought legal settlement,? Cain said. ?My recollection later is that there was an agreement. So, I made an assumption about the word ?settlement? that was legal. I didn?t think there was a legal settlement, but an agreement. Remember, this happened 12 years ago.? And, uh, OK. But alleged sexual improprieties aren?t Cain?s only problem. He also apparently never dreamed that he?d be considered a GOP frontrunner and thus has never bothered to read very much about current events. When asked about Obama?s war in Libya recently, Cain replied thusly: ?Okay, Libya. President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes, I agree, or no, I didn't agree. I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason. Nope, that's a different one. I've got to go back, and see. Got all this stuff twirling around in my head.? Watching the video of this answer almost made me feel sorry for Cain until I remembered that he?s not a hungover frat boy getting picked on by a professor at an 8am history class but is, in fact, a grown man running for president of the United States. Holy Mother of God. Failed Savior #6: Newt Gingrich How he rose: The very idea of Newt Gingrich being a legit presidential candidate should be enough to violate at least 23 different laws of quantum mech... Wait a minute, didn?t I already write this part? Yes, I did. But I had to write it again because after his initial implosion this past summer Newt is apparently getting a second look and has surged in the polls. There?s no point in writing anymore about this because you know he?ll screw it up and GOP voters will soon be reduced to begging Alan Keyes to hop in the race. So at this point, I?d like to announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. As president I will repeal Obamacare, cut taxes for job creators and reassert America's military might. And sure, these positions might not gel with positions I once held as recently as this morning, but c?mon Republicans: At least I?m not Mitt Romney. Brad Reed is a writer living in Boston. His work has previously appeared in the American Prospect Online, and he blogs frequently at Sadly, No!. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 14:57:55 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:57:55 +0100 Subject: [THS] STEVEN JONAS: The Triumph of Cheneyism: His Pernicious Legacy Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117145623.0495b9a8@mail.messagingengine.com> The Triumph of Cheneyism: His Pernicious Legacy Published on BuzzFlash at Truthout, 11/03/11 http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13119 STEVEN JONAS, MD, MPH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT I have just finished a book by John Grisham entitled The Broker, published in 2005. "The Broker" in question is not a real estate or stock-broker, but rather one of an ilk that when I was a boy many years ago was called an "influence peddler." They now go by the more polite name of "lobbyist." Anyway, this larger-than-life Jack Abramoff-type had been caught dabbling in some very highly sensitive security-stuff (which Abramoff himself was apparently smart enough never to have done). The plot revolves around the determination of the CIA to have him dead, for a variety of reasons. They have two problems. A) He is in Federal prison and B) US government agencies cannot, under the law, just go around murdering US citizens. And so, the CIA arranges to have him paroled by a neer-do-well outgoing President and then ships him off to Italy where, they hope, one of several nations interested in achieving the same end will find him and do the job themselves. The story is told with Grisham's usual panache, but if he were to try to write it today he could not use the same plot. For, as is now well-known, the US can, and does, go around murdering (or executing or assassinating [from the Arab word for political murder]) US citizens that it has in its sights. And it does this without the benefit of physical capture, indictment, trial, or what-have-you, as prescribed under the fourth and sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The death of Mr. Anwar el-Awlaki at the hands of a US drone aircraft in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011 is just one piece of evidence that what might be called "Cheneyism" has triumphed over traditional constitutional democracy in our nation. Dick Cheney, self-nominated for the position and accepted, apparently without question, for it, was easily the most powerful Vice-President the U.S. has ever had. His hand, either openly with is name on it, or covertly without, was on virtually every major foreign and domestic policy decision made during the Presidency of George W. Bush. And many of them, in one way or another, continue to be followed under the presidency of Barack Obama. But the essence of Cheneyism is its assault on U. S. Constitutional government, embodied in his totally un-Constitutional concept of ?Unitary Executive Power.? Let us count the ways. 1. The famous "Energy Task Force." Despite his claim in his recent memoir that one of the reason he was writing it was he wanted "to be clear" and "to set the record straight," he did not discuss its deliberations and to this day its minutes, official government papers though they may be, have remained secret. Thus we can only guess what was decided but surely the agenda included: as much de-regulation of the extractive industries as possible; as much expansion of domestic oil drilling as possible; a total shut-down of research on energy alternatives; and perhaps a guarantee that war would be declared on Iraq with the objective of getting hold of its oil reserves. Then there is the unconstitutional bit that has followed Cheney's departure from office: the claim that the Vice-Presidency is not part of the executive branch and therefore his papers are not subject to public disclosure. That Article II of the Constitution, on the executive branch, is the one that describes the office, to the extent it is described, is apparently of no consequence. That it is mentioned in passing in article I, to Cheney is. 2. The declaration of full-fledged war on Iraq without engaging in the bothersome step of securing it from the Congress is a major element of Cheneyism. There is no way that this could be fit under the Presidential War Powers Act, as the Republicans never failed to point out about Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia (which happened to have been carried with no "boots on the ground" and no US casualties, but was still of dubious constitutionality. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which the Bush Regime knew full well because the UN WMD inspector on the ground, Hans Blix, told them so, over and over again. But Presidential/Vice-Presidential lying, done over and over again, by both Democrats and Republicans, is not unconstitutional.) Furthermore, since unprovoked, or ?preventive,? war by individual UN members is prohibited by Chapter VII, especially Articles 39 and 51, of the UN Charter, to which the US is a treaty signatory, engaging in such is also a violation of the Constitution?s Article VI, which states: "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. . ." 3. And then there is the whole use-of-torture thing. Cheney set up the policy, despite the fact that virtually every intelligence-gathering expert says that it is useless for gathering intelligence from operatives with any training to resist it (1, 2). That means nothing to Cheney who, perhaps influenced by the earlier iterations of "24," has always insisted that it is effective, and on his recent victory lap for his book continued to do so. It does have many other uses for which it is known to be effective (3). However, both points are irrelevant to the matter of its unconstitutionality (4). Torture is prohibited by both the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture, both treaties signed and ratified by the United States. Thus the use of torture, no matter what contortions Cheney and his henchmen, Woo, Bybee, and Addington, went through to try to redefine what Cheney had authorized, also is a violation of the Constitution, Article VI. 4. Finally, since Guantanamo is functionally part of the United States (no US government would ever claim that it is part of Cuba), the whole operation there, for persons not prisoners of war (and since the US never declared war, they couldn't be) violates the fourth and sixth Amendments. There are of course many governmental policies of Cheney that stay with us, for example: the creation of permanent war; the creation of what can be called the Resource-Based Economy (the increasing reliance on the discovery, use and export of fossil fuels for fueling capitalist profits); the creation of the Patriot Act which, on paper at least, justifies the creation of a total authoritarian state; and refining and expanding the use of the big lie technique, which now underlies all of GOTP policy and politics. A number of these governmental policies remain very much alive, in one form or another, under the current administration. But the principal legacy of Cheneyism is to make a reality of George W. Bush's claim that the Constitution is "nothing but a piece of paper." To the extent that the Obama Administration follows this dictum, it is saying the same thing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 1. Jonas, S. "A Torturous Debate," http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/081 2. Jonas, S. "The Torturous Debate, Revisited," http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12725 3. Jonas, S. "Why Torture?" http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/082 4. Jonas, S. "Why 'It Doesn't Work' Doesn't Work," http://blog.buzzflash.com/jonas/156 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books. In addition to being a Columnist for BuzzFlash/Truthout (http://www.buzzflash.com, http://www.truth-out.org/), he is the Managing Editor of and a Contributing Author to TPJmagazine.net. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 15:41:29 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:41:29 +0100 Subject: [THS] What Really Happened to the 1960s: Excerpt Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117153518.04ba5900@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/print/the_myth_of_the_60s_20111116/ The Myth of the ?60s http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/the_myth_of_the_60s_20111116/ Posted on Nov 16, 2011 Excerpted from ?What Really Happened to the 1960s: How Mass Media Culture Failed American Democracy? by Edward P. Morgan. This excerpt is adapted from the published book by the author, with permission. I begin the book with a discussion of how the unending ?battles of the 1960s,? as candidate Barack Obama put it, were a significant and at times poignant backdrop to the 2008 presidential campaign. Such is the nature of political discourse in the American mass media culture. Something called ?the Sixties? is alluded to again and again at regular intervals: presidential campaigns, repeated acts of war by the United States, outbursts of mass protest, episodes of racial unrest, abortion battles, charges of ?political correctness,? to say nothing of media-saturated anniversaries of iconic sixties events, from Martin Luther King?s ?I Have a Dream? speech to Woodstock. I maintain that the mass media?s ?sixties? discourse is chiefly one of ghosts, accusations, and smoke and mirrors that has long played on audience emotions and diverted public attention to what is essentially a symbolic form of spectator politics. In a commentary that represents perhaps the archetypal media culture representation, commentator Andrew Sullivan referred to these as the ?debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.?1 [See footnotes at end of article.] Sullivan is right in one sense; this media discourse is debilitating if we aspire to a democratic way of life. On the other hand, the archetypal media argument is also wrong in two respects. These ?battles of the 1960s? were not, and are not, a generational quarrel. Notwithstanding media representations, sixties battles were about racism, poverty, war, meaningful education, the rat race, sexism, and ecological destruction. But, second, these political concerns are not even battles of the sixties. Lo and behold, while minorities and women have made great gains within the social mainstream, contemporary American life is marked by wars the people oppose yet cannot stop; poverty and a racially identifiable underclass that lives without hope; the growth of an obscenely wealthy class of the super-rich combined with an eroding middle class; an educational system increasingly driven by the bottom line that leaves young people more trapped in a rat race than were their sixties forebears; ongoing violence toward women in a society that continues to bombard us with images of pumped-up militarism; and an ecosphere that is showing far more fundamental signs of deterioration than it did in the earlier era of Earth Day environmentalism. I revisit this past because it can tell us a lot about where we are today and why we are there. It can also shed important light on the kinds of complex issues we face if we are to strengthen rather than lose our democratic way of life. ?The Sixties? in Mass Media Discourse Presidential campaigns have for more than forty years exploited symbols, images, and personalities from the 1960s era as a means of mobilizing political support for their candidates and political agendas. For the most part, these campaigns have come from the right side of the political spectrum. Over time, they have blamed ?the sixties? for just about everything they see as wrong with America. Beginning as far back as Barry Goldwater?s 1964 presidential campaign, political forces on the Right have used sixties-era media images to tap into the fears and resentments the spectacle spawned and thus to buttress their political agendas aimed largely at what they like to call ?Big Government.? During the 1960s, these attacks began to pull significant populations?most notably the white South and portions of the Catholic working class?out of the Democratic Party?s New Deal coalition into the Republican camp. With the economy floundering in the early to mid-1970s, capitalism?s elites sought to redress what they saw as the ?excess of democracy? or ?democratic distemper? of the sixties era in order to move public policy to the right.2 Rightist and corporate agendas converged with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, a turning point that not only produced the neoliberal (or what is misleadingly called a ?free market?) regime that has dominated American politics ever since,3 but has succeeded in transforming American political discourse in the process. The Reagan agenda implemented earlier corporate calls for a sharp reduction in liberal government, a major shift toward privatization and free-market policies, and a new surge in military spending coupled with a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy?a reversal of the so-called ?Vietnam syndrome.? Despite policies geared to the interests of corporations and the wealthy, neoliberalism enjoyed wide electoral success because it was ushered in by rhetoric that effectively played off public images of the sixties?threatening black militants, rebellious students, Viet Cong flag-waving antiwar protesters, self-indulgent and stoned hippies, and ?man-hating? or ?family-hating? women?that had alienated significant portions of the population. Via a process I call ?visual thinking? or visual association, the conservative ?Machiavellians,? as Tom Hayden has labeled them,4 produced a populist spin for policies that favored economic elites by blaming the images on an ?Eastern liberal elite.? The folksy, avuncular Reagan persona became a kind of nostalgic commercial for traditional verities and ?family values? that allegedly flourished in a visually mythologized past before the era of ?riots, assassinations, and domestic strife over the Vietnam war,? as Reagan described the 1960s.5 All things ?liberal? ?permissive parenting, indulgent campus authorities, domestic government programs, and the media?were blamed for the generational unrest of the past. Curiously, this long-standing campaign against the ?bad sixties? succeeded with considerable help from the very ?liberal media? the campaign persistently attacked. Like the ideological backlash, the commercialization of the sixties began during the sixties era as news media and advertisers began to zero in on images of what they saw as new and increasingly provocative behaviors of a large baby boom population. News media coverage of sixties-era protests began to frame public understanding of protest around the most common visual denominator, a seemingly ?rebellious generation,? around mid-decade?roughly the same time that protests began targeting national policies and institutions, and the same time that the national backlash began. Commercial interests responded by adopting the language of youthful alienation and a stance of ?cool? skepticism as they began to transform the ?youth culture? into a ?hip? youth market. Over the same time period, entertainment television and popular movies began to air themes popular with sixties youth. By 1971 CBS had introduced Norman Lear?s sitcom All in the Family, which juxtaposed two stereotypical sides of the popularized sixties divide?young liberals versus their working-class parents, presented in the familiar generational frame. Twelve years later, NBC?s Family Ties, a sitcom that President Reagan claimed as his favorite TV show,6 played off another generational clash, this one between the young Reaganite Alex P. Keaton and his liberal sixties-generation parents. With musical scores and themes that evoked baby boomer nostalgia, films like the Reagan era?s The Big Chill (1983) and the 1994 blockbuster Forrest Gump provided audiences with representations of the sixties era that confirmed everything the Right claimed. Advertisers appealed to hip consumers by using rebellious sixties songs to sell everything from sneakers to raisins to accounting firms. More generally, as documented by Thomas Frank, advertisers and the business world widely appropriated the values of countercultural rebellion for their own commercial purposes.7 This political culture is both hyper-political and depoliticized; hyper-political because it is dominated by blame-them rhetoric heightened by imagistic media, yet depoliticized in two important ways: the nation?s political institutions too often serve up essential symbolic solutions that fail to resolve deep-seated problems that have over time become worse, and a correspondingly disillusioned and disempowered public is drawn into a culture of consumption and entertainment that provides them with a compensatory but ultimately erosive sense of empowerment. This political culture is one of the two legacies of the mass media?s ?Sixties? that popular social movements like Occupy Wall Street or the Wisconsin-Ohio state protests have to contend with. What is lost in the media culture?s ?Sixties? is the powerful experience of people taking history into their own hands, as well as the story of how and why that popular uprising turned into the distortion popularized in media lore. If these had been the stories told to people over the past thirty to forty years, innumerable groups could have sensed their connection to this history, could have learned from it, and might thereby have a greater sense of hope linked to their own potential empowerment. Like their forebears, people would sense their potential to make history in their own time. Mass Media and Protest Dynamics in the 1960s The other legacy of the mass media?s ?Sixties? is grounded in the way mass media interacted with 1960s era social movements in ways that influenced the trajectory of that era and set in motion the backlash and commercial exploitation that produced today?s world. In brief, I argue that the mass media of the sixties era helped to invite and spread that era?s protest activity, but they did so on terms reflecting broader structures of which they were part. As a result, they simultaneously helped to shape, marginalize, and ultimately contain protest movements. Along with the powerful ideological voices who enjoy significant, if not dominant, access to the media, they have been the major facilitators of our diversionary politics and warlike discourse ever since. I suggest that two systemic characteristics of the emerging postwar media became crucial to the contestation and maintenance of hegemony. First, what the media, by their behavior, consider to be legitimate discourse for public consumption encompasses a range of viewpoints that embrace rather than challenge the system?s foundational myths, ideological beliefs, and institutions. Second, as commercial enterprises, the mass media must aggressively seek and engage readers and audiences. The ideological commons of mass media discourse can be traced back to their origins as mass-market enterprises, while the imperative of attracting and engaging audiences took on new intensity with the postwar rise of television. I argue that both characteristics contradict and undermine a democratic culture. Democratic discourse is inclusive. At great cost to our public discourse, the mass media exclude critical conversation about fundamental flaws in the nation?s policies and institutions. Democratic discourse should also enlighten and inform the people so they achieve a level of understanding that enables them to act as citizens. The mass media?s main function clearly should not be to distract the public from engaging in and learning about their society and its institutions. In combination, these two structural characteristics of our corporate mass media produce dynamics that have telling implications for efforts to challenge and contest prevailing conditions?as they did in the sixties when they introduced a contradictory dynamic into the political realm. On the one hand, the ?boundaried? sphere of legitimate discourse effectively excludes the critical perspectives and argumentation of protesting ?outsiders.? Thus the media simultaneously delegitimize and disempower them. On the other hand, the introduction of television in the years following World War II greatly accelerated media culture?s emphasis on powerful imagery, colorful personalities, dramatic action, and even violent conflict. At times, these images would reach wide audiences with powerful meanings that transcended the normally narrow media interpretations. But the media?s growing fixation with dramatic visuals invited an expressive form of protest in which appearances and behavior, symbolism and militancy became increasingly significant vehicles for expressing the voices of those whose arguments the media treated as unworthy of serious consideration. From the mid-60s on, as protests increasingly focused on national institutions and policies, the logic of media coverage?coupled with political backlash, government repression, and the ever-escalating war in Vietnam?produced increasing movement isolation and fragmentation, a sharp polarization of the American public, and, ultimately, both co-optive market forces and the political turn to the right. * * * This book?s focus on what happened in and to the sixties has led me to conclusions that emphasize democracy building, with implications for the Left?s efforts to raise consciousness among the wider public. Most fundamentally, my argument revolves around contradictions between capitalism and democracy and the way these have played out in the United States since World War II. Along with an increasing number of voices around the world, this perspective sees these contradictions becoming increasingly problematic in the years ahead. As Herbert Marcuse wrote in 1966, ?Today the fight for life, the fight for Eros, is the political fight.?8 If that was true in 1966, it is certainly more true today. In the end, the effort to build a democratic alternative to an increasingly ominous corporate future is, like many moments experienced during the long sixties era, one that can be powerfully self-sustaining. In addition to enabling people to see the forces that impinge on and repress their full humanity, it awakens in people the awareness of possibility?the possibility that things can be done differently, the possibility that people of very different backgrounds and orientations can come together and discover their common humanity. The latter discovery is one of democracy?s most powerful rewards, the sense of breaking through preconceptions about differentness to come to an understanding of the other that brings with it a rich, emotional connection. 1 Andrew Sullivan, ?Goodbye to All That,? Atlantic Monthly, December 2007, 42. 2 See Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission (New York: New York University Press, 1975), 113. 3 The term neoliberal refers to the extreme, contemporary form of classical liberalism and its embrace of ?free? markets. I use the word ?regime? in the sense of ?relatively durable political regimes? grounded in dominant political coalitions over a span of American presidencies. See Stephen Skowronek, ?The Changing Political Structures of Presidential Leadership,? in Bruce Miroff, Raymond Seidelman, and Todd Swanstrom, eds., Debating Democracy: A Reader in American Politics, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), 285-296. 4 Tom Hayden, The Long Sixties: From 1960 to Barack Obama (Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm, 2009). 5 Ronald Reagan, quoted in Daniel Marcus, Happy Days and Wonder Years: The Fifties and the Sixties in Contemporary Cultural Politics (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 61. 6 Sidney Blumenthal, ?Reaganism and the Neokitsch Aesthetic,? in Sidney Blumenthal and Thomas Byrne Edsall, The Reagan Legacy (New York: Pantheon, 1988), 275. 7 Thomas Frank, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). 8 Marcuse?s words are the final sentence in the ?Political Preface,? in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization (Boston, Beacon Press, 1966), xxv. Excerpt from ?What Really Happened to the 1960s: How Mass Media Culture Failed American Democracy,? by Edward P. Morgan, ?2010 by the University Press of Kansas. Used by permission of the press. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 15:44:39 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:44:39 +0100 Subject: [THS] !!!! Robert Scheer: The Villain Occupy Wall Street Has Been Waiting For Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117154236.04951918@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_villain_occupy_wall_street_has_been_waiting_for_20111117/ The Villain Occupy Wall Street Has Been Waiting For New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, seen here in 2008. By Robert Scheer In the pantheon of billionaires without shame, Michael Bloomberg, the Wall Street banker-turned-business-press-lord-turned-mayor, is now secure at the top. What is so offensive is that someone who abetted Wall Street greed, and benefited as much as anyone from it, has no compunction about ruthlessly repressing those who dare exercise their constitutional ?right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? that he helped to create. You would think that a former partner at the investment bank Solomon Brothers, which originated mortgage-backed securities, a man who then partnered with Merrill Lynch in the high-speed computerized trading that has led to so much financial manipulation, would have some sense of his own culpability. Or at least that someone whose Wall Street career left him with a net worth of $19.5 billion would grasp the deep irony of his being the instrument for smashing Occupy Wall Street, the internationally acknowledged symbol of opposition to corporate avarice. But only in America is the arrogance of the superrich so perfectly concealed by the pretense of democracy that the 12th richest man in the nation can suppress dissent against corporate rapacity and expect his brutal actions to be viewed not as a means of preserving his own class privilege but as bureaucratically necessary to providing sanitary streets. Even before he ordered the smashing of dissent by citizens peacefully assembled, Bloomberg denigrated their heartfelt message: ?It?s fun and it?s cathartic,? he said of those huddled against the cold in a makeshift encampment, ?... it?s entertaining to go and blame people. ... It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.? It is mind-boggling that Bloomberg still hypes the canard that the banks were forced to reap enormous profits from toxic securities. It is an embarrassing, dishonest position when the record of banker fraud in creating the housing bubble is so well documented in Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuits. Is Bloomberg unaware that the major banks have agreed to pay hefty fines in a meager compensation for their schemes? That he blames the victims of the securitization swindles and then orders the arrest of those who dare speak the truth is a tribute to his belief in the enduring power of the big lie. If the Bloomberg news service, the stock market idolizer owned by the mayor, had been anything more than an enabler this past decade of Wall Street excess, nay criminality, it?s possible we would not be experiencing the current crisis. If this leading financial news outlet had performed the minimum of journalistic due diligence on unregulated credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and the other swindles marketed with an abandon informed by deep deceit and the financial industry?s pervasive corruption, the world economy may not now be in such terrible shape. Yet the man whose personal wealth increased by $4.5 billion the first year of this meltdown when many Americans were losing their life savings now dares shift blame away from himself and others at the center of economic power to the most vulnerable among us. Instead of blaming the Wall Street lobbyists who got the laws changed so that they could securitize people?s home mortgages, no matter how unsound those mortgages were by design, he blames the folks suckered into accepting the banks? phony offerings. ?Blame the opium addict and not the pusher? is the excuse for the bankers who turned the lure of easy credit into a housing bubble that, when it inevitably exploded, impoverished the world but left the bailed-out Wall Street hustlers richer than ever. ?There?s something wrong with a kid who steals a bike going to jail and someone who steals millions paying a fine,? as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch put it in challenging Bloomberg?s blame-the-victims copout. The fines to which Koch referred represent a small percentage of the bankers? ill-gotten gains, and, of course, as opposed to the kid who steals a bike, none of the bankers fined by the SEC has even been threatened with jail time. ?What do you think they got fined for?schmutz on the sidewalk?? Koch asked. ?They got fined because they abused their relationship with their clientele. And I want to see somebody?I want to see one of them, of a major corporation, punished criminally.? Instead, the people led away in handcuffs are not the bankers who perpetuated the fraud of turning homes into the junk of toxic mortgages, which should be judged as criminal, but decent people who have committed only the ?crime? of speaking truth to power. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 15:48:09 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:48:09 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Why_the_First_Amendment_Won=92t_Protect__Occ?= =?iso-8859-1?q?upiers=3A_Bill_Blum?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117154514.04951ba8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_first_amendment_wont_protect_occupiers_20111116/ Why the First Amendment Won?t Protect Occupiers Posted on Nov 16, 2011 Timothy Krause (CC-BY) By Bill Blum From Oakland to Chapel Hill, from Portland to Zuccotti Park, the message to the Occupy movement is clear: It?s time to fold up your tents and retreat from the public square or be carted off to jail. From coast to coast, protesters have responded to the edicts with largely passive physical resistance and, in some cities, court challenges rooted in the First Amendment and animated by the popular mythology surrounding the amendment?s depth and reach. The movement, we?re told, is shielded by the rights of freedom of speech and assembly and those rights trump whatever interests (whether legitimate or feigned) that municipalities may have in maintaining public health and safety. It?s impossible at this early stage of the crackdown to predict how each local legal case will play out. Depending upon the precise wording of city ordinances, state statutes and the manner in which police raids are conducted, the Occupiers may score some litigation victories, such as the short-lived temporary restraining order issued by a state court judge after the early morning police attack Tuesday on Zuccotti Park in New York City. But most of the legal challenges are likely to end in defeat, as occurred in New York when another judge ruled after a lengthy hearing that the overnight camping must end even though protesters may return to the park. Those who believe the courts will come to the rescue with long-term comprehensive First Amendment remedies for the Occupy encampments are buying into a legal myth not unlike the economic myths of income fairness and equal opportunity the movement has done such a good job thus far of exposing. As Columbia Law School professor Theodore M. Shaw said in a paraphrase in an International Business Times article earlier this month in commenting about the movement?s legal tactics, ?... there is a cultural assumption in the U.S. that First Amendment protections are broader than case law suggests.? It?s easy to see where the assumption comes from. The wording of the First Amendment seems absolute: ?Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.? Since at least 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the amendment applicable to states and local governments. (See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652.) Many people believe it?s only a matter of time until the judiciary rules on appeal or in another case against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his counterparts across the nation, and the movement?s tents will be back in place for the duration of the economic crisis. Except the mythology has it wrong. Given the increasingly conservative bent of the American justice system, the Occupy movement may wind up not only disillusioned but making the case law on the First Amendment even less receptive to sustained political protest than it is at present. When it comes to street demonstrations, the courts have never regarded First Amendment protections as absolute. First and foremost, it has long been held that government can impose ?reasonable? content-neutral limits on the time, place and manner of protests. In addition, courts have tailored the degree of First Amendment protections available to protesters according to the nature of the public forum or space in play. Protests at venues characterized as traditional public forums such as municipally owned and operated parks have been given the greatest degree of legal protection and scrutiny, with lesser degrees of protection accorded to protests at nontraditional forums like Zuccotti (which is privately owned but by law open to the public). And the final say on what?s reasonable, neutral and appropriate even in a traditional public forum isn?t up to popular movements or their attorneys to decide but rests in the hands of a mostly white, mostly male and, as regards the federal bench, a lifetime-tenured and mostly Republican set of judges who by age, lifestyle, training and political experience usually are worlds apart from those taking to the streets. The Zuccotti Park legal challenge isn?t the first time overnight camping has been tested on First Amendment grounds. In the 1984 case of Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, involving the National Park Service?s decision to prevent advocates for the homeless from sleeping in Lafayette Park across from the White House, the Supreme Court recognized camping as a form of ?expressive conduct? under the First Amendment. But in a 7-2 ruling, the court upheld the overnight ban as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction. (See 468 U.S. 288.) The lone dissenters in Clark?Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall?were jurists without equal on today?s high court. They were the last of the court?s liberal lions, and their passing marked the end of an all-too-brief era of progressive jurisprudence and a return to an older and mean-spirited pro-business, law-and-order outlook. Could anyone seriously expect the current court, run by Chief Justice John Roberts and featuring the likes of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, to overturn the Clark decision should a Zuccotti-like suit ever get that far? Even the court?s Democrats would probably balk. Indeed, in a 2002 case that offers a possible foreshadowing, Barack Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor, at the time a judge on the 2nd Circuit, joined in an opinion denying the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union permission to set up pickets in the plaza outside Lincoln Center in Manhattan. The plaza, though privately managed by Lincoln Center, was publicly owned. In so ruling, Sotomayor and her colleagues endorsed the center?s policy of limiting the plaza to ?artistic and performance-related events? as content-neutral and reasonable. (Hotel & Rest. Employees Union v. New York Dept. of Parks, 311 F.3d 534 [2002]) Given the sorry state of the law and the unfortunate direction of the courts, it should come as no surprise that the Occupiers lost the legal battle to keep their Zuccotti encampment. It wasn?t wrong to turn to the courts. Litigation has been and always will be a basic component of any movement for progressive social change. But popular mythology aside, it?s seldom the leading component and rarely a substitute for the long, hard slog of collective political action that has been Occupy?s hallmark. From ths at psalience.org Thu Nov 17 15:54:33 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:54:33 +0100 Subject: [THS] John Pilger: In Mexico, a universal struggle against power and forgetting Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111117155026.03e12920@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/11/pilger-mexico-national-rivera In Mexico, a universal struggle against power and forgetting John Pilger Published 10 November 2011 A landmark mural in Mexico City by Diego Rivera prompts John Pilger to muse how Mexican politics and business, as in other countries, have been polluted by greedy forces backed by Wall Street. Mariachis play at the San Isidro cemetery, in Mexico City on November 2, 2011 as Mexicans celebrate the Day of the Dead (Photo: Getty Images) Alameda Park is Mexico City's languid space for lovers and open-air ballroom dancers, the gentlemen in two-tone shoes, the ladies in finery and heels. The cobbled paths undulate from the great earthquake of 1985. You imagine the fairground sinking into the cobwebs of cracks, its Edwardian organ playing forlornly. Two small churches nearby totter precariously. The surreal is Mexico's fa?ade. Hidden behind the poplars is the museum where Diego Riviera's mural Dream of a Sunday Afternoon in Alameda Park occupies the entire ground floor. You sink into sofa chairs and journey for an hour across his masterpiece. More than 45 feet long and 13 feet high, it presents political and artistic warriors of Mexico past, from the conquistador Hernando Cort?s to Rivera himself, depicted as a child holding the hand of a fashionably dressed skeleton, the iconic symbol of the Day of the Dead. Standing maternally beside him is his wife Frida Kahlo, Mexico's artistic heroine. Around them parade the impervious rich and unrequited poor. Los indignados What is it about Mexico that is a universal political dream? As in a Rivera mural, nothing is held back: no class martyrdom, no colonial tragedy. The message is freedom next time. The autocracy that emerged from the revoution of 1910-20 gave itself the Orwellian name Party of the Institutionalised Revolution. This was eventually replaced by businessmen promising a pseudo-democracy, which in 1994 embraced Bill Clinton's rapacious North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Within a year, a million jobs were destroyed south of the border, along with Emiliano Zapata's revolutionary triumph, the constitutional protection of indigenous land from sale or privatisation. At a stroke, Mexico surrendered its economy to Wall Street. The beneficiaries of the new, privatised Mexico are those such as Carlos Slim, now the world's richest man, ahead even of Bill Gates, and whose fingers are lodged in every imaginable pie, from food and construction to the national telephone company. A US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks says: "The net worth of the ten richest people of Mexico - a country where more than 40 per cent of the population lives in poverty - represents roughly 10 per cent of the gross domestic product." The last presidential election, in 2006, was won by Felipe Calder?n, Washington's man, following persistent allegations that it had been rigged. Calder?n declared what he calls "a war on drug gangs" and 50,000 dead are the result. No one doubts the menace of the drug cartels, but the real "security issue" is more likely the resistance of ordinary Mexicans to an enduring inequity and a rotten elite. For most of this year, thousands of los indignados have taken over the huge parade ground known as the Z?calo, facing the National Palace. The occupations in Wall Street and London and around the world have their genesis in Latin America. The difference here is that there is none of the angst about the protesters' "focus". As in all places where people live on the edge and the state and its cronyism cast lawless shadows, they know exactly what they want. Ask some of the 44,000 employees of the national power company, who prevented the fire sale of the national grid until Calder?n sacked them all; the striking copper miners of Cananea, whose owners funded Calder?n's campaign; and the former pilots and stewards of the national airline, Mexicana, dissolved in a sham bankruptcy that was a gift to the private airline industry. These angry, eloquent and often courageous people have long known something many in Europe and the United States are only beginning to realise: there is no choice but to fight the economic extremism unleashed in Washington and London a generation ago. Employment, trade unionism, public health, education, "life itself", says Manuel L?pez Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City who ran against Calder?n, have "since been struck by a political and economic earthquake". Since Calder?n came to power, 30 journalists have been killed, 13 this year alone, according to the United Nations. Again, the government blames the drug cartels, but suppression of a national resistance, co-ordinated with the United States, is also the truth. Green-eyed disdain Unlike in the US and Britain, many journalists, some of them inspired by the rise of the Zapatistas in the 1990s, have thrown off the patronage of the political and business elite to pursue what they call "civic journalism". The second-largest newspaper in Mexico is La Jornada, famed for its fearless investigations and campaigns and for surviving mostly on subscriptions. It carries no commercial advertising, reminiscent of newspapers before they were consumed by corporations. There is nothing like it in Britain; it reflects much about Mexico City that is surprising and enlightened. At the National Palace the presence of Robocop guards is at once overwhelmed by Rivera's greatest mural. Painted between 1929 and 1945, it follows the walls of the staircase, spilling, like his Alameda work, spectacles of revolution and tragedy, hope and defiance. When I filmed it 30 years ago, I tried unsuccessfully to write a narrative to the pictures. Condensing and bringing alive 2,000 years of history is art of which Europeans and North Americans are sometimes disdainful yet envious; because it charts the struggle of ordinary people, uniting and celebrating them, and identifying their true political enemies. Seeing it again, I am struck by how it speaks for us all. On 1 November, John Pilger was awarded Britain's highest honour for documentary film-making by the Grierson Trust in memory of the documentary pioneer John Grierson. From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:03:17 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:03:17 +0100 Subject: [THS] !!! OWS Shows Fight Is Far from Over: Explosive Actions on 2 Month Anniversary of Movement Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118115223.09da5d70@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.alternet.org/story/153118/ows_shows_fight_is_far_from_over%3A_explosive_actions_on_2_month_anniversary_of_movement?page=entire AlterNet / By Sarah Jaffe and Nick Turse and Sarah Seltzer and Julianne Escobedo Shepherd and Kristen Gwynne OWS Shows Fight Is Far from Over: Explosive Actions on 2 Month Anniversary of Movement The 99 percent showed up around the city to stand in solidarity with the evicted occupiers and express their support for a growing, expanding, living movement. November 18, 2011 | New York City showed its billionaire mayor and the rest of the 1 percent that the fight is far from over, just two days after the violent crackdown on Liberty Plaza in the middle of the night Tuesday. From a 7 a.m. march on Wall Street itself to subway speak-outs around the city, from student walk-outs at universities like CUNY and Columbia to a giant, permitted rally in Foley Square that had a reported 30,000-plus attendees to a march across the Brooklyn Bridge with projections on the Verizon building declaring,"We are Winning" and "Occupy Earth," -- the 99 percent showed up around the city to stand in solidarity with the evicted occupiers and express their support for a growing, expanding, living movement. Occupy the NYSE: Massive Crowd Overwhelms Financial District to Kick off OWS Day of Action The NYPD and the press had already occupied Wall Street proper by the time we got downtown at 6:30 a.m., with broadcast trucks, cameras and barricades blocking the entrance. Four officers stood near a check point, checking the IDs of Wall Streeters on their way to work. No one else, including reporters, was allowed in. The signs were already out in abundance when we arrived at the plaza next to Liberty Park -- pre-printed signs from the National Nurses United calling to "Heal America, Tax Wall Street" and a beautifully-drawn cardboard sign reading "Take the Banks' TARP Too!" A young man behind us held the official Zuccotti Park rules and regulations, liberated from the park. Once again, we knew that just by being here, we could be subject to arrest, and so even journalists were Sharpie-ing the National Lawyers Guild number on our forearms as we sipped coffee and joked. The crowd rapidly swelled, packing us close in the tiny square between food carts and riot police in the street on Broadway. A People's Mic called our attention; two rounds of shouts in the crowd and we were told that there would be two marches, one behind a black flag and one behind a green flag. The black flag march rolled out right away; we hovered behind the green march as a young woman came to tell us that our risk of arrest was significant just for being on this march, but that there would be red flags attempting to lead people away from danger if there was opportunity. Four helicopters (at least) buzzed overhead as we hovered in the park, more and more coming in to join us. By the time we headed out, the square was full again. We streamed out past the line of unsmiling riot police, down Broadway. We were stopped at Pine Street and turned left, heading down the sidewalks as the police filled the streets. At Nassau and Pine, we came upon the end of the other march, and in the street on Nassau were riot cops and mounted police. "Whose streets? Our streets!" rang out as the crowd thronged into the intersection; protesters sat down in the streets. A marching band played in the street as we squeezed through the crowd and moved up Pine toward William St. The standoff at William quickly grew tense despite the presence of protesters dressed as trees, dancing to the sound of "Which Side Are You On?" from the band and chanting "Hey Bloomberg, Beware, Liberty Park Is Everywhere!" Police attempted to push through, batons out, shoving the crowd back onto the sidewalk. AlterNet contributor J.A. Myerson slipped through and sat down in the street. Cheers erupted as we saw him loaded into the van. One protester, however, had a hard time getting the NYPD to take him into custody. Retired Philadelphia police captain Ray Lewis, in full dress uniform, was almost begging to be arrested -- kneeling down in front of a line of cops, with his hands behind his back at the southwest corner of Nassau and Pine -- as he decried corporate exploitation. The police made feints at arresting him for a time, almost toying with the retired cop, but wouldn't actually do it -- for a while. After he moved back through the crowd and up toward Broadway, they pounced, turning Lewis into a full-fledged OWS folk hero. Walking ramrod straight with his hands behind his back, the retired police captain was led by two NYPD officers through the intersection to the whoops, whistles and applause of the crowd. At Nassau and Pine, five rounds of the People's Mic rang from corner to corner as the police had the intersection blocked off: men and women in business suits were allowed through, while anyone who looked like a protester was blocked. Reports of Long-Range Acoustic Device, the "sound cannon" used on protesters during the midnight raid on Liberty Plaza, were later confirmed by photograph. According to Salon's Justin Elliott, the National Lawyers Guild reported at least 80 arrests during the morning, though there was no confirmation as of yet from the NYPD. They may not have shut down the stock exchange, but thousands filled the streets before sunrise on a weekday to march at risk of arrest, to express solidarity with those thrown out of the park and send a strong signal to Wall Street and the world: We're not going away. Occupy the Subway: "Let us tell you what this movement means to us." At 3:10 p.m., the Harlem 125th A,B,C and D subway station was already "occupied"-- everyone leaving the station and walking onto 125th street was carrying flyers or Occupied Wall Street Journals. Downstairs near the turnstiles, thirty or so protesters spoke out using the human microphone while others walked around distributing literature. Carefully, a few young leaders coordinated the protesters as they swiped their cards, slipped through the turnstiles and moved back from a gospel singer (who actually complied with a request from a protester and belted out an impressive "We Shall Overcome"). A series of speak-outs using the human mic began. Some spoke about income inequality and one particularly eloquent women spoke about her disgust with media coverage, saying she'd been covering a film festival and initially approached OWS as an "objective" journalist -- before she realized the message was hard to argue with and joined up. Around the city's five boroughs, similar speak-outs took place simultaneously, all on their way to join the march downtown. Eventually, the Harlem OWSers, representing a particularly wide mix of ages and backgrounds, went down to the platform in two groups -- one to the front of the train and one to the back. In the cars, mic-checked stories were told with the introduction "Hi! We're from Occupy Wall Street. You may have heard of us. We're not here to shut down the subways! That was a rumor. Let us tell you what this movement means to us." Then the storytelling began again, including a young man who spoke of having a master's degree but no hope of health insurance in the near future and a teacher who spoke of having no hope of retirement. In between the stories, and chanting and singing continued. In order to reach the most commuters and annoy the least, at station stops the groups ran from car to car yelling "we are the 99%"--and met a new captive audience in the next car. The response? Some bursts of applause, some eye-rolls and complaints, but mostly cautious listening. Medics, socialists, students and a young mother were among those who got on at 125th. Half an hour later after the train making every local stop they disembarked at Chambers. The crowd reconvened, cheering and chanting, to march on to Foley, picking up others on the streets downtown. Massive Student Walk--Out at Union Square Union Square sits conveniently close to NYU and the New School, so the student walkout converging upon it at 4 p.m. was bound to be packed. But support came from higher institutions across the city, including those from New York Students Rising, a coalition put together by students from CUNY and SUNY, and from Columbia University, who embarked on a lively, drum-assisted march in the short walk from the subway to the protest on the north end of the square. There, a good 2,000 or more were gathered, and the massive crowd made it so the human mic cascaded speeches in waves by the time it reached the back. Students spoke against rising tuition costs, unfair practices by loan organizations and the prospect of facing both unemployment and crippling debt upon graduation. But there were other concerns: one speaker from Juilliard advocated allocating more government funds to the arts, citing The New York State Theater's vile rechristening to David H. Koch Theater as an example of how corporate funds, though badly needed, sour the landscape. The crowd held signs ranging from "Students and Labor Band Together," to "Blackboards Not Bullets"--which was held by the actress Anne Hathaway, an NYU alumni. Possibly the most succinct sign we saw: "$hit i$ Fu?ked." After about an hour of speech, a mic check: it was time to Occupy 5th Avenue. Protesters marched from Union Square across West 15th Street, which proved fairly easy, as it's a block-long street not often crowded with cars. As the march reached 5th, the crowd seemed to number close to 5,000, and traffic was forced to stop. The march made it to 14th street before police barricades stopped it, and a police drove his cruiser slowly through the crowd to force dispersal. But protesters then headed back to Union Square where they momentarily overtook 14th and Broadway, a major thoroughfare. The plan: walk down Broadway to Foley Square. As the protesters headed South, it grew in number, as though random people were just streaming out of their apartments to join. By the time it hit Houston, it wasn't possible to see the beginning or end of the protesters, in both directions. Of course, riot cops were equally plentiful, and batons-out. From my view, the march made it to Canal without incident, but cruisers and paddy wagons escorted empty school buses the whole way, all racing down Broadway for Foley. Foley Square -- Over 30,000 Come to Celebrate OWS Anniversary Walking into Foley Square at 5 p.m. felt like the last big march (on October 5th), redux--except darker thanks to the loss of daylight savings time. Again, all the streets downtown were jammed with protesters, excitedly streaming towards Foley. Again, things got so crowded going into the park that human traffic crept maddeningly towards the one entrance the cops had opened. And again, inside the park there was a mix of music, chanting, animated clusters of conversation and brilliant signs. Some slogans had a patriotic feel: 'I Love the America that Wall Street F*cked, Don't You?" "Silencing the People is Un-American" "The Founding Fathers Were Protesters--Educate Yourself!" Others were shorter: "People Power Over Profits!" "We Want to Work," "Thank You, Occupy Wall Street." A few had messages for Mayor Bloomberg: "Hey Mr. Mayor, We Have Rights, You Are Wrong!" and "Bloomberg, We're Back and Stronger Than Ever." Those were getting a lot of attention. The crowd listened to some rousing speakers: students, union members and one organizer who said that direct democracy--like local GAs--and direct action--like shutting down Wall Street -- were the key to the movement's future. And clearly, the crowd was hungry for the latter: "March, march, march!" they cheered, as they headed out at a slow crawl towards the Brooklyn Bridge. A rousing hip hop anthem with the chorus "run, don't walk, to the occupation" had people bouncing as they poured out of the square and into the streets. March on the Brooklyn Bridge The front of the march was stacked with people from unions and community organizations, with the leading contingent wearing white shirts reading "UnitedNY.org." Loud and energetic, they cheered and chanted their way across the Brooklyn Bridge, behind a phalanx of Community Affairs cops and legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild. Then, they caught sight of it. Projected against the side of the stark 32-story Verizon building, in huge bold type, was the movement's rallying-cry-cum-self-identification: "99%." Suddenly, an already raucous crowd went wild, breaking into cheers and whistles. "This is so cool," one man said to me, before turning to repeat it to everyone else around. "It's really so cool!" Soon the light projection began scrolling through OWS's other favorite slogans, cheers and catch-phrases: "Another world is possible," "We are 99%," "Occupy" followed by a rapid fire list of cities all across the United States, and to commemorate the dawn of the movement two months earlier, "Happy Birthday." Meanwhile, the marchers kept up their chants as "Bloomberg beware, Zuccotti Park is everywhere," boomed across bridge. On the roadways below, cars honked their support, even, on occasion, beeping in time with the cheers from the protesters on the bridge. Others hung out their windows and yelled their approval or loudly applauded. When we, at the front of the march, were about three quarters of the way across the bridge, I found myself next to a group of legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild. They had just spoken by cell phone with colleagues back at Foley Square and were told that the tail end of the march was only then just leaving the plaza. If that was the case, I asked Bruce Bentley, the chair of the NLG's Mass Defense Committee to estimate how many people were on the march. Judging by the distance, he ball-parked it at between 10,000 to 20,000. "I'd rather be conservative than over-estimate," he said. It turned out that Bentley was, apparently, too conservative. Other unconfirmed estimates put the crowd at more than 30,000. End of the Day: Liberty Plaza The General Assembly was in action. Hundreds of people were huddled around the facilitators, speaking about the day's events. The People's Library was being rebuilt. The scene made one point clear: Bloomberg's eviction did not kill the movement, it mobilized supporters. Tonight, we sang happy birthday to Occupy Wall St. Diego Espitia, 18, has been homeless since he lost his job at a pizzeria two months ago. His parents live in Colombia. Walking around Manhattan with nowhere to go, he found Occupy Wall St. on September 17th, the first day of the occupation. "I was homeless but then once this came along, this was my home. Now I'm officially homeless. I got nowhere to go," said Espitia. [The eviction] really got the public angry, and it definitely got us angry," said Espitia, "We spent way too much time. People donated too much money. It's not just going to go away like that. " Today was proof. Out of jail and ready to keep moving, the demonstrators are still organizing. "In the next couple days there's definitely going to be a lot of meetings here to decide what to do. All the working groups are still having meetings. It hasn't stopped anything," said Hackett. Sarah Jaffe is an associate editor at AlterNet, a rabblerouser and frequent Twitterer. You can follow her at @seasonothebitch. Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com and a senior editor at AlterNet. His latest book is The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso). You can follow him on Twitter @NickTurse, on Tumblr, and on Facebook. Sarah Seltzer is an associate editor at AlterNet, a staff writer at RH Reality Check and a freelance writer based in New York City. Her work has been published in Jezebel.com and on the websites of the Nation, the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal. Find her at sarahmseltzer.com. Julianne Escobedo Shepherd is an associate editor at AlterNet and a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and editor. Formerly the executive editor of The FADER, her work has appeared in VIBE, SPIN, New York Times and various other magazines and websites. Kristen Gwynne is a freelance writer and an editorial assistant at AlterNet. From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:08:10 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:08:10 +0100 Subject: [THS] Privatization Nightmare: 5 Public Services That Should Never Be Handed Over to Greedy Corporations Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118120606.09da74b8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.alternet.org/story/153093/privatization_nightmare%3A_5_public_services_that_should_never_be_handed_over_to_greedy_corporations?page=entire AlterNet / By Dave Johnson Privatization Nightmare: 5 Public Services That Should Never Be Handed Over to Greedy Corporations Why we all pay more when essential services are privatized. November 17, 2011 | Who gains ? and who loses ? when public assets and jobs are turned over to the private sector? The corporate right endlessly promotes ?privatization? of public assets and public jobs as a cash-raising or cost-saving measure. Privatization is when the public turns over assets like airports, roads or buildings, or contracts out a public function like trash collection to a private company. Many cities contract out their trash collection. To raise cash Arizona even sold its state capital building and leased it back. The justification for privatization is the old argument that private companies do everything better and more ?efficiently? than government, and will find ways to cut costs. Over and over we hear that companies do everything for less cost than government. But it never seems to sink in that private companies don?t do things unless the people at the top can make a bundle of cash; if the CEO isn?t making millions, that CEO will move the company on to something else. When government does something they don?t have to pay millions to someone at the top. So how do private companies save money? What costs do companies cut that government doesn?t? When you hear about ?cost-cutting? here is something to consider: what if by ?costs? the privatizers are talking about us? The Human Cost A recent NY Times piece brought the human cost of privatization to people?s attention. In the article, A Hidden Toll as States Shift to Contract Workers, the Times? Motoko Rich reports, With state budgets under pressure, Michigan says it can no longer afford the relatively high wages of the public workers, which range from $15 to $20 an hour, along with health and retirement benefits. According to Salary.com, certified nursing assistants in private long-term care facilities in the area earn a median salary of just over $25,000 a year, or about $12.25 a hour. Summary: when a public function is privatized the employees get paid less and lose benefits, but other state agencies pick up the costs that occur when people get paid less. Private managers and executives get a big chunk of the ?savings? and then there are the costs to the larger economy from ever more people making less and less. From the Times article, Economists and other academics who study outsourcing are divided about whether it usually saves a government money. Recent data from Arizona shows that privately operated prisons often cost more to operate than state-run facilities. A study by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit Washington group, found that in 33 of 35 occupations, using contractors cost the federal government billions of dollars more than using government employees. Laura Clawson at Daily Kos added to the NY Times story, in, Low-wage contract workers in Michigan veterans home come with hidden costs, What do you want to bet that guy gets health care, and retirement benefits, and earns more than $10 an hour? And that he's probably not the only person at J2S of whom those things are true. So while the hourly wage a nursing assistant working for J2S gets is $10, the state is paying J2S more. How much more, the New York Times does not report. But Eclectablog points out that the state pays J2S Healthcare Group $15 an hour for those $10 an hour nursing assistants. When a public job is contracted out, usually public employees are replaced by people who are paid much, much less and receive fewer, if any benefits. Corporate propagandists complain that public employees are overpaid, receive ?lavish? benefits, and are difficult to fire. But the question we all should ask is: is it in the public interest for Americans to be paid less or more, and to receive or not receive benefits? If we believe it is better to be paid more and receive benefits then We, the People should do that. Corruption Incentive Along with people getting their pay cut, privatization creates an incentive for corruption on the part of public officials. When a company (or, really, the people at the top of a company) can make a bundle form privatization, then they have a really good reason to bring various forms of uh influence to bear on the public officials that make the decisions about whether or not to privatize. Five Privatization Nightmares Here are five nightmares resulting from privatization: 1. Privatized Prisons Think through the implications of a privatized prison system: if people go to prison it means more profit for the big for-profit prison corporations. This puts corporations, with all of their influence over the government, in the position of wanting more of us sentenced to long terms in jail so they can make more money! Even worse, there is an added corporate benefit: cheap prison labor. Of course, the result you would expect from these incentives is exactly what has been happening. For example, you may have heard about the "Kids for Cash" scandal in which Pennsylvania judges pleaded guilty to sentencing kids to privatized detention centers in exchange for payoffs from the profit-making companies that ran the centers. First the judges arranged for public detention centers to be defunded. Then they started sentencing a disproportionate number of kids to private detention centers in exchange for bribes. The profit incentive to put more and more of us in prison is not just an isolated local problem. This year The Nation looked into prison privatization, in The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor. They found that the notorious, Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), in an effort that is sponsored by the big for-profit prison corporations and companies that benefit from the cheap labor this provides, is helping to pass laws to put more and more of us in jail. According to The Nation, prison labor for the private sector was legally barred for years, to avoid unfair competition with private companies. But this has changed thanks to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) .... [and their] instrumental role in the explosion of the US prison population in the past few decades. ALEC helped pioneer some of the toughest sentencing laws on the books today, like mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, ?three strikes? laws, and ?truth in sentencing? laws. ALEC has also worked to pass state laws to create private for-profit prisons, a boon to two of its major corporate sponsors: Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections), the largest private prison firms in the country. An In These Times investigation last summer revealed that ALEC arranged secret meetings between Arizona?s state legislators and CCA to draft what became SB 1070, Arizona?s notorious immigration law, to keep CCA prisons flush with immigrant detainees. ALEC has proven expertly capable of devising endless ways to help private corporations benefit from the country?s massive prison population. [. . .] Much of ALEC?s proposed labor legislation, implemented state by state is allowing replacement of public workers with prisoners. 2. Parking Meters? Parking meters don?t sound like a big issue, but look what happened to Chicago. In a 2008 deal with Morgan Stanley, Chicago privatized its parking meters. In return for $1.15 billion Chicago gave up $11.6 billion of future revenue. Worse, the city gave up public control of its roads: If any road with parking meters is closed by the city for repairs, street fairs, parades, etc., the city has to come up with cash to cover loss of revenue. The lease eventually ended up under the control of Abu-Dhabi. Matt Tiabbi wrote in Rolling Stone about the effects of this deal, To start with something simple, it changed some basic traditions of local Chicago politics. Aldermen who used to have the power to close streets for fairs and festivals or change meter schedules now cannot ? or if they do, they have to compensate Chicago Parking Meters LLC for its loss of revenue. So, for example, when the new ownership told Alderman Scott Waguespack that it wanted to change the meter schedule from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week, the alderman balked and said he'd rather keep the old schedule, at least for 270 of his meters. Chicago Parking Meters then informed him that if he wanted to do that, he would have to pay the company $608,000 over three years. Written into the original deal were drastic price increases. In Hairston's and Colon's neighborhoods, meter rates went from 25? an hour to $1.00 an hour the first year, and to $1.20 an hour the year after that. "There are so many problems ? I've had so many problems with them," says Hairston. "It tells you you've got eight minutes left, you get back in seven, and it charges you for the extra hour. Or you don't get a receipt. It's crazy." But to me, the absolute best detail in this whole deal is the end of holidays. No more free parking on Sunday. No more free parking on Christmas or Easter. 3. Wisconsin Since the election of Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin is a statewide privatization nightmare. In Privatization At The Heart Of Divisive Battles In Wisconsin, Huffington Post?s Amanda Terkel reports on the state?s privatization battles and the Governor?s efforts to privatize many public functions: During his tenure as county executive, Walker proposed privatizing park maintenance, the county zoo, psychiatric staff and other sectors. Most of the time, his ideas never went anywhere, but in March 2010, he was finally able to privatize courthouse security guards. The plan ended up backfiring and costing the county extra money whena judge ordered to reinstate the guards and give them back pay, meaning the government had to pay both the public workers and private guards for a period of time. The project that he embarked on as a freshman governor in 2011 is little more than an extension of the philosophy he displayed as county executive: Walker is trying to undo the social contract and replace it with a private one. A state audit released this month found Wisconsin's privatization occurred with insufficient oversight from the legislative branch and may have violated federal rules. State officials paid two contractors $27.6 million over two years to handle enrollment in food assistance and health care programs for low-income individuals. "[The state Department of Health Services] appears to have established and rapidly expanded the Enrollment Services Center with little organized planning, limited legislative oversight, and no formal efforts to determine the appropriate mix of contract and state staff," read the report's conclusion. [ one] measure, which recently passed the Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee on a party-line vote, would require local governments to contract with private road builders for projects costing $100,000 or more in certain situations, rather than using their own public employees. "The only ones who seem to benefit are the road builders," said state Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) in a statement. [. . .] Tucked away in the state's budget repair bill was a provision that would allow the state to sell or contract out any state-owned energy asset in no-bid deals with private corporations. "The department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state," read the legislation. Questions were immediately raised about whether the arrangement would end up disproportionately benefiting GOP campaign donors, such as the Koch brothers -- speculation that Walker quickly denied. 4. Louisiana Privatizing Public-Employee Health Plans Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is trying to privatize state employees? health insurance. Supposedly this will save the state money. But In the article, LEAKED: Secret Report On Jindal?s Privatization Plan, TPMuckraker reports on a secret report describing what will really occur. A confidential report at the center of the debate over Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal?s push to privatize state employees? health insurance has been leaked. The so-called ?Chaffe report,? published Tuesday by the Baton Rouge Advocate, seeks to ?establish the fair market value of the operations? of the state?s Office of Group Benefits (OGB), which provides health care insurance for around 250,000 state workers, retirees and their dependents. The Advocate reported that the Chaffe report ?concluded that premiums would increase under privatization.? According to a story at Colorlines, Bobby Jindal?s Plan to Privatize Health Insurance for 250,000 Workers, Jindal?s privatization plan is very good for Goldman Sachs but not Louisiana, Jindal?s plans to privatize the OGB would affect about 250,000 state public employees, retirees, and their dependents. His administration says hiring an outside contractor to run the program would save taxpayers money by eliminating about 150 jobs and generating a recurring savings of over $10 million, in addition to $150 million in up front cash. However, opponents say the OGB does not need fixing, especially since it already has a surplus of a half billion dollars, and that long-term, it would cost more taxpayers money in the form of reduced benefits and increased premiums. Critics, including Louisiana democrats, also accuse Jindal of attempting to raid the $500 million surplus money, to help plug the state?s $1.6 billion budget hole. ?Bobby Jindal?s plan to sell the Office of Group Benefits could jeopardize the quality of health care received by more than 250,000 active and retired Louisiana workers and their dependents OGB does not cost taxpayers a dime to run and selling it will not save the state of Louisiana any money.? Louisiana Democratic Party Chairman Claude ?Buddy? Leach, Jr. said in a statement. ?The only folks likely to benefit from the sale of OGB are the big Wall Street corporations like Goldman Sachs who want to turn it into a profit making venture and Bobby Jindal, who would love to get his hands on the office?s half billion dollar reserve fund.? Indeed, an employee of the state?s Office of Risk Management reported that Goldman Sachs helped write the OGB?s Request for Proposals, and offered the only bid for the advisory role. The employee also said that the surplus would be reportedly split between the state and the purchaser. A new state bill also seems to override Louisiana law that would prohibit the OGB?s surplus from being used by another department in the administration. 5. Traffic-law enforcement (including red-light cameras ? decisions are made on profit motive, not good judgement) Many cities are installing privatized speed and traffic cameras. But while public law enforcement is interested in justice and fairness, private systems are only interested in profit. So judgment and compassion are thrown out the window. For example, some municipalities have contracts requiring them to approve a certain percentage of all tickets, regardless of whether there is a violation that a judge would. The result is that the public, not understanding or caring that the enforcement has been privatized, comes to see local government as little more than one more scammer after their money and loses trust and faith in government in general. Profit incentives also threaten public safety, when companies set yellow-light duration times too low. Some localities even allow these companies to write low yellow-light duration into the contracts, trading public safety for private profit! In the report, Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead: The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law Enforcement and How to Protect the Public, US PIRG found that, Privatized traffic law enforcement systems are spreading rapidly across the United States. As many as 700 local jurisdictions have entered into deals with for-profit companies to install camera systems at intersections and along roadways to encourage drivers to obey traffic signals and follow speed limits. Local contracting for automated traffic enforcement systems may sometimes be a useful tool for keeping drivers and pedestrians safe. But when private firms and municipalities consider revenues first, and safety second, the public interest is threatened. [. . .] Contracts between private camera vendors and cities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety. [. . .] some contracts, including those in the California cities of Bell Gardens, Citrus Heights, Corona and Hawthorne, potentially impose financial penalties on the city if traffic engineers extend the length of the yellow light at intersections with red-light cameras, which would reduce the number of tickets the systems can issue. Many Other Nightmares There are many other nightmares, as state and local governments, defunded by right-wing anti-government tax-cut schemes turn to privatization, sell off public assets and firing public employees to try to stay afloat. Ares being privatized include highways, airports, water systems, trash collection, bridges, parking garages, nursing homes, traffic schools, and, of course, schools. The Biggest Nightmare: Privatization Just Shifts Costs To Other Parts Of Government Or To The Economy Does government really ?save? if one government agency saves some money by contracting out, but other government agencies have to pick up the same costs. For example, if the contracting results in pay cuts for working people, then another part of the government might then spend more on poverty, nutrition or health programs for the people who now make so little. So does privatization really cut costs, or does it just shift them? And if it does just shift them (it does) see if you can guess who privatization shifts these costs to? But even worse than this shifting of costs to other parts of the government is the bigger picture of what this does to our economy. The result of this ?cost-cutting? is that people in the economy that were making $25/hour now only make perhaps $10/hour and most likely no longer get benefits. Same larger economy, $15 an hour less. After a while this adds up, and everyone has less, except for a few at the top. Kind of like now. The Equation Of Privatization The equation of privatization works like this: tax cuts leave governments desperate to raise cash, so they sell off public assets (the things We, the People own together) or cut jobs. Then they rent them back or the public pays for their use. Defunded, Chicago has to sell its parking meters to raise cash; Arizona state capital, same thing. Privatization is the 1% taking public wealth so they can make money off of it for themselves. Instead of democracy collecting taxes from the 1% privatization leaves everyone poorer and paying rent to the 1%. Private Not Public Interest There is a fundamental conflict of interest between public and private. When things are privatized of course profit comes first, not public interest. Public functions are supposed to serve the public, us, We, the People. The ?private? in ?privatization? means that it is done for the private gain of a few. When a public function is privatized it means that instead of operating for the benefit of We, the People ? the 99% ? it is operated for the benefit of a few ? the 1%. From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:10:50 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:10:50 +0100 Subject: [THS] Exploiting the Holocaust to Push Anti-Abortion Propaganda Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118121011.09d06198@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.alternet.org/story/153115/new_low_for_right-wing_anti-choicers_--_exploiting_the_holocaust_to_push_anti-abortion_propaganda?page=entire Salon / By Irin Carmon New Low for Right-Wing Anti-Choicers -- Exploiting the Holocaust to Push Anti-Abortion Propaganda For anyone who supports reproductive rights for women, the comparison is wildly offensive beyond any specter of attempted conversion or co-opting of Jewish tragedy. November 17, 2011 | ?Saying it?s OK to choose is the same thing as saying it?s OK for Hitler to choose,? says a fresh-faced young man. He?s talking about choosing an abortion in ?180,? a 33-minute movie comparing legalized abortion to the Holocaust that has so far gotten over 1.5 million hits on YouTube, thanks in part to heavy distribution by fertilized-eggs-as-people promulgators Personhood USA. That?s precisely the conclusion Ray Comfort, a mustachioed evangelical pastor and sometime Kirk Cameron collaborator, wants from his eight young interview subjects. And with the help of footage of murdered Jews and fully developed fetuses, it?s what he wants his viewers to conclude, as well. The New Zealand-born Comfort, who says his mother is Jewish, is by no means alone in making the equivalence: Mike Huckabee, who supported Personhood USA?s failed efforts in Mississippi, has often compared the Holocaust and abortion, saying of Nazi extermination, ?educated scientists, sophisticated and cultured people looked the other way because they thought it didn?t touch them.? The day before Phil Bryant was elected governor of Mississippi ? at the same time the state?s voters rejected the Personhood amendment ? he evoked the Jews of Nazi Germany ?being marched into the oven,? because of ?the people who were in charge of the government at that time? as an argument to vote for it. But Anti-Defamation League director and Holocaust survivor Abraham Foxman has called Comfort?s film ?quite frankly, one of the most offensive and outrageous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust we have seen in years.? His statement didn?t take an explicit stand on abortion or elaborate on what made the film so unacceptable, but he did say that in addition to making a ?moral equivalency between the Holocaust and abortion,? the movie ?also brings Jews and Jewish history into the discussion and then calls on its viewers to repent and accept Jesus as their savior.? Obviously, for anyone who supports reproductive rights for women, the comparison is wildly offensive beyond any specter of attempted conversion or co-opting of Jewish tragedy. It requires an unquestioning equivalence between living people systematically murdered for their ethnic, religious or sexual identity and an embryo or fetus dependent on a woman?s body for survival. It also raises the question of who the alleged exterminators are. Those making the comparison would like people to cast the government or politicians in that role ? but only because it sounds bad to point out who?s really making the choice, a woman. And for pro-choicers, reproductive rights are a part of a larger idea of bodily autonomy, which happens to be one of the many things denied to Nazi targets, some of whom were subjected to forced sterilization and abortions or horrific medical experiments. Comfort starts his film by urgently asking bewildered-looking kids in Southern California if they know who Hitler is (?this guy he had a mustache?). He inexplicably interviews an unrepentant neo-Nazi, then starts showing video footage of murdered Jews in extermination camps alongside pictures of fully developed fetuses. Having declared that Hitler hated Christianity, he asks his interviewees whether they would drive a bulldozer across the bodies of Jews, and then whether they would murder Hitler or even his pregnant mother if they had the chance. If this sounds like a suggestion that the murder of abortion providers is justifiable, the credits at the end helpfully say they don?t condone violence. In that case! By the end, Comfort is forcefully telling the teens and 20-somethings that they?re blasphemous fornicators, adulterous in their hearts, headed for hell. (He runs into a snag when he demands to know whether one girl has lusted in her heart for a man. ?Nope, I?m gay,? she says cheerfully.) Interestingly for a film that anti-choicers have declared stunningly persuasive, most of them don?t seem to care about where he says they?re going. ?180? and its accompanying book may be the most brazen attempt to co-opt the Holocaust for other ends, but it?s hardly the first. Even before the Internet codified Godwin?s Law ? the longer a discussion gets, the more likely someone will be compared to Hitler ? Nazi Germany has been a favored comparison of just about anyone on the hunt for an undisputed evil. Nor is it just a tactic of the right, though recently it?s seemed happiest to use it as a cudgel against enemies, down to private equity king Steven Schwarzman comparing Obama?s position on taxes to Hitler invading Poland. Even Betty Friedan did it: She notoriously wrote in ?The Feminist Mystique? that ?the women who ?adjust? as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ?just a housewife,? are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps.? But Kirsten Fermaglich, author of ?American Dreams and Nazi Nightmares: Early Holocaust Consciousness and Liberal America, 1957-1965,? told me that though Friedan later repudiated the comparison, in 1963, when Friedan published her book, the Holocaust was ?not a sacred cow. Nobody complained about it. Certainly no one complained about it the way you?d think they would.? Of course, at that point, the Holocaust wasn?t even known as the Holocaust. Scholars differ on how and when it shifted as a matter of public consciousness, but Fermaglich suggested it was linked to the growth of identity politics and pride in ethnic heritage in the 1970s ? as well as growing Holocaust denial. ?It?s very hard to separate out one?s personal politics from one?s reaction to the use of the Holocaust,? conceded Hasia Diner, a professor of American Jewish History at NYU and director of the Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History. ?When it?s being used for something that I agree with, and I respect the speaker, it doesn?t bother me. On the other hand when it?s being invoked for political purposes that I find nefarious and I?m disgusted by the speaker then it seems wrong.? A comparison she found appropriate, for example, was the 1951 petition signed by Paul Robeson, W.E.B. DuBois and others charging the United States with genocide, citing lynchings and wrongful executions. ?I don?t think Jews have a monopoly on the word,? she said. But as for the anti-abortion activists using the Holocaust, Diner said bluntly, ?I have nothing but disgust and contempt for them. Not because they use that word. I think everything about them is horrible.? Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon. From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:12:49 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:12:49 +0100 Subject: [THS] Beckley Foundation: Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118121152.03f43ab8@mail.messagingengine.com> Beckley Foundation Alert Dear all, This is to announce the launch of the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform at an Event at the House of Lords on 17-18 November. Please visit the Global Initiative's new dedicated website: www.reformdrugpolicy.com. At the Meeting, senior political representatives from around thirty countries will gather to discuss possible reforms to global drug policy, and the Global Commission on Drug Policy will present the findings of their Report. This is an incredibly important step forward in the global drug policy reform movement. Never have so many eminent politicians gathered under one roof with the intention of discussing drug policy reform. Case studies in the liberalisation of drugs policy will be presented to attendees and there will be a debate on the reform of cannabis policy. Importantly, there will be a presentation discussing the first-ever Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Regulated and Taxed Cannabis Market, commissioned by the Beckley Foundation. Other topics to be debated include reforms to cannabis policy in the US, as well as regulation of cannabis supply in Spain. On the second day of the Meeting, there will be a closed session for country representatives interested in discussing possible UN convention amendments, based around the groundbreaking Report by Prof. Robin Room, Rewriting the UN Drug Conventions. This Report was also commissioned by the Beckley Foundation. On 19 November we are publishing a Public Letter in The Guardian and The Times, which will alsobe sent to the Prime Minister, to the cabinet, and to every member of the Houses of Lords and Commons. The letter calls for the urgent need to break the taboo on rational discussion of drug policy reform. It will be signed by leading international politicians, academics and celebrities including former Presidents Jimmy Carter of the United States, Fernando H. Cardoso of Brazil, and C?sar Gaviria of Colombia, as well as nine Nobel Prize winners, Noam Chomsky, Richard Branson, George Schultz, Yoko Ono, Sting and Bernardo Bertolucci. Many more updates to be released soon. In the meantime, please visit our new website. With best wishes, Amanda ??2011 Beckley Foundation | Beckley Park, Oxford, OX3 9SY, England. From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:27:38 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:27:38 +0100 Subject: [THS] Support ICH Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118122656.0409f670@mail.messagingengine.com> A major source for THS - and for you. Please support ICH http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/support.htm From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:30:06 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:30:06 +0100 Subject: [THS] Why the West is Demonizing Iran Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118122523.03ff4f08@mail.messagingengine.com> An Act Of War? Top US Senator Unveils Iran Central Bank Sanctions By AFP Looking to heap pressure on Iran over its suspect nuclear program, a top US senator on Thursday introduced legislation aimed at collapsing the country's central bank. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29749.htm ~~~~~~~~~~ "Nuclear Option" Against Iran's Economy Paves Way for War By Kate Gould Once sanctions fail-as they almost always do-proponents for war use the failure of sanctions to justify military confrontation. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29742.htm ~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29750.htm Why the West is Demonizing Iran By Stuart Littlewood November 17, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- When new recruits join British Petroleum (BP) they are fed romantic tales about how the company came into being. William Knox D'Arcy, a Devon man, studied law and, after emigrating to Australia, made a fortune from the Mount Morgan gold-mining operations in the 1880s. Returning to England he agreed to fund a search for oil and minerals in Persia and negotiations with the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar began in 1901. A sixty-year concession to explore for oil gave D'Arcy the oil rights to the entire country except for five provinces in northern Iran. The Iranian government would receive16 per cent of the oil company's annual profits. Mozzafar ad-Din, seldom consulted on matters of state by his father, was naive in business matters and unprepared for kingship when the time came. He borrowed heavily from the Russians in order to finance his extravagant personal lifestyle and the costs of the state, and in order to pay off the debt, he signed away control of many Iranian industries and markets to foreigners. The deal D'Arcy cut was too sharp by far and would eventually lead to trouble. He sent an exploration team headed by geologist George B Reynolds. In 1903 a company was formed and D'Arcy had to spend much of his fortune to cover the costs. Further financial support came from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil in return for a large share of the stock. Drilling in southern Persia at Shardin continued until 1907 when the search was switched to Masjid-i-Souleiman. By1908 D'Arcy was almost bankrupt. Reynolds received a last-chance instruction: "Drill to 1,600 feet and give up." On 26 May, at 1,180 feet, he struck oil. It was indeed a triumph of guts and determination. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was soon up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan. But the company was in trouble again by 1914. The golden age of motoring had not yet arrived and the industrial oil markets were sewn up by American and European interests. The sulphurous stench of the Persian oil, even after refining, ruled it out for domestic use, so D'Arcy had a marketing problem. Luckily, Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was an enthusiast for oil and wanted to convert the British fleet from coal, especially now that a reliable oil source was secured. He famously told Parliament: ?Look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of the world!? Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British interests. His resolution passed and the British Government took a major shareholding in the company. Just in time too, for World War I started a few weeks later. During the war the government seized the assets of a German company calling itself British Petroleum in order to market its products in Britain. Anglo-Persian acquired the assets from the Public Trustee complete with a ready-made distribution network with hundreds of depots, railway tank wagons, road vehicles, barges and so forth. This enabled Anglo-Persian to rapidly expand sales in petroleum-hungry Britain and Europe after the war. In the inter-war years Anglo-Persian profited handsomely from paying the Iranians a measly 16 per cent , and an increasingly angry Iran tried to renegotiate the terms. Getting nowhere, the Iranians cancelled the D'Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement for the Iranians but still didn?t amount to a square deal. Anglo-Persian changed its name to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1935. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and Britain, with its 51 per cent holding in Anglo-Iranian, had affectively colonised part of southern Iran. Iran's small share of the profits became a big issue and so did the treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 withdrew their labour in 1946 and the strike was violently put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian declared ?40 million profit after tax but gave Iran only ?7 million. Meanwhile Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Calls for nationalisation were intensifying. Iran nationalised its oil to achieve economic and political independence and combat poverty In March 1951 the Iranian Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913 under terms disadvantageous to Iran. Respected social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister the following month by a 79 to 12 majority. On 1 May Mossadeq carried out his government's wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian?s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriating its assets. His explanation, given in a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525), ran as follows... Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provides that 25 per cent of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention For this he was eventually removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death. In the meantime Britain orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran?s stirling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. It even considered invading. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins. Attempts by the Shah to replace Mossadeq failed and he returned with more power, but his coalition was slowly crumbling under the hardships imposed by the British blockade. At first America was reluctant to join Britain?s destructive game but Churchill let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia's arms at a time when Cold War jumpiness was high. It was enough to get America's new president, Eisenhower, on board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down Chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, arrived to play the leading role in an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception. An elaborate campaign of disinformation began, and the Shah signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA's choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by Donald Wilbur the CIA architect of the plan The Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned on 22 August 1953. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, convicted of treason by the Shah's military court and sentenced to death. Mossadeq remarked http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/ My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran?s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world?s greatest empire With God?s blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism. I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests. The sentence was later commuted to three years' solitary in a military prison, followed by house arrest until he died on 5 March 1967. Mossadeq's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion's share - 40 per cent going to Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to share profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but, tricky as ever, refused to open its books for inspection or verification by Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. A grateful US massively funded the Shah's government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK. The West's fun came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the book closed on a chapter in British enterprise that started heroically, turned nasty and ended in tears. The US is still hated today for reinstating the Shah and his vicious SAVAK, and for demolishing the Iranians? democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn?t restore. Britain, as the instigator and junior partner in the sordid affair, is similarly despised. On top of that, Iraq harbours great resentment at the way the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal and armed forces, and how the international community failed to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. The US, and eventually Britain, tilted strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them. This is how John King, writing in 2003 http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php , summed it up The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology. Which brings us to today Why are we hearing non-stop, loud-mouthed sabre-rattling against Iran when we should be extending the hand of friendship and reconciliation? David Cameron (b. 1966) wasn?t even a twinkle in his father?s eye when Britain crushed Iran?s democracy, and was probably carousing with his Bullingdon Club pals at Oxford while Iranians were dying in their thousands from Saddam?s poison gases. What does he know? William Hague (b. 1961) seems similarly oblivious to the dirty tricks previous British foreign secretaries pulled on Iran. Obama (b. 1961)? He was a community organiser in Chicago while the Iranians were being mustard-gassed by chemicals his country supplied to Saddam. What does he know? As for Mrs Clinton (b. 1947), she?s old enough to know better. So why are they demonising Iran instead of righting the wrongs? Why not live and let live? Because the political establishment is still smarting. They are the new-generation imperialists, the political spawn of those Dr Mossadeq and many others struggled against. They haven?t learned from the past, and they won?t lift their eyes to a better future. It?s so depressing. Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:33:20 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:33:20 +0100 Subject: [THS] Somebody's Got To Keep 'Em Awake Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118123155.0450f670@mail.messagingengine.com> It would be so easy to say, 'Well I'm going to retire, I'm going to sit around, watch television or eat bonbons,' but somebody's got to keep 'em awake and let 'em know what is really going on in this world." - Dorli Rainey - 84 year old activist talking about her experience getting pepper-sprayed by the police during an Occupy Seattle demonstration Somebody's Got To Keep 'Em Awake Video Interview - Keith Olbermann 84 Year Old Activist Dorli Rainey on being pepper-sprayed by Seattle police, importance of activism. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29746.htm From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:35:42 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:35:42 +0100 Subject: [THS] Kevin Zeese: The 99% Deficit Proposal Published Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118123524.04c02640@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29751.htm The 99% Deficit Proposal Published Occupy Washington DC Shows How to Create Jobs, Reduce the Wealth Divide and Control Spending By Kevin Zeese November 17, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Washington, DC: The Occupation of Washington, DC published ?The 99%?s Deficit Proposal: How to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending? detailing plans to not only reduce the deficit but close the wealth divide, create millions of jobs, strengthen the safety net and develop a democratized economy. This report is being provided to the twelve members of the Congressional Super Committee on November 17, 2011. After holding an Occupy Super Committee Hearing on November 9, Occupy Washington DC published an evidence-based report that: - Raises $600 billion in annual revenues thereby achieving the deficit reduction goals in two years; shrinks the wealth divide by taxing wealth more and labor less; restores a progressive tax system; taxes speculation by investors and taxes wealth held overseas. - Cuts hundreds of billions in annual spending through reducing the bloated military budget and ending the wars, stopping corporate welfare and negotiating better pharmaceutical drug prices. - Creates millions of jobs by solving the housing crisis, creates public sector jobs for much-needed work on infrastructure, transit, education and other areas, creates health care jobs as part of improving Medicare and expanding it to cover everyone in the United States, invests in the more efficient civilian economy rather than the expensive military economy and stimulates the economy by erasing student loan debt. - Saves and strengthens the safety net by restoring the amount of income covered by Social Security to 90% of all income as was always intended, ends poverty retirement by expanding Social Security, reduces spending on health care by expanding Medicare to cover everyone in the United States. - Presents steps to creating a democratized economy, the already developing new economy that will replace the failed finance, corporate capitalism. The report points out why the Congressional Super Committee will be unable to put in place these obvious evidence-based solutions by detailing the campaign donations received by the twelve members of the Super Committee. The report describes the committee as being occupied by monied interests that prevent them from confronting the extreme wealth divide. This corruption by concentrated wealth makes the committee dysfunctional. The report concludes that the American people will see ?corruption reign supreme? and that economic and political elites should expect to see this historic American revolt of the 99% grow larger and stronger in its resolve to create a just and sustainable future. Full report Prepared by Occupy Washington DC Freedom Plaza, November 2011 The disconnect between Congress and the people is vast. For decades, Congress has been passing laws that benefit the 1%, their campaign donors and big business interests, rather than creating a fair economy that serves all U.S. citizens. With this report Occupy Washington, DC shows that Congress is out of touch with evidence-based solutions, supported by the majority of Americans that can revive the economy, reduce the deficit and wealth divide while create millions of jobs. OccupyWashingtonDC.org seeks a major transformation to a participatory democracy in the economy as well as in government. For forty years, concentrated corporate interests have acted with intent to take over government and other institutions. We seek an end to the rule of concentrated wealth and corporate power by shifting control, wealth and ownership to the people. This report puts forward evidence-based solutions that will re-start the economy and avoid placing financial burdens on future generations. For the most part these ideas are not new. They are well accepted by economists and are consistent with the views of super majorities of Americans on key issues. Further, more than three-quarters of U.S. citizens say the country?s economic structure is out of balance and ?favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country.? They are right. The solutions to our economic crisis are evident but they are blocked by those who profit from the status quo and control elected officials through the corrupt U.S. political system and its money-based elections. The elites in Washington, DC seek to erase deficits that were caused by increases in war and military spending, tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, the increased cost of health care, as well as bank bailouts, and increased costs and lost revenue from the economic collapse. The bi-partisan elites seek to cut $1.2 trillion in deficits even though there is no outcry for such cuts or evidence in the economy that they are urgently needed. They are proposing cuts in services to seniors, students, the poor and middle-working class households who did not cause the crash but already suffer from its consequences. This report shows that we can get the economy moving, reduce the wealth divide and control government spending while helping the 99%. This report should not be considered the demand of the Occupy Movement. It was prepared[1] by one Occupation, Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC and it does not reflect even that Occupation?s full demands. Most of this report provides solutions to the deficit questions the Congressional Super Committee is attempting to address while also re-starting the economy. The difference between the Occupied Super Committee report and the Congressional Super Committee report will be stark and further demonstrate the corruption and dysfunction of government. While this report?s recommendations would benefit the 99%, the report that will come out of the congressional Super Committee will benefit the 1%. Creating a Fair Tax System That Shrinks the Wealth Divide The United States does not have a lack of financial resources; it has an intentionally unfair distribution of resources. The federal income tax has become less progressive and the rate paid by the wealthiest has been cut dramatically in recent decades. From 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963. In 1964, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was 77%. From 1965 through 1981 the top rate was 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986 and today it is just 35%. The tax on investment income, capital gains, has also been dramatically reduced. The maximum statutory rate on long-term capital gains was 28% in 1991, 20% in 1997 and has been merely 15% since 2003. The wealth divide has become extreme over the past three decades and tax policies have exacerbated this trend; much of the tax code exemplifies policies for the 1% at the expense of the 99%. The wealth divide is one of the foundational reasons why the economy no longer works and is in steady decline for most people in the United States. The tax code inadequately funds government, but that is the result of unfair tax cuts, not because America is broke (it isn?t). As Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute testified ?Income per capita has jumped 66% over the past 30 years, and is projected to grow another 60% over the next 30 years.? The country needs to put in place policies that reduce the wealth divide and share wealth fairly so that when the economy grows it benefits all citizens, not just the 1%. The recommendations below begin to correct the unfair policies of the last three decades, but these are only first steps to the transformational changes that are needed. * Tax the highest income households: From 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers ? the wealthiest one in one thousand ? have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60% to 24.3%. America?s highest income-earners ? the top 400 people who have wealth equal to 154 million Americans ? have seen their federal income tax drop from 51.2% in 1955 to 18.1% in 2008. If the top 400 paid as much of their incomes in personal income tax as the top 400 of 1955, the federal treasury would have collected $50 billion more in revenue from just those 400 taxpayers. If the top 0.1% of taxpayers ? Americans with incomes that averaged $4.4 million ? had paid total federal taxes at the same rate as the top 0.1% paid these taxes in 1960, the federal treasury would have collected an additional $250 billion in revenue. * Merely not extending the Bush tax cuts would add nearly $500 billion each year in tax revenue. Thus in just over two years the goal of the deficit committee would be met. This would be insufficient to correct the wealth divide and does not go as far as Occupy Washington, DC advocates. * A tax of a half of a percent or less on Wall Street speculation could raise over $800 billion in a decade. The Speculation Tax on the purchase of stocks, bonds and derivatives would be a tiny tax with a big impact. People in the U.S. pay much higher taxes on purchases of food and clothing; it is only fair that the wealthy pay taxes on purchasing wealth instruments. * A fair tax on capital gains, treating it as ordinary income would raise $1 trillion over a decade. Wealth-based income and work-based income should be treated equally under the law as it used to be. Warren Buffet has received a great deal of attention for pointing out that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary or anyone who works for him. The reason for this is that investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than income from labor. The United States needs to tax wealth more and work less. * Congress should enact a ?pure worldwide? tax system, in which all profits of U.S. corporations, whether they are generated in the U.S. or abroad, would be taxed by the U.S. This would end ?deferral,? i.e. where taxes are deferred until money is brought back into the United States. U.S. corporations would continue to receive a credit against any taxes they pay to a foreign government (the foreign tax credit) so that profits are not double-taxed. Under a pure worldwide tax system, corporations would have little or no tax incentive to move jobs offshore because the U.S. would tax profits of corporations no matter where they are generated. The Treasury estimates that deferral of U.S. taxes on offshore corporate profits costs close to $50 billion each year, and many experts think this estimate is substantially understated. * Ending deferral does not even address the hundreds of billions lost through tax havens. Tax havens should be shut down through the passage of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. In fact, the U.S. Treasury estimates this costs $100 billion each year. In 2006 the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that Americans now have more than $1 trillion in assets offshore and illegally evade between $40 and $70 billion in U.S. taxes each year through the use of offshore tax schemes. * Closing corporate tax loopholes would return the fair share of taxes paid by corporations to the funding of government. Declining corporate taxation is another prime factor in increasing deficits. Corporate income taxes have fallen from roughly 4.8% of GDP in the 1950s to only 1.8% of GDP over the past decade. Ending just two large breaks, deferral of overseas revenue and accelerated depreciation would raise about $114 billion over a decade. The Treasury Department lists $365 billion in corporate tax breaks being gifted annually ? that?s $3.65 trillion over the next 10 years. Due to tax loopholes, corporations pay record low tax rates ? they actually pay 21% on average. Indeed, a recent report by Citizens for Tax Justice found that Wells Fargo received $18 billion in tax breaks, while both Verizon and General Electric paid negative taxes. Earlier Citizens for Tax Justice reported that 12 major companies which together made $171 billion in profits from 2008-2010 paid a negative $2.5 billion in taxes, thanks to $62 billion in tax subsidies. The taxes described above would generate at least $600 billion annually. The goal of the Joint Deficit Committee of $1.2 trillion over ten years could be met in two years. The United States has more than enough wealth to meet the needs of its people. Cutting Spending for Economic Security * Military spending, found in the Department of Defense and other departments, has increased dramatically during each year that George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been president, roughly doubling during the past decade both as measured in real dollars and as a percentage share of discretionary spending. Military and related ?security? spending is now at over $1 trillion per year and comprises well over half of federal discretionary spending. It is also very nearly equal to the military spending of all other nations on earth combined. Ending our two most costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before the 2013 fiscal year budget would save $1.8 trillion, as compared with ending those wars on the currently planned schedule, with savings of $108 billion per year. * The U.S. should only spend what it needs to defend itself. The military budget can be cut significantly by replacing private contractors, closing some of the more than 1,100 foreign military bases and outposts and eliminating weapons systems many of which the Pentagon says it does not need. * The Sustainable Defense Task Force recommended modest cuts of $1 trillion over the next decade, not counting savings from ending the current wars. U.S. military spending could be cut by 80% and still be comfortably well ahead of any other nation's military spending. See Creating Jobs and Restarting the Economy below on how these funds could be used to create jobs, restart the economy and provide much-needed services and infrastructure to the country. * Corporate tax subsidies through tax breaks and giveaways are a form of spending that needs to be cut.[2] The U.S. needs to end corporate tax subsidies and repatriate overseas funds. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations received tax subsidies amounting to $222.7 billion from 2008-2010. These companies sheltered half their profit from taxes. The result: 30 companies paid less than 0 taxes despite $160 billion in pre-tax profits; 78 of the 280 companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was zero or less; weapons maker?s paid a mere 10.6 percent rate in 2010; financial services received the largest share (16.8 percent) of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years. * Negotiating better prices with Big Pharma would save more than $200 billion over ten years in pharmaceutical costs. Reforms of Medicare could offer much larger savings. Expanding to an improved Medicare for all system would control the cost of health care spending while covering all in the United States reducing significant financial burdens often resulting in bankruptcy and foreclosure. Creating Jobs and Restarting the Economy One in six people who would like a full-time job are unable to find one. The unemployment rate of 9% greatly underestimates unemployment. If the pre-1994 measures were used, e.g. including discouraged workers who want jobs, as well as part-time workers who want full time jobs the underemployment and unemployment rate would be 23%. The measures listed below would effectively create jobs and restart the economy. Job loss means less tax revenue and more expenditure by the government. A critical ingredient to reducing the deficit is job creation. * One million jobs could be created annually by writing down all underwater mortgages to market value. Correcting housing mortgages to the real value of homes would inject $71 billion per year into the economy and save families $6,500 per year on mortgage payments. This would also fix the housing crisis which is an anchor holding back any recovery, according to a new report by The New Bottom Line. One in five mortgage holders owe more on their mortgage than their home is actually worth. Banks should not continue to be able to profit from housing bubble prices ? a bubble they created with their poor and unethical lending practices. Adjusting mortgages to the real value of homes is a fair way to fix the housing market. * Failure to stop the foreclosure crisis will ensure a stalled economy. It is an essential step to economic repair. This could be done without Congress as Fannie and Freddie together hold $1.5 trillion in housing loans or mortgage-backed securities which could be directed to fix the mortgages. The Federal Reserve has just under a trillion and could unilaterally correct loans to reflect real value. And, the banks could be pressured. Last year, the nation?s top six banks paid out more than twice the cost of re-writing mortgages to make them fair ($71billion per year) in bonuses and compensation alone ($146 billion in 2010). The nation?s banks are sitting on a historically high level of cash reserves of $1.64 trillion. * A fundamental reason for job stagnation is relying on the private sector to create jobs and refusing to engage in direct government job creation in the public sector. According to Business Week, ?Since the end of the recession, government employment--including federal, state, and local jobs--has fallen by roughly 600,000. State and local governments have particularly felt the pain, according to a report released this week by the Census Bureau, which shows that there were over 200,000 fewer state and local government jobs in 2010 than in 2009.? The most recent jobs report shows a continued downward trend in government jobs. State deficits and federal inaction ensure these job losses will continue. * In addition to our need to rebuild the nation?s physical infrastructure, there is an even more urgent need to rebuild its human infrastructure. The drastic rise in inequality and joblessness has torn apart the social fabric, destroying countless individual lives, families, urban neighborhoods, and rural communities across our country. For more than a generation, the major ?growth industry? in impoverished communities has been the illegal drug industry. Persistent, trans-generational poverty is directly responsible for the fact that the U.S. now leads the world in imprisoning its own people: 2.5 million, by the latest count, with more than 5 million more under some form of court supervision. (China, with its 2.5 billion people, runs a poor second.) Although most of the prison population is white, people of color are disproportionately represented, leading many analysts to declare that the mass incarceration of African-Americans and Latinos has created a new caste of unemployable "untouchables." Only a massive public works, community development, and job training program can end the destruction of American communities and stop the shameful criminalization of poverty. * As public sector jobs are created, the country must also strengthen the public sector in ways that will require new democratic reforms to put publicly owned or financed enterprises under popular control. A long-term goal should be to democratize the economy so the people of the United States share in wealth and ownership as well as influence over the economy. See below Democratizing the Economy, Shifting Economic Power, Wealth and Ownership to all in the United States. There is a desperate need for a mass public works program, not only to create jobs, but also to meet the urgent needs of the country. * The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that failure to fix the nation?s infrastructure has created serious damage so extensive that $2.2 trillion will be required by 2014 just to meet current demands. The ASCE gave the nation?s infrastructure an overall grade of ?D.? Its report cited cracking levees, a quarter of the nation?s existing bridges sagging, leaking pipes losing billions of gallons of drinking water per day, aging sewers releasing human waste into rivers and lakes, horrendous traffic congestion and air and water pollution. This is not ?make work? but urgently needed work. A public works program modeled after the depression era Works Progress Administration would create 15 million jobs and build the infrastructure needed to create a sustainable economy. * Spending on the military is a drag on the economy, not just because it makes up 55% of federal discretionary spending, but because more jobs would be created by spending on education, infrastructure, green energy, or even on tax cuts for non-billionaires. Converting a fraction of current military spending to other industries and tax cuts could produce 29 million new jobs, one for every unemployed or underemployed person in the United States, even after finding new employment for everyone displaced during the conversion. * Putting in place improved Medicare for all would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy not only by controlling the cost of health care and reducing deficits but by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy. * Erasing student loan debt would have an immediate stimulating effect on the economy. As Mychal Smith writes: ?[C]onsider the potential impact on the economy if all of a sudden 35 million people were able to add to their monthly budget anywhere between $400 and $1000 that they no longer needed to satisfy exorbitant student loan repayments. . . . Debt free degree holders would allow for more risk taking and innovation.? As Robert Applebaum, an advocate of forgiving student loans writes: ?the ?educated poor? are not buying homes, not starting businesses or families, not inventing, investing or innovating and otherwise engaging in economically productive activities.? And, as Cryn Johannsen of All Education Matters points out, this would be a long term stimulus because college debts are multi-decade in length. Johannsen describes a ?crisis that is affecting millions of educated Americans. We are indebted for life. Most of us will never be able to pay off our loans for college.? Education is a critical building block for the economy and going forward the United States must develop a system of higher education that does not require students to go into debt just to receive an education. Rather than a loan-based system the U.S. needs a system based on grants, scholarships and public funding. These recommendations would create millions of jobs and get the economy moving again. As the economy develops and expands, programs need to be put in place so that new wealth is shared more fairly; workers have greater control over their work through employee ownership and protections for collective bargaining; and so some of the profits created by public investment (i.e. by tax dollars) are shared among all U.S. taxpayers. See below Democratizing the Economy, Shifting Economic Power, Wealth and Ownership to all U.S. Citizens. Protecting and Improving Social Security Saving Social Security is not a traditional left-right battle. Polls consistently show that people across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support Social Security and do not want to see it cut. Even the vast majority of Tea Party Republicans support these programs. Cutting Social Security is a Wall Street agenda of the 1% that opposes the interests of the rest of us. As Dean Baker writes ?There is a bipartisan consensus among the elites that these programs should be cut. The guiding philosophy of this drive is that public money that goes to programs for middle income and poor people is money that could be in the pockets of the wealthy.? Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Social Security is financed by a designated Social Security tax and there is more than $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund. The efforts to cut Social Security to fix the deficit are a fraud designed to enrich Wall Street financiers by forcing people into the private retirement market. The temporary payroll tax cut will create some jobs, but not enough to get the economy moving and is not the most effective tax cut stimulus. Further, it unnecessarily puts Social Security in jeopardy by reducing taxes designated for Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cut will reduce federal revenues by $112 billion over the next two years. The government will have to borrow to fill that hole in the Social Security trust fund, giving opponents of Social Security another argument against the program. Social Security faces no immediate threat of insolvency. The Congressional Budget Office just released new projections showing that the Social Security trust fund is fully solvent through the year 2038. Even after that date, the program would have enough money to pay 81% of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. Below are recommendations that would strengthen social security. * The funding of Social Security is easy to fix. Currently, the tax on wages subject to the tax is capped at $107,000. The upward redistribution of income over the last three decades has caused a large share of wage income to escape taxation. If all wage income were subject to the tax, then it would leave Social Security fully solvent for its 75-year planning period. * The Social Security tax has not kept up with the wealth divide. In 1983, the Social Security tax ceiling was set so the tax would hit 90% of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90% figure was built into the 1983 Greenspan Commission?s fix of Social Security. Requiring the ceiling to rise with inflation was expected to result in the Social Security tax continuing to hit 90% of total income. But, in 1983 no one predicted the extreme wealth divide that exists today. The richest 1% of Americans got 11.6% of total income in 1983. Today the top 1% takes in more than 20% of total income and as a result the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 83% of their total income. The tax should go back to covering 90% of income. That would mean the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. * Social Security should be strengthened in ways that increase the retirement security of people in middle-and working-class. Particular attention should be paid to improving the living standards in retirement of workers in poorly compensated jobs, who typically have little or no retirement savings outside of Social Security. The average Social Security benefit of $14,000 is only about 30% above the poverty line. Indeed, 21% of Social Security beneficiaries receive Social Security benefits that fall below the poverty line. In 2011, the Commission to Modernize Social Security proposed increasing benefits for all retirees by a uniform amount equal to 5% of the average benefit, about a $700 annual increase for beneficiaries today; that workers who have worked at least 30 years should receive benefits equal to 125% of the poverty threshold when they retire at the full retirement; providing at least five years of dependent care credits through Social Security as women (and some men) spend part of their working years caring for children and elderly parents; reinstating the post-secondary student benefit that existed until 1983 and allowed students who were receiving Social Security due to a parent?s death, disability, or retirement to continue until they were 22 years old if they were in college; and increasing the survivor?s benefit for widowed spouses to ensure that they receive at least 75% of the benefit amount they received when their spouse was still alive. Improving Medicare and Expanding it to Provide Health Care to All in the United States * Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes ?Medicare isn?t the nation?s budgetary problems. It?s the solution. The real problem is the soaring costs of health care that lie beneath Medicare. They?re costs all of us are bearing in the form of soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Medicare offers a means of reducing these costs.? * Medicare bears the burdens of existing within an insurance-based health care that fails to control costs and creates tremendous bureaucracy. While there are short-term fixes to Medicare, what is needed is an end to the current insurance-based approach. The United States spends the most per capita per year on health care yet a third of the population is either uninsured or underinsured so that they face financial ruin if a serious accident or illness occurs. Health care spending in the U.S. is rising 2.5% faster than GDP. * Expanding and improving Medicare so it covers all in the United States is a key component to controlling health care costs and government spending; as well as ending the deficit problem of state and federal budgets. Estimates of how much would be saved on administrative costs alone by extending Medicare to cover the entire population range up to $400 billion a year. This savings plus the inherent cost-controls of a single payer health system would offset the cost of providing everyone in the United States with access to lifelong, comprehensive, quality health care. Controlling health care costs would sharply reduce the long-term budget crisis, as well as foreclosures and bankruptcy. * Even without improving and expanding Medicare to cover all, the program is not in crisis. The Medicare Trustees say that the program faces a modest shortfall over its 75-year planning horizon. The projected shortfall is around 0.3% of GDP or less than one-fifth of the amount that annual military spending was increased since September 11th, 2000. * Economist Jack Rasmus points out that all it takes to cover the Medicare shortfall is a mere 0.25% increase in the Medicare share of the payroll tax for the next ten years and another 0.25% starting in the eleventh year. The Medicare tax rate is currently 2.9% for the employee and the employer. These tiny tax increases would make Medicare secure. * In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates that the Medicare system in its current form is far more efficient than the privatized system advocated by a bi-partisan consensus of political elites. CBO?s projections show that switching from Medicare to a privatized system would add $34 trillion to the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies over the program?s 75-year planning period. * Medicare provides efficiency. Reich reports: ?Medicare?s administrative costs are in the range of 3%. That?s well below the 5% to 10% costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It?s even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25% to 27% of premiums). And it?s way, way lower than the administrative costs of individual insurance (40%). It?s even far below the 11% costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.? Democratizing the Economy, Shifting Economic Power, Wealth and Ownership to all Citizens in the United States Big finance corporate capitalism is failing. It is concentrating ownership and wealth as well as domination of the economy in the wealthiest Americans. New approaches are needed to share wealth, ownership and economic power more fairly. The grass roots protests, whether from the Occupy Movement or the anger from the conservative Tea Party, are based on the same realities: economic insecurity and economic unfairness. A full discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this report but it is time for the people of the United States to be asking critical questions: * What is the next evolution of the economy? * What can be done to reduce economic insecurity and economic unfairness? * How can it be reshaped so that people gain greater control of their lives and greater influence over the economy? * What new forms of ownership can be developed to shift economic power to the people? The answers to these questions lie in the conflict of our era ? participatory democracy vs. concentrated wealth. There is growing evidence and experience that shows a democratized economy is the fairest, most sustainable and effective approach which results in a shared prosperity. Democratizing the economy would move the United States away from concentrated corporate capitalism and create an economy in which wealth is more equitably shared. This change is already happening under the radar of U.S. media coverage. A democratized economy already has a foothold in the United States. There is a lot of experimentation going on regarding worker ownership, democracy in the work place and sharing in the profits of corporations; with communities working together to control development through non-profit land trusts; with public banking, democratizing money and community banks; with public utilities and democratizing energy; and with participatory budgeting. These are a few examples of the democratization of the economy that is building a new economic model of more widespread ownership of assets and participation and wealth. As one of the witnesses of the Occupied Super Committee, Gar Alperovitz writes: ?Over the last three decades, for instance, more workers have become owners of their own companies than are members of unions in the private sector; indeed, 5 million more. Simultaneously, there has been increasing experimentation with unions within such firms, and with new ways to increase participation and control. There are also more than 4,500 nonprofit community development corporations that operate affordable housing and other neighborhood programs. Approximately 130 million Americans are members of co-ops. In Cleveland, an innovative group of linked cooperatives has set new standards for community-building economic change. ?Social enterprises? are developing in communities throughout the nation that transform the ownership of capital into businesses, the sole purpose of which is to provide community services. One form of new ownership is cooperatives. There are 130 million Americans who are members of some types of co-ops, most commonly credit unions. Another widely shared experience is joint-ownership is Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) which give employees ownership of companies through stocks, while these do not usually include management by employees they do provide a share of the profit. There are more than 13 million people who are part of ESOPs ? meaning there are more employee stock owners than there are members of private unions. Worker-owned co-ops go further and give workers a say in the management of the company. Worker owned co-ops are at the cutting edge of democratizing the economy and provide some of what we need to transform the economy.? At a national level, despite comments of some in the corporate media and some elected officials who speak for big business interests, the truth is that national programs like Social Security and Medicare have worked well. As described in previous sections of this report, these programs can be improved and expanded but they are also models on which to create programs that respond to national needs. Further, the bail out of the automobile industry, which included some public ownership, has succeeded in saving that industry and returning it to profit. However, more could have been done to serve the public good by continuing public representation on the boards of automobile companies, requiring taxpayers share in the profit as investors and directing those industries to build mass transit and create jobs. The Occupy Movement seeks a radical transformation to a new economy and political system. A close examination of what is happening in the United States shows that this transformation is already underway. The Lessons of the Super Committee: Corruption Rules Dysfunctional Government The proposals in this report show that it would not be difficult for the so-called ?Super Committee? to achieve the requirement of at least $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade. And, that it can be done in a way that corrects wealth disparity and re-starts the economy. But, in many ways, the super committee is ?occupied? by corporate interests and cannot act for the people. The make-up of the committee and the tens of millions of dollars members have received from entrenched corporate interests ensure that the committee will exemplify the corruption in Congress ? which is why people are occupying public spaces across the country. The Occupation of Washington, DC at Freedom Plaza expects the commission?s recommendations, if they are able to make recommendations, to reflect the interests of their donors. We urge the public and the media to review their recommendations with these political donations in mind. The twelve Members of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction have received $41 million from the financial sector during their time in Congress, according to a report by Public Campaign and National People?s Action, ?Wall Street and the Supercommittee: The $41 Million Question.? At least 27 current or former aides for the ?super committee? members have lobbied on behalf of financial firms. * The 12 members of the super committee have received at least $41 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector during their time in Congress. * They have received nearly $900,000 from three of the top U.S. banks?JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo * Since 2000, the industry has spent over $4 billion lobbying elected officials. * Nearly 30 former aides to the 12 members work as lobbyists for financial industry interests. The ten biggest contributors to the super committee members include: Club for Growth $990,066 Microsoft Corp. $810,100 University of California $629,495 Goldman Sachs $592,684 EMILY?s List $586,835 Citigroup Inc. $561,081 JPMorgan Chase & Co. $494,316 Bank of America $349,566 Skadden, Arps, et al. $347,356 General Electric $340,935 The largest donor, the Club for Growth, opposes any new taxes on the wealthiest in the United States. As a result, despite the abhorrent wealth divide, the committee is unlikely to recommend the obvious, fair taxes on the wealthiest people who fund their campaigns. The members of the committee received more than $3 million total during the past five years in donations from political committees with ties to weapons contractors, health care providers and labor unions. They received more than $1 million overall in contributions from the health care industry and at least $700,000 from weapons companies. This presents a problem for the super committee because if they fail to find $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade it will result to mandatory cuts that will impact health care and weapons makers. This means the committee is likely to make a bad deal for the United States, in order to avoid cuts to their major donors. Throughout the time when the committee has been meeting they have been holding fundraisers across the country. This open money-taking while making decisions that affect those who are giving money is the kind of open corruption that has led to a loss of faith in government. It is not only donations that will impact the committee, but a major lobbying onslaught by 400 groups who report lobbying the Super Committee. About 30% of these organizations ? 118 groups in total ? were from the health sector. The finance insurance and real estate sector ranked third, with 40 companies within that sector reporting lobbying activity during the third quarter that targeted the super committee. And 39 groups in the energy sector reported lobbying the super committee. Both the communications and electronics sector and the general business sector saw 26 companies and organizations explicitly mention the super committee in their third-quarter lobbying reports. These are many of the same concentrated corporate interests that have funded the campaigns of super committee members. Conclusion: Revolt against Economics for the 1% Once again, the people of the United States will see corruption reign supreme. Despite evident solutions to the deficit and the economic collapse, the Congress will show its corruption and dysfunction and be unable to put forward real solutions. We issue this report to alert everyone ? the political system is broken. It is corrupted by the power of concentrated wealth, campaign donations and corporate power. The job of the occupations across the country is to build an independent nonviolent movement that replaces this corrupt system with one in which the people rule. The battle between concentrated wealth and participatory democracy will be heightened by the evident corruption of the Super Committee which will not challenge the unfair policies of the 1% while requiring austerity for the 99%. The economic and political elite should expect protests to grow. We are at the beginning of what will be seen as a historic revolt against status quo elites that will transform this economy as well as how the United States is governed. [1] The evidence-based solutions in this report come from people who are experts in the fields addressed as well as the views of people affected by the policies. We relied on a range of sources and have provided links to those sources in the on-line version of this report. In addition, Occupy Washington, DC held a public hearing on Wednesday, November 9th. You can see the public hearing at: CSPAN Coverage of Occupied Super Committee Hearings. Participants included: Kevin Zeese an organizer of Occupy Washington, DC and co-director of It?s Our Economy and co-chair of Come Home America; Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute; Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives; Kenneth Peres is an economist with the Communications Workers of America; Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; Margaret Flowers an organizer of Occupy Washington DC and congressional fellow for Physicians for National Health Program; Gar Alperovitz is a founding principal of the Democracy Collaborative and with the National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives. [2] This is commonly known as corporate welfare. All corporate welfare should be stopped until the Congress passes laws transforming corporate welfare into taxpayer investment. There are reasons for government to invest in building the economy, for example there is a need to invest in a new energy economy, but the profits from these investments should not only go to the 1% who own energy companies, they should be treated as taxpayer investment and all taxpayers should share in the profit from the investment. Such a system could be modeled after the Alaska Permanent Trust which has existed for oil exploration on state lands in Alaska since 1980. Such a system could develop into a guaranteed national income that would lift people out of poverty and provide a safety net to all. This is a critical part of a democratized economy. See: Agenda for a Democratized Economy, http://itsoureconomy.us/issues/. Stop The Machine! Create A New World! Visit us at www.OccupyWashingtonDC.org From ths at psalience.org Fri Nov 18 12:38:38 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:38:38 +0100 Subject: [THS] IRAN : Stories Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111118123819.03fe03c0@mail.messagingengine.com> Russian military chief: War risks have grown: Russia's chief military officer says the nation is facing an increased threat of being drawn into conflicts at its borders that may grow into an all-out nuclear war. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/nov/17/eu-russia-military/ Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran Powers pressure Iran, IAEA chief "alerts world" : Major powers closed ranks on Thursday to increase pressure on Iran to address fears about its atomic ambitions, and the UN nuclear chief said it was his duty to "alert the world" about suspected Iranian efforts to develop atom bombs. http://bit.ly/tTqYhu Airstrike Against Iranian Nuclear Facilities Could Kill 100s of North Koreans and Russians: Any aerial strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities could result in significant numbers of dead Russian and North Korean specialists as "collateral damage," with all the diplomatic uncertainties that might ensue from Moscow and Pyongyang as the body bags start arriving home. http://bit.ly/uDmQ9m Barak, Lieberman to skip U.S. forum to avoid public debate on Iran, sources say: Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman decided to cancel their participation in a Washington conference on Israeli-U.S. ties in order to avoid a public debate on the Iranian nuclear issue. http://bit.ly/u3g611 Will Congress Vote To Crash Iran's Civilian Aircraft?: The Republican candidates for president are not the only politicians who use Iran and its nuclear program as a magnet for campaign dollars. The same dynamic is at play in Los Angeles, where two Democratic House members, Howard Berman and Brad Sherman, are trying to out-hawk each other on Iran in preparation for a June 2012 primary. http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201111160010 From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 17:55:00 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:55:00 +0100 Subject: [THS] Seymour M. Hersh: Iran and the I.A.E.A. Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120175343.06c30ac8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29768.htm Iran and the I.A.E.A. By Seymour M. Hersh November 19, 2011 "New Yorker" - -The first question in last Saturday night?s Republican debate on foreign policy dealt with Iran, and a newly published report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report, which raised renewed concern about the ?possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran,? struck a darker tone than previous assessments. But it was carefully hedged. On the debate platform, however, any ambiguity was lost. One of the moderators said that the I.A.E.A. report had provided ?additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon? and asked what various candidates, upon winning the Presidency, would do to stop Iran. Herman Cain said he would assist those who are trying to overthrow the government. Newt Gingrich said he would co?rdinate with the Israeli government and maximize covert operations to block the Iranian weapons program. Mitt Romney called the state of Iran?s nuclear program Obama?s ?greatest failing, from a foreign-policy standpoint? and added, ?Look, one thing you can know and that is if we re?lect Barack Obama Iran will have a nuclear weapon.? The Iranian bomb was a sure thing Saturday night. I?ve been reporting on Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker for the past decade, with a focus on the repeatedly inability of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran. The goal of the high-risk American covert operations was to find something physical?a ?smoking calutron,? as a knowledgeable official once told me?to show the world that Iran was working on warheads at an undisclosed site, to make the evidence public, and then to attack and destroy the site. The Times reported, in its lead story the day after the report came out, that I.A.E.A. investigators ?have amassed a trove of new evidence that, they say, makes a ?credible? case? that Iran may be carrying out nuclear-weapons activities. The newspaper quoted a Western diplomat as declaring that ?the level of detail is unbelievable . The report describes virtually all the steps to make a nuclear warhead and the progress Iran has achieved in each of those steps. It reads likes a menu.? The Times set the tone for much of the coverage. (A second Times story that day on the I.A.E.A. report noted, more cautiously, that ?it is true that the basic allegations in the report are not substantially new, and have been discussed by experts for years.?) But how definitive, or transformative, were the findings? The I.A.E.A. said it had continued in recent years ?to receive, collect and evaluate information relevant to possible military dimensions of Iran?s nuclear program? and, as a result, it has been able ?to refine its analysis.? The net effect has been to create ?more concern.? But Robert Kelley, a retired I.A.E.A. director and nuclear engineer who previously spent more than thirty years with the Department of Energy?s nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could find very little new information in the I.A.E.A. report. He noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the I.A.E.A. by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, ?were old news,? Kelley said, and known to many journalists. ?I wonder why this same stuff is now considered ?new information? by the same reporters.? A nuanced assessment of the I.A.E.A. report was published by the Arms Control Association (A.C.A.), a nonprofit whose mission is to encourage public support for effective arms control. The A.C.A. noted that the I.A.E.A. did ?reinforce what the nonproliferation community has recognized for some times: that Iran engaged in various nuclear weapons development activities until 2003, then stopped many of them, but continued others.? (The American intelligence community reached the same conclusion in a still classified 2007 estimate.) The I.A.E.A.?s report ?suggests,? the A.C.A. paper said, that Iran ?is working to shorten the timeframe to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.? Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, ?There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.? He added, ?Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.? Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshare Fund, a disarmament group, who serves on Hillary Clinton?s International Security Advisory Board, said, ?I was briefed on most of this stuff several years ago at the I.A.E.A. headquarters in Vienna. There?s little new in the report. Most of this information is well known to experts who follow the issue.? Cirincione noted that ?post-2003, the report only cites computer modelling and a few other experiments.? (A senior I.A.E.A. official similarly told me, ?I was underwhelmed by the information.?) The report did note that its on-site camera inspection process of Iran?s civilian nuclear enrichment facilities?mandated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory??continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material.? In other words, all of the low enriched uranium now known to be produced inside Iran is accounted for; if highly enriched uranium is being used for the manufacture of a bomb, it would have to have another, unknown source. The shift in tone at the I.A.E.A. seems linked to a change at the top. The I.A.E.A.?s report had extra weight because the Agency has had a reputation for years as a reliable arbiter on Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, who retired as the I.A.E.A.?s Director General two years ago, was viewed internationally, although not always in Washington, as an honest broker?a view that lead to the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. ElBaradei?s replacement is Yukiya Amano of Japan. Late last year, a classified U.S. Embassy cable from Vienna, the site of the I.A.E.A. headquarters, described Amano as being ?ready for prime time.? According to the cable, which was obtained by WikiLeaks, in a meeting in September, 2009, with Glyn Davies, the American permanent representative to the I.A.E.A., said, ?Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the group of developing countries], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran?s alleged nuclear weapons program.? The cable added that Amano?s ?willingness to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his strategy bodes well for our future relationship.? It is possible, of course, that Iran has simply circumvented the reconnaissance efforts of America and the I.A.E.A., perhaps even building Dick Cheney?s nightmare: a hidden underground nuclear-weapons fabrication facility. Iran?s track record with the I.A.E.A. has been far from good: its leadership began construction of its initial uranium facilities in the nineteen-eighties without informing the Agency, in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Over the next decade and a half, under prodding from ElBaradei and the West, the Iranians began acknowledging their deceit and opened their enrichment facilities, and their records, to I.A.E.A. inspectors. The new report, therefore, leaves us where we?ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil?with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program. ? 2011 Cond? Nast Digital. All rights reserved. From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 17:56:12 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:56:12 +0100 Subject: [THS] Gareth Porter: Ex-Inspector Rejects IAEA Iran Bomb Test Chamber Claim Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120175544.06ff9e70@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29773.htm Ex-Inspector Rejects IAEA Iran Bomb Test Chamber Claim By Gareth Porter November 19, 2011 "Information Clearing House" - WASHINGTON, Nov 19, 2011 (IPS) - A former inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repudiated its major new claim that Iran built an explosives chamber to test components of a nuclear weapon and carry out a simulated nuclear explosion. The IAEA claim that a foreign scientist - identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko - had been involved in building the alleged containment chamber has now been denied firmly by Danilenko himself in an interview with Radio Free Europe published Friday. The latest report by the IAEA cited "information provided by Member States" that Iran had constructed "a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments" - meaning simulated explosions of nuclear weapons - in its Parchin military complex in 2000. The report said it had "confirmed" that a "large cylindrical object" housed at the same complex had been "designed to contain the detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives". That amount of explosives, it said, would be "appropriate" for testing a detonation system to trigger a nuclear weapon. But former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley has denounced the agency's claims about such a containment chamber as "highly misleading". Kelley, a nuclear engineer who was the IAEA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq and is now a senior research fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Real News Network that a cylindrical chamber designed to contain 70 kg of explosives, as claimed by the IAEA, could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim. "There are far more explosives in that bomb than could be contained by this container," Kelley said, referring to the simulated explosion of a nuclear weapon in a hydrodynamic experiment. Kelley also observed that hydrodynamic testing would not have been done in a container inside a building in any case. "You have to be crazy to do hydrodynamic explosives in a container," he said. "There's no reason to do it. They're done outdoors on firing tables." Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons programme. "We've been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it's not important at all," Kelley said. The IAEA report and unnamed "diplomats" implied that a "former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist", identified in the media as Danilenko, had helped build the alleged containment vessel at Parchin. But their claims conflict with one another as well as with readily documented facts about Danilenko's work in Iran. The IAEA report does not deny that Danilenko ? a Ukrainian who worked in a Soviet-era research institute that was identified mainly with nuclear weapons ? was actually a specialist on nanodiamonds. The report nevertheless implies a link beween Danilenko and the purported explosives chamber at Parchin by citing a publication by Danilenko as a source for the dimensions of the alleged explosives chamber. Associated Press reported Nov. 11 that unnamed diplomats suggested Volodymyr Padalko, a partner of Danilenko in a nanodiamond business who was described as Danilenko's son-in-law, had contradicted Danilenko's firm denial of involvement in building a containment vessel for weapons testing. The diplomats claimed Padalko had told IAEA investigators that Danilenko had helped build "a large steel chamber to contain the force of the blast set off by such explosives testing". But that claim appears to be an effort to confuse Danilenko's well- established work on an explosives chamber for nanodiamond synthesis with a chamber for weapons testing, such as the IAEA now claims was built at Parchin. One of the unnamed diplomats described the steel chamber at Parchin as "the size of a double decker bus" and thus "much too large" for nanodiamonds. But the IAEA report itself made exactly the opposite argument, suggesting that the purported steel chamber at Parchin was based on the design in a published paper by Danilenko. The report said the alleged explosives chamber was designed to contain "up to 70 kg of high explosives" which is claims would be "suitable" for testing what it calls a "multipoint initiation system" for a nuclear weapon. But a 2008 slide show on systems for nanodiamond synthesis posted on the internet by the U.S.-based nanotechnology company NanoBlox shows that the last patented containment chamber built by Danilenko and patented in 1992, with a total volume of 100 cubic metres, was designed for the use of just 10 kg of explosives. An unnamed member state had given the IAEA a purported Iranian document in 2008 describing a 2003 test of what the agency interpreted to be a possible "high explosive implosion system for a nuclear weapon". David Albright, director of a Washington, D.C. think tank who frequently passes on information from IAEA officials to the news media, told this writer in 2009 that the member state in question was "probably Israel". Although the process of making "detonation nanodiamonds" uses explosives in a containment chamber, the chamber would bear little resemblance to one used for testing a nuclear bomb's initiation system. The production of diamonds does not require the same high degree of precision in simultaneous explosions as the initiator for a nuclear device. And unlike the explosives used in a multipoint initiation system, the explosives used for making synthetic nanodiamonds must be under water in a closed pool, as Danilenko noted in a 2010 PowerPoint presentation. Having endorsed the IAEA's claims, Albright concedes in a Nov. 13 article that the IAEA report "did not provide [sic] Danilenko's involvement, if any, in this chamber." In an interview with Radio Free Europe Friday, Danilenko denied that he has any expertise in nuclear weapons, saying, "I understand absolutely nothing in nuclear physics." He also denied that he participated in "modeling warheads" at the research institute in Russia where he worked for three decades. Danilenko further denied doing any work in Iran that did not relate to "dynamic detonation synthesis of diamonds" and said he has "strong doubts" that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme during those years. Albright and three co-authors published an account of Danilenko's work in Iran this week seeking to give credibility to the IAEA suggestion that he worked on the containment chamber for a nuclear weapons programme. The Albright article, published on the website of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Danilenko approached the Iranian embassy in 1995 offering his expertise on detonation diamonds, and later signed a contract with Syed Abbas Shahmoradi who responded to Danilenko's query. Albright identifies Shahmoradi as the "head of Iran's secret nuclear sector involved in the development of nuclear weapons", merely because Shahmoradi later headed the Physics Research Center, which the IAEA argues has led Iran's nuclear weapons research. But in late 1995, Shahmoradi was at the Sharif University of Technology, which is a leading centre for nanodiamonds in Iran. Albright argues that this is evidence supporting his suspicion that nanodiamonds were a cover for his real work, because the main centre for nanodiamond research is at Malek Ashtar University of Technology rather than at Sharif University. However, Sharif University had just established an Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in 2005 that was intended to become the hub for nanotechnology research activities and strategy planning for Iran. So Sharif University and Shahmoradi would have been the logical choice to contract one of the world's leading specialists on nanodiamonds. *Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. This article was first published at www.ipsnews.net/ From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 17:58:33 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:58:33 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Glenn_Greenwald=3A_Here=92s_What_Attempted__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Co-Option_of_OWS_Looks_Like?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120175742.06fd1728@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29775.htm Here?s What Attempted Co-Option of OWS Looks Like By Glenn Greenwald November 19, 2011 "Salon" -- The 2012 election is almost a full year away and nobody knows who is running against President Obama, but that didn?t stop Mary Kay Henry, the D.C.-based National President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), from announcing last week that her organization endorses President Obama for re-election. That?s not surprising ? while many unions have exhibited political independence, SEIU officials have long been among Obama?s closest and most loyal allies in Washington ? but what was notable here was how brazenly Henry exploited the language of the Occupy movement to justify her endorsement of the Democratic Party leader: ?We need a leader willing to fight for the needs of the 99 percent . . . .Our economy and democracy have been taken over by the wealthiest one percent.? But now SEIU?s effort to convert and degrade the Occupy movement into what SEIU?s national leadership is ? a loyal arm of the DNC and the Obama White House ? has become even more overt, as Greg Sargent reports today: One of the enduring questions about Occupy Wall Street has been this: Can the energy unleashed by the movement be leveraged behind a concrete political agenda and push for change that will constitute a meaningful challenge to the inequality and excessive Wall Street influence highlighted by the protests? A coalition of labor and progressive groups is about to unveil its answer to that question. Get ready for ?Occupy Congress.? The coalition ? which includes unions like SEIU and CWA and groups like the Center for Community Change ? is currently working on a plan to bus thousands of protesters from across the country to Washington, where they will congregate around the Capitol from December 5-9, SEIU president Mary Kay Henry tells me in an interview. . . . One goal of the protests, Henry says, is to pressure Republicans to support Obama?s jobs creation proposals. . . . ?The reason we?re targeting Republicans is because this is about jobs,? she said. ?The Republicans? insistence that no revenue can be put on the table is the reason we?re not creating jobs in this country. We want to draw a stark contrast between a party that wants to scapegoat immigrants, attack public workers, and protect the rich, versus a president who has been saying he wants America to get back to work and that everybody should pay their fair share.? But Henry added she salutes Occupy Wall Street for finding fault with both parties, adding: ?We agree that on domestic social programs, we have not won the day with either party. And we are applying pressure to both.? Occupy Congress! Having SEIU officials ? fresh off endorsing the Obama re-election campaign ? shape, fund, dictate and decree an anti-GOP, pro-Obama march is about as antithetical as one can imagine to what the Occupy movement has been. And pretending that the ongoing protests are grounded in the belief that the GOP is the party of the rich while the Democrats are the party of the working class is likely to fool just about nobody other than those fooled by that already. The strength and genius of OWS has been its steadfast refusal to (a) fall into the trap that ensnared the Tea Party of being exploited as a partisan tool and (b) integrate itself into the very political institutions which it?s scorning and protesting. As I noted several weeks ago, WH-aligned groups such as the Center for American Progress have made explicitly clear that they are going to try to convert OWS into a vote-producing arm for the Obama 2012 campaign, and that?s what ?Occupy Congress? is designed to achieve. I believed then and ? having spent the last few weeks talking with many OWS protesters around the country ? believe even more so now that these efforts will inevitably fail: those who have animated the Occupy movement are not motivated by partisan allegiance or an overarching desire to devote themselves to one of the two parties. In fact, one of the original Occupy groups ? as opposed to partisan organizations swooping in to exploit it ? has announced its own D.C. occupation to, in part, ?demonstrate the failure of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to represent the views of the majority of people.? I disagree with the prevailing wisdom that OWS should begin formulating specific legislative demands and working to elect specific candidates. I have no doubt that many OWS protesters will ultimately vote and even work for certain candidates ? and that makes sense ? but the U.S. desperately needs a citizen movement devoted to working outside of political and legal institutions and that is designed to be a place of dissent against it. Integrating it into that system is a way of narrowing its appeal and, worse, sapping it of its unique attributes and fear-generating potency. Even if you believe the U.S. has some sort of vibrant democracy ? rather than a democracy-immune oligarchy ? not all change needs to come exclusively from voting and electoral politics. Citizen movements can change the political culture in ways other than working within that pre-established electoral system; indeed, when that system becomes fundamentally corrupted, working outside of it is the only means of effectuating real change. Here?s how former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson put it in The Atlantic when equating the contemporary United States to the corrupted ?emerging market? oligarchies which caused past financial crises on which he worked: Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or?here?s a classic Kremlin bailout technique?the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk?at least until the riots grow too large. That last phrase is the essence of why I hope OWS, at least for now, remains a movement that refuses to reduce itself into garden-variety electoral politics. What is missing from America is a healthy fear in the hearts and minds of the most powerful political and financial factions of the consequences of their continued pilfering, corporatism, and corrupt crony capitalism, and only this sort of movement ? untethered from the pacifying rules of our political and media institutions ? can re-impose that healthy fear. When both parties are captive to the same factions, then ? by design, as AIPAC has so effectively shown ? one can?t subvert the agenda of those factions simply by voting for one party or the other. Moreover, what happens with fundamentally corrupted political systems is that even well-intentioned candidates ? or discrete pieces of legislation that are good in the abstract ? become infected and degraded when inserted into that system; if you believe that the wealthiest class anti-democratically controls political institutions (an indisputably true premise), then it makes little sense to expect specific new bills or even individual candidates inserted into that system to bring about much change. This was the same debate I had with transparency advocate Steven Aftergood when he argued that it was better to bring about transparency with anti-secrecy legislation than with the insurgent approach of WikiLeaks. As I argued then, even if one entertained the fantasy that strong, well-crafted transparency legislation could be enacted, the fact that it would be implemented within a political system controlled by Generals and intelligence community officials, and overseen by CIA-and-Pentagon-revering members of Congress, meant that any statutory framework would be so watered down (if not outright ignored) in implementation that it would be virtually irrelevant. Given how fundamentally corrupted and secrecy-obsessed the National Security State is, only a force for transparency that remained outside of that secrecy-preserving system ? WikiLeaks ? could bring about meaningful disclosures. That?s what I think about our oligarchy-drenched political process. That said, people I respect and who are well-intentioned have advanced reasonable arguments as to why the Occupy movement would be well-advised to start demanding specific legislative changes and/or backing candidates, and some have even proposed ideas for how they can and should do that. Some of those arguments are compelling (though ultimately unpersuasive to me for the reasons I just described), but everyone participating in the Occupy protests can and should ? and ultimately will ? decide for themselves if they think their grievances are best addressed through that tactic. But whatever else is true, the notion ? advanced by SEIU ? that it?s the Democratic Party and the Obama White House working to bring about these changes and implant these values of the 99% is so self-evidently false as to be insulting. Agitating for passage of the jobs bill is a perfectly reasonable and sensible step, but how can casting that in such starkly partisan terms be justified when numerous key Democratic officials opposed the bill and prevented its passage (just as an always-changing roster of numerous key Democrats ? the Villains of the Moment ? almost always act to protect the interests of Washington?s permanent ruling factions)? Beyond that, and more important, does SEIU think that people will just ignore these key political facts? How does anyone think these protesters will be convinced that it?s exclusively the GOP ? and not the Democratic Party and the Obama WH ? who ?protect the rich? when: Wall Street funded the Democrats far more than the GOP in the 2008 election; the Democrats? key money man, Charles Schumer, is one of the most devoted Wall Street servants in the country; Obama empowered in key positions Wall Street servants such as Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Bill Daley, Rahm Emanuel, and an endless roster of former Goldman officials; JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been dubbed ?Obama?s favorite banker? after Obama publicly defended his post-bailout $17 million bonus; the President named the CEO of GE to head his jobs panel; the DCCC and DSCC exist to ensure the nomination of corporatist candidates and Blue Dogs whose political worldview is servitude to the lobbyist class; the Democratic President, after vocally urging an Age of Austerity, tried very hard to usher in cuts to Social Security and an increase in the age for Medicare eligibility; and the Obama administration has not only ensured virtually no accountability for the rampant Wall Street fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis, but is actively pressuring New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and others to agree to a woefully inadequate settlement to forever shield banks from the consequences of their pervasive mortgage fraud. That?s just a fraction of the facts one could list to document the actual factions to which the Democratic Party has devoted itself. If one wants to argue that the GOP is more opposed to progressive economic policies than Democrats, that?s certainly reasonable. If one wants to argue that, on balance, voting for Democrats is more likely to bring about marginally more of those policies than abstaining, I think that, too, is reasonable. But to try to cast the Democratic Party and the Obama administration as the vessel for the values and objectives of the Occupy movement is just dishonest in the extreme: in fact, it?s so extreme that it?s very unlikely to work. Those who believe that further empowerment of the Democratic Party is what is most urgently needed can make their case and should pursue that goal ? they should try to generate as much citizen enthusiasm as possible behind them ? but they should stop trying to depict and exploit the Occupy movement as an instrument for their agenda. UPDATE: In cartoon form, History Professor James MacLeod puts it this way: The position of the Occupy movement in that arrangement is vital. Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.More Glenn Greenwald Copyright ? 2011 Salon Media Group, Inc From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 18:01:20 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:01:20 +0100 Subject: [THS] War crimes tribunal tries Bush, Blair Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120180104.06fd57c8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.presstv.ir/detail/210986.html War crimes tribunal tries Bush, Blair Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:41PM A War Crimes Tribunal in the Malaysian capital has begun its hearing against George W. Bush and Tony Blair, charging the former officials for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Press TV reports. The tribunal will determine whether the former US president and British prime minister committed war crimes and violated international law during the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is an initiative by Malaysia's former Premier Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposes US-led military adventures in various troubled regions. The hearing comes after two years of in-depth investigation, including testimonials from Iraqi war victims by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. According to the Kuala Lumpur War Commission, both Bush and Blair had participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws. One complainant told the commission in 2009 that he was mistakenly detained and kept for six years in Guantanamo Bay under harsh conditions. A notification of the trial was served to known addresses of the two, and to the US Embassy and the UK High Commission in Kuala Lumpur on September 19, 2011. This comes at a time when the Perdana Global Peace Foundation has mounted a war crimes exhibition in the Malaysian capital. The exhibition put on display gory images of decapitated bodies, to educate the public about the inhumane effects of war. The exhibition also featured the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq along with life-sized mannequins to show the abuse and torture of prisoners by the US army. Millions of people have lost their lives in the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past years. SZH/JR/HGH From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 18:18:35 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:18:35 +0100 Subject: [THS] Portland pepper spray incident generates iconic Occupy photo Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120180312.06fcbde0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/na-portland-protest-photo-20111119,0,2221367.story Portland pepper spray incident generates iconic Occupy photo [photo] Protester A woman is blasted with pepper spray during Occupy protests in Portland Thursday. (Randy L. Rasmussen, The Oregonian) Photos: New York evicts Occupy Wall Street protestersBerkeley protesters pitch tents, defying authoritiesPhotos: Occupy OaklandPhotos: Occupy Portland photosHundreds of Police Move on 'Occupy Oakland' EncampmentPhotos: Photos: Occupy Wall Street protests Photos: Photos: Occupy protests spread By Kim Murphy Los Angeles Times Staff Writer The dramatic photo of a young woman getting a blast of pepper spray on her face during a mostly peaceful Occupy protest in Portland is destined to become an enduring image of the national movement. The youthful protester vomited almost immediately after the Thursday incident and medics were able to wash out her eyes and nose so that she was not much the worse for it, Occupy Portland spokesman Reid Parham told The Times. "She's OK," he said. Portland's Occupy the Banks demonstrations began Thursday morning with the arrests of 25 people on the east end of the Steel Bridge. Interestingly, it was a gray-haired group that sat stubbornly at the entrance to the bridge, waiting to be taken away in flex-cuffs by police. The Portland Police Bureau put out a list of arrestees, and only one of them was under the age of 35. Seven were in their 60s. Five were in their 50s. It might be that those were the folks who could afford the time to be hauled away, booked and possibly charged; certainly, it reflects Portland's deep history of street protest. The Occupy Portland demonstrations of the last six weeks are only the latest in a long tradition of turbulent clashes that date back to the city's well-remembered anti-Vietnam War demonstration of 1970, and earlier. A former member of President George H. W. Bush's staff famously dubbed the city "Little Beirut" in reference to the noisy reception Republican candidates traditionally received there. And street clashes between protesters and police have over the years been a regular event at May Day rallies and union organizing rallies even before Vietnam. In that context, Thursday's events were relatively mild. Yet Occupy Portland organizers allege law enforcement took an inappropriate and heavy-handed approach. "The city's overreaction and complete waste of tax dollars to quiet down a completely peaceful demonstration against the greed of banks was very unnecessary," spokeswoman Illona Trogub said in an interview. Police said pepper spray was only brought out when a small group of unusually confrontational protesters refused to get out of the street and stood in the path of MAX transit trains. Portland Police Bureau spokesman Lt. Robert King said the march had proceeded peacefully along most of the route, with officers trying to keep people on the sidewalk and out of the street. There was initially "a pushing and shoving match" near SW 5th Avenue and Alder Street, King said in an interview, and again a "pretty intense confrontation" at SW 4th Avenue and Morrison Street. The most raucous confrontation occurred near Chase Bank shortly after 4 p.m. as officers were trying to remove protesters who had entered the bank vestibule. But police were blocked by hundreds of demonstrators outside. Meanwhile, a core of protesters couldn't be cleared from the street, which is a path for one of the city's major downtown light-rail systems. "Two of the protesters engaged in some kind of a struggle, a pushing match, with one of the officers, and in the course of that, tensions escalated and ultimately pepper spray was deployed, and that by and large resolved the disturbance at that location," King said. Occupy spokesman Parham said one of the problems was that police, many of them on horseback, were actually shoving people into the street. "It's consistently true that the police were over-reacting and pushing people off of the sidewalks into the street, and then yelling at them to get out of the street," he said. He said two people were stepped on by the horses, and one was knocked over. "All of the eyewitnesses say there was no warning that chemical agents would be used," he added. King said the police have consistently employed an approach known as "tactical disengagement" during the last several weeks, often backing off and literally retreating from marching protesters "in cases where there could have been a flash point." "What we encountered yesterday was different in its tone and its character from the previous marches," King said. "We're thinking it's because the people that were there yesterday were there to engage in direct action against financial institutions. This was designed to be an interruption. "Again, there were hundreds of people, possibly as many as a thousand people, who marched. Many, many people were utterly peaceful," King said. "But there were definitely individuals involved that were more aggressive. Officers definitely encountered higher levels of resistance than they had seen in previous incidents." The pepper spray deployment is under investigation, he said. Meanwhile, the photo of the young woman taken by Oregonian staff photographer Randy L. Rasmussen has raced across the Internet, becoming, as the Oregonian described Friday morning, "a web sensation and an iconic photograph." Copyright ? 2011, Los Angeles Times From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 18:24:45 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:24:45 +0100 Subject: [THS] Scientists Warn New York Must Prepare For Climate Change Now Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120182415.0706d7d0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/scientists-hurricane-iren_n_1098072.html Scientists Warn New York Must Prepare For Climate Change Now Hurricane Irene New York First Posted: 11/16/11 04:30 PM ET Updated: 11/16/11 04:56 PM ET By Mary Esch ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Devastating floods like those caused in upstate New York by the remnants of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee are among the climate change effects predicted in a new report written by 50 scientists and released Wednesday by the state's energy research agency. The 600-page report called ClimAID, intended as a resource for planners, policymakers, farmers and residents, says New Yorkers should begin preparing for hotter summers, snowier winters, severe floods and a range of other effects on the environment, communities and human health. It was written by scientists from Cornell University, Columbia University and the City University of New York and funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. "The past year was a good teachable moment in terms of the types of impacts we anticipate with climate change," said Art DeGaetano, a climate expert from Cornell who was one of the report's authors. "What we show in the report is that winters will tend to get wetter and summers drier. Conditions this year were textbook for that. Farmers had a tough time getting into wet fields this spring, then there were droughts. The flooding from Irene and Lee brought the classic types of impacts we project to occur in the report." The study predicts average annual temperatures in New York state will rise by 4 to 9 degrees by 2080 and precipitation will rise by 5 to 15 percent, with most of it in the winter. It predicts that along the seacoast and tidal portion of the Hudson River, the sea level will rise by 1 to 5 inches by the 2020s and 8 to 23 inches by the 2080s. If melting of polar ice caps is factored in, sea level is projected to rise 37 to 55 inches by the 2080s, the report says. Among the specific regional effects predicted in the report are: Native brook trout and Atlantic salmon will decline, but bass will flourish in warmer waters. Great Lakes water levels will fall. Apple varieties such as McIntosh and Empire will fare poorly, but vineyards will benefit. Milk production will decrease. Coastal wetlands will be inundated and saltwater will extend farther up the Hudson River. Adirondack and Catskill spruce-fir forests will disappear. Invasive insects, weeds and other pests will increase. Electrical demand will increase in warm months. The study proposes numerous steps that can be taken to adapt to the changing climate. Improving insulation and using reflective roofing materials could keep buildings cooler in summer, reducing electrical demand from air conditioning. Avoiding development in coastal zones and river flood plains could reduce the damage from flooding. When normal infrastructure and building upgrades and repairs are made, the authors recommend that climate change be considered. Dairy barns could be designed with better ventilation and other cooling technology. Stormwater and wastewater system upgrades should take increased precipitation and flooding into account. The report says certain demographic groups will be disproportionately affected by climate change. Minorities and low-income residents tend to live in areas vulnerable to flooding in New York City and upstate, DeGaetano said. Rural residents and small towns are less able to cope with extreme events such as floods, ice storms and droughts. Elderly people and those with health problems are more vulnerable to heat-related illnesses such as asthma, the report says. Farm workers may be exposed to more chemicals if pesticide use increases in response to climate change. The report lists a number of climate changes in New York that have already been observed: Annual average temperatures have risen about 2.4 degrees since 1970, with winter warming exceeding 4.4 degrees. The sea level along New York's coastline has risen about a foot since 1900. There's been no discernible trend in annual average precipitation for the state as a whole since 1900, but intense precipitation such as heavy downpours have increased in recent decades. "Climate change is already beginning to affect the people and resources of New York state, and these impacts are projected to grow," the ClimAID authors wrote. "At the same time, the state has the potential capacity to address many climate-related risks, thereby reducing negative impacts and taking advantage of possible opportunities." From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 18:26:00 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:26:00 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Karl_Rove_Flips_Out_At_Protesters=3A_=91Who_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Gave__You_The_Right_To_Occupy_America=3F=92?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120182549.0706d540@mail.messagingengine.com> http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/16/369694/occupy-baltimore-karl-rove/ Karl Rove Flips Out At Protesters: ?Who Gave You The Right To Occupy America?? By Zaid Jilani on Nov 16, 2011 at 10:00 am Last night, former Bush official Karl Roveappeared at Johns Hopkins University to speak as a part of the annual Milton S. Eisenhower Symposium. Rove soon discovered that he wasn?t going to deliver his right-wing rhetoric unopposed, as a cry of ?Mic Check!? rang out among the audience. ?Karl Rove is the architect of Occupy Iraq, the architect of Occupy Afghanistan!? yelled the demonstrators. Occupy Baltimore had infiltrated the crowd and began chanting against Rove. ?Who gave you the right to occupy America?? asked Rove to the protesters, apparently unaware of the Bill of Rights. As they repeated their slogan, ?We are the 99 percent!? Rove petulantly responded, ?No you?re not!? He snidely added, ?You wanna keep jumping up and yelling that you?re the 99 percent? How presumptuous and arrogant can you think are!? Watch Occupy Baltimore confront Rove: About 15 protesters were asked to leave and some were forcibly removed. No one was arrested. From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 18:31:41 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:31:41 +0100 Subject: [THS] !!!!! Students pepper-sprayed & beaten with batons at UC Davis Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120183009.0706d2b0@mail.messagingengine.com> http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/ Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi Posted on November 19, 2011 by crank 18 November 2011 Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi Linda P.B. Katehi, I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis. You are not. I write to you and to my colleagues for three reasons: 1) to express my outrage at the police brutality which occurred against students engaged in peaceful protest on the UC Davis campus today 2) to hold you accountable for this police brutality 3) to demand your immediate resignation Today you ordered police onto our campus to clear student protesters from the quad. These were protesters who participated in a rally speaking out against tuition increases and police brutality on UC campuses on Tuesday?a rally that I organized, and which was endorsed by the Davis Faculty Association. These students attended that rally in response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons,hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty, and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and linked arms to protect them. What happened next? Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students.Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked. What happened next? Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood. This is what happened. You are responsible for it. You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get hurt. One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested. Associate Professor Geoffrey O?Brien was injured by baton blows. Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and they too were beaten and arrested by the police. In writing this letter, I stand together with those faculty and with the students they supported. One week after this happened at UC Berkeley, you ordered police to clear tents from the quad at UC Davis. When students responded in the same way?linking arms and holding their ground?police also responded in the same way: with violent force. The fact is: the administration of UC campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress free speech and peaceful assembly. Many people know this. Many more people are learning it very quickly. You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds. On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, ?it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.? You write, ?while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.? I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to ?a safe and inviting space for all our students? or ?a safe, welcoming environment? at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating ?a safe and inviting space?? Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to ?a safe, welcoming environment?? I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience?including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation. Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our ?Principles of Community? and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing. I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis. As such, I call upon you to resign immediately. Sincerely, Nathan Brown Assistant Professor Department of English Program in Critical Theory University of California at Davis *** Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis http://youtu.be/WmJmmnMkuEM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. If you'd like to donate to News From Underground, please visit http://markcrispinmiller.com/donate - we appreciate your ongoing support. Ways to unsubscribe, 1) send a blank email to newsfromunderground+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. PLEASE NOTE: you must unsubscribe using the SAME email with which you subscribed; 2) go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Police lockdown at Harvard Yard [VIDEO] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6A71IlOKgU From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 23:06:10 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:06:10 +0100 Subject: [THS] Occupy the highway - all the way to DC Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120230445.04456778@mail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Occupy the highway Dear MoveOn member, Last week, a courageous group left the Occupy Wall Street camp in New York City and started marching to Washington, DC. Their goal was to bring the outrage and energy of the 99% directly to Capitol Hill. They're marching to call out the congressional Super Committee, which could cut a deal before Wednesday slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to protect tax breaks for the 1%. The marchers' stories are powerful, and Congress needs to hear them before they slash programs that so many people rely on. So we met up with the marchers yesterday and filmed a short video to help spread their story. It's critical that as many people as possible see this, as the Super Committee nears its critical deadline. Can you share it right now with your friends and family? Screen capture Watch the video If enough of us share this video we can help the march get more attention, get more coverage in the media, and ultimately, put more pressure on Congress and the Super Committee. After marching nearly 200 miles through the winter cold, they'll cross through Baltimore and prepare for their final push into Washington on Tuesday, just before the Super Comittee's deadline. Dozens of supporters have joined the march along the way. But it's up to all the rest of us to help share their story and make sure that by the time they get to Washington, Congress?and the rest of the country?is expecting them. Please click here to share the video with your friends and family. http://front.moveon.org/breaking-occupy-protesters-walk-230-miles-from-new-york-to-dc/?id=33071-17515094-GKtZtAx Thanks for all you do. ?Justin, Elena, Laura, Robin, and the rest of the team From ths at psalience.org Sun Nov 20 23:17:59 2011 From: ths at psalience.org (The Harder Stuff in news and commentary) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:17:59 +0100 Subject: [THS] =?iso-8859-1?q?_In_Case_You_Don=92t_Realise_How_Dangerous_t?= =?iso-8859-1?q?he___Israeli_Lobby_Is?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20111120231734.047dc3b8@mail.messagingengine.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29758.htm In Case You Don?t Realise How Dangerous the Israeli Lobby Is By Gilad Atzmon November 18, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Israeli paper Israel-Ayom reports today about a new ?Congressional bill? that would require the ?American administration to support Israel in a move deemed necessary to defend itself against the Iranian nuclear threat.? Five Republican congressmen who visited Israel last week disclosed the bill. The bill states an "expression of support for Israel's right to defend its sovereignty and to protect the lives and safety of its citizens and use all necessary means to confront and eliminate the nuclear threat that emerges from the Islamic Republic of Iran, including use military force in the absence of other diplomatic means available in the near future. " The initiator of the bill is Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado). If you doubted the colossal danger imposed by the the ?lobby? you better wake up NOW!!! Gilad Atzmon is a musician-composer. He is particularly well-known his political analysis which is widely published. His website Gilad.co.uk