|
|
 |
 |
7.26.2007
PALESTINIAN UNITY AND SOLIDARITY
It is time to propose unity among all Palestinians. That is, those "inside" Israel the "last class" citizens, those who think they are a little more privileged than the Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and the occupied Gaza. All that has been attempted by the Palestinians did not take root, and I believe this artificial division is the major weak point in the resistance. Too many people think they have "too much to loose" to join with their heavily oppressed counterparts - sort of like the "class warfare" that is taking place in the United States, without the terribly violent occupation. When this unity is realized it will put pressure "inside" of Israel as well as from the occupied territories for substantive change. The world will not stand by if the rabid Zionists try to banish their "citizens" (Palestinian) to the occupied territories, as the extreme right Zionist elements have advocated. The "new moderate" illegal governemnt led by Abbas must be resisted, not only among those in the West Bank and Gaza, but by the Palestinians inside of Israel - because a new division will only serve to destroy a viable Palestinian people in the state. The unity of all, not separated by these destructive class divisions is an unbeatable force, and must result in one truly democratic state - not two states. . It would propose a true democratic state for all of the inhabitants, and it would dismiss the already patently outdated and deceptive idea of a two-state solution, which has been a deceptive carrot on a stick to nowhere. The Zionists have brought this on themselves, they have sown the seeds of their own destruction in their exclusive and destructive Zionist ideology - they have proven by their violence and oppression, their damnable aparthied wall, that their "two state" solution is a farce.What must happen (as I said above) is these three strands must be brought together - those inside Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza territories. These artificial barriers, which throw crumbs to the Palestinians which keep one artificially seperated group from another, must be seen for what they are, mere placation till all hope for the Palestinians disappears. The Palestinians inside of Israel are just the facade which is supposed make the Zionist enterprise legitimate, so that it looks like a democracy - but taking just a cursory view of what is happening to the Palestinians inside of Israel should disabuse them of any fantasy that they are, or ever will be equals -Just look what happens to the "official" representatives of the Palestinians inside of Israel - one need look no further that what has happened to Bishara. See what has taken place in land rights, education, economic opportunity, those in the Negev (12%), etc. People believe they can create this dichotomy between "inside" Israel, and the Occupied Territories, and than try to split the territories again (West Bank vs. Gaza) - as if they are apartheid to those "outside" and democratic to those "inside." Tell me, if these Zionists that rule in Israel were brought up on charges for what they have done inside of the Occupied Territories, would they be two different groups? NO. Would their alter egos go to jail and their nice inside Israel ones not? I rest my case.The formula for freedom is in unity, it is in realizing that anything you think you have (inside of Israel, or in the West Bank) is truly not anything else than mere window dressing for dominant Zionism! What I have said here is what the Zionists fear the most, a unity of the territories with those inside of Israel will undo them post swift, and in the place of their Zionist atrocity will be a true democratic state that serves all of the people equally.
ISRAEL A STATE OF IT'S CITIZENS?ISRAEL A STATE OF IT'S CITIZENS? - PART 2ISRAEL A STATE OF IT'S CITIZENS? - PART 3SEE- WHY ZIONISM WILL FAILAs a rough starting point, there should be five goals to shift to a single state solution which means freedom for all of the Palestinian people. Jeff Halper has written a concise anaylsis of what needs to take place:
"(1) In our framing of the campaign for a single state, we should stress that as much as Israel might object, it is its own settlement and incorporation policies that are responsible. Since a Palestinian "state"-cum-bantustan, the only alternative entertained by Israel, is totally unacceptable and unworkable, Israel has brought the single state solution upon itself. A two-state solution that leaves Israel intact has been proposed by both the Palestinians and by the Arab League through the Saudi initiative. Indeed, it is a basic term of reference in the road map. As in the case of South Africa, however, where apartheid was put in place by white South African governments, Israel has only itself to blame if it has created, through its own settlement and occupation policies, a single state. Despite repeated warnings from the critical peace camp, successive Israeli governments, Labor as well as Likud, have locked the country into such a dead-end situation. The Israeli public may not support the vision of a "Greater Land of Israel" (recent polls say 65% of Israelis would like "separation" from the Occupied Territories), but its support of governments pursuing such policies makes it complicit and ultimately responsible. If the road map fails, it is in large measure because of the indifference of the Israeli public to its own leaders' subversion of the initiative. To turn around and then complain that the demand for a democratic state in the entire country is "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist" is downright disingenuous. When the struggle for two states becomes, as I believe it must, a struggle for one democratic state, we must make it crystal clear that this development arises exclusively out of Israel's refusal to countenance a viable Palestinian state on even 22% of the country. Perhaps the realization of where Israel is headed will finally impel its Jewish public to reject policies, parties and leaders that maintain the Occupation. In that case the two-state option may be revisited. Until that happens, however, the priority of a campaign for a single state has been dictated by Israel itself.
(2) We must shift the focus of our efforts from ending the Occupation (which, when the road map fails, we must all admit will never happen) to achieving a democratic state. The slogan "One Person, One Vote" should provide a common mobilizing call for an international movement that must reach the scope and effectiveness of the campaign against South African apartheid. Indeed, the emergence of a single state as an agreed-upon goal something we lack today will make organizing much easier. On the way we must continue, of course, to oppose the Occupation and all its manifestations, including the ongoing repression of the Palestinian people. We might even advocate certain intermediate steps, such as an international protectorate over the Palestinian areas, in order to freeze Israel's ongoing process of incorporation while protecting the civilian population. We must prepare ourselves nevertheless for the most likely upshot: a campaign against apartheid and for a single democratic state.
(3) We should couch our campaign in the language and requirements of human rights and international law. A campaign for a democratic state is intended to secure the rights of all the country's inhabitants; it is not against the Israeli people or seeking in any way to delegitimize Israeli society or culture. Upholding the notion that the security and well-being of all the peoples of the region is guaranteed only through a political solution that addresses every people's human rights and that national self-determination will have to find its expression through a regional Middle East Union we must present the single democratic state as a vehicle that will facilitate collective and individual rights rather than posing a threat. The fact that occupation and apartheid constitute fundamental challenges to a world ruled by human rights and law should also be a central message. Since the Israel-Palestinian-Arab conflict is emblematic to the Arab and Muslim worlds, certainly the notion that the international system will never find stability (including a response to terrorism) unless this issue is resolved will help raise wide concern over the effects of the conflict.
(4) We should call on the Jewish public Israeli and diaspora to avoid the suffering witnessed in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and engage pro-actively in this best-chance for a just, secure and positive resolution to an otherwise irresolvable conflict. More than anything else, Zionism was about Jews taking responsibility for their own fate. A Jewish state has proven politically and, in the end, morally untenable. It is time we salvage the good parts of Israel its vibrant national culture, society, institutions and economy and let go of that which cannot be saved: exclusive "ownership" of a country in which the Jews will soon be the minority.
(5) We must recreate an international movement similar to the anti-apartheid one. This will be difficult; Israel has far greater credibility and support than apartheid did. But we find a way to link the many disparate NGOs and activist groups into a coherent and coordinated network focusing on the issue of the democratic state itself, then forge them into a worldwide movement that goes far beyond our various groups and networks."
Even though I do not find all of these issues to be totally workable I believe this gets to the general thrust of how we must think and act.
(The apartheid wall)
Posted at 09:32 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.24.2007
ANOTHER NEW LOW FOR "HIGHER EDUCATION" - THE FIRING OF WARD CHURCHILL
 Apparently the "empire" is not satisfied with stealing the freedom of people abroad under the name of "democracy," it attempts to silence free speech in the academic arena with a vengeance. It is interesting how lies mutate over a period of time, and how they have become the earmark of official government acts these days.
First when Iraq was attacked is was "weapons of mass destruction," than it became the toppling of a dictator, and finally it became "spreading democracy." The Churchill lynching started with an outburst of what he said in regard to 9/11 and how he should be fired, than turned into "he is not a real Indian," to academic improprieties! Isn't it funny that the same fingerprints produce similar results in two totally different set of circumstances?
 You are fooling yourself if you think this has a single thing to do with academic improprieties, it is actually a concerted effort to silence any dissent in the academic community, a community which in the United States has always been the first line of defense domestically for the official positions of the status quo. Currently, you have democracy being rolled back - so that any gains of freedom in academia are made tenuous.
I mean, when you look at this 120 page plus piece of nonsense that came out of "investigative committee" you have to almost laugh, not because it's funny, not funny "ha, ha," but because it is a work of complete academic hackery! The inquisition of old had nothing on these modern day witch hunters. You have contextual fraud in the report, in regard to the work and even the emphasis of what Ward Churchill wrote. You have the imposition of what he not only wrote and said, but what he was supposed to have meant - which he did not even imply!
We have all been put through the academic mill, and the product from K-12 and on through "higher education" that they want to produce is compliant people, "good citizens" who have had every dissenting bone removed from their bodies, every critical thought or even the apparatus for critical thought removed from their minds, veritably predictable benign consuming slaves! Where the population is primarily a commodity to be consumed by an engorged elite, used for canon fodder in the empires wars of aggression, a disposable populace which is nothing but a cog of complicity in the corporate machinery.
So, they in public pillory a tenured academic, with laws of plagiary which would make anyone academic or no, a flaming plagiarist! They make a mockery of free speech when that speech targets their crimes, and the consequence of their crimes exact a toll on the American public. Look carefully at anything that came out of the 9/11 commission report - do you see anything, anything that resembles changing foreign policy that would produce the backlash which the people experienced? NO. What horrifies them is a man which pleads - "please stop killing their babies!"
 They recruit students like the Nazi brown shirts to record, write down, and report to the academic fascists that be. They do it in the name of "balance," that is, suppression in the name of "fairness," lies in the name of furthering an agenda of hegemony. When the real question is not balance, it is truth!
However, these people are not interested in the truth historically or in the present. You can see this in the committee to crucify Churchill which uses falsification which bears the University of Colorado's imprimatur - which is merely an authority to fabricate by all intents and purposes! No different than a kangaroo court set up for guaranteed prosecution (like the "courts" set up to prosecute so-called "enemy combatants"). The process is so invalid, that you might as well have tortured Ward Churchill to get the confession that you wanted! Why create this two year ellipsis, which is nothing but an academic charade?
Indeed, found in the heart of that infamous think (stink) tank document, PNAC, you find the goal of cleansing the universities of any dissent. Did you think PNAC was just a document about foreign policy (atrocity)? No, it also has a domestic agenda which was to clear the path to make these atrocities acceptable to the American people - and thereby to cleanse all dissent from institutions of higher learning in order to indoctrinate the American public.
Brought to you by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, founded by Lynne Cheney in 1995 that claims to have contributed billions of dollars to colleges and universities, connected to Horowitz and his fetid Campus Watch, the goal which is ``Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,'' the American Council claims that ``colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response'' to Sept. 11. It also asserts that ``when a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries.''
WARD CHURCHILL IS ONE AMONG A NUMBER OF ACADEMICS TARGETED BY THESE ABOVE FASCIST GROUPS, AND IF YOU THINK THERE IS NOT CONNECTION YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO RESIST THIS ONSLAUGHT, STOP THE ASSAULT ON DISSENT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BECAUSE IF WE CANNOT CUT OFF THIS ACTIVITY IN OUR OWN INSTITUTIONS IT WILL NOT ONLY DOOM US BUT THE WORLD AT LARGE.
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty" : Howard Zinn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A true story which came from a presentation
given of the Cherokee 'Trail of Tears'." Story from Freeman Owle
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
November 1996 Copyright © 1996 Owle
All Rights Reserved
Freeman Owle is a lecturer and storyteller from the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. This is a true story he told in November 1996 at a Native American awareness program.
A few years ago, Freeman Owle went to Cincinnati to make a presentation before a university group. He told about the Trail of Tears and how one set of his great-grandparents had escaped from the march with their infant child, crossed back over the Mississippi River, and returned to find their Georgia home burned to the ground. Realizing that they could no longer stay in Georgia, they moved to Birdtown, a community on the Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina where Freeman was raised and where he lives today. Mr. Owle also told the students that there likely will never be a Cherokee named Andrew because of the many deaths of Cherokees and people of other tribes during their forced relocation to Oklahoma...deaths attributed to President Andrew Jackson and his anti-Indian policies. [As it turns out, there were several named Andrew even back then.]
Following the presentation, several students stated that they wanted to help do something on the reservation. He said he had just the project and arranged for them a come down in a few weeks. The group of about 10 students arrived late one Friday night and called to tell him that they had checked into a hotel and would be ready to go the next morning. Early the next day he took them to the home of an 81-year old Cherokee woman who for the first time in her life was unable to plant a garden and grow the old Indian corn that had been with her family for many generations. Freeman equipped them with hoes and, under the watchful eye of the elderly woman, began to dig long straight rows in the rocky ground. About 10 am, most of the students had stopped to get a cold drink and take a break under a shade tree, except for one girl who kept working. Freeman asked her if she wanted to take a break and she replied that she was fine and kept working. About noon, the students stopped to eat lunch, except for the one girl who kept working. Freeman went to her and asked if she wanted to eat lunch with the others. She said no, that she wanted to keep working. He told her "Joy, you need to take a break and get something to eat and drink." Putting his hand on the hoe, he pulled it gently from her hands. As he did, he saw that her palms and fingers were covered in blisters, many of which had already broken. With her eyes turned downward, she said "You don't know who I am, or anything about me, but I need to keep working. I have to give something back to the Cherokee people." Looking up with tears welling in her eyes and her lip trembling, she continued "You see, Andrew Jackson was my great-grandfather."
Posted at 09:03 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.21.2007
 I want to start this post with a set of definitions. First, Zionism should not be confounded with Judaism. Second, even Zionism must be parsed from a virulent form and a seeming benign form, but citizens are still complicit by participating actively, by silence or passive support - the virulent form having found it's way into leadership over a number of years, and which can be plainly seen committing atrocities on Palestinians and as the handmaiden of imperialism. Third, when Israel became a recognized nation state it became susceptible to the same criticisms of any other nation.
 The sign above says it all, being against a certain form of Zionism in not in any way, shape or form antisemitism, period. This is a particular issue in the United States where some have confounded the two (Zionism of the virulent form with the total Jewish population), that is about as viable as quack doctors selling snake oil for cures!
Here in the United States, they have even tried to equate antisemitism with resistance to virulent Zionism in official policies. No nation is above criticism, and just like I make a difference between U.S. citizens and the acts of it's government, even though some U.S. citizens are active, and others by silent support have become complicit, so I make that same distinction in Israel.
 So I have made the title of this post "Why Zionism Will Fail," what this specifically means is that it will fail in it's current form. It will fail if it persists in it's inhuman activity against the Palestinians, it will fail if it continues to assault it's neighbors committing war crimes, as in the case of Lebanon, and it will fail being the handmaiden of western imperialism!
 Zionism in it's current form has bee equated with racism, at one time the United Nations (1975) defined it as such, but because of the outcry of both Israel and the United States it was repealed in 1991. However, there has been no marked policy change in Israeli Zionist policies to the present day, and it remains the backbone of Israeli politics with no end in sight.
In the very Encyclopedia of Zionism we find that it's founder, Theodore Herzel did not claim any religious aspect to Zionism. When asked Mr. Herzel said "I am an agnostic," and further he states that Zionism is not a matter of social or religious significance, but "national." Again, when asked if he needed Palestine to achieve his goals, he answered in the negative.
Zionism at it's foundations is a political movement, who's reality has been realized through a series of wars and the acts of colonialism. From the regious aspect, it is a heresy of Judaism - where the 12th principle of the Jewish faith explicitly says that Messiah will gather his people from the nations of the world. Zionism fly's in the face of this principle stating that it does not accept it's exile , and choses to reconvene as a national entity. The Jewish people have been restrained by an oath not to force itself back to the "Holy Land" against the will of the current residents. 
 Having cleared the deck with some of these statements of fact let me say that I am not denying the legitimacy of Israel to exist, I am denying that it can or will exist in it's current Zionist form. Currently it is an apartheid system, and the Zionism that reigns in it's halls of power is irreconcilable with lasting peace, because it maintains it's existence on the premise of racial purity. You cannot mix spiritual and biological attributes with impunity. This goes beyond mere excptionalism and enters the arena of racism, seeing it's right to extra-racial and extra-judicial warrant. It cannot continue to exist in this form, in a post-apartheid era. Zionism conjures for itself divine authority - which expresses itself in the violent maintenance of property that does not belong to it, all in the name of Zion. This is a formula for demise. 
Zionism refuses to recognize or abide by the rules of International Law. Most notably adhering to the UN ruling 242, to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, and 194 which guarantees the right of return to the dispossessed Palestinians. This arrogance is seen in statements like that of Ariel Sharon who said "certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial." Note how he confounds the Jewish people with Zionist Israel. Zionism cannot survive thinking that it is above the law. Zionism sees itself as immune to law because of it's patron the United States, however, even the United States will hit the proverbial wall soon with it's arrogant stand of being "above the law," and Zionism will crash with it. Zionism will crash when the United States is divested through disgust of the foreign capital that tenuously holds the house of cards up! 
Zionism has survived being based on mythical deception, and we live in an age where myths are exposed and debunked soundly. It suggests that every single Jew is an Israelite, and that God promised Jacob's descendants the land. It also says that the Palestinian goys are interlopers to the land. This does not even deserve a commentary, but it is a major tenet of the current proponents of Zionism. All that has to be said is that this is a patent form of racism, that is the only treatment that is needed. Along with this is the myth of invincibility in war, having "God's will on it's side" (Nazi belt buckles had that written on them), but that has been soundly trounced by the "rag Tag" army of Hizbullah fighters that kicked their arse in ground war. In this, it seeks the support of an equally deluded fundamentalist Christianity in the United States, which the people of America are fed up with to the gills! One ideology is about as correct as the other in this instance, and Zionism's baby will be thrown out with the proverbial bathwater. Fundamentalism in the United States is about to fall as hard as Oliver Cromwell's fiasco in bygone England. 
Modern Jewry is not threatened or presently escaping an antisemitism anywhere today. However, Zionism which is in power today in Israel , it seems would try to make itself so repugnant with it's wanton thievery and murder, so as to try to force the ugly head of antisemitism to rise!
Jews are currently threatened no where, and the expose of this current Zionist debacle is the target of disgust, not the Jewish people at large. This also will contribute to the demise of the Zionism currently in power in Israel.
 Zionism has become equally deadly for not only the Palestinians, but for the Israelites. The only answer is to abolish Zionism as a legislative authority. In it's place a free and democratic state can arise, where equality for all can be realized. VIRTUALLY AS I WRITE THIS, A POISONOUS ZIONISM PLANS FOR WAR WITH SYRIA AND IRAN. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ISRAELI PEOPLE TO RISE UP AGAINST THE ZIONIST POWER ELITE THAT NOW EXISTS IN ISRAEL; IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO RISE UP AGAINST THE LEADERSHIP IN WASHINGTON FOR IT'S HEGEMONIC LAWLESSNESS WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS THIS PERVERTED FORM OF ZIONISM FOR THEIR OWN EXPLOITATIVE PURPOSES. SOON ZIONISM AND WESTERN HEGEMONY WILL FALL BUT IT WILL COME FASTER BY POSITIVE ACTION, IT IS THE DUTY OF PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD TO MAKE THIS A REALITY!
Posted at 09:15 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.18.2007
IF THIS IS SUCH A RICH COUNTRY, WHY ARE WE GETTING SQUEEZED?
 This is an article written by Heather Boushey and Joshua Holland of Alternet HERE. My reason for repeating it here is not only that it is an excellent piece of journalism, and that it is true - but I get tired of being accused that I am the only one who writes such things about our economy. So here we go again, but this time your going to hear it from someone else!
While the rich are getting richer, they're slashing social security, Medicare and other social programs for the rest of us. What gives?
"The commercial media is telling us two perfectly contradictory stories about the American economy. The first is how wonderfully rich we are in the United States. The stock market's booming -- some analysts predict the Dow will break the 15,000 this year -- the economy is expanding at a healthy clip, productivity growth is up and unemployment and inflation are relatively low.
But, at the same time, we're also told that we don't have the money to pay for a robust social safety net. When it comes to paying for universal health coverage, affording retirement security for our elderly, investing in programs for the poor or educating our children, we need to pinch pennies. According to this storyline, we face a looming "entitlement crisis" -- we won't be able to afford to keep the Baby Boomers in good health and out of poverty, we're told, unless we slash their benefits and privatize the programs that their elderly parents enjoy today.
 This is the line we hear from the Administration when it talks about entitlement "reform": Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says that "The biggest economic issue facing our country is the growth in spending on the major entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security." The solution, according to the Heritage Foundation, is to cut entitlement spending: "Reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the only way to get the budget under control."
How can two narratives that are so clearly at odds with each other be so pervasive? Are we seriously supposed to believe that Paris Hilton has to dig between the cushions of her sofa to buy a can of tuna?
 What reconciles these two themes is absent from our mainstream economic discourse: we "can't afford" all sorts of programs that are clearly in the common good because most of the benefits of our growing economy have gone to a very small group of Americans, who have, in turn, seen their taxes slashed again and again in the past six years. It's a story that isn't told as often as it should in the commercial press because it's a supposedly "liberal" narrative -- never mind that über-conservative former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that there is a "really serious problem here, as I've mentioned many times … in the consequent concentration of income that is rising."
Saying that the majority of the country's economic gains in recent years have gone to the top one percent of the income ladder understates the trend. You have to cut the pie into even smaller slices to get the full picture. Because while the bottom half of the top one percent of the income distribution have done far better than the average wage slaves, it is a smaller slice still -- the top .01 percent -- that has grabbed most of the gains--seeing an impressive 250 percent increase in income between 1973 and 2005 -- from an economy that's grown by 160 percent.
 (Booming Economy - by Rob van der Bijl Bilbao, at the Guggenheim) An analysis by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez gives us the best perspective of what's going on for everyone else. They found that despite several periods of healthy growth between 1973 and 2005, the average income of all but the top ten percent of the income ladder -- nine out of ten American families - fell by 11 percent when adjusted for inflation. For three decades, economic growth in the United States has gone first and foremost to building today's modern Gilded Age. The recipients of those gains don't care about a fully funded Social Security system or a healthy Medicare program -- they don't need them.
Meanwhile, even as the top earners' incomes have gone through the roof, their tax burden has shriveled. At the same time, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined -- by two-thirds since 1962.
 (A golden Hummer) It's important to understand how that plays out in our national economic discourse. When people tell us that our economy cannot "afford" things like universal health care or paid sick days, it fits with the economic experience that most Americans have had in their real lives -- the benefits of our boom-boom economy have not gone to the great masses, but to "someplace else."
Americans feel pinched. Polls show that they feel a time crunch--not having enough time for family and friends--and that they're anxious about getting into or staying in the middle class. Over the past generation, the economy has not been good to the typical, married-couple family (let along single-parent families) and families feel, rightly, that they need to be careful about where their dollars go.
 It's not that they're not working hard. The typical U.S. family puts in more time at work than ever before. The typical married couple works an additional 13.3 weeks per year--533 hours--compared to a generation ago. But even though families are working more, their incomes have grown by only a third between 1973 and the present. That's much worse than the generation before -- between 1947 and 1973, the typical married-couple family saw their income rise by 115 percent. And that was often just one parent's income -- this was a period when most families could afford a stay-at-home mother. Of course, fewer families have that luxury today -- those with stay-at-home moms have the same inflation-adjusted median income in 2007 as they did in 1973 -- they haven't gained a penny from three decades of growth. When we talk about the slow growth of family income, economists like to mention globalization, mechanization, or other factors that require us to be lean and mean and more "competitive." The storyline is that U.S. families have not seen their income grow because America has had to fight it out in a wide-open global economy, and these are lean times for workers. But that's simply not true. 
The economy--as measured by gross domestic product (GDP)--has grown by over 160 percent since 1973 (PDF). This is only slightly less than the period from 1947 to 1973 when GDP grew by 176 percent. That's come as Americans have become much more productive -- productivity has grown by over 80 percent since 1973 -- meaning it now takes fewer workers to produce the same number of widgets as it did in the past.
As each worker in the U.S. economy produces more "stuff" per hour, be that DVD players or clients served, those goods and services are being sold in greater numbers. In a healthy economy, that growth is shared between workers and investors and wage growth should rise with productivity. This was the case in the decades between World War II and the early 1970s, when productivity and median wages both increased by an average of two to three percent every year. But since 1973, productivity increased sharply, especially after the late 1990s, but median wage growth has been flat. So firms are getting much more output per worker, but they're not paying for it. They've pocketed the difference in executive compensation and corporate profits. The share of national income going to wages is at the lowest level ever recorded, while the piece of the pie gobbled up by corporate profits is at its highest point since 1960.
 But when the masses ask for help paying for health insurance or child care, or request that everyone be given the right to paid sick days, we're told we cannot afford it. "Afford" seems to be a very special term in the current American context: letting the wealthy take ever-bigger pieces of our national product is something we always seem able to afford. We work hard. We--the 99.9 percent-- and deserve a bigger piece of the pie. With a growing economy, we can afford it and we all know just where to look for how to pay for it. THEY WANT SYMPATHY MAKING IT?DESTINATION NOWHERENEED A CHANGE?WORKING CLASSDON'T GET SICK!WATCH IT GROWTHE RICH SAY = YOU WANT MORE??!!BORN INTO CAPITALISMCAPITALISM, CORPORATISM, AND THE WORLDWHY IS THERE NO CLASS WARFARE IN AMERICA?CLASS WARFARE NOW-STOPPING THE INCOME SHIFTTHE TRILLION DOLLAR INCOME SHIFTIf I may, I would like to point out a specific world fact for your consideration. Wherever you find capitalism, in whatever country, you find this same case scenario. In some places it is less severe than others, in some places it is more severe, but it follows a similar pattern. Take for instance Israel -
REPORT: 19 ISRAELI FAMILIES CONTROL ONE THIRD OF THE ECONOMYNow, lest you think I am just picking on the United Sates and Israel, let me emphasize what I said above - wherever you find capitalism, in whatever country, you find this same case scenario. In other words, you can find the same scenario worked out in the "new" Russia, India, Australia, etc.
The governments are merely the franchise of the elite, which set the agenda for their enrichment, both foreign and domestic - it is now a GLOBAL PHENOMENA. Wherever capitalism goes you find this broadening gap between the rich and the poor - so the question naturally is this, WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD WAKE UP and understand that this just does not "naturally" occur? When will the people unite? When we put a stop to our long night of disenfranchisement and pain?
Posted at 06:45 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.15.2007
UNPRECEDENTED BRUTAL SANCTIONING OF THE OCCUPIED AND OPPRESSED
 This is an excerpt from an article written in Haaretz that picked up the report from Reuters. We find the World Bank, that heretofore did nothing for Gaza, and even encouraged business investment in the wall in order to set up a free market ghetto zone, now since Wolfowitz's ignominious exit cries the blues about Gaza's possible "irreversible" economic collapse.
Never mind that this is unprecedented - to harshly sanction a brutally occupied people! First, with complicity of Israel for the United States and it's allies to arm Fatah and create a crisis on a democratically elected body. To withhold the money due and close off an entire territory representing over a million people, to replace it with a trickle of food aid for bare subsistence. When do these crimes stop?
"The World Bank said on Thursday the prolonged closure of Israel's border crossings with Hamas-controlled Gaza could lead to the coastal strip's "irreversible" economic collapse. The international lending agency delivered that stark assessment during a closed-door meeting of aid groups and private sector organizations.
Israel has largely closed the Karni commercial crossing, Gaza's economic lifeline, in an effort to isolate Hamas after it seized control of the Gaza Strip a month ago. Egypt has also kept mainly shut Gaza's border crossing with the Sinai since mid-June.
Israel has allowed humanitarian aid into the territory through smaller crossings. While aid groups said this should be sufficient to head off a food shortage in the territory of 1.5 million people, they warned Gaza's economy would be devastated.
Almost all Gaza businesses depend on imported raw materials and other supplies that must pass through the strip's shuttered crossings with Israel.
"The pillars of Gaza's economy have weakened over the years. Now, with a sustained closure on this current scale, they would be at risk of virtually irreversible collapse," Faris Hadad-Zervos, the World Bank's acting country director for the West Bank and Gaza, told the aid groups.
 (Tank at Karni Crossing) A copy of the World Bank's presentation was obtained by Reuters from a participant in the meeting. "A solution must be reached very soon, if not immediately... Otherwise, Gaza's dependence on humanitarian assistance could become a long-term and comprehensive situation. These impacts will be difficult to reverse," Hadad-Zervos said.
According to statistics compiled by the Palestine Trade Center and the Palestinian Federation of Industries, more than 3,190 Gaza businesses have temporarily shut down in the last month. Some 65,800 workers have also been temporarily laid off. Up to 54 percent of employment in Gaza is generated by the private sector, representing more than 100,000 jobs.
Hadad-Zervos said a loss of a third of those jobs would translate into unemployment levels of over 37 percent, up from 30 percent at the beginning of the year. He said unemployment could reach the unprecedented level of 44 percent.
Israel wants to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip, while allowing funds and goods to flow to President Mahmoud Abbas's emergency administration in the West Bank. Israel controls the land crossings between Gaza and Israel, as well as Gaza's air space and territorial waters."
AND NOW THERE ARE 8(And the Israelis want to stop an academic boycott) GAZA FACTSONE COUNTRYFREE THE PNO COMPROMISES (July 12th, empty Karni Crossing) "About 80 percent of private sector businesses have closed, and the remaining establishments are operating at around 60 percent capacity, Paltrade, a local business group, reported. Also, Israel has cancelled the Gaza customs code, making importing goods more difficult. World Bank statistics indicate over 80 percent of Gazans live below a poverty line of US$2.41 a day.
Goods such as cement are not making it into Gaza. The UN's agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, announced this week the halting of all its building projects in Gaza. "Some $93 million worth of projects are on hold because cement and other building supplies have run out," said John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza director.
"This is all vital humanitarian work," he said in a statement, noting that work on refugee shelters, sewage treatment plants, water works and health centres was affected. "These have serious public health implications." Thousands of refugees subsequently lost their jobs.
Chris Gunness, an UNRWA official, was concerned about a possible amplified need for relief efforts. "With no income, people will become more aid dependent. We anticipate the emergency caseload numbers will increase," Gunness said.
People in Gaza speak of a desperate situation, as there are few job opportunities. Some, locals say, are working for pitifully low wages, attempting to bring home a salary. They blame wealthy residents for taking advantage of the current situation.
Israeli security officials say they are currently focused on getting food aid into Gaza, and will not begin to deal with the exports matter for "at least another two weeks or a month". Another official said: "Wheat, for example, will take priority over cement needed for long term projects."
They say there is a clear goal of "preventing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza," although some observers expressed concern that little is being done to prevent a collapse of Gaza's economy and decrease the reliance on aid from NGOs and UN agencies. The military says it cannot reopen the main commercial Karni Crossing for exports as it requires coordination on the Palestinian side, something they cannot do with Hamas.
As Israel will not talk with Hamas, which does not recognize Israel, coordination on goods is conducted largely by the military and the private sector, while agencies such as the World Food Programme monitor the markets and needs in Gaza. However, aid workers say this should only be a temporary solution, as the interests of businesses should not dictate what goods go in. An independent body, with health and nutritional qualifications, should supervise the operations, some say.
The Palestinian Authority recently paid salaries to tens of thousands of employees who had not received payments in over 18 months, after Israel released withheld tax funds. However, some employees say the recent payments were hardly felt.
"We are using the money to pay off debts. For 18 months my family lived on borrowed funds," said a Palestinian employee of a security organ in Bethlehem, on the West Bank.
"I kept working all this time because there are no jobs," he said, adding that most of the 1,000 security officers in Bethlehem were in similar situations.
Hanadi, a mother of two and pregnant with her third, lives in the nearby village Beit Sahour. She said she received only a partial payment, and is still owed over $6,000."
This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies.
Posted at 08:06 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.12.2007
MAINTAINING THE OLD WORLD ORDER
 You have heard the phrase used recently which is not new - The New World Order, however the NWO is nothing but the Old World Order and how to maintain an old paradigm. This old world order is maintained by domination, pauperism of the people, and false divisions of class - race - religion. It is nothing new and has been the condition of humanity from the beginning, the real challenge is the rising of a truly New World Order.
The order in this world remains the same, where an elite has morphed from kingdoms, to fiefdoms, and to forms of so-called republics, representative democracy. All the while the same old patterns persist as mentioned above - domination, pauperism, and divisions. In the midst of all this an elite enriches themselves in these various government forms to the consistent detriment of the people - there is nothing new, in the New World Order, except the spread of the commiseration of the people.
 The challenge in the world today remains, for a new world order which uplifts the people, regardless of ones origin, to a status of equality and opportunity with a worldwide level playing field. Some will say we are striving for this and point to world organizations such as the UN, the World Court, and the IMF or World Bank. My response is that all of these instruments have been fouled, and have become the instruments of the same old world order.
That is that we have unchecked domination of one region over another, alliances of exploitation and thievery. We have criminals that masquerade as financiers, courts which have teeth only for regions that are the victims of this pervasive domination. Economic systems which ensure slavery of the people, and enrichment of the few. Governments which are nothing but the franchise of an elite, whose representatives have ears only for the chosen few.
In fact, the only thing "new" about any new world order, is who will be the figurehead of the same old oppression! So the history of the the world is merely the rise of one empire after another which may swallow one another but always produce the same results for the people of the world. All pretension to enlightenment is merely so much fakery, or a short term ploy to lead us back to the same old story.
We ask what will it take to break this cycle of servility, where the people do not just rule by theory but in practice? The conclusion we have to come to is that it will take a worldwide alliance of the people who will no longer listen to those who are merely the puppets of an elite. In their zeal, those who take the position of rule over us have used the peoples largess to create a world system which benefits them, and in the process have left in place means of world communication (through the ingenuity of the people, and their hard earned money), and these are the tools we should use to forge our weapons of warfare against the old world order.
We must identify in every nation those groups which see the same scenario which wish to work in alliance with others in every nation. Particular onus is upon those countries which find themselves as the dominant in this present paradigm, or lets say the Terra firma from which the assault on this present world originates. In turn we must forge a bond with those countries which have been victimized, specifically with the groups in those countries which wish to bring an end to this current tragedy.
We, as an entire people of the world, must first pinpoint those predominant instruments used to dominate. Not only those who say that they represent the people that wage war, but the very machinery of the empire - the corporations and the people which support them, must be targeted. The very economic system which encourages and thrives on the pauperization of the world must be targeted, the economic system and all of its institutions - in other words, from Wall Street to world banks, they must be cut off, starved and ultimately subjugated by the people.
That which poses as a judicial system, which has nothing to do with the rule of law but propagates the law of rule domestically and worldwide must be censured and stripped of any legitimacy. All religious systems that are merely the facade of the state must be exposed and deposed, any and all which opt for the destruction of mankind under the guise of any manifest destiny must be denied and vacated till their structures crumble to dust! ONLY AN OVERALL VISION OF THIS NATURE WILL SUFFICE TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THIS PRESENT WORLD TO A "REAL" NEW WORLD ORDER OF THE PEOPLE.
PEOPLE HAVE THE POWERCHRISTIAN FASCISTSPROFITS OF DESTRUCTIONWORLD DOMINATION TOUR (SHORT LIST)THE WORLDWIDE CORPORATIONWHO REALLY CONTROLS AMERICA?WHO ARE THE SUCKERS?WHAT AM I PROPOSING?REJECT EMPIREBOMB. REPEAT. BOMBNew Noise"
Can I scream? Yeah!
We lack the motion to move to the new beat
We lack the motion to move to the new beat
It's here for us to admire if we can afford the beauty of it
Can afford the luxury of turning our heads
Adjust that thousand dollars smile and behold the creation of man
Great words won't cover ugly actions - good frames won't save bad paintings
We lack the motion to move to the new beat. Yeah!
We lack... motion
When the day is over - Hey! - the doors are locked on us
Money buys the access - and we can't pay the cost
And how can we expect anyone to listen if we are using the same old voice?
We need new noise - new art for the real people
We dance to all the wrong songs
We enjoy all the wrong moves
We dance to all the wrong songs
We're not leading
We dance to all the wrong songs
We enjoy all the wrong moves
We dance to all the wrong songs
We're not, we're not, we're not, we're not, we're not, we're not...
Leading
We dance - all the wrong songs
We enjoy - all the wrong moves
We dance - all the wrong songs
We dance - all the wrong songs
We enjoy - all the wrong moves
We dance - all the wrong songs
Here we go!
We dance to all the wrong songs
We enjoy all the wrong moves
We dance to all the wrong songs
We're not leading. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
The new beat! The new beat! The new beat! The new beat!
The new beat! The new beat! The new beat! The new beat!
The new beat! The new beat! The new beat! The new beat!
The new beat! The new beat! The new beat! The new beat!
Thank you.
WE NEED NEW NOISE!!Rather be dead,
Than alive by your oppression,
Rather be dead,
Than alive by your design.
Poisoned my fingers,
Burned out my eyes,
Cut up up my throat.
Rather be dead,
Than alive by your social values,
Rather be dead,
Than alive by your tradition.
Poisoned my fingers,
Burned out my eyes,
Cut up my throat.
But I? Rather be alive....
Rather be alive
Rather be alive
Rather be alive!
Rather be alive, rather be alive, rather be
Rather be alive, rather be alive, rather be
Rather be alive,
Rather be alive!
Poisoned my fingers,
Burned out my eyes,
Cut up up my throat.
RATHER BE DEADRefused disbanded, unable to reconcile their anarchist leanings with a career in music. THE WORLD IS A VAMPIREPARECON - PART1PARECON - PART2PARECON - PART3CREATING MOVEMENT
Posted at 09:48 pm by deadringer
Permalink
This is an astute observation written by As'ad AbuKhalil, regarding the duplicity (or should I say prejudice?) of Western sentiment. He is the author of the Angry Arab News Service HERE. Do yourself a favor and visit his site. "More Arab women are killed annually by Israeli occupation forces than those who die from FGM [female genitilia mutilation] and "honor" crimes combined. Yet, Western feminists don't seem to care for the victims of Israeli violence. If you set up an organization in the Arab world to advocate against FGM, millions in US/Europe/UN aid will come your way. And if you set up an organization to advocate against Israeli killing of Palestinian women and children, the organization will be immediately added to the list of terrorist organizations."
Posted at 02:31 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.9.2007
UNITED STATES OCCUPATION FORCE KILLS 10,000 OR MORE IRAQIS PER MONTH!
This (the title) is probably no news for those who follow reliable sources, but for those who listen to the nonsense that comes out of corporate news it is probably shocking. This article was on Alternet, written by Micheal Schwartz. That wasn't the worst of it, because the death rate was increasing precipitously, and during the first half of 2006 the monthly rate was approximately 30,000 per month, a rate that no doubt has increased further during the ferocious fighting associated with the current American surge. The U.S. and British governments quickly dismissed these results as "methodologically flawed," even though the researchers used standard procedures for measuring mortality in war and disaster zones. (They visited a random set of homes and asked the residents if anyone in their household had died in the last few years, recording the details, and inspecting death certificates in the vast majority of cases.) The two belligerent governments offered no concrete reasons for rejecting the study's findings, and they ignored the fact that they had sponsored identical studies (conducted by some of the same researchers) in other disaster areas, including Darfur and Kosovo. The reasons for this rejection were, however, clear enough: the results were simply too devastating for the culpable governments to acknowledge. (Secretly the British government later admitted that it was "a tried and tested way to measuring mortality in conflict zones"; but it has never publicly admitted its validity). Reputable researchers have accepted the Lancet study's results as valid with virtually no dissent. Juan Cole, the most visible American Middle East scholar, summarized it in a particularly vivid comment: "the US misadventure in Iraq is responsible [in a little over three years] for setting off the killing of twice as many civilians as Saddam managed to polish off in 25 years." 
Despite the scholarly consensus, the governments' denials have been quite effective from a public education point of view, and the few news items that mention the Lancet study bracket it with official rebuttals. One BBC report, for example, mentioned the figure in an article headlined "Huge Rise in Iraqi Death Tolls," and quoted at length from President Bush's public rebuttal, in which he said that the methodology was "pretty well discredited," adding that "six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just ... it's not credible." As a consequence of this sort of coverage, most Americans probably believe that Bush's December 2005 figure of 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (less than 10% of the actual total) is the best estimate of Iraqi deaths up to that time. Counting how many Iraqis the occupation has killed These shocking statistics are made all the more horrific when we realize that among the 600,000 or so victims of Iraqi war violence, the largest portion have been killed by the American military, not by carbombings or death squads, or violent criminals -- or even all these groups combined. The Lancet interviewers asked their Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died and who was responsible. The families were very good at the cause of death, telling the reporters that over half (56%) were due to gunshots, with an eighth due each to car bombs (13%), air strikes (13%) and other ordinance (14%). Only 4% were due to unknown causes. The families were not as good at identifying who was responsible. Although they knew, for example, that air strike victims were killed by the occupation, and that carbomb victims were killed by insurgents, the gunshot and ordinance fatalities often occurred in firefights or in circumstances with no witnesses. Many times, therefore, they could not tell for sure who was responsible. Only were certain, and the interviewers did not record the responsible party if "households had any uncertainly" as to who fired the death shot. The results are nevertheless staggering for those of us who read the American press: for the deaths that the victims families knew for sure who the perpetrator was, U.S. forces (or their "Coalition of the Willing" allies) were responsible for 56%. That is, we can be very confident that the Coalition had killed at least 180,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006. Moreover, we have every reason to believe that the U.S. is responsible for its pro rata share (or more) of the unattributed deaths. That means that the U.S. and its allies may well have killed upwards of 330,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006.  The remainder can be attributed to the insurgents, criminals, and to Iraqi forces. And let's be very clear here: car bombs, the one source that was most easy for victims' families to identify, was responsible for 13% of the deaths, about 80,000 people, or about 2,000 per month. This is horrendous, but it is far less than half of the confirmed American total, and less than a quarter of the probable American total. Even if we work with the lower, confirmed, figured of 180,000 Iraqi deaths caused by the occupation firepower, which yields an average of just over 5,000 Iraqis killed every month by U.S. forces and our allies since the beginning of the war. And we have to remember that the rate of fatalities was twice as high in 2006 as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or something over 300 Iraqis every day, including Sundays. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher. Why don't we know about this? These figures sound impossible to most Americans. Certainly 300 Iraqis killed by Americans each day would be headline news, over and over again. And yet, the electronic and print media simply do not tell us that the U.S. is killing all these people. We hear plenty about car bombers and death squads, but little about Americans killing Iraqis, except the occasional terrorist, and the even more occasional atrocity story. How, then, is the US accomplishing this carnage, and why is it not newsworthy? The answer lies in another amazing statistic: this one released by the U.S. military and reported by the highly respectable Brookings Institution: for the past four years, the American military sends out something over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill insurgents and terrorists. (Since February, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) 
These thousands of patrols regularly turn into thousands of Iraqi deaths because these patrols are not the "walk in the sun" that they appear to be in our mind's eye. Actually, as independent journalist Nir Rosen described vividly and agonizingly in his indispensable book, In the Belly of the Green Bird, they involve a kind of energetic brutality that is only occasionally reported by an embedded American mainstream journalist. This brutality is all very logical, once we understand the purpose and process of these patrols. American soldiers and marines are sent into hostile communities where virtually the entire population is supports the insurgency. They often have a list of suspects' addresses; and their job is to interrorgate or arrest or kill the suspect; and search the house for incriminating evidence, particularly arms and ammunition, but also literature, video equipment, and other items that the insurgency depends upon for its political and military activities. When they don't have lists of suspects, they conduct "house-to-house" searches, looking for suspicious behavior, individuals or evidence. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances: in many instances, for example, knocking on doors could invite gunshots through the doors. Their instructions are therefore to use the element of surprise whenever the situation appears to be dangerous -- to break down doors, shoot at anything suspicious, and throw grenades into rooms or homes where there is any chance of resistance. If they encounter tangible resistance, they can call in artillery and/or air power rather than try to invade a building. Here is how two Iraqi civilians described these patrols to Asia Times reporter Pepe Escobar: "Hussein and Hasan confirm that the Americans usually 'come at night, sometimes by day, always protected by helicopters.' They "sometimes bomb houses, sometimes arrest people, sometimes throw missiles'" 
If they encounter no resistance, these patrols can track down 30 or so suspects, or inspect several dozen homes, in a days work. That is, our 1,000 or so patrols can invade 30,000 homes in a single day. But if an IED explodes under their Humvee or a sniper shoots at them from nearby, then their job is transformed into finding, capturing, or killing the perpetrator of the attack. Iraqi insurgents often set off IEDs and invite these firefights, in order to stall the patrols prevent the soldiers from forcibly entering 30 or so homes, violently accosting their residents, and perhaps beating, arresting, or simply humiliating the residents. The battles triggered by IEDs and sniper attacks almost always involve the buildings surrounding the incident, since that is where the insurgents take cover to avoid the American counter-attack. Americans, therefore, regular shoot into these buildings where the perpetrators are suspected of hiding, with all the attendant dangers of killing other people. The rules of engagement for American soldiers include efforts to avoid killing civilians, and there are many accounts of restraint because civilians are visibly in the line of fire. But if they are in hot pursuit of a perpetrator, their rules of engagement make it clear that capturing or killing the insurgent takes precedent over civilian safety. This sounds pretty tame, and not capable of generating the statistics that the Lancet study documented. But the sheer quantity of American patrols -- 1,000 each day -- and the sheer quantity of the confrontations inside people's homes, the responses to sniper and IED attacks, and the ensuring firefights add up to mass slaughter. The cumulative brutality of these thousands of patrols can be culled from the recent inquest into the suspected war crimes committed in the city of Haditha back in November 19, 2005. The investigation seeks to ascertain whether American marines deliberately murdered 24 civilians including executing with point blank head shots nineteen unarmed women, children and older men in a single room, apparently in retribution for the death of one of their comrades earlier in the day. These horrific charges have made the incident newsworthy and propelled the investigation. 
But it is the defense's version of the story that makes the Haditha useful in understanding the translation of American patrols into hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. First Lt. William T. Kallop, the highest ranking officer in Haditha that day, told the military hearing that he had ordered a patrol "to 'clear' an Iraqi home in Haditha after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine" earlier in the day. Later, after the firefight that this action generated, he went to inspect the home and was shocked to discover that only civilians had been killed: "He inspected one of the homes with a Marine corporal, Hector Salinas, and found women, children and older men who had been killed when marines threw a grenade into the room. "'What the hell happened, why aren't there any insurgents here?' Lieutenant Kallop testified that he asked aloud. 'I looked at Corporal Salinas, and he looked just as shocked as I did.' It is important to keep in mind that Lt. Kallop would not have been shocked if there had been one or more insurgents among the dead. What made the situation problematic was that all the fatalities were clearly civilians, and it led to the possibility that they had not been in hot pursuit of an enemy combatant. Later, however, Lt. Kallop decided that even this situation involved no misbehavior on the part of his troops, after questioning Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, who had led the patrol and commanded the military action: "Sergeant Wuterich had told him that they had killed people [in that house] after approaching a door to it and hearing the distinct metallic sound of an AK-47 being prepared to fire. "'I thought that was within the rules of engagement because the squad leader thought that he was about to kick in the door and walk into a machine gun,' Lieutenant Kallop said." According to Kallop, the soldiers were thus following the rules of engagement because if the squad leader "thought" that he was going to be attacked (based on recognizing a noise through a closed door), he was authorized and justified to use the full lethal force of the patrol (in this case a hand grenade), enough to kill all the people huddled within the apartment. 
The critical distinction has to do with intentionality. First Lieutenant Max D. Frank, sent to investigate the incident somewhat later, explained this logic: "It was unfortunate what happened, sir," Lieutenant Frank told the Marine prosecutor, Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan, "but I didn't have any reason to believe that what they had done was on purpose." Translated, this means that as long as the soldiers sincerely believed that their attack might capture or kill an armed insurgent who could attack them, the rules of engagement justified their action and they were therefore not culpable of any crime. Note here that other alternatives were not considered. The soldiers could have decided that there was a good chance of hurting civilians in this situation, and therefore retreated without pursuing the suspected insurgent. This would have allowed him to get away, but it would have protected the residents of the house. This option was not considered, even though many of us might feel that letting one or two or three insurgents escape (in a town filled with insurgents) might be acceptable instead of risking (and ultimately ending) the lives of 19 civilians. Later in the hearing, Major General Richard Huck, the commanding officer in charge of the Marines in Haditha, underscored these rules of engagement in more general terms, -- and also ignored the unthinkable option of letting the insurgents get away -- when he explained why he had not ordered an investigation of the deaths: "They had occurred during a combat operation and it was not uncommon for civilians to die in such circumstances. 'In my mind's eye, I saw insurgent fire, I saw Kilo Company fire,' Huck testified, via video link from the Pentagon, where he is assistant deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations. 'I could see how 15 neutrals in those circumstances could be killed.'" 
For General Huck, and for other commanders in Iraq, once "insurgent fire" -- or even the threat of insurgent fire -- entered the picture (and it certainly had earlier, when the American soldier was killed), then the actions reported by the Marines in that Haditha home were not just legitimate(if they reported them honestly), but exemplary. They were responding appropriately in a battlefield situation, and the death of "15 neutrals" is "not uncommon" in those circumstances. Let's keep in mind, then, that the United States undertakes something over 1,000 patrols each day, and lately this number has surged to over 5,000 (if we also count patrols by the Iraqi military). According to U.S. military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of 100 per day (not counting the additional 25 or so involving our Iraqi allies). Most of them do not produce 24 Iraqi deaths, but the rules of engagement our soldiers are given -- throwing hand grenades into buildings holding suspected insurgents, using maximum firepower against snipers, and calling in artillery and air power against stubborn resistance -- guarantee a regular drumbeat of mortality. It is worth recording how these events are reported in the American press, when they are noted at all. Here, for example, is an Associated Press account of American/British patrols in Maysan province, a stronghold of the Mahdi army: Well to the south, Iraqi officials reported as many as 36 people were killed in fierce overnight fighting that began as British and Iraqi forces conducted house-to-house searches in Amarah, a stronghold of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia. This brief description was part of a five paragraph account of fighting all over Iraq, part of a review under the headline "U.S. and Iraqi forces Move on Insurgents." It contained brief accounts of several different operations, none of them presented as major events. There were 100 or so engagements that day, and many of them produced deaths. How many? Based on the Lancet article, we could guess that on that day -- and most days -- the incident in Amarah represented perhaps one-tenth of all the Iraqis killed by Americans that day. Over the course of June, the accumulated total probably came to something over 10,000. 
During the hearing about Haditha one of the investigators addressed the larger question that emerges from the sacrifice of so many civilians to the cause of chasing and catching insurgents in Iraq. Lieutenant Max D. Frank, the first officer to investigate the deaths, characterized is an "unfortunate and unintended result of local residents' allowing insurgent fighters to use family homes to shoot at passing American patrols." Using a similar logic, First Lt. Adam P. Mathes, the executive office of the company involved, argued against issuing an apology to local residents for the incident. Mathes advocated that instead they should issue a warning to Haditha residents, that the incident was "an unfortunate thing that happens when you let terrorists use your house to attack our troops." The Merriam Webster dictionary defines terror as "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population. ..." The incident at Haditha was just such a violent act, and was one of about 100 that day that Lt. Mathes hoped would intimidate the population of Haditha and other towns in Iraq from continuing to support insurgents. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that the "sectarian violence" is over-hyped, it is meant to make you think that all of the deaths are cause by the infighting - when in reality they are being killed by U.S. led forces. My question to the American people is simple - how long are you willing to let this go on? Is there no conscience? No rule of law? No voice of the people! THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED NOW!
Posted at 10:45 am by deadringer
Permalink
7.5.2007
ABANDONING PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION FOR EMPIRE
 (James Madison "Father Of The Constitution") There has been much debate about when the United States took its fateful voyage from that of People's Revolution to one of Empire. Some have posited it early as the Spanish American War, others have placed this departure after WW2 and the build-up of the National Security State. I place it before and immediately after the American Revolution.
In fact, I maintain that with the "founding fathers," and their statements regarding the nature of the New Nation, that this was their aim even before the Revolution. In other words, all of their documents, their recorded statements, the inflaming of the passions of the people, that their aim was an empire to span the world. So you are going to read something here that you were never taught in your traditional classroom.
(George Washington)
You can see it in the descriptions that they attribute to the new country, take for instance some of the statements of George Washington. Who characterized the new country as an empire as "God's American Israel," and that their "mission" was to be a "trustee under God of the civilization of the world." You find abundant similar statements out of the founders of the republic.
Consider that all of the leaders were men of means, and that in the penning of the Constitution there was not one statement which accrued to the benefit and protection of the people - having to be forced in amendments by the people where initially not one "father" voted in favor of such protections for the people, it had to be forced on them. In fact, in the very deliberations found among those who wrote the constitution, the father of the said document, James Madison who spoke in the Federalist paper #10 of the "leveling impulses" that had to be discouraged among the people.
 When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000. The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward. Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too. Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands.
The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves. So much for the grand early American life! 
These framers of the Constitution wanted three things - a stronger central government for trade (in order to deal with other countries) and interstate commerce, and the last reason, the one left out by your teachers - A STRONGER GOVERNMENT TO PUT DOWN INSURRECTIONS AND REBELLIONS AMONG THE POPULATION, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE RESTLESS. In fact, people tried to take over state governments, there was broad agitation. THE WEALTHY WANTED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS, NATIONAL CONTROL.
Shay's rebellion, from whence did this rebellion arise? You would think that we were the ideal country by what is portrayed in school text books. No, the revolution did not bring about an egalitarian society. Most were farmers and servants trying to raise themselves out of oppressive debt, in such soil Shay's rebellion took place. Heavy rents, ruinous taxes, and low income were the lot of most 10 years after the war for "independence." Food riots, beggars in the streets, insurrections attempting to take over state governments.
After Shay's rebellion was put down, there were some very telling words spoken by General Henry Knox to George Washington - " They see the weakness of the government; they feel at once their own poverty, compared to the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter in order to remedy the former. Their creed is that the property of the U.S. has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore should be the common property of all."
So the empire expands first internally with the genocide of the indigenous population, and than within proximity over sea, and finally internationally to the present day. The 19th century United States: Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, acquisition of the Florida's, Mexican War and Oregon territory, establishment of Caribbean and Pacific interests, and the subsequent emergence at the end of the century, with the Spanish American War and Philippine conquest, of the United States as a global power. We end at 1904 with a United States fully involved in Asia (Open Door Policy) and having acquired an overseas empire based on Spanish possessions from the original Columbian-era out thrusts (Caribbean and Philippines).
Empire came in the name of "Interventionism." Although US investment and influence had grown through the 19th century, European ties remained of greater importance for most Latin American nations. However, beginning in 1898, a few key events catapulted the US into a much greater role in the Latin American arena. The War of 1898 [Spanish-American War], the US gained real estate in the Caribbean. We took over Puerto Rico from Spain. Historians debate the exact mix of causes for the war, however it was the expansion of the Empire, plain and simple.
 ("Faces Of American Empire, Lies, Greed, Hubris, Fear - by Garcilazo) We can progress through the expansion of the Empire, unable to stop and thrusting itself and the people into two world wars, where America begins to don the mantle of Empire from it's European counterparts. To the present with over 700 military bases throughout the world, devouring what it can as swiftly as possible to the present day Middle Eastern debacles. The cost of the whole sordid affair being the enrichment mostly a the few elite whom this government is an exclusive franchise for, and to the destruction of people domestically and abroad.
SO THE SUSPICIONS AND THE FEARS FROM THE BEGINNING WERE FOUNDED, AMERICA FROM IT'S INFANCY CARRIED DREAMS OF EMPIRE IN THE VERY BOSOM OF IT'S SO-CALLED FOUNDING FATHERS. IT CUT LOOSE THE TIE IMMEDIATELY FROM A PEOPLES REVOLUTION TO SET SAIL AT THE DESIRE OF AN ELITE AS AN EMPIRE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR WHAT IT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING, WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE ISOLATED AND EXPLOITED ON IT'S OWN SOIL (OR SHOULD I SAY ON THE SOIL OF THE PEOPLE IT WAS INTENT ON GENOCIDING).
CERTAINLY THERE HAS BEEN DEMOCRATIC STRUGGLE, AND SOME VICTORIES HAVE BEEN WON FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT ALL IS BAD IN AMERICA BUT WHAT IS GOOD HAS ONLY COME FROM THE DEMOCRATIC ACTION OF THE PEOPLE (THE DEMOS) BUT THEY ARE ALL TENUOUS UNTIL THE PEOPLE REALIZE WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IN THIS COUNTRY. NOW IT SEES ITSELF AS THE PAX AMERICANA, BUT IT IS BECOMING A POX AMERICANA TO IT'S OWN PEOPLE AND CONTINUES TO PLAY THE ROLE OF EMPIRE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD - WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE WAKE UP AND RETURN TO A PEOPLES REVOLUTION?
Posted at 08:42 pm by deadringer
Permalink
7.1.2007
ACADEMIC INJUSTICES - FASTING FOR JUSTICE AT DEPAUL
During the course of the denial of tenure to Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee's at DePaul University there have been students that have protested with sit-in's, during graduation, and now with classic fasting. One of these students (actually there is more than one) who has written an article, gives us a view of the value of Dr. Finkelstein's teaching and scholarly work saying that he is worthy of tenure.
I have chosen to duplicate one of these articles originally written in Counterpunch HERE. Daniel Klimek does an outstanding job of not only personal testimony but in exposing what is a trend in America's academic institutions today. He does this by not only personal experience, but in reciting for us Dr. Finkelstein's scholarly accomplishments. While reading this one not only gets the sense of the injustice done to Dr. Finkelstein, but the damage done to the image of higher learning in the United States.
(Mon. John Egan)
"Is this not the fast that I choose:to lose the bonds of injustice." -- Isaiah 58:6 "Each day of this week, while walking through the campus of DePaul University, I passed a statue in front of the university's Student Center of Monsignor John Egan, the late Catholic priest and human rights activist. Below his massive image, the inscription reads: "What are you doing for justice?" "Fasting," I tell myself. As of Friday I, and several other dedicated students, will officially go without eating anything for over 100 hours, five days of fasting and going strong in protest of the university's blatant attack on academic freedom and disregard for our education. That education, which costs over $20,000 a year, has been undermined and put to shame by President Dennis Holtschneider's decision to deny tenure to Professors Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee, two of the most respected and inspirational professors on campus.  Each day, while conducting our fast in the Student Center, we have received support from the surrounding community, both close and distant. Individuals passing by, from strangers to more students, to DePaul faculty, to faculty from other Chicago universities, have all voluntarily acknowledged the injustice that has taken place at our school, deciding therefore to sit with us and to encourage our efforts of activism. The reason that this injustice has attracted so much attention and support is clear: the implications do not just touch DePaul but the entire academic community, for they display what a sad state of affairs can exist within the American university, that so-called bastion of open thought and ideas. It is absolutely astonishing to have to acknowledge the troubling truth underneath the reality that such an eminent and courageous scholar like Norman Finkelstein can be refused tenure. Dr. Finkelstein's books are international bestsellers that have been translated into 46 foreign editions, more than the work of the entire faculty of DePaul's School of Liberal Arts and Sciences combined. His contributions to Middle Eastern studies are monumental both to our country and to our culture. However, it is no secret that the ideological, pro-Israeli bias of our government has historically penetrated other societal venues as well, such as academia, therefore influencing "scholarship."  When Joan Peters explained to millions of Americans that there, in actuality, is no such thing as a Palestinian, writing the highly successful book From Time Immemorial and, in the process, distorting Middle Eastern history for our manipulated masses, a graduate student at Princeton exposed her work as a colossal hoax. Documenting the hoax, he reestablished an honest debate on Zionism and awakened the conscience of deceived audiences.
That student was Norman Finkelstein.
When Daniel Jonah Goldhagen purported that the secret of the Nazi Holocaust resided in the theory that ordinary Germans were driven to murder by fanatical anti-Semitism, writing the greatly successful book Hitler's Willing Executioners, a scholar exposed the misrepresentations of sources and contradictions within Goldhagen's argument. That same scholar authored The Holocaust Industry, the international bestseller that Raul Hilberg, the most distinguished historian on the Nazi Holocaust, has hailed as "a breakthrough" in the field.
That breakthrough came from Norman Finkelstein.
When Alan Dershowitz argued to millions that Israel is a beacon of democracy and an almost ideal abider of human rights, in the vastly successful book The Case for Israel, a professor at DePaul exposed the book as a monumental fraud, plagiarized excessively from the Joan Peters tract and falsifying the human rights record in the Occupied Territories. Documenting the fraud through excessive detail and observance from the world's mainstream human rights organizations-Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem-the DePaul professor again, through muckraking scholarship deserving of a Pulitzer, reestablished an honest debate on the Middle East by exposing another distorter of history and rebuffing all of his falsifications.
That DePaul professor was Norman Finkelstein, whose contributions to the scholarship of our time is irreplaceable and whose perpetual battle for social justice is a commendable example for all scholars and students to follow.
 Dr. Finkelstein was a professor of mine in the winter quarter of 2007 at DePaul. I soon found out that he is as exceptional of a professor as he is a scholar, thought-provoking, challenging, and inspirational. His extraordinary student evaluations speak for themselves. After only taking one class, I decided to write a letter nominating Dr. Finkelstein for the 2007 LA&S Excellence in Teaching Award, DePaul's most prestigious teaching award. I heard it was not the first time he was nominated.
Yet, this professor, who has impacted history so greatly as a scholar and who has influenced students' minds so abundantly as a teacher, has trouble receiving tenure at DePaul University. Somewhere on the East Coast, however, an exposed plagiarist sits securely in his position as Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Talk about social justice in American academia. At the same time, after denying tenure, President Holtschneider shamelessly proclaimed, "Academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul." George Orwell must've rolled in his grave."
Daniel Klimek is a student of political science at DePaul, and former student of Prof. Finkelstein. He can be reached at: dpk24g@gmail.comWHAT ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS EMBRACE IN AMERICA, FOREIGN STUDENTS PROTESTRIOTSTUDENTS AT G8UNIVERSITY CAMPUS IN OAXACATAKE A PILLGRAND ILLUSIONSTHE STRUGGLE FOR HISTORY - PART 1THE STRUGGLE FOR HISTORY - PART 2HOW CAN YOU KNOW ANYTHING WITH MASSIVE SECRECY?NO MORE SERVITUDE Who, Who do you serve?
For whose empire and for whose whims?
Is your honor judged by men?
Will you lie?
Will you lie if they say it's their will?
Will you die or continue to kill?
Until the generals all ahve their fill
Craven Cowards
Armchair Warriors
You will serve Them well
What, what will you write?
For whose pleasure, for whose delight?
Will your readers see your light?
Will you say...That the singer can't blow you away?
That we hate people just 'cause they're gay
Women and children all stay away
To whom, whom do you pray?
Do dollars wash your sins away?
Does God love cold hard cash?
Do you say...If we all just continue to pay
All our ailments will go away
And our souls will be saved
God's not with you
"Holy Roller"
Your heart dwells in Hell
Why, Why do you run?
Our awareness has spoiled your fun
Our eyes see you too clear
Will you hide
From the joy of expressing our pride
For the leaders and people who've died
While combating your genocide
Chains are breaking
Minds are waking
Soon we'll serve no more...
Posted at 08:39 pm by deadringer
Permalink
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
