Phony Liberals

Something smells at Whole Foods by Sharon Smith at SocialistWorker.org

There was a time in decades past when liberalism was defined in part by its principled defense of the right to collective bargaining. That liberal tradition was buried by the market-driven neoliberal agenda over the last three decades, allowing companies like Whole Foods to posture as progressive organizations when their corporate policies are based upon violating one of the most basic of civil rights: the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Indeed, Whole Foods has ridden its progressive image to absorb its smaller competitors and emerge as a corporate giant.

As the Texas Observer argued recently, "People shop at Whole Foods not just because it offers organic produce and natural foods, but because it claims to run its business in a way that demonstrates a genuine concern for the community, the environment and the 'whole planet,' in the words of its motto. In reality, Whole Foods has gone on a corporate feeding frenzy in recent years, swallowing rival retailers across the country...The expansion is driven by a simple and lucrative business strategy: high prices and low wages."

Indeed, Whole Foods now stands as the second largest anti-union retailer in the U.S., beaten only by Wal-Mart. Most of Whole Foods' loyal clientele certainly would--and should--shudder at the comparison.

BTW, Whole Foods is one of the companies working hard to fight EFCA.

It doesn't matter what clothes you wear to a business meeting. It doesn't matter if you wear shorts and hiking boots to a business meeting instead of a suit and tie, if the result of the meeting is still the downgrading of employee health care and fighting hard to deny the employees the basic human right to organize and collectively bargain together.

The Mad Men did well

The Mad Men did well by John Pilger via SocialistWorker.

One of those brilliant John Pilger pieces where if I start quoting it, I'll quote the whole dang thing. Or else fear I've left off something important. Highly recommended that you click the link and go read the whole thing.

It is not surprising that the polls are showing that a growing number of Americans believe they have been suckered--especially as the nation's economy has been entrusted to the same fraudsters who destroyed it. Lawrence Summers, Obama's principal economic adviser, is throwing $3 trillion at the same banks that paid him more than $8 million last year, including $135,000 for one speech. Change you can believe in.

To me, the question of the day is what is the left going to do with all of these 'growing number of Americans' who 'believe they have been suckered'. What Brand Obama showed us all to clearly is that these people desperately want change. All they had to do was to bundle up a young politician and have him say the words 'Change' and 'Hope' repetitively, and the people flocked to him.

They didn't flock to Obama because he'd been the leader of a movement for a generation and had thus earned people's trust. They flocked to him because they desperately want change and any bit of hope they can cling to.

So, what's the left going to do? The stage has been set. The people are desperate for hope and change. The people feel suckered that they haven't gotten it from Obama like they feel they were promised. So what's the left going to do?

The right knows this is a very dangerous time for them. Their flagship brand has been discredited so badly that the opportunists like Spectre who joined the party to obtain power are now leaving the party to retain power. Their flagship Republican brand would have a hard time getting elected as dog-catcher right now. And growing numbers of Americans are feeling suckered by Obama and the Democrats who are playing their role of stand-in replacements for the Republicans.

The stage is set for the American people to embrace a real alternative and real change. Of course, great effort will go into making sure this doesn't happen. The airwaves are full of cries of socialism at the most modest corporate-friendly reforms. Not so much to argue against those reforms, which will gladly be accepted if it limits the damage. No, those cries are part of the bigger picture to stave off any real change from the people.

Meanwhile, we see troops being deployed home and assigned to NorthCom. We see Brand Obama telling us that its vital to spy on the American people like never before. We see the Department of Fatherland Security churning out report after report defining anyone who isn't in on the scam as a dangerous 'extremist'. Their reports focus on groups that try to organize citizen opposition to corrupt government.

All of that should not scare us. Instead, it should be taken as a sign of the tremendous opportunity that is presenting itself. The people yearn for change. Only the left can provide that change, as all others only provide phony covers for more of the same. If there was ever a moment of for the left to be energetic, for the left to be unified, for the left to be working hard to claim back some of our constitutional freedoms, some of our economic freedoms, some of our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then this is the time.

What's the left going to do? What's the left doing in your area? Who's out and active? Who's timid and doing nothing? Who are supporting Obama just because he's not a Republican, and who's out really working and trying to seize the day? And if no one else is in your area, grab a friend and try to begin.

Police Powers

We are constantly told that we must give the police more powers. We are constantly told that we can of course trust the police to only use these powers to protect us, and that they'd never abuse those powers.

How's that working out?

Police prying into stars' data on boston.com

Law enforcement personnel looked up personal information on Patriots star Tom Brady 968 times - seeking anything from his driver's license photo and home address, to whether he had purchased a gun - and auditors discovered "repeated searches and queries" on dozens of other celebrities such as Matt Damon, James Taylor, Celtics star Paul Pierce, and Red Sox owner John Henry, said two state officials familiar with the audit.

The Criminal Offender Record Information system, with its massive databases of criminal records, driving histories, car ownership, and Social Security numbers, is intended to provide police and prosecutors with complete portraits of individuals who have been arrested or brought into the court system. Reports are available to other users such as landlords and some employers conducting background checks on prospective tenants and job seekers. Access is supposed to be restricted to authorized law enforcement users, who are specially trained.

Of course, investigators can check on famous names to see how often they've had their privacy violated. But, what about the next-door neighbors to these police officers? What about the guy who's trying to date some girl they like? Or some guy who crosses paths with one of these police officers and maybe gets into some conflict with them? How many other times and in how many other ways has this database been mis-used?

And of course, there's never in history been a corrupt officer who would access this data for others in return for payment. Anyone want to guess on how many times organized crime has accessed this database by paying a police officer to look up someone?

There are reasons why people have always felt that the best protection of the liberty of citizens is to prevent the police from collecting this data in the first place. Human nature being what it is, its a pretty sure bet that once the database is created that it will be mis-used.

And, if you read closely, its not just the police who have access to this. Its also 'landlords' and employers doing background checks. Hope you enjoy everyone in the world having access to lots of information about you that is in no way related to any criminal activity. Like what car you own. Like what your social security number is. Like where you live. Nice to know all that's out there the next time you steal a girl from some angry jerk.

More war, from the folks who brought you the last war ... the NY Times.

A Full-Court Press for Pakistan War by Chris Floyd at Counterpunch.

Follow the link to read the excellent article about the current propaganda wave being foisted upon the American people to justify yet more war ... this time in Pakistan.

Here's what struck me. The article quotes a NY Times article from an anonymous source inside the Taliban. The really strange part is that they refer to this anonymous person, who just happens to be saying everything Obama and the war-mongers want to hear, as a "Pakistani logistics tactician". What the heck is a 'logistics tactician'?

In military jargon, 'logistics' means supplies. The people involved in logistics are the people who make sure the soldiers have food, water, toilet paper, ammo etc. Translate it to 'supply sergeant' or 'supply officer', and you would be close.

In military jargon, a 'tactician' is the commander making combat decisions on a small scale in battles. If you watch old war movies, when the character says 'Joe, take three men and go around on the flank and hit them from over there', that's a tactician. Usually its a lower ranking officer like a lieutenant or a captain, or it could be an experienced sergeant leading his troops.

These seem to be two very different roles. The guy who brings toilet paper up to the troops at the front, and the guy who leads the troops at the front at the lowest levels of a battle. So, what the heck is a 'logistics tactician'? Does he send bowls of rice around the right flank to have the rice attack the enemy from over there?

Just in case there was some new military jargon I wasn't aware of, I typed "logistics tactician" into google. Every hit on the first two pages of results referred to this NY Times story. As near as I can tell, the NY Times is just making this up, and created this mumbo-jumbo, fancy sounding title for their anonymous source. Of course, if the job title for the anonymous source is something the NY Times has obviously just made up, then one has to wonder if they whole anonymous source was made up as well.

Remember, in the lead up to the Iraq War, the NY Times used the same sort of stories based on anonymous sources to pump up the war. We later learned that most of this came from Judy Miller sitting talking to Dick Cheney's staff.

IAEA detects highly enriched uranium ... in Egypt

High-enriched uranium traces found in Egypt: IAEA by Reuters

The key to this story is to notice how the IAEA detected this.

The report, which described global IAEA work in 2008 to verify compliance with non-proliferation rules, said the highly enriched uranium (HEU) traces turned up in environmental swipe samples taken at the Inshas nuclear research site in 2007-08.

The HEU was discovered alongside particles of low-enriched uranium (LEU), the type used for nuclear power plant fuel.

The IAEA took 'environmental swipe samples' during an inspection, and analysis of those turned up the presence of highly enriched uranium. The Egyptians say that they believe it came from "contaminated radio-isotope transport containers"

Now, think a bit about Iran. IAEA inspectors there have never detected highly-enriched uranium in Iran. The war-mongers constantly tell us that Iran has a nuclear bomb program despite this. From this article, we know how hard it would be to hide such work. The IAEA inspectors, through simple little swipe samples, are able to detect the presence of highly enriched uranium. Their tests can pick up and identify traces of this, even if it is in minute quantities from contanimated transport containers.

Yet, the war-mongers would want us to believe that Iran can be producing the many pounds of the same HEU that would be needed for nuclear weapons without these same inspectors using the same tests detecting even a whiff of it.

Yeah, right. Just remember, the same war-mongers and the same media outlets were telling you that Iraq had nuclear weapons as well.

Too much ....

On Antiwar.com ....

US, Iraq at Odds Over Extending Pullout

Surprise, surprise surprise. Obama's been acting like this agreement between Iraq and the US was non-existent since his inauguration. In all the 'debates' about Iraq in this administration, the fact that there is already a signed agreement with Iraq spelling out the pullback and withdrawal dates is never mentioned. Now Iraq expects the US to abide by this treaty. The Iraqis should come over here and talk to some of the surviving descendants of American Indians to get an idea on how much a treaty means to the US Gov.

Iraq Bombs May Slow U.S. Pullout as Splits Fuel Fresh Violence

The recent spate of bombings in Iraq means U.S. officials may have to keep troops there longer than they planned, and Iraqis may have to live with a higher level of violence than they wish.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Even the slow pullout proposed by Obama might be given an excuse to be ignored. And interesting how the Iraqis don't get to decide on the 'level of violence' in their own country.

Israeli Military Exercise Over Gibraltar Raises Specter of Iran Strike

Israel continues to threaten to attack Iran. Remember, somewhere down below on this blog is an item with quotes from Obama officials who say their only concern is that this doesn't happen until they feel the time is right.

Gates plans to reassure allies on Iran outreach

In a sane world, the US would be trying to reassure people that there might not be another war, this time with Iran. But, in this world, Gates is over there 'reassuring' people that the US 'outreach' to Iran is doomed to fail.

"And I just think it's important to reassure our friends and allies in the region that while we're willing to reach out to the Iranians, as the president said, with an open hand, I think everybody in the administration, from the president on down, is pretty realistic and will be pretty tough-minded if we still encounter a closed fist."

As a side note, its interesting how much 'foreign policy' the military conducts these days. Isn't it the President and the State Dept that should be conducting foreign policy?

Officials: Gitmo court system likely to stay open

You didn't really think Obama was going to change very much from what Bush was doing, did you? And, remember the story from last week, that the US is now saying there are 50 to 100 people held at Gitmo that they can't put on trial and can't release. There's a fundamentally un-American idea for you, holding people without giving them a trial.

Calif.'s Harman Rails Against Wiretapping That Ensnared Her

Here's a funny one for you. In the funny-ironic category. The Democratic Congress lady who supported every Bush (and now Obama) initiative to spy on American citizens is upset that she was spied upon. Remember, as ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Harman (like Speaker Pelosi), would have been briefed on the issues like spying and torture by the Bush White House. She never complained at what was being done, never worked to stop it, and consistently worked to support it. But, now she's upset that she wasn't immune to what she so enthusiastically approved for the rest of us.

Robert Fisk’s World: Right to the very end in Iraq, our masters denied us the truth

The sentence ‘millions of Iraqis now live free of oppression’ is pure public relations

At least as a Brit, Mr. Fisk can speak of 'the end' of his country's involvement in Iraq. Here in America, there is no end in sight. Obama's weak withdrawal promises still planned on leaving many more troops in Iraq than the UK ever had there to begin with. And, as you saw above, the US is now saying that we now have excuses not to even follow through on Obama's tepidly slow withdrawal. Short of a revolt of the American people in the 2010 elections, the US will still have many, many troops in Iraq at the end of Obama's term.

Gates optimistic on 2010 US defense budget success

Gee, I'm sure he is. Since the Democrats have approved every one of Bush's military budgets in the past, and are proposing and pushing their own increases in military spending. Even in a depression and with budget deficits approaching 2 trillion dollars, the modern Democrats say we have to spend more and more and more on 'defense'. I wonder why Gates is optimistic?

Gates told CNN that he has been surprised by the limited scope of criticism aimed so far at his recommendations for the Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2010, which begins Oct. 1, and had heard some "important voices raised in support."

"I'm relatively optimistic, actually," he said in the interview, which was taped last week. "I think we've presented, as one news magazine referred to it, a radically sane set of proposals. They don't represent a cut, and where we have eliminated one program, you have added to others."

Israel 'ups questioning of Gaza patients'

It said the Shin Beth had interrogated minors, photographed patients against their will; harassed, cursed and intimidated patients during questioning; and returned to Gaza patients who did not cooperate.

People seeking to leave Gaza for medical treatment find themselves "between a rock and a hard place" as they also face pressure from the Hamas rulers of Gaza, the group said.

Israel continues to show what a kind, wonderful humanitarian country they are. First they blockade Gaza and thus deny people medical care they need. Then, they target the clinics and the hospitals during their 'war'. Then, when people are forced to beg Israel to be able to travel somewhere else for medical care they need, this is how they are treated.

Gaza costs Israel its reputation for press freedom

Israel had a reputation for 'press freedom'? Well, I guess compared to even worse places. But, for years, any reports you've seen from Israel have been cleared by government censors. Just like Saddam used to do in Iraq. And its always been a sure bet that no Isreali media would publish something the Israeli military didn't want published.

And, this study is from "Freedom House", which is a highly-biased right-wing group in the US. If the crazy right-wingers are starting to criticize Israel, then ....

Over on CounterPunch ....

The AIPAC Spy Case by James Abourezk.

Note very carefully that while the Bush administration was willing to pursue espionage charges related to AIPAC, the Obama administration quickly dropped those charges during its first 100 days in office. Well, I guess its a change. For an administration that's offered remarkably little change, that's something. Of course, Obama was always rather vague on which direction he would be changing in.

So lets see, if you try to give money to a Palestinian charity, you'd better do a lot of investigation of that group because the US DOJ will threaten to charge you with supporting terrorism if you give to a group that knows another group that's connected to some 'wrong' group. But, an Israeli lobbying group can pass around top-secret US documents and there are no charges filed.

This is why the Founders felt that a nation that was a 'rule of law', instead of rule by imperial fiat, was an important guarantee of liberty. What a quaint notion, that the law should apply equally to everyone.

Obama's War Budget by Jeff Leys.

Details on Obama's off-budget(just like Bush), supplemental, supposedly 'emergency' (too make constitutional) war budget request. Obama want's $200 billion more for the wars. That's $75 billion more for the remainder of budget year 2009 (now to Oct), and $130 billion more for this year.

Gawd I'm glad we elected the Democrats to stop these wars so we can use this $200 billion instead to help our own citizens in this crashing economy.

From Huffington Post ...
Why Are Bankers Still Being Treated As Beltway Royalty?

Because dear Arianna, that Democratic Party you so gladly helped into power is bought and owned by the bankers. They pumped $20 million or more into Obama's accounts, and who knows how much into other Dem campaigns. Arianna, what the heck did you expect? That Obama and the Democrats would then turn around and bite the hand that's given them millions? What a fool!

Of course, we'll see fake progressives like Arianna make some noise in opposition about this. That is from now until 4 to 6 months before the next election. Then they'll go into full campaign mode telling us how we need to elect the banker's candidates next time as well.

This is nothing new

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson to make the point that we face nothing new today. Our Founding Fathers broke free of the shackles that enslaved them. And they are exactly the same shackles we face today.

• “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principles of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale”
  
• “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
  
• “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army”

Other quotes found in the same google search.

• “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” - Noah Webster
  
• “Keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics - that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe” - James Madison
  
• “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government.”- Henry David Thoreau

You Are Not Alone

New Homeland Security memo lists black power, shaved-head Doc Marten wearers as ‘extremist threats’ by John Byrne on RawStory.com

Those now listed as dangerous extremists include: Mexican separatists, “black power” advocates, “racial Nordic mysticism” practitioners and black nationalists.

...

Perhaps the most amusing item is the document’s loose definition of “skinhead,” which appears to encompass anyone who shaves their heads and wears Doc Martens. Even those skinheads who merely preach “group unity” are worrisome, the memo says.

People treat these memos as jokes. They are of course officially 'withdrawn', right after they send it out to police forces across the country. Of course, anyone who's hit 'send' on an email knows that such things can't be withdrawn. Somewhere, right now, there's a cop cleaning his gun who didn't get the 'withdrawal' memo.

The thing is, they are not joking. The people at DHS know what's going on. They know the government is stealing trillions of dollars of the money of its citizens to give to the Wall Street bankers. They know another trillion dollars a year is stolen to fund the defense/intelligence/homeland security budgets so full of pork they have to work to avoid being mistaken as bacon to hungry, struggling Americans.

They know that we no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead, its a government of crooks and thieves. And they know this as well. They know that eventually, sooner or later, the American people are going to wake up from American Idol and the NBA playoffs and realize that everything they had, everything that previous generations had built in this country, has been stolen. Maybe it won't happen until the power is cut off for non-payment, or until the high-def TV is repossessed, but sooner or later the American people will wake up and realize all that they have lost.

This is why we have a Department of Homeland Security. This is why Army brigades are being redeployed into the United States for crushing civil disobedience. This is why the US government insists on the right to spy on its own, supposedly free citizens. And this is why there are these streams of memos and reports coming out of DHS detailing every group of Americans that appears to be waking up to what is going on around them. They are listing virtually every political group in the country that is not already owned by Wall Street. Ie, everyone except the Democrats and Republicans. The message is clear, if you don't support the Wall Street bankers, you are an extremist threat.

Washington DC is scared to death, and what they are most afraid of is the American people. And that's because the American people are the one force on this planet who can put an end to this. They are scared that some day they'll hear the sounds of TV's being powered down, of doors opening and slamming, and then of the sound of millions of Americans in the streets demanding their country back.

Right now, the only people who don't realize that they have the power to really change things right now are the American people. But, if you watch both the fear levels in Washington DC, as well as the huge amount of effort that goes into keeping the American people manipulated and docile, then you can sense where the real power lies.

Most Americans today know in their hearts that something is dreadfully wrong. But, they feel alone and don't know what to do about it. The key thing for everyone to realize is that they are not alone.

Wow!

Recriminations after NYC jet flyover photo op from AP via Antiwar.com

It was supposed to be a photo op that captured images of an Air Force One plane with a majestic Statue of Liberty in the background. Instead, it turned into a public relations nightmare that led to recriminations from the president and mayor and prompted thousands of others to ask, "What were they thinking?"

Just before the workday began on Monday, an airliner and supersonic fighter jet zoomed past the lower Manhattan skyline. Within minutes, startled financial workers streamed out of their offices, fearing a nightmarish replay of Sept. 11.

For a half-hour, the Boeing 747 and F-16 jet circled the Statue of Liberty and the Financial District near the World Trade Center site. Offices evacuated. Dispatchers were inundated with calls. Witnesses thought the planes were flying dangerously low.

Wow, so much to comment about on this story, that I don't know where to begin.

How about with money? Any idea what it costs to fly Air Force one around along with several high tech jet fighter planes? A quick Google search turned up some numbers like $40,000 a hour (from a few years ago) for flying Air Force One. More Googling found numbers like $50,000 an hour for an F-16. Its hard to tell from the AP reporting a little fact like how many F-16s were involved in the mission. They say one was flying with AF1 around the Statue of Liberty. Later it refers to 'jets' plural and says a photographer was in a jet taking pictures. So, lets say 2 F-16's.

Probably a minimum of 2 hours air time to do this. 3 might be a good guess. Especially if they had to move this AF1 to NYC to do the photo op. But still, that's at least $280,000 spent. For what purpose? For "updating file photos of Air Force One near national landmarks."

In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, when the US Government is projecting a deficit for the year in the $1.8 TRILLION range, these guys just spent at least $300,000 updating publicity photos for Air Force One? Are they freaking kidding? And even better, this probably isn't the only time they've done this. Note the reference to a larger program to 'national landmarks'... that's plural. These bozos are flying a 747 and high-tech fighter planes that cost at least $140,000 an hour to operated (combined) all around the country taking publicity photos of Air Force One!

Do we really need new file photos of Air Force One? Is Air Force One looking to get a new modeling job somewhere, so it needed a new portfolio? Explain to me how this improved the life of any American tax payer? Come on people! The country is broke, Americans by the millions are losing their jobs, and you guys are wasting millions of dollars updating the publicity photos of an air plane?

-----------------------
If this was still the Bush era, I'd have the nasty little thought that they did this just to scare people. That the Bushies would have felt that it was to their advantage as an authoritarian government that thrived on fear to have thousands of New Yorkers streaming out of buildings in fear that 9-11 was happening again.

The Bush administration had a long record of trying to use terrorism scares to bolster their popularity every time it dropped. If Bush got hit with an embarrassing news story, or if is popularity numbers dropped too low, you could count on some 'terror scare' type of story to come along to try to put the fear of God back into the citizens.

Would Obama's administration do the same? Don't know. So far, there isn't a track record of this sort of behavior from the Obama-ishies, so there aren't 'actions' to track. There is the very disturbing trend that says that almost all of Bush's security and military policies have been continued under Obama. So, would this sort of 'scare the people back into line' tactic have continued as well.

Of course, there's the general question of civilian control of the military and intelligence agencies to think about. The story traces this back to the White House, but only to someone with a title of "director of the White House military office".

Would the Pentagon be interested in scaring the citizens of New York into thinking 9-11 was happening again? Would they hide the op with approval from the White House 'military office' for some photo op updates?

Don't know. Interesting to think about. But, I don't have a clue if its true or not.
------------------
We don't think enough about whether our civilian government has control of our military. That's supposed to be one of our guarantees of liberty in the system our Founding Fathers set up. They severely distrusted the idea of ANY standing military that existed between wars. Their idea for a free and democratic society was to rely on militias that would call up when a war needed to be fought. As a nation, we stayed with that model until the end of World War II when we refused to disband our military. Maybe it was necessary to fight off the threats of communist dictatorships conquering the world. Or maybe keeping that large military force in existence ourselves caused the Soviets to keep their military large to defend against this other large military they found themselves faced with. Most like, it was probably a bit of both as the general and the merchants of death on each side used inflated estimates of the others to scare governments into spending more and more on the military.

The fascinating thing is, this drove the Soviet Union into the ground nearly twenty years ago. But, the US couldn't stop spending hundreds of billions on 'defense' every year, even after its enemy collapsed. Instead, it just spurred on a search for new enemies under the Clinton years, which Bush ended when he found 'Al-Qaida' as the enemy that would justify what is now a trillion dollars a year that we spend on 'defense'.

Now, does that sound like a military that's under civilian control? Or does it sound more like the out-of-control sort of military establishment that everyone from our Founding Fathers to Dwight Eisenhower have tried to warn us against?

During the Clinton years, it was interesting at times to watch how much the military actually responded to civilian control. The issue came up right off the bat when the military rejected an order from their supposed commander-in-chief to stop discriminating against gays in the military. Later on, I seem to recall the military basically conducting their own foreign policy with Indonesia around the time of East Timor.

During Bush, it wasn't ever a question because Bush always did what the military wanted. I remember one time when National Security Director Rice tried to assert White House control over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and basically got told by Rumsfeld to go buzz off.

But, it will be an interesting question to watch under Obama? Does our civilian government still have control over the 'military'. I put that in quotes, because the first fight that's shaping up seems to be with the CIA. Will those who violated US and international law by torturing people be prosecuted for their crimes? The CIA is certainly saying no. And so far, Obama is mostly just parroting the CIA line. But, its an interesting question these days to ask whether Obama could do this if he wanted to. Or, does the CIA weld so much power in Washington these days that the reason Obama doesn't publicly call for such prosecutions is because he knows he could never do it.

One scary thing about agencies like the CIA is how much money do they have that is unaccountable and unknown these days? If you think back to Iran-Contra, you'd remember that it exposed a lot of ways the CIA can run ops to make money for itself which can then be stuck into hidden accounts and slush funds.

Add to this the private military capability that was created by the Bushies, so that there are now plenty of trained operatives out of government control and available for hire, and a very scary picture starts to emerge.

And remember, there was always the suggestion that the CIA was involved in killing Kennedy. Depends on which conspiracy theory you like, but it was always an idea that was out there. There was also the suggestion that the CIA was involved in tilting a presidential election in 1980 by manipulating the hostage crisis to Reagan (and former CIA-director G.H.W. Bush)'s benefit against Carter. Carter had actually tried to cut the CIA budget and bring it under even a little control.

Its an interesting question to watch during Obama's years. How much will he challenge the military and intelligence communities. And what happens when he does? So far, he hasn't challenged them. He's raising their budgets (just like Bush) and he's continuing almost all the same policies. The only place he's reigned them in at all is in the area of torture and secret prisons. And on torture he's left plenty of loopholes big enough for the electrodes to pass through. And I suspect all he's done with secret prisons is moved them from CIA control to military control in places like Bagram.

The interesting question is why?

What are they then?

Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not 'persons' from Raw Story.

the Court reaffirmed its decision from last year that detainees are not “persons” for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted in 1993 to protect against government actions that unreasonably interfere with religious practices. Last year, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Court of Appeals panel who issued the decision today, referred to the Court’s holding that detainees are not “persons” as “a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.” This statement is noticeably absent from Judge Brown’s substantively identical concurring opinion issued today.

-- Center for Constitutional Rights Press Release in the same link as above.

Not persons? What are they then, dogs? No, they can't be dogs, because we'd never allow dogs to be tortured like this. Just go ask Michael Vick about how we react when we find dogs are being tortured and abused. Well, some dogs. As long as the dog is being tortured for corporate profit, we don't seem to mind. Then we call any who object 'terrorists' and put them on the FBI most wanted list.

Note also, that Obama's DOJ was in this court arguing for just such a ruling.

This is the first step towards torture. The first step towards torture is to deny the humanity of the victim. To torture someone, we have to make up dismissive names. We have to call them 'ragheads' or 'sand-niggers' or 'gooks'. To torture someone, we have to first convince ourselves that they are not human. If a torturer was thinking of their victim as the son of a mother who is grieving her missing boy, or as the missing father to children who want their daddy home, then its much harder to throw the switch that sends the electricity to the electrodes and makes the victim scream. The first thing that most people have to do in order to torture is to convince themselves that the victim is not human. That's not a father in front of you, that's a 'terrorist'.

If Obama really wants to end torture, then one thing that must occur is that we must acknowledge our victims as fellow 'persons'. Instead, Obama's administration is working hard to deny the basic religious rights that we'd recognize in any person.

To me, the following is the fundamental statement of what it is to be an American. The following is the idea upon which America was founded. We've come a very long way, and in the wrong direction, if we now construct legal arguments in order to declare that some people are 'not persons' and thus have no rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Republican wish list.

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights by AP via Antiwar.com

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits."

A person's life hangs in the balance. A person sits on death row waiting for the Supreme Court to hear their case. And the Obama administration calls this a right that 'serves no real purpose', and has only 'meager benefit'. This article comes from the AP, so they would never think to ask the prisoner on death row whether he feels this right to be of 'meager benefit' right now.

If you watch any detective shows on TV, and they seem to be on every channel 24/7 these days, you've seen this scene. The police have arrested someone. They have them in for questioning. They are trying every trick they can think of to make the suspect confess. They lie. They lie about what the suspects co-defendants are saying. They lie about the law and the possible penalties. They do everything they can do to get a confession, and only one thing stops them. There's only one thing that scares them. Has the suspect asked for an attorney? If the suspect asks for an attorney, they have to stop questioning until this person, who presumably knows what's going on and would better question the police tricks, comes into the room.

Obama wants to take away that right. Obama thinks that if you are arrested, you should be allowed to be questioned without an attorney present, even if you've already asked for one. Obama's administration calls this a right with 'no real purpose' and 'meager benefits.'

The Democrats are very dangerous when in power, because they will do things that the Republicans could never get away with. Suddenly, all the 'liberals' support the most fascist, police-state type of laws because they 'support their President'.

I have a fundamental belief that the best thing that any American citizen can do is to leave MORE rights for the following generations. If you want to tell me about a "greatest generation", to me it would be a generation that leaves more rights for the generations to follow. It would be a generation that expands liberty in this land.

Its been a long time since I've seen liberty expanded in this country. Our rights always seem to shrink. We are constantly being told that we must give up this right or that right. To me, that means we are failing in the duty we have as American citizens. Our ancestors passed us a torch of liberty. Instead of using it to light other torches that spread the light of liberty, we are letting it slowly burn out on our watch.

PS ... if you follow the link to the article, note the mention in it for the Southern Center for Human Rights. That's a great little crew of people in Atlanta, who mainly do a lot of fighting in death penalty cases. But they also do little things as well. For instance, I'll never forget the day I was being hassled by the APD during the aftermath of an antiwar protest at the start of the Iraq war. A vigil was being held outside the jail for those arrested during the protest, and the cops were out harassing everyone outside the jail. That is, until the lawyer from SCHR showed up.

If you know the feeling of relief of having a friendly lawyer appear when you are being harassed by the police, then you understand the importance of this right that Obama wants to take away.

Hopefraud

Democratic Lobbyists Key to Fight Against Employee Free Choice Act by Chris Kronm via Counterpunch

A little ways down the page, you'll find a link to a Naomi Klein article where she starts to create a new lexicon for dealing with what maybe I'll start calling Post-Obama-Traumatic-Hope-Syndrome.

Maybe we should add something like 'hopefraud' to the list. This what happens when Democratic politicians make promises to get elected, then renege on those promises once in office.

But Frank points to an important and under-reported piece of the story -- lobbying firms with strong ties to Democrats who are helping deep-six labor's agenda. After asking why Democrats seem treat labor like an ATM machine for campaign cash, only to turn their backs on them in Congress, Frank offers these devastating set of facts:

Follow the link above to read more, too long to quote here. But here's the key point. The Democrats made what I felt was a rather weak promise to labor to gain their support in the last election. The Democrats promised to support a bill that made some reforms that would make the action of workers forming a union a little fairer. At the time, my reaction was more along the lines of 'is that all labor got in the deal?', especially when there were other candidates in the race promising a repeal of Taft-Hartley and a general overhaul of labor law in this country. But, at least you could say labor got something that would make organizing a little easier in this country.

Not! The problem was, it was all a lie. The Democrats had no intention of ever passing the EFCA. Don't believe me. Take a look at how much effort the Democrats have put into passing this act. They did propose it, put a bill into the hopper. And they announced their own token and very weak support of the bill. But, you might ask yourself how much of a push was there to pass this bill quickly. After all, at this point with employment collapsing and debts exploding, anything that might help to give workers a little more leverage and put a few more dollars in their pocket is just what this country needs. EFCA could have been pushed with great urgency. It could have been presented as a key reform this country needs to start to pull out of this mess, and moved rapidly on the calendar. After all, during the campaign, the Democrats promised this would be one of the first things they did once elected.

We know the Democrats can do just this. After all, this sense of crisis and urgency surrounded the passing of both the Bush and Obama 'stimulus' bills by the Democratic Congress. The nation was told with loud voices that these bills, which have pumped trillions of dollars into the finance industry, must pass immediately or else we are all doomed. And the Democratic leadership pushed those bills through the Congress just as fast as they could.

But, when it comes to rights for workers, when it comes to EFCA, the bill languishes in committee. The difference in how the bills are handled by the Democrats is obvious. Key Democratic Senators 'defect' to the Republican side (as if most Democrats weren't there already), and now we learn that the lobbying effort against the bill is led by the beltway lobbying firms with Democrat connections.

Hopefraud. The pumping up of the hope of workers that electing a candidate might make things better. Followed by the continuation of the same old, same old. In other words, most major Democratic political campaigns.

Selling Out Single Payer

Selling Out Single Payer
by Helen Redmond at CounterPunch

Helen Redmond has a nice piece up on CounterPunch about the effort Democrats are putting into killing single-payer/national health insurance. Which of course is also an effort they are putting forth to protect private insurance companies and their ability to gouge profits out of the sick and injured.

Its a nice piece, but there seems to be a basic misunderstanding on one point.

So the question becomes why don’t the Democrats and HCAN fight to get rid of the parasitic private health insurance industry (the source of the crisis) once and for all instead of constantly and unsuccessfully, decade after decade, trying to rein in, regulate, and do an end run around them?

For the Democrats, with the exception of John Conyers and a few others, they simply don’t want to abolish the private insurance industry. They are capitalists and believe in the capitalist system that makes health care a commodity to be bought and sold. For them, health care is not a human right. And importantly, they don’t want to take on President Obama who is opposed to single-payer. Like the true cowards they are, they will not oppose Obama on health care reform even though they disagree with him.

Actually, its a lot simpler than that. Why don't the Democrats fight to get rid of the parasitic private health insurance industry? Its because they are well paid by that industry to do no such thing. A trip to Maplight.org reveals the following total contributions (to all of Congress) from the 'health' industry since mid-2003.

Interest	Contributions	Bills
Health Professionals	$118,553,725	301
Health Services/HMOs	$15,485,897	75
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$31,366,801	54
Misc Health	$6,939,601	26
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$39,181,959	67

$200,000,000.00 buys a lot of support, from both parties. This is a fundamental problem that people on the left tend to have. They tend to believe the Democratic propaganda that says the Democrats are on our side. This leads to all sorts of twisted reasoning being produced as to why they don't ACT like they are on our side. The problem is, people just don't realize that the Democrats are not on our side. They are on the side of the people who pump millions of dollars into their accounts.

Have you pumped millions of dollars into their accounts? If not, then the Democrats are not on your side. The key is to realize this, and thus not to listen to them when they spin their line of bull about how they are on our side. Don't fall for it. Vote for candidates that really are on your side.

Do you know what you need to know?

‘Superweed’ explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands by France24

In late 2004, “superweeds” that resisted Monsanto’s iconic “Roundup” herbicide, popped up in GM crops in the county of Macon, Georgia. Monsanto, the US multinational biotech corporation, is the world’s leading producer of Roundup, as well as genetically engineered seeds. Company figures show that nine out of 10 US farmers produce Roundup Ready seeds for their soybean crops.


Superweeds have since alarmingly appeared in other parts of Georgia, as well as South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, according to media reports.

Ooops!

And, of course, no real surprise to anyone with any sense. If you overuse antibiotics, you get resistant bacteria. The way it works is that all you need is one random genetic mutation to occur to create the resistant types. They then have a massive competitive advantage in a field where all other weed plants die off in a field because of the pesticides. Soon, you have a field full of the resistant weeds.

Like I said, obvious to anyone with any sense. And companies like Monsanto do pay big bucks to keep at least some people with some sense around, albeit twisted to an evil purpose. Monsanto patented their proposed solution to the problem in 2001, three years before the superweeds appeared in the fields of Georgia.

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, Monsanto was well aware of the risk of superweeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds.


“The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,” says a 2002 Soil Association report.

But what really struck me was that the story came from France 24, apparently a French TV network. Since this is happening in America, why wasn't this from an American network? Thinking that maybe it was just because I'd followed that link from Progressive Review, I did a Google search on "monsanto superweed". I read through 3 pages of search results without seeing the name of a single major US media company. No CNN articles or FoxNews articles on the problem. Nothing from the NY Times or any American paper who's name I could recognize. The Independent over in England did show up on the results. Everything else seemed to be blogs or small groups. Nothing from any American media shows up.

By comparison, I typed "Rev. Wright" into Google, and ABCNews was second on the list. CNN, FoxNews, Newsweek, and MSNBC all made the first page of results.

Monsanto buys a lot of ad time on network news shows. Or at least they did the last time I watched any. I'm guessing it hasn't changed. There has been at least one credited case in Florida of reporters being fired from a local Fox affiliate for pursuing a story Monsanto wanted killed.

All of which leads to some questions:

• Why I am seeing this story only from a French TV network?
  
• If the telecoms like AT&T, Comcast, and TimeWarner get their way, and are able to impose limits on what I can see over the internet, would I still be able to see this story from a French TV network? Or, would I then be limited to only what CNN and the other American companies decide I need to know?
  
• Today, do we know what we need to know?
  
• If network neutrality dies in the Democratic Congress bought off by the telecoms, will we know what we need to know tomorrow?
  

Chernobyl Could Happen Here ... Not!

Chernobyl Could Happen Here by Harvey Wasserman via Counterpunch.org

In general, I'm on the same side as Mr. Wasserman. And, I try not to follow the leftist tradition of shooting at your allies. But, as someone with a nuclear engineering degree, I have to admit that when I read pieces like this, although I agree with the general purpose, I find myself thinking "Bullshit" as I read it.

There are enough good arguments against nuclear power, without creating misleading BS like this article.

Mr. Wasserman manages to write this article without talking about, or demonstrating any knowledge of the different types of nuclear reactor design. Chernobyl was a design known as 'graphite-moderated'. In a reactor, you need something to slow down the neutrons that are released from fission. In most, but not all, American designs, water is used for this purpose, as well as for cooling. In the Chernobyl design, graphite blocks were use, while water was still used for cooling. This is not that uncommon in some early American reactors. The first reactor under Chicago Stadium used graphite blocks, as did the early DOE, plutonium making reactors at places like Savannah River. But, almost all American commercial reactors used water as the moderator.

Why is that important? Because, as a reactor starts to overheat, the water turns to steam. If that water had been playing an important role in slowing down the neutrons to keep a chain reaction going, then having that water disappear helps keep the reactor under control. In the Chernobyl design, it was graphite blocks that moderated the speed of the neutrons, and thus the reactor could go massively out of control, and do so very quickly. At Chernobyl, the sequence from "uh-oh" to "Oh Shit!" to "Boom!" took only seconds.

If you look closely, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were different. At Chernobyl, the reactor literally blew up in a nuclear explosion. A massive, many-ton, metal lid on the reactor chamber was blown up into the air, the roof of the reactor building was destroyed. Nuclear materials from the core were blown up into the air and landed all around the reactor site. This required brave fire fighters to run out with shovels to keep these highly radioactive bits from burning down the control building before the other reactor could be shut down. They died horrible deaths over the next few weeks from high does of radiation, but they kept Chernobyl from maybe being twice as bad with two exploding reactors. From the one explosion, a plume of hot radioactivity blew tens of thousands of feet up into the air and traveled the world. It was first detected by the rest of the world (after the usual government denials) when workers coming into work at a Swedish nuclear power plant set off the radiation alarms. Crops across Europe were destroyed because of the radiation that rained down.

At TMI, it was much worse than the people were told. The core did melt. And I have some sympathy when reading Mr. Wasserman's claims that more radiation was released than announced. If you read this blog, you'll know I'm not a big believer in government and corporate pronouncements. But there was not this nuclear explosion that blew nuclear materials around the site and send huge radioactive plumes up into the air. These two events are quite different.

Mr. Wasserman has a way of taking a few facts, that are probably correct, then spinning them into pieces that read as total BS to someone like me who knows a bit about nuclear engineering. In this piece, he makes an incredible stretch to problems back in the 1960's with a radically different, experimental reactor design that used liquid sodium. This was tried once and abandoned, and has nothing to do with commercial power reactors in the US today. He also fits in the claim, quite possibly true, that more radiation was emitted at TMI than was announced. Mr. Wasserman uses some facts that are probably correct, but the overall argument of the piece is still total bullshit.

There are plenty of good reasons for not building more nuclear power plants. They are horribly expensive, and not commercially viable without government subsidies in the billions. We don't know a thing about what to do with all this nuclear waste we are building up. And they are not as entirely safe as the nuclear industry would have us believe. Anything humans are involved in will have mistakes. Most good engineers are strong believers in Murphy's Law. And Murphy's law around a nuclear power plant is a scary proposition.

But, it doesn't help the cause to spread nonsense BS around like Mr. Wasserman does. Writing pieces that anyone with any knowledge reads and immediately cries "BullShit!" does not help advance a cause.

To be clear, I'm not saying another nuclear accident can't happen again in the US. In fact, if we keep building more reactors and operating the aging reactors we have, its rather likely that someday we'll have another accident. That whole bit with Murphy's Law is bound to bite us again someday. But, it won't be Chernobyl. It won't be a graphite cored reactor doing its own little impersonation of a nuclear bomb.

Virus

Most people believe that the 20th century was a death struggle between Communism and Capitalism, and that Fascism was but a hiccup. But today we know better. Communism was a fool's errand. The followers of Marx gone from this earth, but the followers of Hitler abound and thrive. Hitler, however, had one great disadvantage. He lived in a time when Fascism, like a virus... like the AIDS virus... needed a strong host in order to spread. Germany was that host. But Germany did not prevail. The world was too big. Fortunately, the world has changed. Global communications, cable TV, the internet. Today the world is smaller and a virus does not need a strong host in order to spread. The virus... is airborne.

-- the character Dressler in the movie, "The Sum of All Fears".

Bonus Man

The poster on YouTube put in this following text.

are you sick and fucking tired of executive pay? executive bailouts? SO ARE WE! we are sick and tired of a lot of things -- join us at www.getangrywithme.com! music & lyrics: jackie sheeler vocals...

Another forbidden voice

While on the topic of voices that are forbidden for the corporate media to let the American people hear, Counterpunch has this piece from Fidel Castro. (remember, you read these in the opposite order from how I create them)

Neither represented nor excommunicated, only today could I learn what was discussed at the Summit of Port of Spain. They led us all to entertain hopes that the meeting would not be secret, but those running the show deprived us of such an interesting intellectual exercise. We shall get to know the substance but not the tone of voice, the look in the eyes or the facial look that can be a reflection of a person's ideas, ethic and character. A Secret Summit is worse than a silent movie. For a few minutes the television showed some images. There was a gentleman on Obama's left whom I could not identify clearly as he laid his hand on Obama's shoulder, like an eight-year-old boy on a classmate in the front row. Then, another member of his entourage standing beside him interrupted the president of the United States for a dialogue; those coming up to address him had the appearance of an oligarchy that never knew what hunger is and who expect to find in Obama's powerful nation the shield that will protect the system from the fearsome social changes.

Mr. Castro later also passes along another voice banned in the US. Daniel Ortega, leader of Nicaragua.

We left the government in 1990 with 12.5 percent illiteracy in the country and on January 2007 we received back the country with 35 percent illiteracy.

This data have not been made up by the government; they have been released by agencies specialized in education and culture.

That is the result of the neoliberalism applied in Nicaragua; the result of privatizations in Nicaragua where healthcare and education were privatized and the poor were left out. For others it was a good change because they amassed fortunes; the model has proven successful to concentrate riches and extend poverty. It is a great concentrator of riches and a great multiplier of poverty and destitution.

It is an ethical problem, a moral problem, and the future lies on it; not only the future of the most impoverished countries --as the five countries of Latin America and the Caribbean I have mentioned—that have little else to lose other than our shackles, if there is not a change of ethics, a change of moral, a change of values that will enable us to be really sustainable.

It is no longer a matter of ideology, it's not a political issue; it's a matter of survival. And this applies to all, from the G-20 to the G-5 who are the most impoverished in Latin America and the Caribbean.

I think that this crisis that is affecting the world today and that is leading to discussions, debates, and to a search for solutions we should approach it bearing in mind that the current development model is no longer possible, no longer sustainable.

The only way to save us all is to change the model.

The only way to save us all is to change the model. That's what they don't want us to hear. Note the words 'save us all'. That's the difference. The goal isn't to save an elite few who can live behind walls and security forces in luxury. The goal is to save us ALL. Any moral person would side with that goal of trying to work for the betterment of all humans.

Racist?

The western corporate media today is full of stories about about Ahmadinegad's 'vile and hateful' speech to the UN conference on racism. What people need to learn is to go look for the text of such a speech and read it themselves. Here's two links to what is supposed to be the English text of the speech.

President Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference on racism from the Iranian press agency.
The Guardian has a scan of the text handed out by Iranian officials at the event.
(added - 4/22) Voters For Peace now has a transcript up also

Now, one thing about public speeches. What's handed out is what is written before hand. Its not always exactly what speaker really says, as ad-libs are possible both adding and skipping to the prepared text. And also, both of these are Iranian translations. But, the Guardian article says (by inference) that it is pretty accurate. That article points out that Mr. Ahmadinejad skipped some sections, but doesn't point out that interpreters find any other errors. From what I can tell, the portions the Guardian says were omitted are not in the version from Iranian PressTV.

So, what are these 'vile and hateful' comments? Here's what I can find in the printed, prepared text.

Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes.

Ok, he calls the Israeli government 'racist'. Is that offensive? The Israelis proudly refer to their state as 'a Jewish state.' This Jewish state routinely uses racial criteria to discriminate against some of its citizens. Its citizens of Arab descent are routinely discriminated against. Is a state that proudly associates itself as the state for a particular race, and which discriminates in its laws and actions against people of other races 'racist'?

Then there is this section further down ...

World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face. However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all the resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime and to maliciously diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime.

This is not simply a question of ignorance and one cannot conclude these ugly phenomena through consular campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there have been literatures and statements in support of Zionists and their crimes. And it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.

It should be recognized that boycotting such a session as an outstanding international capacity is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism. In defending human rights, it is primarily important to defend the rights of all nations to participate equally in all important international decision making processes without the influence of certain world powers.

OK, now where are the parts that are 'vile and hateful' and are worth walking out of or boycotting an important UN meeting on racism? Is it just referring to the Israelis as racist? Is it referring to Zionism, and calling it a racist belief?

Its interesting how there appears to be no attempt to refute these claims. False claims can usually be addressed with facts. There's no need to walk out or boycott the speaker. And perhaps a path towards peace and understanding would be to start such a discussion about what Mr. Ahmadinejad is claiming. But, instead we don't see that. We see a great deal of bombast about the speech from the US, Israel and the corporate media. But, very little that tries to point out where Mr. Ahmadinejad is incorrect.

Do you see anywhere in the western media either video of this speech, or translations of the transcript? Isn't it interesting how its totally blacked out? When I googled to find the transcript, I found no western references. When I removed the word 'transcript' and just searched on 'ahmadinejad geneva', the only stories that I found on the first pages of the search refer to jewish protesters who tried to interrupt the speech, and to the western walkout during the speech.

One good rule to learn. When people don't want you to hear or read a person's words, go find them and read them. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. But, its usually worth going and finding.

Maybe this is the section that they don't want you to hear or see?

Dear friends, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. What are the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq anything other than the arrogance of the then US administration and the mounting pressures on the part of the possessors of wealth and power to expand their sphere of influence seeking the interests of giant arms manufacturing companies affecting a noble culture with thousands of years of historical background, eliminating the potential and practical threats of Muslim countries against the Zionist regime or to control and plunder the energy resources of the Iraqi people?

Why, indeed, almost a million people were killed and injured and a few more millions were displaced? Why, indeed, the Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars? And why was billions of dollars imposed on the American people as the result of these military actions? Was not the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then US administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing countries and the possessors of wealth? Did the invasion of Afghanistan restore peace, security and economic wellbeing in the country?

The United States and its allies not only have failed to contain the production of drugs in Afghanistan, but the cultivation of narcotics has multiplied in the course of their presence. The basic question is that what was the responsibility and the job of the then US administration and its allies?

Did they represent the countries of the world? Have they been mandated by them? Have they been authorized by the people of the world to interfere in all parts of the globe, of course mostly in our region? Are not these measures a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations?

Ladies and gentlemen, who is responsible for the current global economic crisis? Where did the crisis start from? From Africa, Asia or from the United States in the first place then spreading across Europe and their allies?

For a long time, they imposed inequitable economic regulations by their political power on the international economy. They imposed a financial and monetary system without a proper international oversight mechanism on nations and governments that played no role in repressive trends or policies. They have not even allowed their people to oversea or monitor their financial policies. They introduced all laws and regulations in defiance of all moral values only to protect the interests of the possessors of wealth and power.

They further presented a definition for market economy and competition that denied many of the economic opportunities that could be available to other countries of the world. They even transferred their problems to others while the waves of crisis lashed back plaguing their economies with thousands of billions of dollars in budget deficit. And today, they are injecting hundreds of billions of dollars of cash from the pockets of their own people and other nations into the failing banks, companies and financial institutions making the situation more and more complicated for their economy and their people. They are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth. They could not care any less about the people of the world and even their own people.

Hoperoots.

A Lexicon of Disappointment by Naomi Klein via Znet.

Ms. Klein is being brilliant and witty again ... as usual.

All is not well in Obamafanland. It's not clear exactly what accounts for the change of mood. Maybe it was the rancid smell emanating from Treasury's latest bank bailout. Or the news that the president's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, earned millions from the very Wall Street banks and hedge funds he is protecting from reregulation now. Or perhaps it began earlier, with Obama's silence during Israel's Gaza attack.

Whatever the last straw, a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact, going to save the world if we all just hope really hard.

She goes on to define a new language for Obamabots. Including "hopeover", "hopebreak", "hoper-coaster", "hope-sick" and others. Follow the link as its worth reading.