[prez_usa_exile] SPECIAL: A Life in the Day 1/30/7
prez_usa_exile
Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's
Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
Via <pr...@usa-exile.org>
January 30, 2007
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Please read Danny Schechter's piece directly below so what I say
is clear.
Yeah, I remember in '66 standing on NYC's Fifth Ave during a big
anti-war parade with a counting device so I could nail police and
press on their conspiratorially small estimates. Tom Hayden did the
same thing at a big anti-globalization parade in DC in '00.
But these days it doesn't make any difference how large these US
anti-war turn-outs are because the organizers of them select for a
definition of war that is self-defeatingly narrow. Instead of
declaring opposition to the War Against Nature--which would make them
several times stronger because they'd attract both anthropocentric and
biocentric activists--they cling to a definition which has become
quaint. Perhaps they do this because they're afraid of jeopardizing
their funding sources.
Let me be sure you understand that the War Against Nature of
course includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also the domestic
War Against America.
So we can say that the US anti-war movement deals only with the
most lightweight ten per cent of what's happening in the vast world of
warfare. That aspect of the War Against Nature which pertains to
atmospheric pollution has carried us now to the point where one of its
best-informed researchers, James Lovelock, says it's too late to save
more than around seven per cent of the current 6.6 billion human
population. Yet the US anti-war movement either doesn't mention this
at all or else treats it as an inconsequential postscript to what
they're focused on.
Which leads me to suspect that this misbegotten movement now has
been infiltrated so slyly that the US government currently controls
it. This would explain why its participants arrive for parades in a
manner of meek obedience rather than in the manner of Chicago '68 or
Seattle '99.
It would also explain why the movement treats the use of DU
weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) as a relatively minor
matter even though the number of deaths from it over time will dwarf
the numbers of everybody killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We don't need a march against the media (as Danny suggests at the
bottom of his piece) in this particular matter but rather a march
against the anti-war leaders so they'll embrace a wider vision.
Yours for all species,
Keith Lampe, Ro-Non-So-Te,
Ponderosa Pine
Transition Prez
PS: Not that it wasn't charming to see Jane Fonda again. But charm
is not enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Schechter: Media
Downplays Anti-War March Size
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 10:18am.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
By Danny Schechter
New York: January 28: This past weekend's anti-war march was big, say
the organizers and I have no reason to doubt them. They made this claim:
"Washington, D.C. -- In a massive showing of public opposition to the
Iraq war, 500,000 people filled the streets around the Capitol today,
completely surrounding the building. Participants converged on the
National Mall from all over the country to voice their support for an
end to the conflict in Iraq.
Three hundred buses rolled in early this morning, coming from more
than 40 states and including at least 20 buses filled by New York City
trade unions. United For Peace & Justice, the march coordinator,
called this one of the largest and most diverse demonstrations since
the war began.
According to UFPJ National Coordinator and veteran peace and justice
leader Leslie Cagan, "This is a decisive moment in the history of this
country and of our peace movement. In November, the people of this
nation voted for peace. We are here today, all ages, from all walks of
life, to hold our elected officials to the mandate of the people."
Add in protests in the rest of the country and it was even bigger.
But is that the picture most of America received? I didn't see any
report Saturday night on the front page of the Sunday NY Times online,
but by the morning in the print edition, the Times wrote:
"Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on
Saturday to oppose President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq
in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar
sentiment in the nation's capital since the war began." The story was
carried as a headline at the bottom of the page, not prominent
positioning. No Photo. A story about tennis got bigger play. The
article was pushed to page 21 (although it said P. 22 on p.1) It was
written by Ian Urbina and was well done, but the picture caption again
said "Thousands."
There was no mention of "Hundreds of Thousands" or a Half million or
even that that was what organizers claimed.
This was hardly the coverage "organizers hoped" for. Actually the
organizers said it WAS the largest show of force since the war began
with 500,000. The Times only acknowledged "tens of thousands." Does
this matter?
It doesn't if the numbers game doesn't matter, and sadly it does in a
country where perception trumps reality. Years ago, the National Park
Service which initially always underreported crowd sizes and then
began having aerial photos taken that were analyzed by experts using
grids, decided not to provide police estimates which were routinely
reported. Perhaps that's why the march did its own count.
Yesterday, the March claimed a half million -- which IS "one of the
largest shows of anti-war sentiment" (although I seem to remember the
number of 750,000 used to quantify how many showed up in the big
pre-war march of 2003). But the papers, maybe following the AP's
earlier in the day, estimated "tens of thousands." True to form, the
Washington Post online edition reported "THOUSANDS." The Huffington
Post headline: "Why That Anti-War March Won't Change Anything ..."
Was this right on or right off? I wasn't there this time. My first
anti-war march was in l965, so I have burned up my share of shoe or
sneaker leather over the years, as well as energy, cheering some of
the same speakers who turned up Saturday. I wasn't feeling well enough
to make the trip this time, but reported on it anyway.
I support marches as PART of a bigger strategy, not as THE strategy.
And at least this time, many activists were planning to lobby Congress.
As readers know by now, I think it's kind of important to get this
message out to the people through the media, and not just the message
that there's opposition to the war, but that there's a movement
opposing it. We need to show activism in action as a way for citizens
to try to hold politicians accountable and participate in the process.
Did that double message get through?
This approach requires a media strategy -- and a challenge to the
media -- beyond sending out press releases and getting on Pacifica
radio outlets.
On Saturday morning, the United For Peace and Justice website
announced,"Watch live on C-SPAN!" Wow, I thought, you could see the
March and Rally LIVE on CSPAN. At 1:30, I tuned in just before the
march was slated to start, and sure enough several cameras were in the
crowd. The only commentary I heard then was that there were
"thousands" there. Sounded small. All we saw was a rapper on the stage
and people milling around. No interviews. No explanation. I guess I
missed it.
Soon, a notice appeared on screen that CSPAN would switch away from
the march to cover Hillary Clinton's first speech in Iowa. And so they
did, off to East High School for a stump speech. I expected them to
come back while the march was happening. They didn't.
Instead they rebroadcast last Friday's coverage of a National Review
Institute conference on conservatism. Was CSPAN that nervous, that
they had to preemptively "balance" the anti-war march? Instead of the
ongoing march, we heard righter than right columnist Michelle Malkin
complaining that the media didn't show the "throngs" at a
right-to-life march, but only a few counter demonstrators. (CNN had
the 15 counter demonstrators at this one and an interview with a
conservative critic -- but also a song by the raging grannies and a
sound bite or two from well-known speakers like Jane Fonda.)
CSPAN promised to show it later, but when I tuned in, CSPAN 1 was
running a session from the Memphis Media Conference earlier this month
at 9:30 PM. (Later I received an email saying I was in it so I can't
criticize that, can I?)
I am sure the anti-war rally will be rebroadcast but the format with
its endless parade of speakers and torrent of rhetoric is not exactly
a media or audience turn on.
My point is that there was no real `live" coverage on the main CSPAN
channel that I saw in a culture with news channels that can't wait to
go live. (When I worked at ABC, there was a term called SLR for Silly
Live Remote referring to someone on freeway overpass "reporting live"
on an ordinary rush hour where nothing was happening.) We have a media
that will go "live" to the opening of an envelope, but not to anti-war
marches.
Coverage is more than just showing it; it is reporting on it,
commenting on it, interviewing people there, etc.
I flipped to Fox. If there was coverage I missed it. They were
spinning a statement by John Kerry to the effect that world public
opinion does not support the US war. This was being presented as
"anti-American." What do you expect from Faux News?
CNN did have a report with a journalist who had been at the march
discussing it, saying there were "tens of thousands," not a half
million. He was in the studio, not on the Mall, with an anchor who
patronizingly referred to protesters as "the kind of people we've seen
before." The march was treated as ho-hummer with the only interest
expressed about whether active duty soldiers were marching. The CNN
man said he heard that they were, but didn't see them.
It was then time for a stand-up from the White House lawn with a
reporter discussing how the White House would respond to Congressional
criticism of the war, as if the marchers didn't exist. And then there
was a replay of a soundbyte from President Bush under a graphic banner
that said, can you believe, "THE SOUNDS OF DISSENT."
AP reported "tens of thousands," not half a million.
"Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday
in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary
people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call
to get out of Iraq."
Andrea Hsu of NPR turned tens of thousands into: "Thousands of
protesters gathered Saturday on the Mall in Washington, D.C." Thousands!
NPR reported January 27: "While some citizens have protested against
the Iraq war ever since the invasion of March 2003, the movement has
failed to mobilize large numbers of people in public spaces. Has that
changed now that a majority of Americans oppose the war?"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
For some reason, there seemed to be more movie stars speaking than
usual. What signal does that send? Of course CNN ran images of Jane
Fonda now and in North Vietnam in l973. There was a photo of Sean Penn
marching.
Headline in a newspaper in Komo, Washington: "Middle America meets
celebrity glitter in anti-war march."
Some outlets, but mostly on the West coast, noted that there were
protests there, too:
"WASHINGTON - Anti-war protesters from around the country converged on
Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities today ..."
Don't the anti-war organizers see this as a problem? Don't they think
they should try to do something about it as a porblem and protest this
ritualistic treatment? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue?
Are they only listening to themselves?
I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree
Walker, a former TV anchor, agreed. But the anti-war movement
continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of
"alienating" the press.
Give me a break! This is a pattern -- deliberate! Back in 2003, the
Washington Post's own omsbudsman, Michael Getler, indicted his own
newspaper for "downplaying protests." He now works for Public Television.
This coverage is deplorable, but worse: the anti-war movement has not
made it an issue. With more than half the country opposing the war,
the movement is still being under-reported and marginalized! And not
doing much about it.
We still need a march on the media. Anyone with me?
News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. He wrote "WHEN
NEWS LIES" condemning the coverage of the war. (WmdtheFilm.com)
Comments to Diss...@mediachannel.org.
=======================================================================================
NOTE: I guess we're supposed to absorb this as bad news--but my take
on it is that it's good news because it'll act as an additional prod
towards getting clean replacements for oil ABSOLUTELY as swiftly as
possible. So we can say it's cool that "Mexico's Oil Output Cools".
-- kl, pp
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html
url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116984658739189365.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
Mexico's Oil Output Cools
By David Luhnow
MEXICO CITY -- Daily output at Mexico's biggest oil field tumbled by
half a million barrels last year, according to figures released Friday
by the Mexican government. The ongoing decline at the Cantarell field
could pressure prices on the global oil market, complicate U.S.
efforts to diversify its oil imports away from the Middle East, and
threaten Mexico's financial stability.
The virtual collapse at Cantarell -- the world's second-biggest oil
field in terms of output at the start of last year -- is unfolding
much faster than projections from Mexico's state-run oil giant
Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex.
========================================================================================================================================
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,,1996211,00.html#article_continue
World Is Running out of Water, Says
UN Adviser
Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi
Monday January 22, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The world is running out of water and needs a radical plan to tackle
shortages that threaten the ability of humanity to feed itself,
according to Jeffrey Sachs, director of the UN's Millennium Project.
Professor Sachs, who is credited with sparking pop star Bono's crusade
for African development, told an environment conference in Delhi that
the world simply had "no more rivers to take water from".
The breadbaskets of India and China were facing severe water shortages
and neither Asian giant could use the same strategies for increasing
food production that has fed millions in the last few decades.
"In 2050 we will have 9 billion people and average income will be
four times what it is today. India and China have been able to feed
their populations because they use water in an unsustainable way. That
is no longer possible," he said.
Since Asia's green revolution, which began in the 1960s and saw a
transformation of agricultural production, the amount of land under
irrigation has tripled. However, many parts of the continent have
reached the limits of their water supplies. "The Ganges [in India] and
the Yellow river [in China] no longer flow. There is so much silting
up and water extraction upstream they are pretty stagnant," said Prof
Sachs.
The US academic said that the mechanisms of shrinking water resources
are not well understood. "We need to do for water what we did for
climate change. How do we recharge aquifers? What about ground water
use? There's no policy anywhere in place at the moment."
The US academic said that the rise of Asia was altering the world's
resources in an unprecedented way - for the first time humans were
shaping the environment rather than nature.
"China is on course to be the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide by
2010 in the world. India is building eight 4,000MW power plants - are
they ready for carbon capture? I don't think so."
The British government has been trying to persuade a reluctant New
Delhi to embrace green technology. Officials in India still talk about
the need for accelerating growth and see tackling climate change as a
brake on the economy.
David Miliband, the environment minister, said he was confident that
the country would join a scheme for managing greenhouse gas emissions
after the present Kyoto protocol runs out in 2012.
"India is already the fourth largest emitter [in the world]. It is
already being affected by climate change and I have been encouraged to
see that ministers here are engaging with the issue," said Mr Miliband.
Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
=========================================================================================================================================
From: "marguerite hampton" <ecopi...@aabol.com>
Date: January 29, 2007 7:40:02 PM EST
Subject: Fw: Global Dimming & Global Warming (video/transcript)
Dear Friends -
This is the second time this has crossed my desktop. The first time I
decided we'd had enough "bad news" and refrained from sending it.
This time I felt I must.
marguerite
-------Original Message-------
From: Janaia Donaldson
Date: 01/29/07 00:10:47
Subject: Global Dimming & Global Warming (video/transcript)
Hello friends on my "Deep News" list,
This is serious Deep News. Global Dimming and Global Warming and the
interrelated effects of both--the picture may be far worse than we've
thought. There is a transcript at the link.
--Janaia
"This is a film that demands action. It reveals that we may have
grossly underestimated the speed at which our climate is changing. At
its heart is a deadly new phenomenon. One that until very recently
scientists refused to believe even existed. But it may already have
led to the starvation of millions. Tonight Horizon examines for the
first time the power of what scientists are calling Global Dimming."
Very riveting documentary.
Runtime 49 minutes on Google Video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm
=======================================================================================================================================
THE NUREMBERG DECLARATION
The following is the full text of the Nuremberg Declaration delivered
to the head of the Documentation Center for the Crimes of the Nazi
Party, the group responsible for maintaining Room 600 in the Nuremberg
Courthouse where Nazi leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes
in 1945 and 1946. The declaration calls on the United States to
reverse the decision of the Bush administration and re-sign and ratify
the International Criminal Court treaty (Rome statute).
NUREMBERG DECLARATION
on International Criminal Court
The Nuremberg War Trials marked the birth date of a new age in
international law -- the creation of an International Tribunal to try
war criminals. Mr. Robert Jackson, the Allied Forces' Chief
Prosecutor, stated on various occasions in 1945 that, "the U.S. itself
will be bound in the future by the rules they are imposing on the
German war criminals in Nuremberg today.
Fifty seven years elapsed between the Nuremberg War Trials and the
commissioning of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague
on July 1, 2002. However, the United States, under the presidency of
George W. Bush, did not participate in the foundation of the ICC.
Instead, the Bush administration threatened the use of military forces
in the event that an American national was ever tried before the ICC.
The continued refusal of the United States government to become a
party to the ICC is an ongoing violation of the promises made at
Nuremberg in 1945. The conduct exhibited by the United States over 61
years constitutes a breach of good faith proclaimed in 1945. A breach
of faith that contravenes the moral basis for the Nuremberg War Trials
of 1945 and is a lasting obstacle to the efforts of all peaceful
nations that believe in the rule of law. Americans are urged to
encourage their government to fulfill the promises made by Robert
Jackson at Nuremberg in 1945 and become a party to the ICC as soon as
practicable.
Declared on the Documentation Center former Nazi Party parade grounds,
Nuremberg, Germany, Dec. 7, 2006.
There were six original signers of the declaration and it may be
available for signatures by visitors to the Nuremberg Courthouse. We
are also soliciting signatures for the Nuremberg Declaration by
professionals from various sectors, including current and/or past
affiliations. The following sectors are included:
1. Current and former members of legislatures -- national,
state/provincial/territorial, local/municipal.
2. Current and former executive government officials -- national,
state/provincial, local/municipal, tribal and territorial. (e.g.,
governors, mayors, county executives).
3. Current and former jurists -- national,
state/provincial/territorial, local/municipal.
4. Members of the Fourth Estate, the press/media, publishers, editors,
journalists.
5. Officials and faculty of educational institutions.
6. Legal professionals.
7. Members of the clergy/lay leadership.
8. Current and former members of the diplomatic corps.
9. Current and former non-governmental organization (NGO) officials
10. Current and former members of the military.
11. Current and former trade union officials.
12. Current and former business community officials.
13. Current and former intelligence agency and law enforcement officers.
14. Members of the film, art, literature, sports, and entertainment
communities.
15. Political party officials.
Signatures can be sent to: wmre...@waynemadsenreport.com
The current plans are to collect signatures from Nuremberg and from
e-mail and present them, along with the Nuremberg Declaration, to the
relevant congressional committees with a view to persuade them to
initiate the proper legislation to ensure that the United States
becomes a full party to the International Criminal Court and agree to
hand over for prosecution those American officials who violated the
Paris Peace Pact of 1928, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions.
The ICC treaty has been ratified by 104 nations, including
Afghanistan, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia,
France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Serbia, South Africa, United Kingdom,
and Venezuela. Iraq's Transitional National Government was set to
ratify the treaty but reversed course after pressure was exerted by
the United States. The following nations are in the process of
ratifying the ICC treaty: Chile, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Japan,
Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Yemen. Israel
"de-signed" the ICC treaty at the same time the Bush administration
withdrew its signature.
========================================================================================================================================
NOTE: It's unlikely that this compassionate decision would have
occurred during the vicious regime of Thaksin Shinawatra, who almost
always kissed the asses of the Fourth Reich. -- kl, pp
Last Updated: Monday, 29 January 2007, 15:54 GMT
Thailand Backs Patent Drug Copies
Thailand's health ministry says it has approved the production of
cheaper versions of patented anti-Aids and heart disease drugs.
Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla said the step was necessary to
make the cost of the medicines - Kaletra and Plavix - more affordable.
The move was criticised by pharmaceutical companies but drew praise
from Aids campaigners.
There are about half a million people living with HIV in Thailand.
"We have to do this because we don't have enough money to buy safe
and necessary drugs for the people under the government's universal
health scheme," Mr Mongkol told reporters.
He said at current prices, Thailand could only afford anti-Aids
medicine for a fifth of the country's HIV sufferers.
The minister said the move was permissible under international trade
rules in the event of national public health emergencies.
Mr Mongkol said the cost of a generic version of Plavix, a
blood-thinning treatment to help prevent heart attacks, would be about
a tenth of the cost of the patented product.
Plavix is sold by French-based Safovi-Aventis and US firm
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co; Kaletra is produced by US-based Abbott
Laboratories.
'Dialogue'
However the move has angered pharmaceutical firms, who said they were
caught by surprise.
"They are concerned about continuing to invest in a country where the
government cannot provide a basic guarantee for the safety of their
assets," the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers' Association
(Prema) said.
But Aids activists welcomed the government's announcement.
"It is a brave decision, despite both anticipated pressure from
industry and possible threats to withdraw investments," said Kannikar
Kijtiwatchakul, of aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres.
"The authorities have engaged in dialogue with companies before, but
the discounts have been marginal. The licenses will benefit a lot of
people and will set an example to other countries who face the same
problem."
Mr Mongkol said he was willing to negotiate with the pharmaceutical
companies about importing their products at cheaper prices.
======================================================================================
January 29, 2007 -- Now that the Ohio Governor's Mansion and Attorney
General's office are in the hands of Democrats, there will be full
criminal investigations of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
WMR's sources in Ohio report that election officials and Republicans
in Youngstown in Mahoning County will come under state investigation
for being involved in a conspiracy to flip votes from Kerry to Bush in
return for a promise that George W. Bush would commute the federal
prison sentence of jailed former Democratic Representative James
Traficant. Although a Democrat, Traficant often voted with the
Republicans. State investigators will also look into the role that
former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell played in the electoral
fraud. There is also evidence that the 2006 election for State
Auditor, won by a Republican, was also tainted with electoral fraud.
Ohio Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann (l.) and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner (r.) to investigate election fraud.
In another example of the duplicity of the Kerry camp in contesting
the 2004 election in Ohio, it has also been revealed to WMR that a
senior Kerry adviser who curtailed a major attempt by Ohio Democrats
to fight the 2004 election results, received donations from the wife
of a senior executive of Choice Point, the same company that was
involved in scrubbing the Florida electoral rolls of likely Democratic
voters in the 2000 election. Americans are more familiar with the
tight bonds between Yale Skull and Bonesmen, such as George W. Bush
and John Kerry, as a result of the portrayal of the fraternity's
bizarre sexual and urination initiation rites in the movie "The Good
Shepherd." The collusion between Bush and Kerry in 2004 in Ohio
indicates that these two Skull and Bonesmen urinated not on each other
but on the American people.
========================================================================================================================
"If Arafat Were Alive"
Sharon asked for permission to kill
Arafat and Bush gave it to him,
with the proviso
that it must be done undetectably
By Uri Avnery
Global Research, January 29, 2007
Gush-shalom.org
עברית : http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery/1169934666
"IF ARAFAT were alive" one hears this phrase increasingly often in
conversations with Palestinians, and also with Israelis and foreigners.
"If Arafat were alive, what's happening now in Gaza wouldn't be
happening" - "If Arafat were alive, we would have somebody to talk
with" - "If Arafat were alive, Islamic fundamentalism would not have
won among the Palestinians and would have lost some force in the
neighboring countries!"
In the meantime, the unanswered questions come up again: How did
Yasser Arafat die? Was he murdered? If so, who murdered him?
On the way back from Arafat's funeral in 2004, I ran into Jamal
Zahalka, a member of the Knesset. I asked him if he believed that
Arafat was murdered. Zahalka, a doctor of pharmacology, answered
"Yes!" without hesitation. That was my feeling, too. But a hunch is
not proof. It is only a product of intuition, common sense and experience.
Recently we got a kind of confirmation. Just before he died, Uri Dan,
who had been Ariel Sharon's loyal mouthpiece for almost 50 years,
published a book in France. It includes a report of a conversation
Sharon told him about, with President (George W.) Bush. Sharon asked
for permission to kill Arafat and Bush gave it to him, with the
proviso that it must be done undetectably. When Dan asked Sharon
whether it had been carried out, Sharon answered: "It's better not to
talk about that." Dan took this as confirmation.
The secret services of many countries have poisons that are all but
undetectable. The Mossad tried to kill Khaled Mashal, the Hamas
leader, in broad daylight on a main Amman thoroughfare. He was saved
only when the Israeli government was compelled to provide the antidote
to the poison it had used. Viktor Yushchenko, the president of the
Ukraine, was poisoned and saved only when the specific suspicious
symptoms were identified by experts in time. Recently, a former
Russian spy, Aleksander Litvinenko, was murdered by lethal
polonium-210. And how many cases have gone undetected?
Is there proof that Arafat was murdered by Israeli or other agents?
No, there is none. This week I again ran into MK Zahalka, and both of
us concluded that the suspicion is growing stronger, together with the
conviction that Arafat's absence is felt now more than ever.
IF ARAFAT were alive, there would be a clear address for negotiations
with the Palestinian people.
The claimed absence of such an address serves the Israeli government
as the official pretext for its refusal to start peace negotiations.
Every time Condoleezza Rice or another of Bush's parrots talks about
the need to "restart the dialog" (don't mention "negotiations") for
"the final status" or "the permanent settlement" (don't mention
"peace"), that is the response of Tsipi Livni, Ehud Olmert & Co.
Dialog? With whom? No use to talk with Mahmoud Abbas, because he is
unable to impose his will on the Palestinian people. He is no second
Arafat. He has no power. And we couldn't possibly talk with the Hamas
government, because it belongs to Bush's "axis of evil". So what do
you want, Condi dear?
Tsipi Livni, Condi's new buddy, goes further: at the convocation of
the billionaires' cabal in Davos she warned Abbas publicly not to
strike a "compromise with terrorists". A timely warning. Desperate to
create a credible Palestinian address, Abbas had just flown to
Damascus to meet Mashal. Thus, by the way, he has admitted publicly
that nothing can be done without the Hamas leader, who has become a
kind of Palestinian super-president.
Livni recognized the danger at once and rushed to torpedo the mission.
No dialog with a Palestinian unity government, much as there is no
dialog with Abbas or Hamas. That Ok, Condi honey?
IF ONE wants to see real joy, one has only to look at the faces of
Israeli correspondents who appear every evening on television to
report on events in Lebanon.
What delight! The "Christians and Sunnis" attack Shiite students at
the Arab University in Beirut and kill them! Any moment, a new civil
war may break out! Look, a female Sunni student interviewed on
television says that "Nasrallah is worse than Olmert!" Look at her
again! And again! And again!
"When two quarrel, the third laughs," as the proverb goes. When an
Arab hits an Arab - whether in Baghdad, Gaza or Beirut - the
government of Israel and its commentators in the media are glowing.
That has been a dominant theme in Israeli thought since the founding
of the state, and even before: when Arabs are fighting each other,
that is good for us.
In war, that makes sense. A split between your enemies is a gift to
you. In World War I, the German general staff sent Lenin back to
Russia in the famous sealed wagon, hoping to create a split between
Russia and her British and French allies. In the 1948 war, we were
saved because the armies of Egypt and Jordan were more interested in
competing with each other than in fighting us. In the 80s, the Israeli
army sent officers to North Iraq in order to help Mustafa Barzani to
tear the Kurdish region away from Saddam's country.
That is a good strategy in war, which states have followed since the
beginning of history. In this respect, Israel is no exception. The
question is: is this also a good strategy when one wants to achieve
peace?
IF - "IF" in capital letters - the government of Israel desired
peace, it would adopt the opposite strategy.
In the 50s, when David Ben-Gurion did his utmost to promote splits
between Egypt, Syria and Iraq, Nahum Goldman, the senior Zionist
diplomat, opposed this. He argued that the many conflicts between Arab
leaders were a danger to Israel, because every Arab leader tries to
outdo his rivals in his hostility to Israel.
Nowadays that is more evident than ever. Bush and his henchmen and
henchwomen are trying to set up a pro-American bloc consisting of
Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Abbas and Siniora. On the
opposite side there is the "axis of evil" consisting of Iran, Syria,
Hizbullah and Hamas.
The leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are paying lip service
to the Palestinian cause, but are quite ready to sell it out in return
for suitably lavish American aid. The Israeli government is honored to
find itself in the company of the three eminent democrats - President
Husni Mubarak and the two Kings Abdallah.
But is this good for Israel? It is good for the continuation of the
war against the Palestinians, for annexation and the building of
settlements. It is not good for the termination of the historic
conflict with the Palestinians, the ending of the occupation and the
laying down of arms.
There is no chance of making peace with Mahmoud Abbas, nor would it
have any value, without the full support of Hamas. But even a
Fatah-Hamas partnership would not be broad enough to ensure a peaceful
future for Israel. It would need the support of the whole Arab world.
There lies the immense importance of the "Arab Peace Initiative", the
Arab League proposal that was adopted by the 2002 Beirut summit
conference. Only a united Palestinian leadership, which enjoys the
backing of the entire Arab world, can carry out such a revolutionary
historic undertaking. Not only should we not object to it, but we
should in fact demand it.
The terms of the Arab initiative are the same as those already set out
by Yasser Arafat in the 70s: a Palestinian state side by side with
Israel, whose border is the Green Line and whose capital is East
Jerusalem; the dismantling of the settlements; an "agreed upon"
solution of the refugee problem. Unofficially Arafat agreed to swaps
of territory that would enable some of the settlements located near
the Green Line to remain in place. There is practically no
Palestinian, and indeed no Arab, who would agree to less. It would
leave the Palestinians a mere 22% of historic Palestine.
This can be achieved, provided the Palestinian people are united and
the Arab world is united. That means the agreement of Syria,
Hizbullah, Hamas and also Iran, which is of course not Arab.
Therefore, if one wants peace, one will not rejoice in face of the
bloodshed in Gaza and the Lebanon. We have nothing to laugh about when
Arab hits Arab. Woe to such laughter.
And, of course, if Arafat were alive, everything would be much, much
easier.
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.
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: crge...@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: crge...@yahoo.com
) Copyright Uri Avnery, Gush-shalom.org, 2007
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AVN20070129&articleId=4617
========================================================================================================================
From: Ecological Options Network <eonne...@eon3.net>
Date: January 29, 2007 11:21:48 PM EST
Subject: HALF-BAKED WHILE YOU SLEEP - Slouching Toward A North
American Union
HALF-BAKED WHILE YOU SLEEP
Slouching Toward a
North American Union
By James Heddle
Mon Fellow Norte AmericanosEh?
If you haven't heard of the SPP, or NASCO, or the Trans-Texas
Corridor, or the Amero, its probably because you don't listen to Lou
Dobbs or read WorldNetDaily or the AugustReview.com, or subscribe to
the MinuteMen's newsletter. Well, if super-patriotic, flag-kissing,
alien-hating ankle-biters of the Right are agin' it, us Secular
Progressives probably don't have to worry about it, right?
But, wait, if the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tri-Lateral
Commission are for it; if the likes of George Schultz, Donnie
Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush go to `no press' meetings
about it; if transnational corporations like Wal-Mart, GM, GE, Ford,
Chevron, Merck, and Lockheed Martin want it bad; and if 30 `Prosperity
Working Groups' full of bureaucratic experts on everything from
military `integration,' to immigration, to transportation, to
electronic communications, to insurance, to e-commerce are working on
how to make it happenmaybe we should wake up and smell the smoke.
`Horse pucky!' Given my knee-jerk Secular Progressive biases, that's
what I thought when news of the stealth project variously called `the
Big Idea,' `Deep Integration,' `NAFTA-Plus' `Harmonization,' `the
Grand Bargain,' or the `North American Security and Prosperity
Partnership' (SPP for short) first penetrated my spam filter.
But now that I've checked it out, I just call it the North American
Union (NAU), because that's the end result being aimed at in an
end-run around legislative oversight, public awareness and democratic
choice being attempted by a small army of un-elected, virtually
anonymous bureaucrats, CEOs, academics and public officials. Just
like they did to set up WTO, GATT and NAFTA. Still don't think you
need to investigate for yourself?
Illegitimate Spawn of NAFTA
Here's the `vision' being implemented as we sleep: by order of the
White House, you set up a Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)
office in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) office in
the U.S. Department of Congress. You put a staff of experts to work,
and when journalists try to find out what they're doing, you make them
invoke the Freedom of Information Act because of national security
concerns. You tell inquirers - as SPP Secretary Geri Wood told one
reporter - that the working groups cannot be "distracted by answering
calls from the public."
You start out with tri-lateral `mutual security,' `free trade' and
customs cooperation agreements between Mexico, the US and Canada. You
`deeply integrate' the three countries' militaries, `security,'
customs and law enforcement operations. You `harmonize' their legal
structures, their food, drug, transportation and public safety
standards. You declare a `common defense perimeter' around all three
nations to be patrolled by the `integrated' militaries (functionally
under control of the U.S. Northern Command, of course).
This is all done, mind you, by the executive branches of the three
governments with no involvement and little, if any, oversight by the
legislative or judicial branches. There's virtually no media coverage
either, because the press is barred from the closed-door executive
meetings in remote mountain resorts, to which `eminent persons'
reportedly arrive in shaded busses only at night.
You establish a North American Competitiveness Council staffed with
transnational CEOs from weapons producers, retail giants and big
pharma companies. To this you add a North American Energy Security
Initiative, a North American Aviation Trilateral, and a North American
Emergency Management Agency. You institute a `Smart, Secure Borders'
system with the signing of the
`Smart-Border-Declaration-and-Associated-30-Point-Action-Plan-to-Enhance-the
Security-of-Our-Shared-Border-While-Facilitating-the-Legitimate-Flow-of-People-and-Goods.'
You issue electronic ID cards to every `legitimate' citizen of each
country so they can sail through border checkpoints at speed.
You contract with Cintra, a Spanish corporation, to build a toll road
(that Cintra will then own) called the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), or
NAFTA Superhighway, a 10-lane fenced-in `freeway' with parallel rail,
oil and gas pipelines and telecom wires, from southern Mexico to
Quebec, North Bay, Alberta and maybe even Alaska. You set up a
`non-profit organization' called North America's Super Corridor
Coalition, Inc., described as a `Tri-National Advocacy for Efficient,
Secure and Environmentally Conscious Trade and Transportation' to
manage the construction process. (http://www.nascocorridor.com/ )
You designate Kansas City as an `inland port-of-entry,' to which
container-trucks of imports from China and other producers, and bound
for consumers in Detroit, Toronto and Calgary will arrive unexamined
from ports in Mexico, bypassing pesky, unionized U.S. longshoremen.
You set up The North American Development Bank (NADB) and its sister
institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC).
You establish a North America Central Bank (NACB) to subsume and
eventually replace the three nations' own central banks. You phase
out the three countries' currencies and issue a new Euro-like currency
called the Amero. (see The Case for the Amero -
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1999/amero/ )
You design a new flag combining vertical strips of the three
integrated countries' flags and hold mock tri-lateral `North American
Parliaments' to encourage students to think of themselves as `North
Americans.' I can hear the eager, youthful voices now reciting in
unison, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the North American Union,
and to the shadowy, un-accountable bureaucracy for which it stands."
Once all this is in place - and most of it already is, or seriously
under closed-door discussion (see a documented timeline at
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/20060830133702539),
you have but to turn to the bewildered, uninformed, out-flanked and
essentially defunct and powerless legislative bodies of elected
representatives in the three `deeply integrated' countries and suggest
that they ratify a fait accompli.
Voila! A North American Union is born.
Plus, it's happened swiftly and efficiently, without all the bother
and delay and inconvenient organized opposition that might have come
from media coverage, legislative oversight, public discussion and
informed democratic choice.
Just Another Paranoid Conspiracy Theory, Not
If you believe what the SPP itself says on the recently added `Myths &
Facts' page of its www.spp.gov site, you really don't have to worry
about this exploding alphabet soup of agencies and commissions,
because it's all benign and legal and motivated only by concerns for
security, prosperity, justice, humanitarianism and ecology. The SPP
is devoted only to making `the United States, Canada and Mexico open
to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime.'
No mention that, according to the Constitution, only Congress has the
power to forge trade agreements and treaties. Oh, but that was before
Congress agreed to `Fast Track' passage of trade agreements that
functionally cedes its Constitutional power to the Executive Branch.
Anyway, says the SPP mythbuster, its not true, as the Internet
Chattering Class claims, that the SPP was an agreement signed by
Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco,
Texas, on March 23, 2005.
In fact, says the site, the SPP is not a signed agreement, but only,
'a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the
three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty,' says
the site. `In fact, no agreement was ever signed.'
Unfortunately, former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin remembers
signing it, in fact is quite proud of it, and has said so in an
official Canadian Government report. Actually, he remembers that Fox
and Bush signed it, too. You can read Mr. Martin's report yourself
at http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/ips-overview2-en.asp .
It was also reaffirmed by the next PM.
Now, if you can't trust the SPP to tell you the truth about a major
fact like that a possibly un-constitutional and illegal act by three
heads of state - how can we trust it to tell us the truth about anything?
Could it be true that, just as the Election Integrity movement is
gaining traction in its fight to reclaim the U.S. electoral system
from the hackers and riggers, elite strategists and operatives are
working to render the whole idea of democracy and national sovereignty
quaint and obsolete?
Maybe we progressives ought to take warnings from our northern
colleagues at the Council of Canadians
(http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/SPP/index.html ), or the Canadian
Action Party
(http://canadianactionparty.ca/cgi/page.cgi?zine=show&aid=199&_id=27
), and not leave patriotism to our `conservative' compatriots here at
home.
Maybe we should ask our Congressional representatives to look into
this. Maybe we should tell them, "Just Say No to the NAU.' Maybe we
should tell them to wake up and smell the smoke. Because, if we wait
too long, it may be rising from the smoldering institutional ruins of
three erstwhile, would-be democracies and the charred pages of their
respective constitutions.
James Heddle is a documentary filmmaker, writer and co-founder with
Mary Beth Brangan of EON, the Ecological Options Network
(www.EON3.net ). E-mail: J...@EON3.net .
======================
EON
the Ecological Options Network
"What's Working Where, Worldwide"
www.eon3.net
========================================================================================================================
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prez_usa_exile/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prez_usa_exile/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:prez_usa_e...@yahoogroups.com
mailto:prez_usa_exil...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
prez_usa_exil...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/