|
|
 |
 |
8.26.2007
EDUCATION IN THE AMERICAN EMPIRE - GET AN EDUCATION?!
To gain a grasp of real history, it is hard to find anything better than Howard Zinn's, A Peoples History Of The United States. So lets take an excerpt from his chapter called "Robber Baron's And Rebels," and see what he has to say.
"This was not just a whim of the 1880's and 1890's -it went back to the founding fathers, who had learned their law in the era of Blackstone's Commentaries, which said: "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the lest violation of it; no, not even for the common good of the whole community."
 (Twelve year old spinner, 1910 by Lewis Hine) Control in modern times requires more than force, more than law. It requires that a population dangerously concentrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught that all is right as it is. And so, the schools, the churches, the popular literature taught that to be rich was a sign of superiority, to be poor a sign of personal failure, and that only way upward for a poor person was to climb into the ranks of the rich by extraordinary effort and extraordinary luck.
In those years after the Civil War, a man named Russell Conwell [interesting name huh?], a graduate of Yale Law school, a minister, and author of best-selling books, gave the same lecture, "Acres of Diamonds," more than five thousand times to audiences across the country, reaching several million people in all. His message was that anyone could get rich of he tried hard enough, that everywhere, if people looked closely enough, were "acres of diamonds." A sampling: I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich. . . The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly . . . ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. The is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest men. . . . I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins . . . is to do wrong. . . . let us remember there is not a poor person in the United Stated who was not made poor by his own shortcomings. . .  Conwell was a founder of Temple University. Rockefeller was a donor colleges all over the country and helped found the University of chicago. Huntington, of the Central Pacific, gave money to two Negro colleges, Hampton Institute and Tuskegee Institute. Carnegie gave money to colleges and to libraries. Johns Hopkins wan founded by a millionaire. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Ezra Cornell, James Duke, and Leland Stanford created universities in their own names.
The rich, giving part of their enormous earnings in this way, became known as philanthropists. These educational institutions did not encourage dissent; they trained the middlemen in America system-the teachers, doctors, lawyers, administrators, engineers, technicians, politicians-those who would be paid to keep the system going, to be loyal buffers against trouble.  In the meantime, the spread of public school education enabled the learning of the writing, reading and arithmetic for a whole generation of workers, skilled and semiskilled, who would be the literate labor force of the new industrial age. It was important that these people learn obedience to authority. A journalist observer of the schools in the 1890's wrote: "The unkindly spirit of the teacher is strikingly apparent: the pupils, being completely subjugated to her will, are silent and motionless, the spiritual atmosphere of the classroom is damp and chilly."
Back in 1859, the desire of mill owners in the town of Lowell that their workers be educated was explained by the secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education: The owners of factories are more concerned than other classes and interests in the intelligence of their laborers. When the latter are well-educated and the former are disposed of deal justly, controversies and strikes can never occur, nor can the minds of the masses be prejudiced by demagogues and controlled by temporary and factious considerations.

Joel Spring, in his book Education and the Rise of the Corporate State, says: "The development of a factory-like system in the nineteenth-century schoolroom was not an accidental."
This continued into the twentieth century, when William Bagley's Classroom Management became a standard teacher training text, reprinted thirty times. Bagley said: "One who studies educational theory aright can see in the mechanical routine of the classroom the educative forces that are slowly transforming the child from a little savage into a creature of law and order, fit for the life of civilized society."
 It was in the middle and late nineteenth century that high schools developed as aids to the industrial system, that history was widely required in the curriculum to foster patriotism. Loyalty oaths, teacher certification, and the requirement of citizenship were introduced to control both the educational and the political quality of teachers. Also, in the latter part of the century, school officials-not teachers-were given control over textbooks. Laws passed by the states barred certain kinds of textbooks. Idaho and Montana, for instance, forbade textbooks propagating "political" doctrines, and Dakota Territory ruled that school libraries could not have "partisan political pamphlets or books.""
In Dr. Edward Said's last volume, On Late Style, he does a critique on the content and style of Gramsci. In Italy there was a great division between the north and the south, so that when they were unified there was this great gap still apparent in the economic, social, and political actualities. Of interest in his critique is the cogent way he speaks of "intermediaries" and their purpose, which is no different in the United States today:

"What the unification of Italy did to places like Sicily, Naples, and Sardinia was to arrest and distort, then to isolate them in their lopsided social, economic, and certainly political actualities. To Gramsci, then, the south appears, he says memorably, like a vast social disintegration: a large mass of destitute and oppressed peasants are preyed on by a class of parasitic intermediaries (priests, teachers, tax collectors) on behalf of a small group of land owners."
Dr, Edward W. Said, On Late Style, pg. 101
Indeed, if you do not see this as America's past, which had receded for a short period of time in ferocity, but is now moving full steam ahead presently, you have no idea of what is going on. Unless you understand these basic realities you will become the victims, aren't you tired of this? The question is how long will the people allow this to be a present reality?
Posted at 08:52 am by deadringer
Permalink
8.23.2007
SKEWED SCIENCE, COLONIALISM AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
 Today I am approaching a subject that by no means is new, but is being used to a greater degree to justify actions which are detrimental to mankind. It is not limited to one religious group, and yet at the same time can produce disastrous results, death and destruction in the name of a "god(s)" whoever it might be. Of course, there are many who do things in the name of some god who are just plain cynical, and those who attach to atrocious acts a tenuous "faith" at best. We will not be dealing with scientific method as much as the appropriation of either valid science or invalid science for questionable purposes, for less than humane purposes - or, the popularization of science for the benefit of any specific group and the detriment of another.
Because of the the sheer volume of such activity, some stamping their "beliefs" with so-called empirical science and justifying atrocities, I will limit the post to certain activities, at best take a cursory look at other examples for comparison, and by no means will I exhaust the topic. When men do bad things they always must attribute such to a higher purpose, this to enlist other men and also attempt to escape condemnation.
 (al-nakba) From the so-called "science" of yesteryear which tried to say that some men were inferior, and therefore needed to be controlled, shaped and molded, in order to become an "advanced people" - colonialism. To the misappropriation of valid science, evolution to social Darwinism as a further excuse to "tame the world." Men who take advantage of and exploit racism trying to tie it to saying certain people are inferior, the entire curve from tribalism which is supposed to be inadequate to statism (fascism, what have you) which is smothering. A thin veiling mask of natural selection to cover up blatant domination and exploitation.
The substitution of technology for culture, which merely is a shift from anthropocentric society to artificial objects. The same technology in the hands of a few so that even though humanity may benefit from the technological advance, it is used merely to enrich the few. An equal race between things which may indeed benefit mankind with ways in which to kill more people faster. Virtually any science, valid or invalid can be used inappropriately.
 Sometimes we think we have advanced, but men find new ways to oppress one another, and just keep recycling old ways. Take the Israel/Palestinian conflict as an example - here a nation uses the science of archeology. It has been shoved into the spotlight recently by a tenure dispute, with pressure brought from the outside. A Professor at Columbia's Bernard College, Nadia Abu El-Haj the assistant professor of anthropology gets accosted for stating the obvious - the misappropriation of archeology to fuel an illegal occupation of the Palestinians.
One must ask with all candor, do the Zionists claim ownership through some archaeological digs during the tearing down of Palestinian homes or afterwords? This attempt to "reclaim" some ancient footprint while removing the current one of the Palestinians. So, let's look for a moment at a hypothetical - even if there are ancient Israeli artifacts found on Palestinian land how does this automatically translate into the Palestinians being ethnically cleansed and a Zionist population replacing them? In short hand, it does not.

(Israeli colonial settlers in Hebron) Israel Finkelstein, professor of archeology at the University of Tel Aviv says Biblical archeology has been popular in Israel since the nation's founding in 1948. As Jews poured into Israel from all over Europe following the Holocaust, the "national hobby" helped newcomers build a sense of belonging. "There was a need to give something to the immigrants, to the melting pot," says Finkelstein. "Something to connect them to the ground, to history, to some sort of legacy."
Yet - "In Israel, biblical archeology was used to justify illegal settlement policy," says Hamdan Taha, director general of the Palestinian Authority's department for antiquities and cultural heritage. "Land was confiscated in the name of God and archeology. It's still going on with the construction of bypass roads and the building of the separation wall inside the Palestinian land."
 The archaeologists sought out Old Testament sites and renamed places according to biblical tradition, in effect "recasting the landscape of the West Bank" in biblical terms, says Columbia University anthropologist Nadia Abu el-Haj, author of Facts on the Ground, a history of Israeli archeology. Those terms, she says, "the [West Bank] settlers now pick up."
In 2005, Ariel Sharon said the tomb justified the Israeli presence in the West Bank. "No other people has a monument like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, where Abraham and Sarah are buried," he told the Israeli journalist Ari Shavit. "Therefore, under any agreement [on the West Bank], Jews will live in Hebron."
 Other contested sites include Joseph's tomb in Nablus and Rachel's tomb in Bethlehem. "It's not real archeology," Finkelstein says. "It's based on later traditions."
However, it is not only Palestinians that question what is taking place: In 1999, Ze'ev Herzog, a Tel Aviv University colleague of Finkelstein's, convulsed the Israeli public with an article in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Ha'aretz asserting that archaeologists had shown definitively that the biblical narrative of the Israelites' origins was not factual. Outraged letters poured into the newspaper; politicians weighed in; conferences were organized so the distressed public could quiz the archaeologists. But once the issues were addressed, feelings cooled. However, that does not mean that the same process is not taking place, using the archaeological spade as an excuse or a justification for criminal acts.
 (Christian Zionists in the Holy Land) So the West and Israel constantly try to mold the vision, particularly in the United States, of the "biblical" holy land - and archeology has been used as such - to crystallize for "Christians" in the West that Israeli's and the holy land setting are the only two things that belong together - Palestinians are merely shrugged off as interlopers. This is important because the place where the most support for Israel is found is among fundamentalist Christians (outside of other Zionist Jews), and the United States is where Israel gets it's biggest check.
In fact, "biblical" archeology is used as a way to silence Palestinian history. It is a "nationalist archeology," that builds that bridge to an intrusive and brutal occupation, connecting the ancient past with the colonial enterprise.

Sociologist Michael Feige of Ben-Gurion University, "but people don't give it that much thought." He adds that Israel's shifting priorities may account for the less impassioned view. "In the 1950s, there was a collective anxiety: What are we doing here? How do we justify it? The very essence of Israeli identity depended on the biblical, historical narrative." Of course, this was just after the Nakba (1948), that brutal and murderous ethnic cleansing which dispossessed over 750,000 Palestinians. The biblical concept being used by the Zionists has politically spread from the Likud party, to labor, and from right wing extremists to so-called liberals.
Ben-Nun and others in the settlers' movement emphatically agree with the views of Adam Zertal and other biblical literalists. At the settlement of Elon Moreh, on a hill above Nablus, a sign quotes Jeremiah 31:5: "Again you shall plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria." Menachem Brody, who emigrated from Maine to Israel 28 years ago and raised a family there, runs archeology tours supporting the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. On one such tour, passing through numerous army checkpoints in the occupied West Bank, he traced the Way of the Patriarchs, the road traveled by Abraham according to Genesis. Later, Brody stood in his own vineyard, which he planted to fulfill the Jeremiah prophecy, and said of Zertal's discovery: "It's the find of the century. Before, it was just a pile of stones, and it was only when we came to live here that somebody found it."
 (Israeli settlers show no mercy to the Palestinians)
This is hardly "objective" scholarship in the context of it's use. Anyone, with a modicum of sense can see what is happening, and how archeology is being used as a tool of domination - a justification, preying upon people with arcane biblical texts. We have a patent problem here, lets get real folks. For those who want to argue, lets stop pontificating about scientific activity lifting it from the "context on the ground." We need to understand that scholars like Nadia Abu El-Haj would not receive such resistance if she did not know what she was talking about, and that by far we need to counterbalance the propaganda of a media machine here in the United States that wishes to bury the Palestinians and exalt the brutal and murderous occupying forces, all in the name of the biblical archaeological spade, and will use any means at their disposal - even if it means skewing science.
Posted at 10:08 pm by deadringer
Permalink
8.22.2007
THE GREAT MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
 I have mentioned a number of times on this blog that the Middle East Peace Process has been nothing but a scam, hoisted upon the Palestinian people by the Israelis leadership and the United States. It is interesting to note (at least for me) that I am not the only one who holds this view, but none other than Henry Siegman is of the same persuasion. The only difference being that Mr. Siegman is the director of the US/Middle East Project, and served as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 to 2006, was head of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994.
"When Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush met at the White House in June, they concluded that Hamas's violent ousting of Fatah from Gaza – which brought down the Palestinian national unity government brokered by the Saudis in Mecca in March – had presented the world with a new 'window of opportunity'.[*] (Never has a failed peace process enjoyed so many windows of opportunity.) Hamas's isolation in Gaza, Olmert and Bush agreed, would allow them to grant generous concessions to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, giving him the credibility he needed with the Palestinian people in order to prevail over Hamas.
 Both Bush and Olmert have spoken endlessly of their commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is their determination to bring down Hamas rather than to build up a Palestinian state that animates their new-found enthusiasm for making Abbas look good. That is why their expectation that Hamas will be defeated is illusory. Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel's dismemberment of Palestinian territory. In the end, what Olmert and his government are prepared to offer Palestinians will be rejected by Abbas no less than by Hamas, and will only confirm to Palestinians the futility of Abbas's moderation and justify its rejection by Hamas. Equally illusory are Bush's expectations of what will be achieved by the conference he recently announced would be held in the autumn (it has now been downgraded to a 'meeting'). In his view, all previous peace initiatives have failed largely, if not exclusively, because Palestinians were not ready for a state of their own. The meeting will therefore focus narrowly on Palestinian institution-building and reform, under the tutelage of Tony Blair, the Quartet's newly appointed envoy.
In fact, all previous peace initiatives have got nowhere for a reason that neither Bush nor the EU has had the political courage to acknowledge. That reason is the consensus reached long ago by Israel's decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority.
 The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel's interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon, is 'to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people'. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.
Anyone familiar with Israel's relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza's situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants.
 Israel's disingenuous commitment to a peace process and a two-state solution is precisely what has made possible its open-ended occupation and dismemberment of Palestinian territory. And the Quartet – with the EU, the UN secretary general and Russia obediently following Washington's lead – has collaborated with and provided cover for this deception by accepting Israel's claim that it has been unable to find a deserving Palestinian peace partner. Just one year after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan, a former IDF chief of staff who at the time was minister of defence, described his plan for the future as 'the current reality in the territories'. 'The plan,' he said, 'is being implemented in actual fact. What exists today must remain as a permanent arrangement in the West Bank.' Ten years later, at a conference in Tel Aviv, Dayan said: 'The question is not "What is the solution?" but "How do we live without a solution?"' Geoffrey Aronson, who has monitored the settlement enterprise from its beginnings, summarises the situation as follows: Living without a solution, then as now, was understood by Israel as the key to maximising the benefits of conquest while minimising the burdens and dangers of retreat or formal annexation. This commitment to the status quo, however, disguised a programme of expansion that generations of Israeli leaders supported as enabling, through Israeli settlement, the dynamic transformation of the territories and the expansion of effective Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River.
 In an interview in Ha'aretz in 2004, Dov Weissglas, chef de cabinet to the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the strategic goal of Sharon's diplomacy as being to secure the support of the White House and Congress for Israeli measures that would place the peace process and Palestinian statehood in 'formaldehyde'. It is a fiendishly appropriate metaphor: formaldehyde uniquely prevents the deterioration of dead bodies, and sometimes creates the illusion that they are still alive. Weissglas explains that the purpose of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the dismantling of several isolated settlements in the West Bank, was to gain US acceptance of Israel's unilateralism, not to set a precedent for an eventual withdrawal from the West Bank. The limited withdrawals were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank, and that is what they achieved. In a letter to Sharon, Bush wrote: 'In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.'
In a recent interview in Ha'aretz, James Wolfensohn, who was the Quartet's representative at the time of the Gaza disengagement, said that Israel and the US had systematically undermined the agreement he helped forge in 2005 between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and had instead turned Gaza into a vast prison. The official behind this, he told Ha'aretz, was Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser. 'Every aspect' of the agreement Wolfensohn had brokered 'was abrogated'.
 Another recent interview in Ha'aretz, with Haggai Alon, who was a senior adviser to Amir Peretz at the Ministry of Defence, is even more revealing. Alon accuses the IDF (whose most senior officers increasingly are themselves settlers) of working clandestinely to further the settlers' interests. The IDF, Alon says, ignores the Supreme Court's instructions about the path the so-called security fence should follow, instead 'setting a route that will not enable the establishment of a Palestinian state'. Alon told Ha'aretz that when in 2005 politicians signed an agreement with the Palestinians to ease restrictions on Palestinians travelling in the territories (part of the deal that Wolfensohn had worked on), the IDF eased them for settlers instead. For Palestinians, the number of checkpoints doubled. According to Alon, the IDF is 'carrying out an apartheid policy' that is emptying Hebron of Arabs and Judaising (his term) the Jordan Valley, while it co-operates openly with the settlers in an attempt to make a two-state solution impossible.
A new UN map of the West Bank, produced by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, gives a comprehensive picture of the situation. Israeli civilian and military infrastructure has rendered 40 per cent of the territory off limits to Palestinians. The rest of the territory, including major population centres such as Nablus and Jericho, is split into enclaves; movement between them is restricted by 450 roadblocks and 70 manned checkpoints. The UN found that what remains is an area very similar to that set aside for the Palestinian population in Israeli security proposals in the aftermath of the 1967 war. It also found that changes now underway to the infrastructure of the territories – including a network of highways that bypass and isolate Palestinian towns – would serve to formalise the de facto cantonisation of the West Bank.
 These are the realities on the ground that the uninformed and/or cynical blather in Jerusalem, Washington and Brussels – about waiting for Palestinians to reform their institutions, democratise their culture, dismantle the 'infrastructures of terror' and halt all violence and incitement before peace negotiations can begin – seeks to drown out. Given the vast power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians – not to mention the vast preponderance of diplomatic support enjoyed by Israel from precisely those countries that one would have expected to compensate diplomatically for the military imbalance – nothing will change for the better without the US, the EU and other international actors finally facing up to what have long been the fundamental impediments to peace.
These impediments include the assumption, implicit in Israel's occupation policy, that if no peace agreement is reached, the 'default setting' of UN Security Council Resolution 242 is the indefinite continuation of Israel's occupation. If this reading were true, the resolution would actually be inviting an occupying power that wishes to retain its adversary's territory to do so simply by means of avoiding peace talks – which is exactly what Israel has been doing. In fact, the introductory statement to Resolution 242 declares that territory cannot be acquired by war, implying that if the parties cannot reach agreement, the occupier must withdraw to the status quo ante: that, logically, is 242's default setting. Had there been a sincere intention on Israel's part to withdraw from the territories, surely forty years should have been more than enough time in which to reach an agreement.
 Israel's contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a 'just and lasting peace' that will allow 'every state in the area [to] live in security', Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state's international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state's borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine's Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181's affirmation of the right of Palestine's Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if 'adjustments' are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel's side of that line, not the Palestinians'.
 Clearly, the obstacle to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict has not been a dearth of peace initiatives or peace envoys. Nor has it been the violence to which Palestinians have resorted in their struggle to rid themselves of Israel's occupation, even when that violence has despicably targeted Israel's civilian population. It is not to sanction the murder of civilians to observe that such violence occurs, sooner or later, in most situations in which a people's drive for national self-determination is frustrated by an occupying power. Indeed, Israel's own struggle for national independence was no exception. According to the historian Benny Morris, in this conflict it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. In Righteous Victims, Morris writes that the upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 'triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict.' While in the past Arabs had 'sniped at cars and pedestrians and occasionally lobbed a grenade, often killing or injuring a few bystanders or passengers', now 'for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centres, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed.' Morris notes that 'this "innovation" soon found Arab imitators.'
Underlying Israel's efforts to retain the occupied territories is the fact that it has never really considered the West Bank as occupied territory, despite its pro forma acceptance of that designation. Israelis see the Palestinian areas as 'contested' territory to which they have claims no less compelling than the Palestinians, international law and UN resolutions notwithstanding. This is a view that was made explicit for the first time by Sharon in an op-ed essay published on the front page of the New York Times on 9 June 2002. The use of the biblical designations of Judea and Samaria to describe the territories, terms which were formerly employed only by the Likud but are now de rigueur for Labour Party stalwarts as well, is a reflection of a common Israeli view. That the former prime minister Ehud Barak (now Olmert's defence minister) endlessly describes the territorial proposals he made at the Camp David summit as expressions of Israel's 'generosity', and never as an acknowledgment of Palestinian rights, is another example of this mindset. Indeed, the term 'Palestinian rights' seems not to exist in Israel's lexicon.
 (The new Middle East peace envoy) The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that 'Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.') That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN's partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel's side of the border. Barak rejected this. To be sure, in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League's peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.
 It is the failure of the international community to reject (other than in empty rhetoric) Israel's notion that the occupation and the creation of 'facts on the ground' can go on indefinitely, so long as there is no agreement that is acceptable to Israel, that has defeated all previous peace initiatives and the efforts of all peace envoys. Future efforts will meet the same fate if this fundamental issue is not addressed.
What is required for a breakthrough is the adoption by the Security Council of a resolution affirming the following: 1. Changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties. Unilateral measures will not receive international recognition. 2. The default setting of Resolution 242, reiterated by Resolution 338, the 1973 ceasefire resolution, is a return by Israel's occupying forces to the pre-1967 border. 3. If the parties do not reach agreement within 12 months (the implementation of agreements will obviously take longer), the default setting will be invoked by the Security Council. The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israel's security by preventing cross-border violence, and monitor and oversee the implementation of terms for an end to the conflict.
If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel's only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour."
(Khaled's Walweel's uncle runs while he bleeds to death, shot by IOF, blocked by Israeli IOF from reaching an ambulance)  (Deserted street in Balata, Israeli imposed curfew(s)) WE WILL NEVER SUBMIT!PALESTINE BY PATRIARCH
Posted at 01:46 am by deadringer
Permalink
8.19.2007
CREATION OF ACADEMIC SPEECH AND THOUGHT CRIMES
 "On July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us (Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was cancelling the event. He said he felt "extremely uncomfortable making this call" and that his decision did not reflect his personal views on the subject of our book. Instead, he explained that his decision was based on the need "to protect the institution." He said that he had a serious "political problem," because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative consequences for the Council. "This one is so hot," Marshall maintained, that he could not present it at a Council session unless someone from "the other side"—such as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League—was on stage with us. At the very least, he needed to present "contending viewpoints." But he said it was too late to try to change the format, as the fall schedule was being finalized and there would not be sufficient time to arrange an alternate date. He showed little interest in doing anything with us in 2008 or beyond." THE AIPAC SCHTICKFor an encore Israel gets another 30 BILLION dollars over the next 10 years 2008 to 2011, as compared to 24 BILLION dollars of the last ten years - this is a firm commitment to CONTINUE to let this lobby, and Israel, determine our policy in the Middle East - and it is unacceptable. You have a debacle in Iraq and an impending one waiting to occur with Iran, both encouraged by this current alliance and reliance on AIPAC and Israel to lead Middle east policy. Two men, two clear minded academics cannot even propose that the influence of this lobby, AIPAC, is too strong on American policy - they are CENSORED!
Individuals have insidiously cemented together this lobby, Israel, and the Jewish people and have boldly proclaimed that any criticism equals antisemitism. Like talking heads people in power walk around chanting a mantra - "I believe in the right of Israel to exist," as if the only other alternative implied is the utter destruction of Israel if you even try to criticize Israel's policies - this is sheer madness. Than thinking that you can apply some form of massive duct tape over the mouths of serious academics.

TIME IS RUINNG OUTAcademics wish to speak out yet they are censored by the most questionable means, by the the most cynical methodology. Yet the Pentagon war room is crowded as well as the Pentagon offices that like a "bordello on Saturday night, with Israeli intelligence officers, crowding out members of even their own Pentagon staff - full of Mossad, full of Israeli generals in the making of Iraq policy" (to use the words of James Petras).
However, we cannot allow two outstanding academics the room to speak to this most pressing issue. We have plenty of pro-Israeli influence pundits, news rooms, think tanks (stink tanks as I have called them), but dissenting academics are not allowed. These are not antisemites, they are not even necessarily anti-Israeli on their own domestic issues, but they believe that the influence of the lobby (AIPAC) in Washington is too great - and the influence in regard to Middle East policy has not been beneficial for the United States.

Near the seat of power you have a veritable who's who of Zionists who get the undivided attention of the powers that be. Those who influence are awash in dubious loyalties. Yet some deny this influence in the face of facts that are overwhelming - "its very strange that one says Wolfowitz was not influenced by the Israeli agenda when he was caught passing documents to Israel in the 1980's. And Douglas Feith lost his security clearance for handing documents to Israel. Elliott Abrams has written a book calling for maintaining the 'purity' of the Jewish race…" (James Petras).
Feith further put together the Office of Special Plans, you know, fabrication central about Iraq, and he was constantly in contact with the Israeli government on and hourly basis! When an ethnic group pushes a foreign government as having primacy in foreign policy that jeopardizes the lives of American people you cannot turn around and say they are just kooks that make bad policy decisions! You better think twice about saying when thousands of Americans are dying, when there are rifts with our allies, while close to a million Iraqis are dying and another debacle is looming with Iran, and as we alienate ourselves by such a brutish and ill conceived Middle East policy - "what's good for Israel is good for the United States."
 "On September 4, 2007, our book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy will be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, one of the most highly respected publishers in the United States. Through our publisher, the Council issued an invitation for both of us to speak at a session on September 27, 2007. We were delighted to accept, as each of us had spoken at the Council on several occasions in the past and knew we would attract a diverse and well-informed audience that would engage us in a lively and productive discussion."
We could go on about these embarrassments and how the United States alienates itself from the world by siding with Israel in it's occupational madness, constantly violating the Geneva Conventions and International Law. It lowers itself in getting involved in neo-colonial enterprises egged on by Zionist interest. When the vote comes up in the UN the United States repeatedly makes a fool out of itself siding with an occupation which the entire world abhors, the list goes on and on.

You could call what is happening to these fine scholars just the icing on the cake. Tenure denials are speeding up for those who do not spout the official line of support not only for this relationship with Israel and the crimes that are committed against the Palestinians, but on any deviation from the official government lines. Students are being made campus watchdogs, official agencies of the government are trying to confound criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, it has become a most illiberal atmosphere. SLOWLY DISSENT IS BEING CHOKED, CRITICAL THINKING IS BEING BANISHED - THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINS IS HOW LONG WILL THE PEOPLE PUT UP WITH THESE ATROCITIES?
LETTING THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVESIF AMERICANS KNEWTHE HERITAGE OF THE WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINETHE FINANCIAL AID DEBACLENO MORE THINK TANKS (STINK TANKS)HILLARY OVER THE TOP FOR AIPAC - SHE REFLECTS THE MAJORITY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS = NO INTENTION OF CHANGING ME DISASTEROUS COURSE (Your elected officials - AIPAC butterflies) THE UNTHINKING MAJORITYKILLING IN THE NAME ACADEMIC ORIENTALISM AND ZIONISMdisORIENTationPLANET OF THE ARABSTHE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 1THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 2THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 3THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 4THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 5THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, MEARSHEIMER AND WALT WORKING PAPER AN EVER PRESENT DANGER (Sharansky - for "democracy promotion ideas") DENIAL OF TENURE TO ME SCHOLAR AT BARNARD COLLEGE - HERE WE GO AGAINHOW THE LIGHT UNTO THE WORLD TREATS CHILDREN AT CHECKPOINTS (Lebanon)  (Gaza)  (Iraq/Fallujah) IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES?
Letter to Fadwa - by Kamal Nasir "If my song should reach you despite the blocked skies around us, it is because I've spread my wings to embrace your tortured span, because we share tragedy a dark destiny, and together we partake of memories, wishes, dreams. I am what you wanted me to be and what hardships have decreed. Rejecting humiliation, I've claimed my foothold over the clouds, bleeding till my wounds, tinted the summits with red. "I've loved my homeland, so my heart aspires joyously to brave the tides. Regret or cease? That could not be! Since when did a poet seek honor or regret? Sister, today you letter arrived, bright with your lofty spirit, bringing glad balm to my wounds and stirring my dormant pen to reply. Yes, I recall, I do recall our happy evenings, our carefree friends beneath the shading jasmine bushes, our wings open to joy, or folded with melancholy..... We talked until a dream took hold of us and we grasped its slumbering mirage. Yes, I remember how you spoke your poems, resplendent, proud and free on everyones lips, more beautiful than the impossible. Your songs, like sunrays in our country, feed us with desire and hope awakening to the sounds of struggle, the fluttering of banners raised high. I am still as you hoped I would be, sun's rays kissing my forehead as I walk, even alone, toward my goal. Desire for freedom is my cross; I thirst, though the cup is in my hand! Life seethes in my youthful veins yet I wander naked, seeking life for my wounded people, that they might live with happy pride, building their world. And you? Should my letter arrive and you find tears scattered among the lines, do not worry - great hopes must weep as they struggle to reach the heights. Tomorrow the night shall withdraw, humiliated, from our land, and the people abandon illusion, discovering their strength. Millions shall swear never to sleep while there be yet one foothold left for wolves, and through all the suffering they will yearn for that moment of reckoning truth. If my songs should reach you despite the narrow skies around me, remember that I will return to life, to the quest for liberty, remember that my people may call upon my soul and feel it rising again from the folds of the earth."
Posted at 10:49 am by deadringer
Permalink
8.16.2007
THE TRUE FUNCTION OF THE CAPITALIST STATE
 Now people are beginning to feel the heat, as the corrupt house of cards comes crashing down. It is a shame that it has to go this far, both domestic and foreign - millions threatened on the various continents through war and exploitation, and people losing their homes in the United States all for the enriching of the few. However this is just the tip of the iceberg, let me assure you we are not just entering another phase but there is a downward trend which the people pay for by allowing this country to continue on it's present course with either cosmetic change or no change at all.
The primary function of the capitalist state is to allow the accumulation of wealth for the few. First the state extracts surplus value from the labor of the people, extracting wealth from the many to enhance the few. The states second function is to protect the upward distribution of the wealth from the many to the few. The third function of the state is to protect the elite owning class from itself and the wrath of the people, so it does not kill the organism it feeds upon (this is the function I think this present administration is forgetting).
 (Walter Crane, Great Britan 1885)
Wealth comes from the natural resources of the planet, all of the resources on and beneath the earth, the sea - if they are harnessed they become wealth. The second is labor, it takes labor to add use value making the resources accessible and consumable - making them marketable, a commodity. This may seem elementary to some, but bear with me.
Those who possess surplus abundance, rather than sharing, become more possessive. The beginnings of the state and class society is the wish to protect the wealth that has been accumulated by the few. We have barely moved from early slavery which brought value to products by labor, to the present day - most who labor subsist upon a very small portion of what is produced.

Class society and conflict has been banished from modern political discussion, it is not merely (class) a sociological category (upper, middle, lower) but it is a dynamic interrelationship having to do with wealth. Class is a social relationship, there is no such thing as a class in isolation - you cannot have corporate CEO's without workers.
What distinguishes the two, is the means of production - there are those who own things and there are those who work for those who own things. People who do not own anything sell their labor power, that is the majority.
 (TH. A. Steinlen, France, 1894)
Capital comes in two forms, the material component and financial capital. The goal of the modern capitalist is not production, productivity, the goal is financial accumulation. This can take the form of maximizing production, or de-industrializing entire areas so no one can compete with whatever product or service. They are in the business not of producing anything, but of making the highest possible profit - to make sure that those who have get more.
Money is not merely a medium of exchange, sounds nice and neutral, but money is not neutral - within a capitalist system money is a means for extracting, multiplying and accumulating wealth. In the old days it consisted of land, crops, furs and so on, you could just accumulate so much - it (money) is a very flexible tool for wealth outside of material asset. Just like technology, which is not merely a neutral instrument (as technology has been portrayed), technology is developed in the framework of a social structure - it is owned by them (wealthy) and is used for surveillance, war, and self-promotion, etc.

(Franz Masereel, 1902, Belgium)
The impression given is that when there is more for the elite, the rich, that there is more for us - however, this is not true in the main (I am not talking about the small mom and pop business here). I am referring to the trans-national corporations, the place where 90% of the wealth resides. Great wealth creates great poverty, they are in a dynamic relationship - you cannot have great poverty without great wealth. Just like rich slaveholders had impoverished slaves, and lord's of the manor's had surfs, and you cannot have mega-corporations without workers who live from hand to mouth!
The wealthy translate their wealth into political power, into social control, and into cultural hegemony. Wealth will not stay put in any given region, but it will go abroad where it exploits for more natural resources, and finds cheaper labor - it will exit places like America and parts of Western Europe, where the workers make demands for things like a living wage do to true democratic actions (union, etc.), vacations, and health care, and pensions, etc. They go abroad where they can pay a dollar a day for labor, no controls, and the state makes sure that the foreign environment is fertile for maximum exploitation!

(Albert Hahn 1902)
Empire brings great wealth to the investing class and great expense to the people of the imperial nation. The process of empire is imperialism - imperialism is when the ruling interests of one country expropriates the land, labor, the natural resources, the markets, and the capital of another country - today they call it "globalization." The ruling class does the same to people in other countries as they do to people here.
The people are involved in empire in terms of it's cost - they, the few, get the benefits and we get the cost! We pay both the taxes and the blood, the empire always feeds off the republic - and this present empire has more power than ever. We, in the republic, have hospitals that are closing - public schools that are closing, where they do not have enough textbooks, and where the roofs are leaking!
Housing is so bad that we have hundreds of thousands of homeless, people are losing their homes, the infrastructure is crumbling, and we have beggars in the richest empire ever. States and cities go bankrupt, and human services disappearing at a record rate. Yet this administration proposed a military budget close to 800 billion dollars and hundreds of billions on top of that for an imperial war, with billions of dollars in contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton and other darling corporations! The murder of millions of people result from these activities.

The capitalist state which is there for the wealthy and elite, tell the working class to be self-reliant. All the while these corporations go to the public treasury, pulling out billions of dollars in equity subsidies, loan guarantees, export subsidies, research and development assistance, production-loss compensations, tax breaks - if mom and pop go out of business they just plain die as a concern. Hundreds of billions of dollars go from the poor workers to the fortune 500. In the face of all this the plutocrats tell the common people to stand on their own feet and stop going to the government.
Plutocracy also does not look with favor on public services - public housing, public health services, because you create jobs and tax base, answering human needs - but the plutocrats are not making a dime on it, so they hate the public sector. The goal is to "privatize" the public sector, because then the plutocrats get their pound of flesh! They get millions and billions of dollars through the privatization of the commons, etc.

These same plutocrats like beating up the defenseless, the low income, the disabled. They rape the environment, it is also unable to defend itself - they see those resources as theirs and they want to turn a quick buck on it, no matter how disastrous it is to the rest of us. The plutocracy loves deficit spending, they are the biggest spenders - you know, the people who call themselves conservatives. The deficit went from billions to trillions under the reign of these "conservatives" (Regan, Bush(s)). The government borrows from these people who have lots of money, other billionaires created abroad and domestic, and than it floats government bonds. Deficits and debts accomplish a great deal for the rich: it is a safe source of income for the creditor class. People with billions of dollars get an upward redistribution of income, from the millions who work to the few that are rich.
They lend billions to the government, and the people have to pay them back with interest! The federal budget is being privatized, the larger the debt the more goes to the rich. Than the debts become an excuse to cut the public sector service, it is a vicious circle as we get flushed down the toilet in the activity!

I could go on and on - so welcome to the the capitalist government for the rich, by the rich, and to hell with the people! This is the true function of capitalist government. Both democrats and republicans are capitalists in our system, two sides to the same coin, they live to enhance the rich in this capitalist nightmare. When we are ready to put a stop to this, than the powers that be will have to listen, because they ride on the shoulders of the people. ARE THE PEOPLE WAITING FOR EVERYTHING TO COLLAPSE BEFORE WE MOVE TO STOP THIS MAD COURSE?
REBIRTH OF A NATIONA RARE MOMENT OF TRUTHRICH MANS WARCAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 1CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 2CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 3CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 4CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 5PERSONAL CAPITALISTIC FALLOUT(Look at the stark contrast of lanscape) SOUND OF THE REPUBLICSMASH IT UPWHERE'S THE FUTURE?"God save the queen The fascist regime They made you a moron Potential H-bomb God save the queen She ain't no human being There is no future In England's dreaming Don't be told what you want Don't be told what you need There's no future, no future, No future for you God save the queen We mean it man We love our queen God saves God save the queen 'Cause tourists are money And our figurehead Is not what she seems
Oh God save history God save your mad parade Oh Lord God have mercy All crimes are paid When there's no future How can there be sin We're the flowers in the dustbin We're the poison in your human machine We're the future, your future God save the queen We mean it man We love our queen God saves God save the queen We mean it man And there is no future In England's dreaming No future, no future, No future for you No future, no future, No future for me No future, no future, No future for you No future, no future For you."
Posted at 08:17 pm by deadringer
Permalink
8.13.2007
WILL THERE BE A RUN ON THE BANKS?
 Will there a bank run? I have always shyed away from speculation, but as this corrupt system decays with time the faith of the people will be tried in this shaky system. Tied as the market is to the real estate market, and the ever-increasing demand for a piece of the "American Dream," when will people wake up to the illusion? This is an aticle written by Mike Whitney for the Information Clearing House.

"On Friday, the Dow Jone's clawed its way back from a 200 point deficit to a mere 31 point loss after the Federal Reserve injected $38 billion into the banking system. The Fed had already pumped $24 billion into the system a day earlier after the Dow plummeted 387 points. That brings the Fed's total commitment to a whopping $62 billion.
By some estimates, $326.3 billion has now been added to the G-7 Nations' intra-banking system to prevent a breakdown. That amount will rise considerably in the weeks ahead as the situation continues to deteriorate. Some readers may remember that on Tuesday, August 7, the Fed announced that it was NOT planning to bail out the market.
My, how quickly things change.
So far, economic pundits and CEOs have applauded the Fed's intervention as a "constructive" way of staving off an impending credit crisis.
 Are these same "experts" who always sing the praises of unregulated "free markets" while condemning any government intervention?
Yes.
The investment banks and fund mangers love "free markets" when it means eliminating the rules that prevent them to "gaming the system". But they don't like it so much when their shabby Ponzi-rackets start to unravel. Then they're the first in line to beg for a bailout.
That's what's happening right now. The Fed is keeping the stock market afloat by increasing liquidity at the banks. If it wasn't for Bernanke's billions of dollars of low interest credit---the banking system and stock market would collapse in a heap. The Fed's "not-so-invisible hand" is the only thing holding the whole dilapidated system in place.
Is that the way it's supposed to work in a free market system---with the Fed acting as the nation's Economic Central Planner intervening whenever it suits the interests of its wealthiest constituents?
Sounds more like a Financial Politburo, doesn't it?

In truth, the "free market" means nothing to the men who run the system. It's just a public relations scam designed to dupe investors into plunking their money into a system that's rigged for the carnivores at the top of the economic food-chain.
Does anyone really believe that the market-commissars would allow the system to operate according to the arbitrary swings in investor confidence and random speculation?
This is THEIR SYSTEM and they run it THEIR WAY. The only time that changes is when their twisted schemes go haywire and they need a handout from the taxpayer. In the present case, they are asking Big Brother Bernanke to bail them out on trillions of dollars of non-performing subprime garbage-loans which masquerade as securities in the secondary market. The Fed has already indicated that it is only-too-willing to help.
But what good will it do?
The banks are currently holding (roughly) $300 billion in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and another $225 billion in collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) More than one-half trillion dollars in debt which is essentially "illiquid" and has no clear market value. They could be worthless for all we know.
 That hasn't stopped the Fed riding to the rescue, buying up many of these toxic CDOs and increasing banking reserves so the great fractional banking con-game can continue unabated. This is what one astute observer called "alchemy finance".
Central banks around the world have opened up the liquidity spigots to avoid a global credit meltdown. But their efforts are bound to fail. The banks are sitting on huge losses from assets that they can't move through the pipeline and which have gobbled up their reserves. Bloomberg News summed it up like this: "The $2 trillion market for mortgages not backed by government-sponsored agencies is at a standstill".
The same is true of the corporate bond market. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:
"The investment grade corporate bond market HAS GROUND TO A HALT, making it difficult for companies to access capital and hard for investors to find a place to put their money to work. ….The problems in the primary market could, if they persist, throw a wrench in the workings of corporate America, making it tougher for companies to finance, among other things, investments, buyouts and equity buybacks….For July, corporate bond issuance was down 77% from June." ("Corporate Bond Market has come to a Standstill", Wall Street Journal)
 The mighty wheels of commerce have rusted in place. Nothing is moving. Only the sense of panic continues to grow. Trillions of dollars poisonous CDOs need to unwind, but the banks cannot put them up for bid for fear that they'll only get pennies on the dollar. This is what a slow-motion train-wreck looks like. The Fed's cheap credit won't help either. At best, it'll just buy a little time before the true value of these bonds is established and trillions of dollars in market capitalization vanish into cyber-space. Banks, equities, hedge funds, insurance companies and pension funds are all in line to suffer major losses.
The irony, of course, is that the Federal Reserve created this mess by lowering interest rates to 1% and flushing trillions of dollars into the economy. That cheap money created a series of lethal equity-bubbles in housing, credit, stocks and bonds which are quickly falling to earth. Expanding the money-supply might be a short-term fix, but it's really just throwing more gas on the fire. Why add hyper-inflation to the long-list of existing problems?
The volatility in the stock market is a red herring. We should be paying attention to the underlying problems which are just now beginning to surface. The banks have been originating loans and bundling them off to Wall Street to avoid the normal reserve requirements. Now they've been "caught short" and don't have adequate funding to cover their bets. If the Fed doesn't help out, we'll see at least one or two major bank closures.

This is a story that won't appear in the media. Bank-runs are the beginning of the end---financial Armageddon.
And there's more bad news, too. If the stock market corrects more than 10 or 15%, the massive overleveraged $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry will crash-and-burn. This may explain why the stock market has behaved so erratically recently. There have numerous late-day rallies with no good news to support the soaring equities prices. Is the market being micro-managed behind the scenes to keep it above a certain level?
Many people think so. There's been a flood of articles about the activities of the Plunge Protection Team's in the last two weeks. The Fed's desperate infusions of credit into the banking system will only reinforce growing suspicions of market manipulation.
DERIVATIVES DOWNDRAFT

Banks routinely hedge against adverse moves in the market by purchasing various types of insurance in the form of derivatives contracts. Derivatives trading has skyrocketed in the last few years and the "British Bankers Association estimated last fall that by the end of 2006, the market for all credit derivatives was $20 trillion and expected to be $33 trillion by the end of 2008."These relatively new instruments are about to be put to the test by worsening market conditions. "Hedge funds may account for as much as 30% of such credit protection" but that is little solace for the banks "because hedge funds that are losing money but also selling credit insurance may not be able to honor their commitments, rendering the protection worthless." ("Insuring against Credit Risk can carry risks of its own" Henny Sender, Wall Street Journal)
Credit insurance in the form of credit default swaps have created a false sense of security that may prove to be unfounded. In fact, the Credit insurance business has probably encouraged lenders to make shakier and shakier loans believing that they were protected from risk. But that doesn't appear to be the case. For example, Bear Stearns tried to soothe investor's fears during the collapse of its two hedge funds by pointing to its derivatives coverage.
"Bear executives repeatedly referred to their dependence on hedges, including credit derivatives, to offset their losses on subprime mortgages and loans to poorly rated companies, stating that such hedges would offset losses." (Ibid, H. Sender, Wall Street Journal)

We all know how that story ended up.
Derivatives have been celebrated as a critical part of the "new architecture of the financial markets". Now we can see that they are poor-performers under real-life conditions and liable to trigger an even greater disaster. If the stock market stumbles, we can expect a major breakdown in credit insurance-trading with trillions of dollars in derivatives disappearing overnight.
The abstruse world of derivatives trading will suddenly explode onto the headlines of newspapers across the country.
HOUSING BRUSHFIRE SWEEPS THROUGH THE ECONOMY
The contamination from the massive real estate bubble has now infected nearly every area of the broader market. The swindle which began at the Federal Reserve--with cheap, low interest credit---has spread through the entire system and is threatening to wreak financial havoc across the planet. The Fed's multi-billion dollar bailout will do nothing to contain the brushfire they started or avert the catastrophe that lies just ahead. Greenspan opened Pandora's Box and we'll all have to live with the consequences."
This is simply the chickens coming home to roost on this market. Imagine with me the billions of dollars that have been syphoned off for big business to line the pockets of the wealthy, and the billions is tax breaks that went to the rich. Things may be coming apart at the seams, and all of this while your "elected official" have been undoing the safty net for the people at break-neck speed - when the crash finally arrives guess who will be at the bottom?
Articles like this, that you will not find in the local news or on coporate media are constantly being published by Information Clearing House. See the original article HERE. Information Clearing House needs your support, please consider giving so you can read the real scoop of what is taking place in the world. Consider supporting them HERE throught PayPal.
Posted at 07:41 pm by deadringer
Permalink
8.11.2007
HOW THE RULING ELITE USE POLLS
 There are few methodologies that get used with such cynicism as polling. The majority of the population, particularly in the United States has no idea how and why polls are used by those who think they "know whats best for us," or should I say for themselves.
Polling was introduced by the PR industry as a tool for the control of the people, it is a "science" for measuring the direction or intent, the will of the people. What many do not understand is that he (or those) that controls the environment, what people see and hear, control the will of the people.

I am going to tell you EXACTLY what the purpose of polls are in the United States - in the sense of how the dominant media uses them. Granted, there are polls which are what you might call contrary polls, in the sense that they ask full questions, to a major and fair portion of the population, for the purpose of enlightening the people - but they are few. I am not saying if polls are good or not, I am just asking what are polls good for?
Always before a major poll is launched by the corporate media, there is a major campaign of concentrated propaganda repeatedly voiced through the major (major in the sense of the monopoly) media sources - national, such as NBC CBS CNN FOX, etc. Why? Because they wish to set a precedent of opinion, that is they try to garner authority through the majority, which has been influenced by the said propaganda blitz. This is layered, and can go on for a long period of time, to make sure that the right message is embedded in the psyche of the population.
 Only after the above is done, is there a poll taken, and that with specific questions related to the media propaganda. Essentially what the polls do is verify "how effective" the propaganda blitz has been. So, when a decision is taken by the powers that be, whatever the subject, they look legitimate - as if they are just following the major "view of the people." THAT is the major use of the poll in the weapon arsenal of the PR firms, and their cognate media sources. Mind you, this is an exact science, that has been perfected to manufacture the consent of the people (to use a phrase coined by Noam Chomsky).
So, whenever you look at polls, as used by the so-called "major sources" it is good that you keep the above scenario in mind. What polls are for the most part, is the way to measure how effective the propaganda blitz has been. Plain and simple, they are a synthetic methodology, used in a cynical fashion, by a ruling elite. The question they ask themselves is "have we been effective in this quest to move the will of the people?" (lets take a poll and see).
 This way they see if they can make their move, whatever that is, feeling they have influenced the people enough, or, whether they should go back to the drawing board, make some major or minor adjustments, or take a different course. The IMPRESSION that you are left with (not knowing what I told you above), "gee Marge, they really want to know what we think, isn't it grand to live in a democracy, they really care!" Or, an equally fallacious conclusion from the deception - "look Marge! Sixty five percent of the people agree with us, we are in the majority!"
You must also realize that society itself is set in motion with it's "challenges" to stack the deck, so to speak, to limit your sources - resources. The United States is set in motion with a break neck speed, to busy you to such a degree that you become exhausted. (Urban Rat Race - From the Schmitt-hall studios) What they count on is the fact that you will be so exhausted, trying to keep a roof over your head, put food on the table - the general nasty rat race, so that when you finally get home the only thing you will do is avail yourself of a "major" form of media like the corporate news. Hence, they have you by the balls, so to speak, and you fall into their environment from not only the necessary work schedule, but the forms of media that are so easy to use. There they are for you, after a hard days work, all you need to do is relax, press the remote, sit back and be inundated with their non-stop pounding propaganda drivel.
 The problem is that when polls are being taken, the damage is already done, the PR blitz has already calcified opinions. The deception of legitimacy permeates the "major corporate media." It is "news you can trust," and "fair and balanced," etc. So, remember these facts the next time you look and rely upon polls, the deck is stacked and the game is rigged. Polls are used in conjunction with big money, they are attached at the hip with popular media which is merely the driving force for the powers that be which rely on these PR giants.
Posted at 12:38 pm by deadringer
Permalink
8.9.2007
GENERATING GHETTOS WORLDWIDE - COMING SOON TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU
(Warsaw, Poland Jewish Ghetto 1940 from Yad Veshem)
Just in case you were not aware of it, America is famous for creating ghettos all throughout it's states. Now, this same process is being replicated all over the world. Granted, this is a picture of a Ghetto created by Nazi design in 1940 - but the same processes that created this one creates the present epidemic all over the world. Because you have to understand nothing else can be created with this system, it only recognizes the rich and substantial, and the rest of the people are cut off - sometimes in other nations they do not even build the middle class insulation, the fat, they don't have to - because there is no substantial democratic movement.
 Ghettos can be created in many ways, they can be mandated through a direct act of war, as found in the Nazi Ghettos of the 20th century. They can be created by a so-called liberation, which is just another war, reducing people to animalism through forced pauperism. They can be created through economic down swings through capitalistic design which as I mentioned above always enfranchises the few who feed off the many.
 Ghettos can come in the name of "progress" in any given nation. Where there were once factories that created little boom communities, these factories can disappear, so that the design of the corporation can be relealised in a foreign country for cheaper labor - all blessed by those in the government through legislation, and the exploitation then stalks the nations.
 Ghettos can suddenly appear through the application of international trade agreements. Where there were once farms run by families agri-corps rise up in their place. Where there were fishing villages refineries suddenly appear, or coastal homes for the rich and famous. The people are introduced to a new means of survival - drugs, and prostitution in the new exploitation of industrial jungles.
 Ghettos suddenly appear when a supposed government opens it's resources to other more "financially viable" countries. An aristocracy is created in a day, and an entire population is displaced, while the rulers become rich beyond their imaginations (and their chosen circle) while others are disenfranchised. In "previous" colonial enterprise people become dependent of created institutions, trading frameworks and armed forces from outside the region.
 Ghettos expand when their is racial prejudice, and a system of apartheid rears it's ugly head without seeming remedy. When one people see themselves as better and more deserving of life and liberty than another. It comes through racial hatred, or when countries are based merely upon an exclusionary preference.
 Ghettos proliferate when it is the design of a global elite to exploit a country or region for it's resources, whether they be material or human. They are the result of selfishness and greed, when humanity is seen as nothing more than chattel - a mere number, or when people are commodified by what they can contribute to an elite few.
 Ghettos appear when institutions which are supposed to be to the benefit of all become the soul province of the privileged few. When governments no longer chose to listen to their people, but to corporations which feed upon the poor. Ghettos thrive when there is merely equal opportunity in word but not in deed - when the educational tools for success are out of the reach of the needy. This is what is taking place at breathtaking speed in the United States - do you think anything else will be produced in other countries by leadership like this? The domestic carnage taking place in America will replicate itself in "client" nations.
 INDEED, GHETTOS BEGIN TO APPEAR ALL OVER THE WORLD WHEN A GLOBAL ELITE ARE LED BY A NATION, LIKE THE UNITED STATES WHICH EXCELS IN THEIR CREATION IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. WHEN THE WESTERN WORLD WHICH IS KNOWN FOR IT'S OWN APARTHEID PRACTICES SAYS IT IS GOING TO BRING THE REST OF THE WORLD PEACE AND PROSPERITY. STOP GHETTOS FROM SPREADING THROUGH THE DESIGN OF IMPERIALISM, WHOSE ENGINE IS CAPITALISM, THE COMBINATION OF WHICH IS FASCISM, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
WHAT IS PRODUCED WORLDWIDEYOU WILL GET WHAT YOU DESERVEMASTER OF PUPPETS(The spread of empire is worse than addiction) GHETTO GOSPELSTARVE THE GHETTO(From Queens to Iraq) DYING TO LIVEBORN DEADTHAT'S GLOBILIZATIONTHE CASE FOR REVOLUTION - AN INTERESTING VIDEOdPoetry Written In Gasoline
"Scrap the extras - Let's keep our eyes wide open Cut out the spareparts - Let's keep our eyes wide open Keep our eyes wide open
fuck the idol - Let's keep our eyes wide open Reject the star - Star, star, star Let's feed ourselves some - Let's keep our eyes wide open Destruction
Convention blackmails - Let's keep our eyes wide open Creativity - Yeah! Yeah! This lack of challange - Let's keep our eyes wide open Kills me, kills me, kills me, kills me
Scrap the extras - Let's keep our eyes wide open Cut out the spareparts fuck the idol, idol - Let's keep our eyes wide open Reject the star
The rhymes of revolution Poetry written in gasoline The rhymes of revolution Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Manipulate the obvious Cowards bought by traditionalist manners Scream at the herd that are heard the most Without substance and with useless... banners Banners, banners, banners
Your art, your art, is worth, is worth nothing Like a city with no meaning Like a city, with no meaning, with no meaning Your creation holds, holds no hope
The rhymes of revolution Yeah! Yeah! The rhymes of revolution Poetry written in gasoline Poetry written in gasoline Poetry written in gasoline Ah! Yeah! You had a witness over there"
POETRY WRITTEN IN GASOLINEBOMBSWHAT YOU DON'T SEE - THE BOMBING OF AFGHANISTANFUCK THE SYSTEM
Posted at 11:14 pm by deadringer
Permalink
8.7.2007
OCCUPATION 101 - A LINK TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY
Perhaps one of the finest documentaries on what is taking place in the current conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Palestinians. Now available in full -
Posted at 11:14 am by deadringer
Permalink
8.5.2007
PLANET PENTAGON - OR, THE TRAPPINGS OF EMPIRE
For those who have the quaint idea that there is no American Empire, one needs only to look at the Pentagons holdings and the massive amount of the budget that is swallowed by this beast. This is in contrast to anything, and I mean anything for the people - perhaps the next post will entail the amazing shrinking domestic budget, that brings such things as cities like New Orleans post-Katrina condition and collapsing bridges in Minnesota.
This artcle was written by Nick Turse associate editor and research director of Tom's Dispatch.com:
 How the Pentagon Came to Own the Earth, Seas, and Skies
"Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported on a proposal, championed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq in exchange for bipartisan Congressional support for the long-term (read: more or less permanent) garrisoning of that country. The troops are to be tucked away on "large bases far from Iraq's major cities." This plan sounded suspiciously similar to one revealed by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt in the New York Times on April 19, 2003, just as U.S. troops were preparing to enter Baghdad. Headlined "Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq," it laid out a U.S. plan for: a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to…. perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north. "Shortly thereafter, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, denied any such plans: "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting…" – and, while the bases were being built, the story largely disappeared from the mainstream media.
Even with the multi-square mile, multi-billion dollar, state-of-the-art Balad Air Base and Camp Victory thrown in, however, the bases in Gates' new plan will be but a drop in the bucket for an organization that may well be the world's largest landlord. For many years, the U.S. military has been gobbling up large swaths of the planet and huge amounts of just about everything on (or in) it. So, with the latest Pentagon Iraq plans in mind, take a quick spin with me around this Pentagon planet of ours. 
Garrisoning the Globe
In 2003, Forbes magazine revealed that media mogul Ted Turner was America's top land baron -- with a total of 1.8 million acres across the U.S. The nation's ten largest landowners, Forbes reported, "own 10.6 million acres, or one out of every 217 acres in the country." Impressive as this total was, the Pentagon puts Turner and the entire pack of mega-landlords to shame with over 29 million acres in U.S. landholdings. Abroad, the Pentagon's "footprint" is also that of a giant. For example, the Department of Defense controls 20% of the Japanese island of Okinawa and, according to Stars and Stripes, "owns about 25 percent of Guam." Mere land ownership, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. In his 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson opened the world's eyes to the size of the Pentagon's global footprint, noting that the Department of Defense (DoD) was deploying nearly 255,000 military personnel at 725 bases in 38 countries. Since then, the total number of overseas bases has increased to at least 766 and, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, may actually be as high as 850. Still, even these numbers don't begin to capture the global sprawl of the organization that unabashedly refers to itself as "one of the world's largest 'landlords.'" 
The DoD's "real property portfolio," according to 2006 figures, consists of a total of 3,731 sites. Over 20% of these sites are located on more than 711,000 acres outside of the U.S. and its territories. Yet even these numbers turn out to be a drastic undercount. For example, while a 2005 Pentagon report listed U.S. military sites from Antigua and Hong Kong to Kenya and Peru, some countries with significant numbers of U.S. bases go entirely unmentioned -- Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. In Iraq, alone, in mid-2005, U.S. forces were deployed at some 106 bases, from the massive Camp Victory, headquarters of the U.S. high command, to small 500-troop outposts in the country's hinterlands. None of them made the Pentagon's list. Nor was there any mention of bases in Jordan on that list --or in the 2001-2005 reports either. Yet that nation, as military analyst William Arkin has pointed out, allowed the garrisoning of 5,000 U.S. troops at various bases around the country during the build-up to the war in Iraq. In addition, some 76 nations have given the U.S. military access to airports and airfields -- in addition to who knows where else that the Pentagon forgot to acknowledge or considers inappropriate for inclusion in its list.
Even without Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the more than 20 other nations that, Arkin noted in early 2004, were "secretly or quietly providing bases and facilities," the available statistics do offer a window into a bloated organization bent on setting up franchises across the globe. According to 2005 documents, the Pentagon acknowledges 39 nations with at least one U.S. base, stations personnel in over 140 countries around the world, and boasts a physical plant of at least 571,900 facilities, though some Pentagon figures show 587,000 "buildings and structures." Of these, 466,599 are located in the United States or its territories. In fact, the Department of Defense owns or leases more than 75% of all federal buildings in the U.S.
 According to 2006 figures, the Army controls the lion's share of DoD land (52%), with the Air Force coming in second (33%), the Marine Corps (8%) and the Navy (7 %) bringing up the rear. The Army is also tops in total number of sites (1,742) and total number of installations (1,659). But when it comes to "large installations," those whose value tops $1,584 billion, the Army is trumped by the Air Force, which boasts 43 mega-bases compared to the Army's 39. The Navy and Marines possess only 29 and 10, respectively. What the Navy lacks in big bases of its own, however, it more than makes up for in borrowed foreign naval bases and ports -- some 251 across the globe.
Diversification
Land and large installations, however, are not all that the Defense Department owns. Until relatively recently, the U.S. Navy operated its own dairy, complete with a herd of Holsteins. Even though it did get rid of those cows in 1998, it kept the 865-acre farm tract in Gambrills, Maryland, and now leases it to Horizon Organic Dairy. While it doesn't have a dairy, the Army still operates stables -- such as the John C. McKinney Memorial Stables where many of the 44 horses from its ceremonial Caisson Platoon live. It also has a big farm (the Large Animal Research Facility). In fact, the Pentagon owns hundreds of thousands of animals -- from rats to dogs to monkeys. In addition to an unknown number of animals used for unexplained "other purposes," in 2001 alone, the DoD utilized 330,149 creatures for various types of experimentation.  Then, there's the equipment the DoD owns, loads of it. For instance, it is the unlikely owner of "over 2,050 railcars, know[n] as the Defense Freight Rail Interchange Fleet." The DoD also reportedly ships 100,000 sea containers each year and spends $800 million annually on domestic cargo, primarily truck and rail shipments. And when it comes to trucks, the Army, alone, has a fleet of 12,700 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (huge, eight-wheeled vehicles used to supply ammunition, petroleum, oils, and lubricants to other combat vehicles and weapons systems in the field) and 120,000 Humvees. All told, according to a 2006 Pentagon report, the DoD had a total of at least "280 ships, 14,000 aircraft, 900 strategic missiles, and 330,000 ground combat and tactical vehicles." The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the DoD's largest combat support agency (with operations in 48 of the 50 states and 28 foreign countries) boasts: "If America's forces eat it, wear it, maintain equipment with it, or burn it as fuel…. DLA probably provides it." In fact, the DLA claims that it "manages" some 5.2 million items and maintains an inventory, in its Defense Distribution Depots (which stretch from Italy and Japan to Korea and Kuwait), valued at $94.1 billion. The DLA runs the Defense National Stockpile Center (DNSC) which stores 42 "strategic and critical materials" -- from zinc, lead, cobalt, chromium, and mercury (more than 9.7 million pounds of it in 2005) to precious metals such as platinum, palladium, and even industrial diamonds -- at 20 locations across the U.S. With a stockpile valued at over $1.5 billion and $5.7 billion in sales of excess commodities since 1993, the DNSC claims that there is "no private sector company in the world that sells this wide range of commodities and materials." All told, the Department of Defense owns up to having "[o]ver $1 trillion in assets [and] $1.6 trillion in liabilities." This is, no doubt, a gross underestimate given the DoD's historic penchant for flawed book-keeping and the fact that, according to a study by its own inspector general, it cannot even account for at least $1 trillion dollars in money spent -- or perhaps, according to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as much as $2.3 trillion. Cooking the books and stashing cash is fitting enough for an American organization, in the age of Enron, that thinks of itself not just as a government agency but, in its own words, as "America's oldest company, largest company, busiest company and most successful company." In fact, on its website, the DoD makes the point that it easily bests Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and General Motors in terms of budget and staff. It's Got the Whole World in Its Hands

In addition to assembling a dizzying array of assets, from tungsten to tubas -- in 2005 alone, it spent more than $6 million on sheet music, musical instruments, and accessories -- the Pentagon owns a great deal of housing: 300,000 units worldwide. By its own admission, it is also a slumlord par excellence -- with an inventory of "180,000 inadequate family housing units." According to the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Installations & Environment): Approximately 33 percent of all [military] families live on-base, in housing that is often dilapidated, too small, lacking in modern facilities -- almost 49 percent (or 83,000 units) are substandard. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense's own home, the Pentagon, bests the Sultan of Brunei's Istana Nurul Iman palace, the largest private residence in the world -- 3,705,793 to 2,152,782 square feet of occupiable space. The DoD likes to boast that the Pentagon is "virtually a city in itself" -- with 30 miles of access highways, 200 acres of lawn space. It includes a five-acre center courtyard, 17.5 miles of corridors, 16 parking lots (with an estimated 8,770 parking spaces), seven snack bars, two cafeterias, one dining room, a post office, "credit union, travel agency, dental offices, ticket offices, blood donor center, housing referral office, and 30 other retail shops and services," a chapel, a heliport, and numerous libraries. Moreover, says the DoD, the Pentagon consumed a huge portion of its natural environment, its concrete reportedly contains "680,000 tons of sand and gravel from the nearby Potomac River." In value, the Pentagon's other properties are almost as impressive. The combined worth of the world's two most expensive homes, the $138 million 103-room "Updown Court" in Windlesham, Surrey in the United Kingdom and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan's $135 million Aspen ski lodge don't even come close to the price tag on Ascension Auxiliary Airfield, located on a small island off the coast of St. Helena (the place of Napoleon Bonaparte's exile and death). It has an estimated replacement value of over $337 million. Other high-priced facilities include Camp Ederle in Italy at $544 million; Incirlik Air Base in Turkey at almost $1.2 billion; and Thule Air Base in Greenland at $2.8 billion; while the U.S. Naval Air Station in Keflavik, Iceland is appraised at $3.4 billion and the various military facilities in Guam are valued at more than $11 billion. Still, to begin to grasp the Pentagon's global immensity, it helps to look, again, at its land holdings -- all 120,191 square kilometers which are almost exactly the size of North Korea (120,538 square kilometers). These holdings are larger than any of the following nations: Liberia, Bulgaria, Guatemala, South Korea, Hungary, Portugal, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, Denmark, Georgia, or Austria. The 7,518 square kilometers of 20 micro-states -- the Vatican, Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles, Andorra, Bahrain, Saint Lucia, Singapore, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and Tonga -- combined pales in comparison to the 9,307 square kilometers of just one military base, White Sands Missile Range.  Downsizing?
While it has been setting up hundreds of bases across the globe to support ongoing wars, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its forces in an effort to reduce troop levels at old Cold War mega-bases and close down less strategically useful sites. Does this mean less Pentagon control in the world? Don't bet on it. In fact, the U.S. military is exploring long-term options to dominate the planet as never before. Previously, the DoD has only maintained a moving presence on the high seas. This may change. The Pentagon is now considering -- and planning for -- future "sea-basing." No longer just a ship, a fleet, or "prepositioned material" stationed on the world's oceans, sea-bases will be "a hybrid system-of-systems consisting of concepts of operations, ships, forces, offensive and defensive weapons, aircraft, communications and logistics." The notion of such bases is increasingly popular within the military due to the fact that they "will help to assure access to areas where U.S. military forces may be denied access to support [land] facilities." After all, as a report by the Defense Science Board pointed out, "[S]eabases are sovereign [and] not subject to alliance vagaries." Imagine a future where the people of countries at odds with U.S. policies suddenly find America's "massive seaborne platforms" floating just outside their territorial waters.
With a real-estate portfolio that includes the earth and the sea, the sky would, quite literally, be the limit for the DoD. According to Noah Shachtman, editor of Wired's "Danger Room" blog, the "U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan" of 2004 outlined what "analysts call the most detailed picture since the end of the Cold War of the Pentagon's efforts to turn outer space into a battlefield…. the report makes U.S. dominance of the heavens a top Pentagon priority in the new century." As the U.S. military's outer-space policy statement puts it, "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power." When you're focused on effectively controlling a planet, the idea of occupying Iraq, a country about the size of the state of California, for the next decade or five, must seem like a small thing. In practice, however, the global landlord on the Potomac has found property values in Iraq steep indeed. As all now know, it has been fought to a standstill there by modest-sized bands of guerillas lacking air power, sea power, or high-tech spy satellites in outer space. The Pentagon may be landlord to massive swaths of the globe, but from Vietnam to Laos, Beruit to Somalia, U.S. forces have also found themselves evicted by neighborhood residents from properties they were prepared to consider their own. The question remains: Will Iraq be added to the list of permanently occupied territories and take on the look of long-garrisoned South Korea as Secretary of Defense Gates and President Bush have urged -- or will it be added to a growing list of places that have effectively resisted paying the rent on Planet Pentagon?" Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, the Village Voice, and regularly for Tomdispatch.com. His first book, The Complex, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America, is due out in the American Empire Project Series by Metropolitan Books in 2008.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?MILITARIZATION OF SCIENCE AND SPACE - NOAM CHOMSKY PART 1MILITARIZATION OF SCIENCE AND SPACE - NOAM CHOMSKY PART 2COUNTER-RECRUITING ON CAMPUSWELCOME TO THE MACHINEAPOCALYPSE SOONSIR! NO SIRMEANWHILE AT HOME - STATE OF THE NATIONNAZI WAR PROPAGANDA - WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? NONEMESSAGE TO THE POWERS THAT BE
Posted at 10:13 am by deadringer
Permalink
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|