Archive for November, 2009

Founding Fathers’ Papers Go Online

November 30, 2009

By Brian McNeill

 

Published: November 29, 2009

  

More than 200 years after they were written, some 5,000 previously unpublished documents of the founders of the United States — including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison — are at long last available to the public at no cost.

 

The Documents Compass group (http://www.documentscompass.org/index.html) of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities at the University of Virginia has spent much of the last year proofreading and transcribing thousands of pages of letters and other papers.

 

The documents are now available online for free at the University of Virginia Press’ digital imprint called Rotunda.

 

“It’s an exciting project,” said Penelope Kaiserlian, director of the UVa Press. “It’s using 21st-century technology to approach 18th-century materials.”

 

The online project is a federal pilot study that aims to expand public access to the papers of America’s founders. It is funded by a $250,000 grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, which is a division of the National Archives.

 

“We want the general public to know that these documents exist and that they’re easily available online and that they’re free of cost,” said Sue Perdue, director of Documents Compass.

 

For decades, the papers of Jefferson, Adams, George Washington and others have been available only in expensive, hard copy tomes that are not widely circulated. Purchasing a complete set of the 26 volumes of Alexander Hamilton’s papers, for example, costs around $2,600.

 

The print versions of these documents include detailed analysis and footnotes from scholars, but the process is not a quick one. A study by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission found that Washington’s papers would not wrap up until 2023 and Adams’ papers would not be done until 2050.

 

Such delays sparked an intense lobbying push by historians and scholars to urge Congress to find some way to give the public access to some of these historic documents sooner rather than later. Last fall, President George W. Bush signed into law the Presidential Records Preservation Act of 2008 — which was sponsored by former Sen. John W. Warner, R-Alexandria, — that required the National Archives to speed up the publication of documents and publish letters online.

 

U.S. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., who held hearings on the matter in May, praised the effort at UVa to post the documents online.

 

“Our nation’s history should not stay walled-up behind the doors of only large libraries that are not accessible to many students and researchers,” Carper said in a statement. “That’s why I fought to get the National Archives to publish these documents online and in a timely matter so that anyone interested in our history can more easily read and learn about the early Americans here at the birth of our nation.”

 

The papers now available online are “early access” documents that have not been edited and do not include footnotes or any of the other scholarly information found in the printed collections of papers. The “early access” papers will remain online until they are published in a printed collection.

 

If the pilot project is successful and future funding can be secured, Kaiserlian said, more previously unpublished documents may be made available online down the road.

 

The UVa Press is the longtime publisher of the Papers of George Washington, which has 55 volumes to date, and the Papers of James Madison, which has 32 volumes so far. Rotunda, UVa Press’ digital imprint, has published digital versions of the published volumes of the papers of Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Rotunda’s staff is currently working on a digital version of the papers of Madison.

 

The searchable database of letters and other papers that are now available contains several gems.

 

“It’s kind of hidden in there, but there’s some great materials,” Perdue said.

 

Several letters exchanged by Jefferson and Adams show the difficulties they faced when establishing trade between the newly formed United States and Europe.

 

Many of Jefferson’s later letters offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse about his efforts to set up the University of Virginia. These include his attempts to deal with his debt, recruit professors and purchase the university’s land in Charlottesville. One letter from Jefferson to Madison in March 1825 describes some of the first students coming to UVa.

 

“Our Students are at present between 50. & 60, and are coming in 2. or 3. every day,” Jefferson wrote. “We hear of many on the road who cannot come on, the Richmond and Fredericksburg stages having ceased to run. Some of them hire horses and get on. The schools of ancient & modern languages and Mathematics have a little over or under 30 each. Nat. Philosophy fewer, because few come well enough prepared in Mathematics to enter that school to any advantage. They are half idle all, for want of books, Hilliard’s supply, shipped from Boston the 2d inst. being not yet arrived.”

 


Read Full Story: http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/founding_fathers_papers_go_online/49391/

Source: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/062130-2009-11-30-founding-fathers-papers-go-online.htm

 

The actual site with the documents cited is:  http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/index.php?page_id=Founding%20Era%20Collection

 

 

Authority to Spy on Americans Unclear as Most of Patriot Act Reauthorized

November 30, 2009

House Defies White House and Renews Two of Three Expiring Provisions

By ELIZABETH GORMAN, Nov. 30, 2009


Rushed into law by Congress just weeks after Sept. 11, 2001 three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act granting officials far-reaching surveillance and seizure powers in the name of national security, are due to expire this New Year’s Eve.

Two differing bills passed by the House and Senate judiciary committees in recent weeks will have to be reconciled in Congress, but only when the Senate isn’t backlogged by health care, Democratic aides told ABC News.

“This critical legislation protects our national security, as well as our civil liberties, and the clock is ticking,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., an author of President Bush’s 2001 Patriot Act and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee under the Bush administration.

Sensenbrenner urged the House and Senate to act quickly in reauthorizing the provisions before they expire at the end of this year.

That timing is unclear. With so few weeks left in the year and the health care debate just beginning in the Senate, it’s possible that Congress will first vote for a temporary extension to prevent certain Patriot Act authorities from sunsetting, according to an aide.

With full support from the Obama administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill last month reauthorizing the law that has in recent years sparked much controversy over rights to privacy protected under the Constitution, with some minor tweaks.

But House Democrats in the Judiciary Committee went much further reigning in executive authorities and raising the threshold of proof needed to legally seize Americans’ personal records and conduct wiretaps on their phones. It also slapped on more restrictions, and required more government auditing, and reporting showing how the process could be modified to enhance civil liberties.

“We have the opportunity to fix the most extreme provisions of that law and provide a better balance,” said Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., who introduced the House bill, which allows one provision of the Patriot Act to expire.

In renewing only two of the three sunsetting provisions, the House version has defied the White House, quietly pushing Congress to totally renew its predecessor’s law.

This is not a new debate. Four years ago, then Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who taught constitutional law, voted down the same provisions along with all Senate Democrats who insisted on changes to the bill that better protected libraries, limited clandestine search warrants, roving wiretaps, and FBI gag orders.

 

More: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sunsetting-provisions-patriot-act-revives-privacy-debate/story?id=9173895

 

 

Palin and MORE lies….What a waste of space she and those like her are…..

November 30, 2009

Story:

Palin’s Latest Rogue Gaffe

Geoffrey Dunn

Award-winning journalist, filmmaker and historian

Posted: November 30, 2009 03:32 AM
Links on webpage

There have been so many lies and distortions pointed out in Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue since it was released last week that her memoir has already become something of a gag line.

But perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe so far is her mis-attributed quote to UCLA basketball legend John Wooden.

As the epigram to Chapter Three, “Drill, Baby, Drill,” Palin assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:

Our land is everything to us… I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it–with their lives.

Only the quote wasn’t by John Wooden. It was written by a Native American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled “Back on the War Ponies,” which appeared in a left-wing anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen.

Here’s the full quote:

Our land is everything to us. It is the only place in the world where Cheyennes talk the Cheyenne language to each other. It is the only place where Cheyennes remember the same things together. I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it–with their life. My people and the Sioux defeated General Custer at the Little Big Horn.

Oops! That’s not quite the sentiment that Sister Sarah was trying to convey as she guzzled down sugar-free Red Bull and cranked up Toby Keith’s “How Do You Like Me Now?” while jumping on her patriotic high horse at the opening of the third chapter.

There’s also no small amount of irony in the quote, given Palin’s abysmal record on Alaska Native issues during her truncated term as governor.

I was a huge UCLA basketball fan as a kid. Whenever the Bruins came to the Bay Area, I did whatever I could do to snag a ticket. I loved to watch Wooden coach. But I never figured the Wizard of Westwood as an advocate for radical land distribution.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palins-latest-emrogueem-g_b_373453.html

Iraq: The War Was Illegal & More….

November 30, 2009

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here: http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001J8BvtJGIt7vRnDpvsytMnPwfzIGDRYMUoOoqiGfqOUTWpz3qmc4J9FmfwV0b0U5gXMaWTJqfi8SO1Ko8GXZoe6vWWPUgW6a9Y3FQGAJHRXztm-_nGgQ-Uw%3D%3D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Information Clearing House Newsletter
News You Won’t Find On CNN
November 30, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. “- Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

=

“Ah yes, truth. Funny how everyone is always asking for it but when they get it they don’t believe it because it’s not the truth they want to hear.”: Helena Cassadine

=

Without seeking, truth cannot be known at all. It can neither be declared from pulpits, nor set down in articles, nor in any wise prepared and sold in packages ready for use. Truth must be ground for every man by itself out of it such, with such help as he can get, indeed, but not without stern labor of his own: John Ruskin

=

The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear: Herbert Sebastien Agar

=

Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

=

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq “1,339,771″

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

=

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America’s War On Iraq:  4,684
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Number Of  International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 1,531
http://icasualties.org/oef/

=

Cost of War in Iraq – $704,712,585,364
Cost of War in Afghanistan – $232,811,626,925

=

Subscribe to this feed using your newsreader http://ichnews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

=

Manufacturing Consent For Attack On Iran
Iran Threatens to Pull Out of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

By (Stringer/Reuters)
The chorus of fury came as world powers reacted with renewed concern at Iran’s announcement of plans to build ten new nuclear sites and Western leaders warned of imminent new sanctions to punish Tehran’s defiance. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24079.htm

===

Iraq: The War Was Illegal

By Brian Brady
Then Attorney General Goldsmith was ‘pinned to the wall and bullied into keeping quiet’ while the Prime Minister kept the Cabinet in the dark.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24080.htm

===

Regime Termination
The Truth of UK’s Guilt Over Iraq

By Scott Ritter
President George Bush was able to disguise his blatant militarism behind the false sincerity of his ally Blair and his own secretary of state, Colin Powell. The president’s task was made far easier given the role of useful idiot played by much of the mainstream media in the US and Britain, where reporters and editors alike dutifully repeated both the hyped-up charges levied against Iraq and the false pretensions that a diplomatic solution was being sought.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24084.htm

===

All Politicians Are Alike
An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

By Michael Moore
Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24085.htm

===

You Get What you Vote For!
By Cindy Sheehan
The so-called anti-war movement currently finds itself in somewhat of a quagmire: What to do when the man you raised money for, volunteered for, and yes, even voted for, actually fulfills one of his most repulsive campaign promises?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm

===
By Glen Ford
The U.S. set the stage for the Afghan (and Pakistan) war eight years ago, when it handed out drug dealing franchises to warlords on Washington’s payroll. Now the Americans, acting as Boss of All Bosses, have drawn up hit lists of rival, “Taliban” drug lords. “It is a gangster occupation, in which U.S.-allied drug dealers are put in charge of the police and border patrol.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24082.htm

Americans Are Deeply Involved In Afghan Drug Trade

===

United Against Spitting

By Gilad Atzmon
Three days ago the Israeli Right wing paper The Jerusalem Post published an exposé of the growing tendency of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem to spit on their Christian neighbours’
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24087.htm

===

Housing Meltdown, Ground Zero
The American home-owning dream on life support.

By Andy Kroll
The turnout was staggering: close to 45,000 desperate homeowners showed up during NACA’s five-day stand at the Cow Palace for the chance to renegotiate their disastrous subprime mortgages or sky-high interest rates or interest-only payments.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24088.htm

===

“Only The Super Rich Can Save Us”
Cindy Sheehan Interviews Ralph Nader

Click here to listen
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24081.htm

===

Crisis in Dubai: The Nightmare Scenario

By Mike Whitney
Abu Dhabi wants to send its wastrel younger brother a wake-up-call by forcing Dubai to restructure its debt. That means that banks, bondholders and contractors will have to take a haircut, which is not surprising given the abysmal condition of the commercial real estate market.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24090.htm

===

President Sarah Palin

By Margaret Kimberley
Smug Democrats love to imagine they are a species apart from Sarah Palin, the “pit bull with lipstick.” However, U.S. political history teaches us never to overestimate the intelligence of the American electorate, or trust a Democrat – many of whom were Republicans not very long ago. At root, Palin’s supporters are “white nationalists,” the same people that adored Ronald Reagan and, yes, George Bush. So why is it so hard to imagine a Palin presidency?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24083.htm

===

Addicted to Nonsense
By Chris Hedges
We are waiting for our cue to walk onstage and be admired and envied, to become known and celebrated. Nothing else in life counts.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24086.htm

===

Afghan police say 27 Taliban killed in clash:
Afghan border police said Sunday they had killed 27 Taliban-linked insurgents and captured a fighter from Chechnya in a fierce battle backed by coalition air support that lasted several hours.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92440

===

6 Afghan policemen killed, 2 wounded:
The incident — the second time in two months that a police officer has turned on colleagues — is a reminder of the steep challenge NATO troops face as they work to build a national police force that will be able to provide security and allow international forces to eventually leave.
http://snipurl.com/ths71

===

Body of U.S. soldier found after 27 days in NW Afghanistan: -
Body of a U.S. soldier who along with his colleague went missing in Badghis province northwest of Afghanistan early this month was found after 27 days, a private television channel Tolo broadcast Monday.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/30/content_12566177.htm

===

Obama issues Afghan war plan to military officials:
President Obama ordered top military leaders to begin carrying out his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, a move that is believed to include the deployment of more than 30,000 additional troops into the eight year old conflict, the White House confirmed Monday.
http://snipurl.com/ths7c

===

9,000 Newly Deployed Marines to Target Taliban Bastion: :

The extra Marines will be the first to move into the country as part of Obama’s escalation of the eight-year-old war. They will double the size of the U.S. force in the southern province of Helmand and will provide a critical test for Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s struggling government and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy.
http://snipurl.com/ths7s

===

Brown confirms 500 more troops for Afghanistan :

Brown told Parliament in London that the additional troops now had the sufficient level of supplies and equipment to be deployed in southern Helmand province from ‘early December.’
http://snipurl.com/ths85

===
Corruption infecting the Afghan government’s highest levels, coupled with unhelpful Western meddling along the way, crippled efforts to effectively battle the country’s burgeoning opium trade, says the country’s former counter-narcotics minister.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091129/world/20091127_afghan_corruption

West turned blind eye to corruption, former Afghan narcotics minister says:

===

Pakistan: More than 60 militants killed in tribal region:
Commandant Brigadier Fayyaz told a media conference on Monday that security forces had cleared the area of militants
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.4054229849

===

Obama offers new role for Pakistan:

President Barack Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals “cannot continue.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_13890398?source=rss

===

You’ve had eight years, now get us bin Laden, Brown urges Pakistan:
Gordon Brown told Pakistan to “take out” Osama bin Laden yesterday as Western frustration at its failure to capture the al-Qaeda leader burst into the public glare.
http://snipurl.com/ths8p

===

Pakistan’s president gives up control of nuclear weapons:

Embroiled in a major crisis that threatens his political future, President Asif Ali Zardari has given up control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and has pledged to relinquish his power to dissolve parliament.
http://snipurl.com/ths8w

===
A paramilitary member and a civilian were killed, three people injured, and eight others detained in separate incidents overnight and dawn across Iraq’s volatile province of Diyala northeast of Baghdad
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/29/content_12560515.htm

===

Two people killed in Iraq’s Diyala violence:

Lord Goldsmith ‘warned Tony Blair Iraq war could be illegal’ in 2002:
Tony Blair was warned by his Attorney General eight months before the invasion of Iraq that war would be illegal, it has emerged.
http://snipurl.com/ths9d

===

Iraqis start tuning into new Saddam Channel:

The late Iraqi dictator is lauded on a mysterious satellite channel that began broadcasting on the Islamic calendar’s anniversary of his 2006 execution.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-11-30-saddam-channel_N.htm

===

Salehi: Iran will construct 10 new enrichment sites, reaction to P5+1 move:

“The West adopted an attitude toward Iran which made the Iranian government to pass the ratification on construction of ten sites similar to the Natanz enrichment facility,” he added.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112486&sectionid=351020104

===

Iran’s speaker: Don’t gamble on nuclear issue:

“I believe there is still room for diplomacy and it is useful for them [World powers] to adopt a diplomatic option,” Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani told reporters in a Monday press conference.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112498&sectionid=351020104

===

World powers threaten new sanctions against defiant Iran:

World powers threatened new sanctions against Iran on Monday after Tehran defiantly pledged to build 10 more uranium enrichment plants, but Russia warned against further escalating the dispute.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1021600/1/.html

===

Iran says building 10 new enrichment sites “not bluff”:
“They need to wait and see in the future that what we said was not bluff,” Rahimi told reporters, referring to reports by western media that suppose the construction of 10 new nuclear enrichment plants in Iran is a bluff. “We need to get prepared for the reactors that produce nuclear fuel,” he was quoted as saying.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/30/content_12566864.htm

===

Why is China opposed to raising pressure on Iran?:

China and Russia supported the International Atomic Energy Agency’s rebuke of Iran for building a uranium enrichment plant in secret, but both countries have long blocked the imposition of stringent economic sanctions on Iran.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-44342420091130

===

Exclusive: Russia to start Iran nuclear plant in 2010:

The United States previously criticized Russia’s involvement in the project but has dropped its opposition and now says the station removes any need for Iran to have its own enrichment program.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AT32H20091130

===

Iran says Russia to get priority in power projects:
Salehi, speaking after a briefing with Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko who was on a visit to the Bushehr nuclear power plant, said Russia would get priority as Iran sought to build 20,000 megawatts of new generation capacity.
http://snipurl.com/thsav

===

Russia to Build Petrochemical Plants in Iran:

“It is possible to develop major chemical complexes here (in Iran) on the basis of oil and gas resources,” Shmatko told reporters following an Iran-Russia joint economic commission meeting here in Tehran on Sunday.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8809091414

===

Another Railway Blast in Russia : officials:
“A railway was hit by an explosion before a train travelling from Tyumen to (Azerbaijan’s capital) Baku passed. The train did not derail, though it dragged the wagons some 150 meters along the damaged rails,” a local police official told Russian news agencies.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkyXtvyA9siQqkgvF8idJf957LcA

===
A group of Israeli soldiers, backed by armored vehicles and two armored bulldozers stormed early on Monday an area east of Jabalia town in northern Gaza Strip, local sources and witnesses said.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/30/content_12566100.htm

===

Israeli army storms NE Gaza Strip:

Hamas ‘on verge of Gaza war probe’:
In a rare interview, Ismail Haniya, the deposed Palestinian prime minister and the senior Hamas official in Gaza, told Al Jazeera’s Zeina Awad what he would personally be willing to do for reconciliation with the rival Fatah movement. He also addressed allegations that Hamas tortured political opponents and suppressed their political rights.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/2009112920241225848.html

===
First official confirmation of prisoner swap for Gilad Shalit captured in 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/israel-prisoner-swap-gilad-shalit

Israel ready to release 1,000 Palestinians:

===

Honduras opposition claims victory in presidential vote:

As Honduras is soaked in a political crisis, opposition candidate Porfirio Lobo claims he won a presidential election that has been condemned by Latin American leaders.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112483&sectionid=351020706

===
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man.
http://snipurl.com/thsd3

Senate Report: Bin Laden Was ‘Within Our Grasp’ In 2001:

===

Police killed in ‘ambush’ outside US Air Force base:
Four police officers were shot dead in a cold-blooded ambush at a coffee shop on the edge of a US Air Force base in America’s Pacific Northwest on Sunday.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6936964.ece

===

Tempers Flare At Anti-War Rally At Travis AFB:

A Saturday rally led by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan at Travis Air Force Base nearly ended in a brawl when a military veteran physically confronted the protesters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hPsk8nfLIQ

===

Report: FBI paid controversial NJ blogger for help:
A New Jersey blogger about to stand trial on charges he made death threats against federal judges apparently was paid by the FBI in its battle against domestic terrorism, according to a published report.
http://snipurl.com/thsdl

===

Release of secret reports delayed:

President Obama will maintain a lid of secrecy on millions of pages of military and intelligence documents that were scheduled to be declassified by the end of the year, according to administration officials.
http://snipurl.com/thsdy

===

CIA pulls SWIFT one to get peak at your bank records:

European Union governments have given in to the pressure and appear set to make a last-minute agreement with the United States to allow its intelligence agencies to monitor bank accounts and transactions across the bloc.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112476&sectionid=351020605

===

Food Stamp Use Soars:

A program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html

===

The Poorest Immigrants Subsidize Healthcare for Everyone Else:
Americans know it is wrong to discriminate based on immutable characteristics such as sex or race-but convincing them to protect the act of being an immigrant remains a challenge that cuts across social justice issues such as health reform.
http://snipurl.com/thsen

===

Let Us Work Towards Peace And Joy
Tom Feeley

Information Clearing House Newsletter
News You Won’t Find On CNN
November 30, 2009

Sen. Bayh, one of the most vocal cheerleaders for invasion of Iraq, talks excitedly about punishing, and even bombing, Iran, now demanding full-scale escalation in Afghanistan

November 30, 2009

The face of rotted Washington

By Glenn Greenwald, Monday, Nov 30, 2009 03:31 PST
Links on webpage

 

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh — who was one of the most vocal cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, talks excitedly about punishing, and even bombing, Iran, and is now demanding full-scale escalation in Afghanistan — was on Fox News yesterday and highlighted what a fraud most so-called “fiscal conservatives” and “deficit hawks” like him really are:

 

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, you brought up the question of cost, and the administration has put the cost — and this is kind of astonishing to, I think, a lot of people — $1 million per soldier per year, so if you sent 30,000 soldiers, that would be a $30 billion price tag.

Now, some top Democrats are talking about the idea — the new idea of a war tax to pay for the escalation in Afghanistan. Good idea?

BAYH: No, I don’t think it’s a good idea, not at this point, Chris. First of all, you need to provide for the nation’s security regardless of your financial situation, and there’s no bigger deficit hawk in Congress than I am.

I think we need to start coming to grips with this. We’re going to have a big vote coming up on the debt ceiling. I don’t think we should vote to raise the debt ceiling until we have a strategy in place to get our deficits down.

So we’ve got to take the fiscal situation seriously, but, number one, national security comes first.

Number two, we’ve got to look at cutting spending in other parts of the budget before we even talk about raising taxes.

It’s impossible to find a more perfectly representative face for the rotted Washington establishment than Evan Bayh.  He is the pure expression of virtually every attribute that makes the Beltway so dysfunctional, deceitful and corrupt.

Bayh wants to send other people into every proposed war he can find and keep them there forever without ever bearing any of the costs himself — not in military service for him or his family nor even in higher taxes to pay for his glorious wars.  Sacrifice is for everyone other than Evan Bayh and his friends.  He runs around praising himself as a “deficit hawk” while recklessly supporting wars and indefinite occupations that the country can’t afford and which drive us further into debt.  He feigns concern over the “deficit” only when it comes time to deny ordinary Americans benefits which he and his family already possess in abundance.  He is a loyal servant to the insurance and health care industries over his own constituents — as his wife sits on the Boards of numerous health care giants, who, right when Bayh became a Senator, began paying her millions of dollars in cash and stock.  And this Sermonizer of Personal Responsibility is the ultimate by-product of nepotism, following faithfully and effortlessly in the footsteps of his Daddy-Senator, whose seat he now occupies.  The fact that he’s a Democrat — and was Obama’s close-second choice for Vice President — just underscores how bipartisan these afflictions are.

When the sad and destructive history of the U.S. over the last decade is written, the coddled, nepotistic, self-serving face of Evan Bayh should be prominently included.  It embodies virtually every cause.

 

This Is George Bush’s Recession: Why Doesn’t Anybody Talk About That?

November 30, 2009

If the partisan tables were turned, the GOP would waste no time laying the blame on Democrats. We need to do the same to build political capital for key fights ahead.

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 30, 2009.


In October, Barack Obama told a San Francisco audience about what it was like trying to deal with an economy he’d inherited in smoking ruins last January. “I’m busy … cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” he said. “We don’t want somebody sitting back saying, you’re not holding the mop the right way… That’s a socialist mop.” As the audience applauded the line, Obama challenged Republicans to “Grab a mop, let’s get to work.”

The image of cleaning up after his predecessor’s mess pleased pundits like Andrew Sullivan, who wrote that “get a mop” is “an inspired three-word challenge to the GOP. Devastating, actually — because it both reminds people of the damage the GOP did while not seeming to dwell on the past or to score partisan points (while actually doing both).”

It’s certainly punchy, but perhaps unnecessarily oblique. Given that even a recent Fox News poll found that almost six in 10 voters believe Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for the recession we’re staggering through, you have to wonder why Democrats aren’t simply referring to all of this as “the Bush recession.”

One thing is certain: were the partisan tables turned, every elected Republican, conservative columnist, right-wing blogger and hate-radio gabber would be repeating the phrase ad nauseam, but progressives have always lacked that kind of message discipline. In a 2004 interview, legendary right-wing activist Richard Viguerie — an instrumental figure building the conservative movement since the 1960s — told me that his side has an inherent advantage in top-down message discipline because modern conservatives “are descended from monarchists,” and have a “natural instinct to follow the king.”

So it has been as Washington scrambles to rescue the tanking economy. Republicans have offered consistently hollow sound bites about creeping socialism and government takeovers, and Democrats have come up with clever ways to “frame” the issue (grab that mop!), but haven’t consistently played the age-old and rather straightforward game of laying blame for calamity at the door of one’s political opponent.

Calling the mess we’re facing the “Bush Recession” isn’t a matter of looking back out of spite, but of developing political capital for some key fights ahead. There’s a potentially ugly battle with Wall Street coming up over financial reform. There are calls for more stimulus, new jobs programs and more relief for those suffering the most as a result of the crash. There’s value in tying those already lined up to defend the status quo on Wall Street, or who’d deny more assistance to “Main Street,” to the least popular president in memory and reminding people that the economy was never going to be a quick fix even in the best-case scenario.

Yet just as the Obama administration has been reticent to tackle the nation’s crushing jobs and foreclosure crises, officials have also been hesitant to hold Bushenomics explicitly accountable for the mess. That’s likely a matter of style — Obama has always tried not to appear overly partisan. But it’s a missed opportunity — a chance to channel the fury caused by nearly one in four U.S. homeowners with underwater mortgages and the debilitating loss of jobs over the past three years (illustrated with devastating effect in this animated county-by-county map depicting the rise in unemployment since 2007).

 

More: http://www.alternet.org/story/144225

 

 

Cult of Conservative Christian GOPers Backs Death Penalty for Gays With HIV

November 30, 2009

Uganda is pushing a bill that would impose the death penalty on HIV positive gay men. And a secretive group of American politicians appears to be a driving force behind the law.

By Stephen Webster, Raw Story. Posted November 30, 2009.


The African nation of Uganda is weighing a bill that would impose the death penalty on HIV positive men who have committed what it calls “aggravated homosexuality.”

As if that were not shocking enough, a U.S. author is claiming that a secretive group of American politicians appear to be a driving force in seeing the proposal become law.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009, heavily supported by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, was first read in October, triggering a wave of condemnation. According to the gay blog Queerty, Joann Lockard, public affairs officer at the Kampala, Uganda embassy, said the law would “constitute a significant step backwards for the protection of human rights in Uganda.”

She added: “We urge states to take all necessary measures to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests, or detention.”

While that condemnation by a U.S. official would seem reflexive, others in U.S. political circles are providing financial and political support for the bill’s sponsors, according to author Jeff Sharlet.

Sharlet’s book “The Family” is an investigative look at a secretive group of fundamentalist Christian lawmakers in Washington, D.C. In a recent interview with NPR’s Terry Gross, he broke the news that The Family’s influence in Uganda is rife.

“[The] legislator that introduced the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of The Family,” he said. “He appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda.”

And how did Sharlet discover the connection? “You follow [the] money,” he said. You look at their archives. You do interviews where you can. It’s not so invisible anymore. So that’s how working with some research colleagues we discovered that David Bahati, the man behind this legislation, is really deeply, deeply involved in The Family’s work in Uganda, that the ethics minister of Uganda, Museveni’s kind of right-hand man, a guy named Nsaba Buturo, is also helping to organize The Family’s National Prayer Breakfast. And here’s a guy who has been the main force for this Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda’s executive office and has been very vocal about what he’s doing, in a rather extreme and hateful way. But these guys are not so much under the influence of The Family. They are, in Uganda, The Family.”

Under current Ugandan law, homosexuality is a crime punishable by life in prison. The proposed law would not just condemn HIV positive gay men and “repeat offenders” to death, it would also jail for three years anyone who knows a gay man but refuses to report them to authorities. Further, anyone who defends in public the rights of gays and lesbians would be subjected to a seven year prison term.

In his NPR interview, Sharlet said the bill would “very likely” pass and become Ugandan law. He added that the nation’s president, whom he called a “dictator,” has long been in The Family’s fold.

More: http://www.alternet.org/story/144240/

How Capitalism Destroys

November 30, 2009

How Free-Market Delusions Destroyed the Economy

By Raj Patel, Picador Press. Posted November 30, 2009.
The worship of free markets set off the economic meltdown.

 

If war is God’s way of teaching Americans geography, recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics. The great unwinding of the financial sector showed that the smartest mathematical minds on the planet, backed by some of the deepest pockets, had not built a sleek engine of permanent prosperity but a clown car of trades, swaps and double dares that, inevitably, fell to bits. The recession has not come from a deficit of economic knowledge, but from too much of a particular kind, a surfeit of the spirit of capitalism. The dazzle of free markets has blinded us to other ways of seeing the world. As Oscar Wilde wrote over a century ago: “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Prices have revealed themselves as fickle guides: The 2008 financial collapse came in the same year as crises in food and oil, and yet we seem unable to see or value our world except through the faulty prism of markets.

One thing is clear: The thinking that got us into this mess is unlikely to rescue us. It might come as some consolation to know that even some of the most respected minds have been forced to puzzle over their faulty assumptions. Perhaps the most pained admission of ignorance happened in a crowded room in front of the  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform when, on October 23, 2008, Alan Greenspan described the failure of his worldview.

Greenspan was one of the acknowledged legislators of the world’s economy over the past nineteen years in his role as chairman of the Federal Reserve. A card-carrying member of the free market brigade, he used to sit at the feet of Ayn Rand who, although largely unknown outside the United States, remains influential long after her death in 1982. Her 1957 book Atlas Shrugged, in which heroic business moguls fight the scourge of government officials and union organizers, has once again scaled the bestseller lists. Regarding altruism as “moral cannibalism,” Rand was the cheerleader for an extreme free market libertarian school of thought, which she called “Objectivism.”

Drawn into her circle by this heady philosophy, Greenspan earned himself the nickname “the Undertaker” for his jolly demeanor and dress sense. When Greenspan chose a career in government, it was rather like a hippie joining the marines, a lapse that his former friends could never forgive. Despite this, Greenspan remained largely faithful to Rand’s philosophy, continuing to believe that egoism would lead to the best of all possible worlds, and that any form of restraint would result in disaster.

At the end of 2008, Greenspan was summoned to the U.S. Congress to testify about the financial crisis. His tenure at the Fed had been long and lauded, and Congress wanted to know what had gone wrong. As he began to read his testimony, Greenspan looked exhausted, his skin jowly and sagging, as if the vigor that once kept him taut had all been spent. But he came out swinging. In the first round, he took aim at the information he’d been working with. If only the input had been right, the economic models would have worked, and the predictions would have been better. In his words, a Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of the pricing model that underpins much of the advance in derivatives markets. This modern risk management paradigm held sway for decades. The  whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades, a period of euphoria.

Had instead the models been fitted more appropriately to historic periods of stress, capital requirements would have been much higher and the financial world would be in far better shape today, in my judgment.

This is a garbage-in-garbage-out argument: The model worked just fine, but the assumptions about risk and data, based only on the good times past, were faulty and so the output was correspondingly wrong. Greenspan’s nemesis on the panel, Henry Waxman, pushed him to a deeper conclusion, in this remarkable exchange:

Waxman: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive — and this is your statement — “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivalled way to organize economies. We have tried regulation, none meaningfully worked.” That was your quote. You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You  were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying the price. Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

Greenspan: Well, remember, though, what an ideology is. It’s a conceptual framework with [sic] the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to. To exist, you need an ideology. The question is, whether it is accurate or not. What I am saying to you is, yes, I found the flaw, I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I have been very distressed by that fact.

Waxman:
You found a flaw?

Greenspan:
I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

Waxman: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working.

Greenspan: Precisely. That is precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

 

Read more »http://www.alternet.org/workplace/144151/

Venezuela: Hugo Chavez calls for international socialist unity

November 30, 2009

By Federico Fuentes, Caracas

http://links.org.au/node/1378

November 27, 2009 — Addressing delegates at the International Encounter of Left Parties held in Caracas, November 19-21, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said that with the capitalist crisis and threat of war risking the future of humanity, “the people are clamoring” for greater unity of those willing to fight for socialism.

Chavez used his November 20 speech to the conference, which involved delegates from 55 left groups from 31 countries, to call for a new international socialist organisation to unite left groups and social movements: “The time has come for us to organise the Fifth International.”

Historic

This call is historic. It follows Chavez’s call in 2005 that the only response to the barbarism of the capitalist system was to create “a new socialism of the 21st century”. In 2006, Chavez made another historic call for the creation in Venezuela of a new, mass revolutionary party in order to unite all who were part of the struggle to transform Venezuela into one party. This lead to the launch in 2007 of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) .

Chavez’s call for a new international is historic because of his authority as the head of a government leading a revolutionary movement to build socialism. The Bolivrian revolution sees itself as international. Chavez has repeatedly said that either socialism is built globally or there will be no 22nd century for humanity.

The call for a new international organisation builds on the history of the socialist movement. There have been four previous socialist “internationals”, the first created by Karl Marx in 1864, which collapsed. The Second International was formed in 1889, but fell apart when representative parties sided with their own governments in the bloodshed of World War I. The Third International was founded in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution. However, Chavez said it “degenerated” under Stalinism and “betrayed” struggles for socialism around the world. Leon Trotsky founded the Fourth International in 1938. However, Trotsky died in 1940 and his followers never succeeded in building mass support.

A majority of the delegates at the Caracas conference adopted a special resolution in support of founding the “Fifth Socialist International as a space for socialist-oriented parties, movements and currents in which we can harmonise a common strategy for the struggle against imperialism, the overthrow of capitalism by socialism”. April next year has been set as the date for a conference to launch the new international.

Chavez repeated his call in his speech the next day to the congress of the PSUV, which began on November 21. He asked the congress “to include in its agenda for debate, the proposal to convene political parties and currents to create the Fifth Socialist International as a new organisation that fits the time and the challenge in which we live, and that can become an instrument of unification and coordination of the struggle of peoples to save this planet”. Chavez said the discussion “must go out to the people, to the social organisations and other forms of popular power in the country”.

The PSUV, a mass revolutionary party in formation, will no doubt take up this discussion with full vigour.

Likewise, left parties around the world will need to take a position on this extremely important proposal which has the potential to significantly advance the international socialist movement..

Unity against imperialism

The Encounter of Left Parties conference involved representatives of the old and new left. It included a number of long-established communist and social-democratic parties from Asia and Europe, national liberation forces from Africa and the Middle East, and new left parties such as Die Linke (Germany), the Left Bloc (Portugal) and Left Party (France).

It also involved radical and left groups from across Latin America. Some of these are older, such as the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) from Nicaragua, and some newer, such as the Movement Towards Socialism from Bolivia and the PSUV.

The first day of the conference discussed the new imperialist offensive in the region. This is exemplified by the plan for new US military in Latin America bases and the military coup against the left-leaning Honduran government in alliance with revolutionary Venezuela.

Venezuela foreign minister and PSUV leader Nicolas Maduro said that imperialism managed to destroy almost all attempts to create a new model of society in the 20th century.“There was only one experience that had the sufficient political, military and popular force, together with a revolutionary leadership, which was able to overcome all of imperialism’s plans: the Cuban Revolution”, he noted.

Maduro said new revolutionary movements and political leaderships have emerged this century, changing the face of the region. The election of US President Barack Obama created hope and expectations across the world that new relations with the US based on dialogue would be possible. But he said this illusion was quickly shattered by the actions of the new administration.

Maduro said the US government seeks to undermine the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), an anti-imperialism political and trading bloc that this year expanded to nine countries. The coup in Honduras, a member country, was aimed at ALBA and carried out with US support, he said. The US-Colombia military agreement for seven new US military bases in Colombia is “a powerful threat against the revolutionary movements in our continent”.

In light of this, Maduro said unity of progressive and left forces is necessary to create a movement for peace and justice with the power to make Latin America a “territory free of US bases”.

Jorge Marti, head of the international relations department of the Communist Party of Cuba, said as it is now “the left is not up to the challenge it faces”. He said this was why it was necessary to develop a strategy for united struggle.

Nidia Diaz, a veteran leader of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El Salvador, said it was possible right-wing forces could win coming elections in Chile and Brazil. But, she said, “if we only think about electoral victories and not in the accumulation of social forces for change, it is easy to paint a negative picture”. She said it is essential that the left promote Chavez’s proposal for “peace bases” as focal points for agitation and mobilisation of the people.

Patricia Rodas, the legitimate foreign minister in the government of Honduras’ President Manuel Rosales overthrown in the coup, said: “We are merely spokespeople for our people who today are resisting.”  She said it was the responsibility of those at the meeting to build a common space for left groups to unite “and make possible the creation of a never before seen, diverse force”.

Venezuelan education minister Hector Navarro said: “The problem [we face] is the structural crisis of capital …We are confronting the question of the survival of humanity.”  Therefore, he said, the conference must be seen as a theatre of operations from which to unleash a struggle in defence of humanity.

An ‘International of the 21st century’

The second day of the conference — November 20 — started with a discussion on what sort of international coordination of the left was needed.

Valtar Pomar, international relations secretary of the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT), outlined the position of his party, currently in government. He put forward a strategy focused on unity around regional integration and a broad-based “anti-imperialism”. He said if socialism became our lowest common denominator for unity, this would inevitably lead to division.

Pomar said the PT would prioritise the Sao Paulo Forum. The Sao Paulo Forum was formed in the 1990s as an initiative of the PT to regroup the Latin American left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Sao Paulo Forum, like the PT, has drifted from its radical roots to become dominated by more moderate forces.

PSUV leader Aristobulo Isturiz said the left needs more dynamic and active spaces than the Sao Paulo Forum.

Chavez’s speech that night marked a dividing line: “Yankee imperialism is preparing a war in Latin America … it has almost always been the case that the US has pulled itself out of a situation of crisis via war.” The conditions to build socialism are ripe, he said. “That is why I ask that you allow me continue to go forward, together with those who want to accompany me, to create the Fifth Socialist International.”

Chavez said it would be a new body without manuals and impositions, where differences were welcome. He criticised the practices of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which imposed its dogmas such as “socialism in one country” on its satellite parties internationally. Chavez said this led many Latin American CPs to turn their backs on Argentinean-born revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, when Che, who rejected Soviet dogmatism, tried to spread the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s.

Chavez said the new international should reject the failed projects of “real socialism” and social democracy. It should embody the spirit and heritage left to humanity by the founders of the first four internationals. It should also incorporate the ideas of past Latin American revolutionaries.

It has to be an international to confront imperialism, and defeat capitalism, said Chavez. He said it was necessary to work together to create a manifesto to spell-out the content of “socialism of the 21st century”.

Chavez gave a swift and sharp response to a delegate’s interjection that there already exist organisations for left coordination. There exist many spaces for discussion, said Chavez, but none for concrete action. “We have wasted a lot of time, we continue to waste time, looking for excuses to justify our inactivity”, said Chavez. “I consider such behaviour to be a betrayal of the hope of our peoples.” The unity of left parties is needed, “but [of] parties that are truly left”.

Some delegates expressed their reservations on November 21, arguing that at such a meeting it was only possible to agree on specific points. A deep programmatic debate was necessary before any deeper unity was possible. However, support for the proposal was very strong overall.

Speaking in favour of the proposal for a new international, El Salvador’s vice-president and FMLN leader Salvador Sanchez Ceren said: “We cannot continue simply debating … we need to clearly define what it is that we want, and the alternative project for Latin America is socialism.”

Sanchez’s comments provoked a reaction from El Salvador’s President Mauricio Funes, who was elected with the FMLN’s support. Funes distanced himself from the comments and said his government did not support 21st century socialism.

The delegation from the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) in Bolivia told the conference they had contacted the MAS leadership, including Bolivian President Evo Morales, who agreed the MAS should back the new international.

Ecuador government minister and Country Alliance leader Ricardo Patino said his party had also agreed to participate. Honduras’ foreign minister Rodas pledged the active support of the Honduran “resistance” for the proposal.

The Cuban Communist Party did not express a formal position in the meeting. If the Cuban Communist Party backs the call, it would mean all the most important organisations at the head of the Latin American revolution support the creation the new international.

The adopted resolution pledged to create a “working group comprised of those socialist parties, currents and social movements who endorse the initiative, to prepare an agenda which defines the objectives, contents and mechanisms of this global revolutionary body”.

A main document, called the Caracas Commitment, was also approved. The document said that, faced with “structural crisis of capital, which combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis, and an energy crisis, and which together represents a mortal threat to humanity and mother earth”, the only alternative possible is “socialism of the 21st century”.

Speaking to the PSUV congress, Chavez said the previous four socialist internationals had originated in Europe,  “where the thesis of scientific socialism emerged with force in the heat of the great popular, workers’ struggles”.

Today, however, “the epicentre of revolutionary struggle is in our America. And Venezuela is the epicentre of this battle”. “It is up to us to assume the role of the vanguard and we have to assume it, so that we realise and become aware of the huge responsibility we have on our shoulders.”

[Federico Fuentes, alonfg with Kiraz Janicke, represented the Australian Socialist Alliance at the International Encounter of Left Parties as representatives. They also work in the Caracas bureau of Green Left Weekly. This article first appeared in Green Left Weekly.]

Part of the strategy activated by the U.S. Empire is evidenced by the coup in Honduras, as well as in other destabilizing initiatives in Central America……

November 30, 2009

The US creates it’s own enemies…


Story:

Declaration from World Meeting of Left Parties, November 19-21, Caracas, Venezuela

http://links.org.au/node/1375

November 21, 2009 — Political parties and organizations from Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania commemorate and celebrate the unity and solidarity that brought us together in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and from this libertarian city we would like to express our revolutionary rebelliousness. We are glad of and committed to the proud presence of the forces of change in a special moment of history. Likewise, we are proud to reaffirm our conviction to definitively sow, grow and win Socialism of the 21st century.

In this regard, we want to sign the Commitment of Caracas as a revolutionary guide for the challenges ahead of us. We have gathered with the aim of unifying criteria and giving concrete answers that allow us to defend our sovereignty, our social victories, and the freedom of our peoples in the face of the generalized crisis of the world capitalist system and the new threats spreading over our region and the whole world with the establishment and strengthening of military bases in the sister republics of Colombia, Panama, Aruba, Curacao, the Dutch Antilles, as well as the aggression against Ecuadorian territory, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We consider that the world capitalist system is going through one of its most severe crises, which has shaken its very foundations and brought with it consequences that jeopardize the survival of humanity. Likewise, capitalism and the logic of capital, destroys the environment and biodiversity, bringing with it consequences of climate change, global warming and the destruction of life.

One of the epicentres of the capitalist crisis is in the economic domain; this highlights the limitations of unbridled free markets ruled by private monopolies. In this situation, some governments have been asked to intervene to prevent the collapse of vital economic sectors, for instance, through the implementation of bailouts to bank institutions that amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. Said governments have been asked to stimulate their economies by increasing public expenditure in order to mitigate the recession and the private sector decline, which evidences the end of the supposedly irrefutable “truth” of neo-liberalism that of non-intervention of the State in economic affairs.

In this regard, it is very timely to promote an in-depth discussion on the economic crisis, the role of the State and the construction of a new financial architecture.

In summary, the capitalist crisis cannot be reduced simply to a financial crisis; it is a structural crisis of capital which combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis, and an energy crisis, which together represents a mortal threat to humanity and mother earth. Faced with this crisis, left-wing movements and parties see the defence of nature and the construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world.

In recent years, progressive and left-wing movements of the Latin American region have accumulated forces, and stimulated transformations, throwing up leaders that today hold important government spaces. This has represented an important blow to the empire because the peoples have rebelled against the domination that has been imposed on them, and have left behind their fear to express their values and principles, showing the empire that we will not allow any more interference in our internal affairs, and that we are willing to defend our sovereignty.

This meeting is held at a historic time, characterized by a new imperialistic offensive against the peoples and governments of the region and of the world, a pretension supported by the oligarchies and ultraconservative right-wing, with the objective of recovering spaces lost as a consequence of the advancement of revolutionary process of liberation developing in Latin America. These are expressed through the creation of regional organizations such as ALBA, UNASUR, PETROCARIBE, Banco del Sur, the Sao Paulo Forum, COPPPAL, among others; where the main principles inspiring these processes are those of solidarity, complementarity, social priority over economic advantage, respect for self-determination of the peoples in open opposition to the policies of imperial domination. For these reasons, the right-wing forces in partnership with the empire have launched an offensive to combat the advance and development of the peoples’ struggles, especially those against the overexploitation of human beings, racist discrimination, cultural oppression, in defence of natural resources, of the land and territory from the perspective of the left and progressive movements and of world transformation.

We reflect on the fact that these events have led the U.S administration to set strategies to undermine, torpedo and destabilize the advancement of these processes of change and recuperation of sovereignty. To this end, the US has implemented policies expressed through an ideological and media offensive that aim to discredit the revolutionary and progressive governments of the region, labelling them as totalitarian governments, violators of human rights, with links to drug-trafficking operations, and terrorism; and also questioning the legitimacy of their origin. This is the reason for the relentless fury with which all the empire’s means of propaganda and its agents inside our own countries continuously attack the experiences in Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Paraguay, as with its maintenance of the blockade against revolutionary and independent Cuba.

Part of the strategy activated by the U.S. Empire is evidenced by the coup in Honduras, as well as in other destabilizing initiatives in Central America, attempting to impose the oligarchic interests that have already left hundreds of victims, while a disgusting wave of cynicism tries to cover up the dictatorship imposed by the U.S. administration with a false veil of democracy. Along with this, it is developing a military offensive with the idea of maintaining political and military hegemony in the region, for which it is promoting new geopolitical allies, generating destabilization and disturbing peace in the region and globally through military intimidation, with the help of its allies in the internal oligarchies, who are shown to be complicit in the actions taken by the empire, giving away their sovereignty, and opening spaces for the empire’s actions.

We consider that this new offensive is specifically expressed through two important events that took place this year in the continent: The coup in Honduras, and the installation of military bases in Colombia and Panama, as well as the strengthening of the already existing ones in our region. The coup in Honduras is nothing but a display of hypocrisy by the empire, a way to intimidate the rest of the governments in the region. It is a test-laboratory that aims to set a precedent that can be applied as a new coup model and a way to encourage the right to plot against the transformational and independent processes.

We denounce the military agreement between the Colombian government and the United States administration strengthens the U.S.’s military strategy, whose contents are expressed in the so-called “White Book”. This confirms that the development of the agreement will guarantee a projection of continental and intercontinental military power, the strengthening of transportation capability and air mobility to guarantee the improvement of its action capability, in order to provide the right conditions to have access to energy sources. It also consolidates its political partnership with the regional oligarchy for the control of Colombian territory and its projection in the Andes and in the rest of South America. All this scaffolding and consolidation of military architecture entails a serious threat for peace in the region and the world.

The installation of military bases in the region and their interrelation with the different bases spread throughout the world is not only confined to the military sphere, but rather forms part of the establishment of a general policy of domination and expansion directed by the U.S. These bases constitute strategic points to dominate all the countries in Central and Latin America and the rest of the world.

The treaty for the installation of military bases in Colombia is preceded by Plan Colombia, which was already an example of U.S. interference in the affairs of Colombia and the region using the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism as an excuse. However, it has been shown that drug trafficking levels have increased in Colombia; therefore, the plan is no longer justified given that no favourable results have been obtained since its implementation, that would justify a new treaty with the U.S.

Today, the global strategy headed by the U.S. concerning drug trafficking is a complete failure. Its results are summarised by a rapid processes of accumulation of illegal capital, increased consumption of drugs and exacerbation of criminality, whose victims are the peoples of Latin America, especially the Colombian people. This strategy should be revisited and modified, and should be oriented towards a different logic that focuses on drug consumption as a public health issue. In Colombia, drug trafficking has assumed the form of paramilitarism, and turned into a political project the scope of which and persons responsible should be investigated so that the truth is known, so that justice prevails and the terror of the civilian population ceases.

We, the peoples of the world, declare that we will not give up the spaces we have managed to conquer after years of struggle and resistance; and we commit ourselves to regain those which have been taken from us. Therefore, we need to defend the processes of change and the unfolding revolutions since they are based on sovereign decisions made by the peoples.

 

AGREEMENTS

1. MOBILIZATION AND CONDEMNATION OF U.S. MILITARY BASES

1.1. To organize global protests against the U.S. military bases from December 12th to 17th, 2009. Various leftwing parties and social movements will promote forums, concerts, protest marches and any other creative activity within the context of this event.

1.2. To establish a global mobilization front for the political denouncement of the U.S. military bases. This group will be made up by social leaders, left-wing parties, lawmakers, artists, among others, who will visit different countries with the aim of raising awareness in forums, press conferences and news and above all in gatherings with each country’s peoples.

1.3. To organize students, young people, workers and women in order to establish a common agenda of vigilance and to denounce against the military bases throughout the world.

1.4. To organize a global legal forum to challenge the installation of the U.S. military bases. This forum is conceived as a space for the condemnation of illegalities committed against the sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples and the imposition of a hegemonic imperialist model.

1.5. To organise a global trial against paramilitarism in Colombia bringing testimonies and evidence to international bodies of justice.

1.6. To promote a global trial against George Bush for crimes against humanity, as the person principally responsible for the genocide against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

1.7. To promote a campaign for the creation of constitutional and legal provisions in all of our countries against the installation of military bases and deployment of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

1.8. To promote, from the different social organizations and movements of the countries present in this meeting, a political solution for the Colombian conflict.

1.9. To organise solidarity with the Colombian people against the imperial aggression that the military bases entail in Colombian territory.

2. INSTALLATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A PLATFORM OF JOINT ACTION BY LEFT-WING PARTIES OF THE WORLD

2.1. To establish a space of articulation of progressive and left-wing organizations and parties that allows for coordinating policies against the aggression towards the peoples, the condemnation of the aggressions against governments elected democratically, the installation of military bases, the violation of sovereignty and against xenophobia, the defence of immigrants’ rights, peace, and the environment, and peasant, labour, indigenous and afro-descendent movements.

2.2. To set up a Temporary Executive Secretariat (TES) that allows for the coordination of a common working agenda, policy making, and follow-up on the agreements reached within the framework of this international encounter. Said Secretariat undertakes to inform about relevant events in the world, and to define specific action plans: statements, declarations, condemnations, mobilizations, observations and other issues that may be decided.

2.3. To set up an agenda of permanent ideological debate on the fundamental aspects of the process of construction of socialism.

2.4. To prepare common working agendas with participation from Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania.

2.5. To organize solidarity of the people’s of the world with the Bolivarian revolution and President Hugo Chávez, in response to the constant imperial attacks.

2.6. To commemorate the centenary of Clara Zetkin’s proposal to celebrate March 8th as the International Day of Women. The parties undertake to celebrate this day insofar as possible.

2.7. To summon a meeting to be held in Caracas in April 2010 in commemoration of the bicentenary of our Latin American and Caribbean independences.

3. ORGANIZATION OF A WORLD MOVEMENT OF MILITANTS FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE

3.1. To promote the establishment of peace bases, by peace supporters, who will coordinate actions and denouncements against interventionism and war sponsored by imperialism through activities such as: forums, cultural events, and debates to promote the ethical behaviour of anti-violence, full participation in social life, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, acknowledgement of the cultural identities of our peoples and strengthening the framework of integration. This space seeks to raise awareness among all citizens in rejection of all forms of domination, internal or external intervention, and to reinforce the culture of peace. To struggle relentlessly for a world with no nuclear weapons, no weapons of mass destruction, no military bases, no foreign interference, and no economic blockades, as our peoples need peace and are absolutely entitled to attain development. Promote the American continent as a territory of peace, home to the construction of a free and sovereign world.

3.2. To organize a Peace Parliament as a political space to exchange common endeavours among the world’s progressive and left-wing parliamentarians, and to know the historical, economic, legal, political and environmental aspects key for the defence of peace. Hereby we recommend holding the first meeting in February 2010.

4. ARTILLERY OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION TO EMANCIPATE REVOLUTIONARY CONSCIOUSNESS

4.1. To discuss a public communication policy at an inter-regional level that aims to improve the media battle, and to convey the values of socialism among the peoples.

4.2. To promote the creation and consolidation of alternative and community communication media to break the media siege, promote an International Alternative Left-wing Media Coordination Office that creates links to provide for improved information exchange among our countries, in which Telesur and Radiosur can be spearheads for this action.

4.3. To create a website of all of the progressive and left-wing parties and movements in the world as a means to ensure permanent exchange and the development of an emancipating and alternative communication.

4.4. To promote a movement of artists, writers and filmmakers to promote and develop festivals of small, short and full-length films that reflects the advancement and the struggle of peoples in revolution.

4.5. To hold a meeting or international forum of alternative left-wing media.

5. MOBILIZE ALL POPULAR ORGANIZATIONS IN UNRESTRICTED SUPPORT FOR THE PEOPLE OF HONDURAS

5.1. To promote an international trial against the coup plotters in Honduras before the International Criminal Court for the abuses and crimes committed.

5.2. Refuse to recognize the illegal electoral process they aim to carry out in Honduras.

5.3. To carry out a world vigil on Election Day in Honduras in order to protest against the intention to legitimize the coup, coordinated by the permanent committee that emerges from this encounter.

5.4. To coordinate the actions of left-wing parties worldwide to curb the imperialist pretensions of using the coup in Honduras as a strategy against the Latin American and Caribbean progressive processes and governments.

5.5. To unite with the people of Honduras through a global solidarity movement for people’s resistance and for the pursuit of democratic and participatory paths that allow for the establishment of progressive governments committed to common welfare and social justice.

5.6. To undertake actions geared towards denouncing before multilateral bodies, and within the framework of international law, the abduction of José Manuel Zelaya, legitimate President of Honduras, that facilitated the rupture of constitutional order in Honduras. It is necessary to determine responsibility among those who participated directly in this crime, and even among those who allowed his aircraft to go in and out Costa Rica without trying to detain the kidnappers of the Honduran president.

6. SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD

6.1. The Left-wing Parties of the International Meeting of Caracas agree to demand the immediate liberation of the five Cuban heroes unfairly imprisoned in American jails. They are authentic anti-terrorist fighters that caused no harm to U.S. national security, whose work was oriented towards preventing the terrorist attacks prepared by the terrorist counterrevolution against Cuba. The Five Heroes were subject to a biased judicial process, condemned by broad sectors of humanity, and stigmatized by a conspiracy of silence by the mainstream media. Given the impossibility of winning justice via judicial means, we call upon all political left-wing parties of the world to increase actions for their immediate liberation. We call on President Obama to utilize his executive power and set these Five Heroes of Humanity free.

6.2. The International Meeting of Left-wing Parties resolutely demands the immediate and unconditional cessation of the criminal U.S. blockade that harmed the Cuban people so badly over the last fifty years. The blockade should come to an end right now in order to fulfil the will of the 187 countries that recently declared themselves against this act of genocide during the UN General Assembly.

6.3. To unite with the people of Haiti in the struggle for the return of President Jean Bertrand Aristide to his country.

6.4. We propose to study the possibility to grant a residence in Venezuela to Jean Bertrand Aristide, who was kidnapped and overthrown as Haiti’s president by U.S. imperialism.

6.5. We express the need to declare a permanent alert aimed at preventing any type of breach of the constitutional order that may hinder the process of democratic change underway in Paraguay.

6.6. We denounce the neoliberal privatizing advance in Mexico expressly in the case of the Electric Energy state-owned company, a heritage of the people, which aims through the massive firing of 45 000 workers to intimidate the union force, “Luz y Fuerza”, which constitutes another offensive of the Empire in Central and North America.

6.7. To declare our solidarity with the peoples of the world that have suffered and are still suffering imperial aggressions, especially, the 50 year-long genocidal blockade against Cuba; the threat against the people of Paraguay; the slaughter of the Palestinian people; the illegal occupation of part of the territory of the Republic of Western Sahara and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which today is expanding into Pakistan; the illegal sanctions imposed against Zimbabwe and the constant threat against Iran, among others.

Caracas, November 21st, 2009

DECLARATION OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF CUBA

The Left-wing Parties of the International Meeting of Caracas agree to demand the immediate liberation of the five Cuban heroes unfairly imprisoned in U.S. prisons. They are authentic anti-terrorist fighters that caused no harm to US national security, whose work was oriented towards preventing the terrorist attacks prepared by the terrorist counterrevolution against Cuba. The Five Heroes were subject to a biased judicial process, condemned by broad sectors of humanity, and stigmatized by a conspiracy of silence by the mainstream media.

Given the impossibility of winning justice via judicial means, we call upon all political left-wing parties of the world to increase actions for their immediate liberation. We call on President Obama to utilize his executive power and set these Five Heroes of Humanity free.

The International Meeting of Left-wing Parties resolutely demands the immediate and unconditional cessation of the criminal U.S. blockade that harmed the Cuban people so badly over the last fifty years. The blockade should come to an end right now in order to fulfil the will of the 187 countries that recently declared themselves against this act of genocide during the UN General Assembly.

Caracas, November 21st, 2009

SPECIAL DECLARATION ON THE COUP D’ÉTAT IN HONDURAS

We, left-wing parties of Latin America, Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania, present in the international encounter of left-wing parties, reject the coup d’état against the constitutional government of citizen’s power of the President of Honduas Manuel Zelaya Rosales.

Cognizant of the situation of repression, persecution and murder against the Honduran people and the permanent military harassment against president Manuel Zelaya Rosales, which represents a breach of the rule of law in the sister nation of Honduras:

We support the actions of the national resistance front in its struggle to restore democracy.

We demand and support the sovereign right of the Honduran people to call for a national constituent assembly to establish direct democracy and to ensure the broadest political participation of the people in public affairs.

We denounce the United States intervention and its national and international reactionary right-wing allies and their connection with the coup, which hinders the construction of democracy in Honduras and in the world.

We condemn and repudiate the permanent violation of political and social human rights as well as the violation freedom of speech, promoted and perpetrated by the de facto powers, the Supreme Court of Justice, the National Congress of the Republic, the Ministry of Defence and Security since June 28, 2009.

We reiterate our demand to international governments and bodies, not to recognize the results of the general elections to be held on November 29, 2009 in Honduras, due to the lack of constitutional guarantees and the legal conditions necessary for a fair, transparent and reliable electoral process, the lack of reliable observers that can vouch for the results of this electoral process, which has already been rejected by most international governments, bodies and international public opinion.

To propose and promote an international trial against coup plotters and their accomplices in Honduras before the International Criminal Court, for the illegal actions, abuses and crimes they committed, while developing actions aimed at denouncing to the relevant bodies and in the framework of the international law, the violation of the rights and the kidnapping of the legitimate president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya Rosales, because it is necessary to establish the responsibility of those who participated directly and internally in the perpetration of this crime.

We urge national and international human rights organizations to support these measures, to carry on the campaign of denunciation and vigilance with permanent observers in face of the renewed human rights violations, particularly the persecution and sanction through the loss of jobs for political reasons against the members and supporters of the resistance and president Manuel Zelaya.

We repudiate and condemn the attacks against the diplomatic corps of the embassies of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Argentina, and the embassies of the member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America (ALBA); and express our solidarity with the heroic work of the staff of these diplomatic missions, who have been victims of harassment and hostility by the coup plotters.

We agree to establish coordination among left-wing parties of the world to exert pressure to oust the de facto government and for the restoration of the constitutional president and the right of the Honduran people to install a national constituent assembly that allows for deepening direct democracy.

We urge governments, international bodies and companies to maintain and intensify economic and commercial sanctions to business accomplices and supporters of the coup in Honduras, and to maintain an attitude of vigilance, to break all relations that recognize the coup plotters and the de facto government officers, as well as to take migration control measures that hinder the movement of people who have the purpose of voting in another country where elections are held with the aim of changing the results through the transfer of votes from one country to the other.

We agree not to recognize the international and national observers of the
electoral process who are aligned and conspire to attempt to give legitimacy to an
electoral process devoid of legality and legitimacy. We demand that rather than
observing an illegal and illegitimate process, the return of the state of democratic law and the constitutional government of citizen power Honduras President Manuel Zelaya Rosales is guaranteed.

Caracas, November 21st, 2009

Special decision on a Fifth Socialist International

The international encounter of Left-wing Political parties held in Caracas on November 19, 20 and 21, 2009, received the proposal made by Commander Hugo Chavez Frias to convoke the Fifth Socialist International as a space for socialist-oriented parties, movements and currents in which we can harmonize a common strategy for the struggle against imperialism, the overthrow of capitalism by socialism and solidarity based economic integration of a new type. We assessed that proposition in terms of its historical dimension which calls for a new spirit of internationalism and agreed, for the purpose of achieving it in the short term, to create a WORKING GROUP comprised of those socialist parties, currents and social movements who endorse the initiative, to prepare an agenda which defines the objectives, contents and mechanisms of this global revolutionary body. We call for an initial constitutive event for April 2010 in the City of Caracas. Furthermore, those parties, socialist currents and social movements who have not expressed themselves on this matter can subject this proposal to the examination of their legitimate directive bodies.

Caracas, November 21, 2009

[This translation of the Commitment of Caracas and the special decision on the new international has been edited for Venezuelanalysis.com: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print/4950]

Oops! Huckabee commuted sentence of man tied to WA police slayings’

November 30, 2009

Posted by James aka adap2k on November 30, 2009 at 12:41am

Oops! Huckabee commuted sentence of man tied to police slayings 29 Nov 2009 The man whom police are seeking as a “person of interest” in the slaying of four police officers was released from an Arkansas prison nine years ago after a controversial decision by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) to commute his sentence. Maurice Clemmons was identified late Sunday by the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office as a man sought for questioning. Clemmons has pending charges in Pierce County Superior Court for second-degree child rape and third-degree assault for an attack on a police officer. He was released from custody in those cases after posting a $150,000 bond, according to the Lakewood Police Department. Long before coming to Washington, Clemmons was serving a 35-year prison term in Arkansas for armed robbery but his sentence was commuted by then-Gov. Huckabee, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in his 2008 presidential bid, according to the Arkansas Times Web site.

More:


Huckabee commuted sentence of man tied to police slayings

http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/oops-huckabee-commuted

It is impossible to impose the massive spending cuts and rises in revenue needed to wipe off government debt within the present political order

November 30, 2009

Newsweek International editor’s “Capitalist Manifesto”

A desperate attempt at reassurance

By Nick Beams, 4 July 2009

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/zaka-j04.shtml

 

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, has written an essay entitled “The Capitalist Manifesto: Greed is Good (To a point)”, which is intended to express relief that the panic engendered by the global financial crisis is easing, and to offer reassurances that, for all its faults, capitalism is still “the most productive economic engine we have yet invented.”

The problem with this claim that all is, again, for the best in the best of all possible worlds, is that far from the crisis having ended, it is only just beginning to unfold.

Zakaria begins by drawing comfort from the fact that the financial crises of the past 20 years were all overcome, leading to further economic growth. The stock market crash of 1987 defied predictions of a return to the Great Depression and “turned out to be a blip on the way to an even bigger, longer boom.” The 1997 Asian financial crisis did not lead to a global slump. Instead, the Asian economies “rebounded within two years”. The collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, described by then US Treasury secretary Robert Rubin as “the worst financial crisis in 50 years”, did not result in the end of hedge funds. Rather they have “massively expanded” since then.

How were these earlier crises overcome? As Zakaria notes, US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan always advanced the same solution: cut interest rates and provide easy money, creating a series of asset bubbles.

When the subprime crisis developed in 2007, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke followed the same procedure. However, on this occasion, interest rate cuts failed to alleviate the crisis. The Fed initiated its injections of liquidity in August 2007, but the situation only worsened. The investment bank Bear Stearns went under in March 2008, followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September and, by the end of 2008, notwithstanding massive injections of liquidity, all five Wall Street investment banks had either collapsed or been forced to restructure. The global financial system was on the brink of a meltdown.

This alone demonstrates that, far from the happy scenario painted by Zakaria—this crisis is just like the others since 1987—the collapse that began in 2007 marked a qualitative turn in an ongoing process.

Zakaria is forced to acknowledge that the global financial system has been “crashing more frequently over the past 30 years than in any comparable period in history”. But he insists that the problem is not with the profit system itself. “What we are experiencing is not a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of finance, of democracy, of globalization and ultimately of ethics.”

In the first place, the separation of capitalism from each of these phenomena is absurd—as if the capitalist mode of production could somehow be lifted out of the historical situation in which it is situated; as if it does not shape the socio-political environment in which it operates, including the prevailing ethics.

Let us examine each of Zakaria’s explanations of the crisis in turn. He insists, along with many others, that the fault lies with the operations of the financial system.

“Finance screwed up, or to be more precise, financiers did. In June 2007, when the financial crisis began, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, IBM, Nike, Wal-Mart and Microsoft were all running their companies with strong balance sheets and sensible business models. Major American corporations were highly profitable, and they were spending prudently, holding on to cash to build a cushion for a downturn.”

The separation of finance (the bad side) from the rest of the capitalist economy (the good side) has a long history. It was taken up by Marx in his withering critique of the French petty-bourgeois anarchist Proudhon more than 150 years ago. As Marx explained then, the “bad” side cannot be separated from the “good”, especially as it turns out that, more often than not, the “bad” side is the driving force of historical development. And that is the case in the current situation. The development of American capitalism—and the global economy—has been grounded on the vast changes associated with the processes of financialisation that began in the 1980s.

A few figures illustrate what has occurred. In 1980, financial firms accounted for about 5 percent of total corporate profits. By 2006 this had risen to around 40 percent. On a global scale, financial assets in 1980 were roughly equal in value to world gross domestic product. Twenty-five years later they constituted 350 percent of global GDP. At the heart of this transformation has been the accumulation of finance sector debt in the US economy. It rose from 63.8 percent of GDP in 1997 to 113.8 percent in 2007—a result of the banks and financial corporations plunging ever deeper into debt in order to fund their debt-based financial operations.

The rise and rise of financialisation was not simply a policy choice, but a response to a crisis in the capitalist accumulation process that had developed in the late 1960s and 1970s. Faced with a downturn in the rate of profit, American capitalism undertook a major restructuring program from the end of the 1970s onwards. This involved the destruction of large swathes of manufacturing industry, a concerted assault on the social position of the working class, the development of off-shoring and outsourcing to take advantage of cheaper sources of labour, and a turn to financial manipulation, such as hostile takeovers and mergers, as the source of profit.

 

New mode of accumulation

The transformation of the American economy in the 1980s saw the emergence of a new mode of accumulation, in which profits were made through the appropriation, by financial methods, of already created wealth. Historically, wealth had been accumulated in the US economy through investment, trade and manufacturing. Now the driving force of accumulation became rising asset prices. This has determined the shape of the US economy, and the accumulation of profit by all sections of capital—even for those not immediately connected to finance.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, manufacturing firms based on assembly-line production were not the largest component of the American economy. But the vast increases in profitability that these methods made possible created the conditions where all sectors of capital could expand. This was a society dominated by what sociologists have called a “Fordist regime” in which, as former GM CEO Charles Wilson famously noted, “what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.”

In the past 25 years, the fundamental role once played by assembly-line manufacturing in the American economy has been assumed by finance capital.

No matter how sound or well-run an individual capitalist firm may be, the accumulation of profit is a social process. Each firm depends for its expansion on the growth of the economy as a whole. And in the US, finance capital has been the driving force.

Any attempt to separate the “bad” side from the “good” collapses upon even a cursory review. Zakaria points to various corporations as part of the “good” side of American capital. One of them is Microsoft. But one of the chief sources of Microsoft’s profits has been the sales of the computers and software programs that have powered the finance sector. Consider Nike and Wal-Mart. They have profited by exploiting cheap labour in China and other countries, under conditions of globalised production. But these operations, involving complex financial relationships, would have been impossible without the growth of financial derivates. At the same time, Nike and Wal-Mart could not have remained profitable without the rise in US consumer debt—much of it from housing finance—that has sustained American consumption spending in the face of stagnant or declining real incomes over the past quarter century.

The essential significance of the global financial crisis is that it marks the breakdown of the mode of accumulation that has prevailed for the past 25 years.

Financial assets derive their value, in the final analysis, from their claim upon the production of real wealth. Shares are an obvious example. The share is a claim to a portion of a stream of income generated by a particular company. But this share can be bought and sold, and its value may increase in the market in excess of the value of the underlying asset.

The fact that financial assets have expanded almost four-fold in relation to global production over the past two and a half decades means that all their claims to real wealth cannot be met. This disparity is expressed in the emergence of so-called “toxic assets” on the books of the banks and finance houses—claims to income and wealth that are essentially worthless.

In other words, the crisis is not one of liquidity, i.e., lack of sufficient funds to ensure the functioning of an otherwise healthy system, but of insolvency. Its dimensions are indicated by the fact that to restore the parity that existed in 1980 between the value of financial assets and global GDP would mean wiping out financial asset values equivalent to twice global GDP.

These figures make clear the meaning of the bailout and stimulus packages launched by governments around the world. They have nothing to do with maintaining the jobs and living standards of the working class. Rather, they are aimed at transferring as much as possible of the massive debts and “toxic assets” amassed by the financial corporations and banks to the state.

It is precisely this state rescue operation that has boosted stock markets over the past three months and enabled Zakaria to breathe a sigh of relief. As a recent article in the Wall Street Journal noted, one of the main reasons for the more than 30 percent rebound is “disarmingly simple”. Financial markets are “awash in government cash” as a result of the biggest combined financial stimulus the world has seen in modern times.

The US government has already pledged $12.7 trillion in support of the financial system, almost equivalent to America’s gross domestic product. Since the financial crisis intensified in September 2008, governments worldwide have committed $18 trillion in public funds, equivalent to almost 30 percent of world GDP, to recapitalising the banks. This has led to a blowout in their fiscal position.

In Britain, government debt is expected to soon reach 100 percent of GDP while Japan’s government debt is headed for 200 percent by 2011 and government debt in the US is expected to reach 100 percent of GDP by the same time. According to IMF economists, by 2014 public debt to GDP ratios in the G-20 economies, comprising some 85 percent of the global economy, will have increased by 36 percentage points of GDP compared to the levels at the end of 2007.


A new political regime

Government finance, however, cannot go on indefinitely. The debts incurred by the state to finance the banks will be paid through slashing government spending and social services and forcibly impoverishing the working class. The scale of this assault on social conditions and living standards will be directly proportionate to the size of the sums of money involved. According to one estimate in Britain, consumption there will have to be reduced by at least 20 percent from its level in 2006-2007 to make even a start on balancing the government’s books.

Zakaria points to the “terrifying” growth of government debt in America, especially when entitlements and pension commitments are included, and remarks that “no-one has tried seriously to close the gap, which can be done only by (1) raising taxes or (2) cutting expenditures.”

“This is the disease of modern democracy: the system cannot impose any short-term pain for long-term gain.” The political implications are clear: it is impossible to impose the massive spending cuts and rises in revenue needed to wipe off government debt within the present political order. Restructuring the US and other major capitalist economies requires a new, far more repressive regime.

Zakaria goes to extraordinary lengths in his attempt to claim that capitalism is not the cause of the crisis. The real problem, he insists, is not failure, but too much success. The world has been moving to “an extraordinary degree of political stability”; there is no major military competition among the great powers; political violence is on the decline. Given the wars being conducted by the US in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, such an assertion can only be described as absurd. As for the subsidence of great power rivalry, one need only point to the constant and growing concern in US policy-making circles about the rise of China.

However Zakaria is not going to let facts get in the way of the story he wants to tell. Political stability, he claims, has been accompanied by a reduction in inflation, economic growth and the establishment of a global economic system. It is these “good times” that made people complacent, and, as the cost of capital sank, more foolish. “The world economy had become the equivalent of a race car—faster and more complex than any vehicle anyone had ever seen. But it turned out that no one had driven a car like this before, and no one really knew how. So it crashed.”

What of the future? “The real problem,” he continues, “is that we’re still driving this car. The global economy remains highly complex, interconnected and imbalanced. The Chinese still pile up their surpluses and need to put them somewhere. Washington and Beijing will have to work hard to slowly stabilize their mutual dependence so that the system is not being set up for another crash.”

In other words, while the crisis is over, all the conditions that produced it are still present, and nowhere nearer to being resolved.

Lenin once remarked that the power of Marxism is that it is true. Every so often, even conscious opponents of Marxism are forced, by the very logic of objective facts, to point to processes that form the centre of Marxist analysis. This is the case here.

According to Zakaria: “More broadly, the fundamental crisis we face is of globalization itself. We have globalized the economies of nations. Trade, travel and tourism are bringing people together. Technology has created worldwide supply chains, companies and customers. But our politics remains resolutely national. This tension is at the heart of the many crashes of this era—a mismatch between interconnected economies that are producing global problems but no matching political process that can effect global solutions.”

The Marxist movement has long identified as one of the central contradictions of world capitalism that between the global development of the productive forces on the one hand, and the nation state system on which the legal and political superstructure is based, on the other. It is this contradiction that renders socialism, based on the development of an internationally planned economy, an historic necessity. Just as the feudal political order had to be overthrown to make possible the growth of the productive forces under capitalism, so today the globalisation of production has made the capitalist nation-state system as reactionary and backward as the feudal principalities and kingdoms two and three centuries ago.

This contradiction erupted in the first decade of the last century in the form of World War I. It has now emerged once again, at an even higher level. It can only be resolved by the working class taking political power on a global scale; otherwise mankind faces being plunged into wars and economic crises potentially more devastating than those that characterised the first five decades of the twentieth century.

Zakaria calls for better international coordination. But the objective logic of the capitalist system itself drives events in the opposite direction. Capitalist production is carried out on a global scale. Its purpose is not to meet human needs, but to accumulate private profit. When accumulation is expanding, the different sections of capital, as Marx noted, operate as a kind of fraternity, dividing up the spoils among themselves. When the system breaks down and it becomes no longer a question of sharing profits but of trying to avoid losses, a violent struggle breaks out. Such a breakdown no longer simply involves intensified competitive struggles in the market, as it did in the nineteenth century, but, with the vast growth of capitalist industry and finance, economic crises inevitably bring the direct involvement of the capitalist state.

This is what occurred last year. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September, with the banking and financial system threatened with meltdown, every government around the world responded, not by working for globally coordinated action, but to protect its “own” banking system, leading to immediate conflicts. In the months since, the differences have only widened. The Germans and French are hostile to the American government’s bailouts because they fear, rightly, that these will enable US banks to retain their dominant global position. The American government, for its part, opposes calls for greater regulation, because they are directed at US finance. The British government, meanwhile, does not want to introduce tougher regulations fearing that they would endanger London’s position, described by Financial Times commentator John Plender as “the adventure playground of the global financial system.” This brings opposition from the German government, which harboured hopes that the crisis would offer more opportunities for Frankfurt. The various industry interventions, likewise, have sharpened national rivalries. The German government’s bailout of Opel, for example, endangers operations in Belgium, even raising questions as to whether rules governing the operation of the single European market might have been breached.

As for co-ordination between the US and China to resolve international monetary imbalances, the Chinese central bank has twice called, within the past three months, for the international financial system to be restructured and the dollar replaced as the world reserve currency. Were that to take place, it would cause a rapid decline in the global position of American capitalism, which has enjoyed enormous advantages from the dollar’s role as world money.

Failing international co-operation, Zakaria warns, there will be “more crashes, and eventually there may be a retreat from globalization toward the safety—and slow growth—of protected national economies.” The development of just such a situation in the 1930s led directly to World War II. It would have even more devastating consequences today.

In the end, Zakaria concludes that a “moral crisis” may “lie at the heart of our problems”. Most of what happened over the past decade was legal but “very few people acted responsibly.” However, he continues, none of this happened because “business people have suddenly become more immoral. It is part of the opening up and growing competitiveness of the business world.”

Zakaria does not choose to develop this point, because to do so would make it all too clear that this “moral crisis” is itself an expression of the crisis of the capitalist economy.

The very processes associated with the rise of finance capital have made the dividing line between legality and illegality, not to speak of morality and immorality, ever-more blurred.

In a world of multi-million and multi-billion dollar financial transactions involving the use of complex derivatives, where the value of a financial asset can be altered by changing the value of one or other of the variables in the mathematical model on which it is based; where the more complex and obscure a financial derivative is, the greater the profit going to the seller; where vast fortunes can be made from financial gambling, and where a firm that does not employ the latest dubious methods to boost the bottom line faces being gobbled up by an asset stripper financed with junk bonds, what price ethics?

Moreover, the growth of a financial oligarchy, which dominates and controls the entire political system, means that any rational reform of the present order is impossible, even if a solution were available.

The productive forces of the global economy—the complex and powerful racing car, to use Zakaria’s analogy—created by the combined intellectual and physical labour of the world’s working class, have developed on an immense scale. But they can no longer be left in the hands of a ruling elite that has lost the historical, political and moral right to remain at the wheel. That is why a socialist revolution, and the transfer of political power to the hands of the working class, has become a historical necessity.

Food stamp usage at record levels: America the hungry

November 30, 2009

America the hungry

Patrick Martin, 30 November 2009

A front-page report in Sunday’s New York Times, detailing the skyrocketing rise in food stamp use, provides a far different picture of America at the end of 2009 than the complacent assurances of economic “recovery” voiced by Wall Street and the Obama administration.

The Times conducted a statistical analysis of food stamp use by county, in an effort to present a more detailed social portrait of the 36 million people currently on the food stamp rolls. “They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare,” the report noted.

 

Among the significant findings:

 

  • In 239 counties, more than a quarter of the population receives food stamps.
  • In more than 750 counties, at least one in three African-Americans receives food stamps.
  • In more than 800 counties, more than one-third of all children depend on food stamps.
  • In 62 counties, food stamp rolls have doubled over the past two years.
  • In 205 counties, food stamp rolls are up by two-thirds.

 

The geographical dispersal of the mounting social need for food is staggering, from traditional centers of poverty such as rural Appalachia and inner-city urban ghettos to the suburbs built up in the Sunbelt in the last two decades. The map showing the counties where food stamp usage is growing most rapidly includes the affluent Atlanta suburbs, most of the state of Florida, most of Wisconsin, western and northern Ohio, and most of the Mountain West, including large swathes of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado and Idaho.

While unemployment is the main trigger of rising food stamp usage, the immediate economic cause varies widely, from the collapse of the housing bubble in the southwestern states and Florida, to the collapse of the auto industry in the Great Lakes region, to the layoffs sweeping through white collar America as the recession worsens.

The Times notes the impact on affluent suburban areas, long dominated by the Republican Party, where food stamp usage has more than doubled since the official start of the slump in December 2007, such as Orange County, California and Forsyth County, Georgia. Food stamp use has grown more slowly, in percentage terms, in cities like Detroit, St. Louis and New Orleans, but only because so much of their populations were already living in poverty and receiving food assistance when the slump began.

All these figures significantly understate the level of social deprivation. An estimated 18 million people who are eligible for food stamps do not receive them, partly because of institutional barriers like inadequate outreach services, particularly to immigrant communities—the state of California reaches only half of those eligible—and partly because of the social stigma attached to receiving “welfare,” especially in suburban areas where impoverishment has been a sudden and recent event.

According to a study by Thomas A. Hirschl of Cornell University and Mark R. Rank of Washington University in St. Louis, half the children in America will depend on food stamps at some point during their childhood. The figure rises to 90 percent for black children. The study was published this month in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

Since it is based on analyzing 29 years of data, the latter study gives a picture of the levels of social need during a period when unemployment averaged well below the 10.2 percent mark hit last month. A protracted period of double-digit unemployment—now widely predicted by business and government economists—will make more and more children dependent on federal aid to meet their basic nutritional needs.

The findings of both these studies confirm the conclusions of a US Department of Agriculture survey released November 16 that found 49 million Americans, including 17 million children, were not consistently getting enough food to eat in 2008. The vast majority of the 17 million families struggling to put food on the table had at least one employed worker in the household, but with wages too low to ensure basic necessities. The level of food insecurity was the highest since the USDA began keeping records in 1995.

These figures demonstrate that for American working people, the social reality today is the worst since the Great Depression. Some 30 million people are unemployed or underemployed. Nearly 50 million lack health insurance. Nearly 50 million have difficulty feeding themselves and their children. Some 40 million live below the official poverty line, and the figure would rise to 80 million if a realistic family budget were used as the yardstick.

Young people face the greatest challenge. According to a Pew Research Center report issued last week, 10 percent of adults under 35 have moved back with their parents due to the recession. More than half of men 18 to 24 were still living with their parents, and 48 percent of young women. The proportion of young people with jobs—46 percent—is the lowest since records began in 1948.

These figures are an indictment of American capitalism and its criminal sabotage of the productive forces of society. How is it possible that in a country whose agriculture is so productive that it can literally feed the world, tens of millions of people struggle to feed their children and themselves? It is because production and distribution take place on the basis of private profit, and feeding hungry children is far less profitable for the ruling elite than speculation in the financial markets.

These figures are also an indictment of the political representatives of big business in the Obama administration and the Democratic and Republican parties. Apparently hunger, like unemployment, is viewed by Obama merely as a “lagging indicator”—something that the American people simple have to endure, but not a crisis, not even a cause to lift a finger.

Having funneled trillions into the financial system, to ensure a return to profitability and seven-figure bonuses on Wall Street, and set his course for military escalation in Afghanistan at the cost of countless billions, Obama is now declaring that his top domestic priority is deficit reduction. After Wall Street and war, there will be little or nothing left over to meet the needs of hungry children—or their parents.

 

More: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n30.shtml

Ambushed ‘Alaskan Aphrodite’ Sarah Palin

November 30, 2009

Canadian comedienne and news personality Mary Walsh, as her character Marg Delahunty, ambushed ‘Alaskan Aphrodite’ Sarah Palin at an Ohio book-signing, asking for encouragement for Canada’s conservatives who want to rid the nation of “socialized medicine.”

Walsh’s show, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, is a parody of the nightly news.

Palin told the comic that Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system to allow private enterprise to take over.

More: http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/canadian-comedienne-ambushes-sarah-palin-at-booksigning.html

Catholic Church does all it can to stop the spread os AIDS….?

November 30, 2009

So says the Pope.

I wonder, do Priests not spread STDs?

I bet the cost of his shoes alone could cure all diseases and viruses known to mankind!

 

Story:

Pope urges prayer, action to comfort AIDS patients, November 29, 2009

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI is calling for prayers and concrete action to comfort all those who are suffering from AIDS.

Benedict issued the appeal during his weekly Sunday blessing ahead of World AIDS Day on Tuesday.

He said the Catholic Church has been on the front lines caring for AIDS sufferers with its hospitals and care givers. He said he hoped that with coordinated efforts, the HIV virus can be successfully cured.

Benedict drew unprecedented criticism from European governments, international organizations and scientists in March when he said that distributing condoms was not the answer to Africa’s AIDS problem and could make it worse.

He said a moral attitude toward sex – abstinence and marital fidelity – would help fight the disease.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900721.html

 

Related:

Pope in Africa reaffirms “no condoms” against AIDS, Tue Mar 17, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52G2RH20090317

10,000 albinos are in hiding in east Africa over fears that they will be dismembered and their body parts sold to witchdoctors

November 30, 2009

As many as 10,000 albinos are in hiding in east Africa over fears that they will be dismembered and their body parts sold to witchdoctors, the Red Cross said in a recent report.

The killings of albinos in Burundi and Tanzania, who are targeted because their body parts are believed to have special powers, have sparked fears among the population in the two countries, the report said.

Body parts of albinos are sought in some regions of Africa because they are believed to bring wealth and good luck. Attackers chop off limbs and pluck out organs to sell to dealers, who in turn sell them to witchdoctors.

Scores of albinos have fled to Tanzanian schools for the disabled or in emergency shelters set up by police in Burundi to avoid attacks, according to the report.

“Thousands more albinos across a huge swathe of countryside … are unable to move freely to trade, study or cultivate fields for fear of albino hunters,” the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said.

Tanzanian government officials have said they are mobilizing police to help the embattled population, but admit it is hard to quell the attacks.

Most happen in rural areas, where there is not enough police presence, according to Lucca Haule, assistant commissioner of police.

“We don’t have the resources in those places … it is not easy, but we are trying to map out locations where albinos live so that we can better protect them,” he told CNN earlier this month.

In early November, a court sentenced four people to death in northern Tanzania for killing an albino man and selling his body parts. So far, seven people have been sentenced to death for the killing of more than 50 Tanzanian albinos, including children, in the past two years, Haule said. Dozens more are awaiting trial.

 

More: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11/29/tanzania.albinos/index.html

After losing her dog, writer wonders if she’ll ever feel a love like it again

November 30, 2009

How true:

I’ve never truly committed to a man.There wasn’t space in my heart…”

By Anna Pasternak
Last updated at 7:53 AM on 30th November 2009

 

He came to my wedding and he was there through my divorce. He lay his head on my pregnant stomach and welcomed my newborn daughter home from hospital.

He was my rock when my daughter’s father left me a single mother when she was two, four years ago.

As she grew up, he was always there watching her, looking out for her. If she went too high on the garden swing, he’d look at me with censure as if to say: ‘Aren’t you being irresponsible letting her do this?’

I loved him far more than my ex-husband or the father of my child. And they knew it.

He was my best friend and companion. He was the other man in my life – and yet he wasn’t.

He was my dog – my beloved dachshund, Wilfred. He died, aged 20, last weekend.

Because he lived so well and so long, becoming less mobile only in the last month due to a cancerous tumour that we were assured gave him no pain, part of me thought he was immortal.

When he suddenly went downhill after breakfast (which, typically, he ate greedily) on Sunday morning and couldn’t move, struggling for breath, we called our vet.

Because Wilfred was legendary in the vet’s Henley surgery as the oldest dog on their books, Justin, the vet, promised to come to our house when the end was imminent.

When he arrived, we had Wilfred in his basket, in front of the fire, drifting in and out of consciousness, rasping.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1231872/I-loved-man-After-losing-dog-Wilfred-writer-wonders-shell-feel-love-like-again.html

Iraq Inquiry bombshell: Secret letter to reveal new Blair war lies

November 30, 2009

By Simon Walters, Mail on Sunday Political Editor

Last updated at 1:48 AM on 29th November 2009

An explosive secret letter that exposes how Tony Blair lied over the legality of the Iraq War can be revealed.

The Chilcot Inquiry into the war will interrogate the former Prime Minister over the devastating ‘smoking gun’ memo, which warned him in the starkest terms the war was illegal.

The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 – a full eight months before the war – telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.

It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.

He even concealed the bombshell information from his own Cabinet, fearing it would spark an anti-war revolt. The only people he told were a handful of cronies who were sworn to secrecy.

Lord Goldsmith was so furious at his treatment he threatened to resign – and lost three stone as Mr Blair and his cronies bullied him into backing down.

Sources close to the peer say he was ‘more or less pinned to the wall’ in a Downing Street showdown with two of Mr Blair’s most loyal aides, Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan.

The revelations follow a series of testimonies by key figures at the Chilcot Inquiry who have questioned Mr Blair’s judgment and honesty, and the legality of the war.

The Mail on Sunday has learned that the inquiry has been given Lord Goldsmith’s explosive letter, and that Mr Blair and the peer are likely to be interrogated about it when they give evidence in the New Year.

Lord Goldsmith gave qualified legal backing to the conflict days before the war broke out in March 2003 in a brief, carefully drafted statement. As The Mail on Sunday disclosed three years ago, even that was a distortion as Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair a week earlier he could be breaking international law.

But today’s revelations show that Lord Goldsmith told Mr Blair at the outset, and in writing, that military action against Iraq was totally illegal.

The disclosures deal a massive blow to Mr Blair’s hopes of proving he acted in good faith when he and George Bush declared war on Iraq. And they are likely to fuel further calls for Mr Blair to be charged with war crimes.

Lord Goldsmith’s ‘smoking gun’ letter came six days after a Cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002, at which Ministers were secretly told that the US and UK were set on ‘regime change’ in Iraq.

The peer, who attended the meeting, was horrified. On July 29, he wrote to Mr Blair on a single side of A4 headed notepaper from his office.

Friends say it was no easy thing for him to do. He was a close friend of Mr Blair, who gave him his peerage and Cabinet post. The typed letter was addressed by hand, ‘Dear Tony’, and signed by hand, ‘Yours, Peter’.

In it, Lord Goldsmith set out in uncompromising terms why he believed war was illegal. He pointed out that:

  • War could not be justified purely on the grounds of ‘regime change’.
  • Although United Nations rules permitted ‘military intervention on the basis of self-defence’, they did not apply in this case because Britain was not under threat from Iraq.
  • While the UN allowed ‘humanitarian intervention’ in certain instances, that too was not relevant to Iraq.
  • It would be very hard to rely on earlier UN resolutions in the Nineties approving the use of force against Saddam.

Lord Goldsmith ended his letter by saying ‘the situation might change’ – although in legal terms, it never did.

The letter caused pandemonium in Downing Street. Mr Blair was furious. No10 told Lord Goldsmith he should never have put his views on paper, and he was not to do so again unless told to by Mr Blair.

The reason was simple: if it became public, Lord Goldsmith’s letter could make it impossible for Mr Blair to fulfil his secret pledge to back Mr Bush in any circumstances. More importantly, it could never be expunged from the record as copies were stored in No10 and in the Attorney General’s office.

Although Lord Goldsmith had Cabinet status, he attended meetings only when asked. After his letter, he barely attended another meeting until the eve of the war. Mr Blair kept him out to reduce the chance of him blurting out his views to other Ministers.

When Mr Blair is quizzed by the Chilcot Inquiry, he will be asked why he never admitted he was told from the start that the war was illegal.

Equally ominously for Mr Blair, a defiant Lord Goldsmith is ready to defend the letter when he appears before the inquiry. Friends of the peer, widely derided for his role in the Iraq War, believe it will vindicate him.

A source close to Lord Goldsmith said: ‘He assumed, perhaps naively, that Blair wanted a proper legal assessment. No10 went berserk because they knew that once he had put it in writing, it could not be unsaid.

‘They liked to do things with no note-takers, and often no officials, present. That way, there was no record. Everything could be denied.

‘Goldsmith threatened to resign at least once. He lost three stone in that period. He is an honourable man and it was a terribly stressful experience.’Lord Goldsmith’s wife Joy, a prominent figure in New Labour dining circles, played a crucial role in talking him out of quitting.

‘Joy was always very ambitious on Peter’s behalf and did not want to see him throw it all away,’ said a source.

Lord Goldsmith’s letter contradicts Mr Blair’s repeated statements, before, during and after the war on its legality.

In April 2005, the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman repeatedly asked him if he had seen confidential Foreign Office advice that the war would be illegal without specific UN support.

Mr Blair said: ‘No. I had the Attorney General’s advice to guide me.’ At best, it was dissembling. At worst, it was a blatant lie.

Mr Blair knew all along that Lord Goldsmith had told him the war was illegal, and that when the peer finally gave it his cautious backing, he did so only under extreme duress.

The Mail on Sunday has also obtained new evidence about the way Lord Goldsmith was bullied into backing the war at the 11th hour.

He was summoned to a No10 meeting with Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Baroness Sally Morgan, Mr Blair’s senior Labour ‘fixer’ in Downing Street. No officials were present.

A source said: ‘Falconer and Morgan performed a pincer movement on Goldsmith. They more or less pinned him up against the wall and told him to do what Blair wanted.’

After the meeting, Lord Goldsmith issued his brief statement stating the war was lawful.

Lord Falconer said in response to the latest revelations: ‘This version of events is totally false. The meeting was Lord Goldsmith’s suggestion and he told us what his view was.’

Baroness Morgan has also denied trying to pressure Lord Goldsmith.

The legal row came to a head days before the war, when the UN refused to approve military action. Stranded, Mr Blair had to win Lord Goldsmith’s legal backing, not least because British military chiefs refused to send troops into action without it.

On March 17, three days before the conflict started, Lord Goldsmith said the war was legal on the basis of previous UN resolutions threatening action against Saddam – even though in his secret letter of July 2002, he had ruled out this argument.

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said: ‘This letter is probably in the bundle that has been supplied to the inquiry by the Attorney General’s department. It is presumed they will want to discuss it with him. If so, Lord Goldsmith is content to do so.

‘His focus is on the legality of the war, its morality is for others.’

A spokesman for the Chilcot Inquiry said: ‘We are content we have obtained all the relevant documents.’

A spokesman for Mr Blair refused to say why the former Prime Minister had not disclosed Lord Goldsmith’s July 2002 letter.

‘The Attorney General set out the legal basis for action in Iraq in March 2003,’ he said. ‘Beyond that, we are not getting into a running commentary before Mr Blair appears in front of the Chilcot committee.’

Leading international human rights lawyer Philippe Sands said: ‘The Chilcot Inquiry must make Lord Goldsmith’s note of 29 July, 2002, publicly available to restore public confidence in the Government.’

 

Diary of deceit … and how the Attorney General lost three stone

2002

April 6: Blair meets Bush at Crawford, Texas. They secretly agree ‘regime change’ war against Iraq.

July 23: Blair tells secret Cabinet meeting of war plan. Goldsmith is asked to check legal position.

July 24: Blair tells MPs: ‘We have not got to the stage of military action…or point of decision.’

By the time Tony Blair led Britain to attack Iraq, he had stopped believing his own lurid claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, according to an unpublished interview with the late Robin Cook, the former Leader of the Commons who resigned from the Cabinet just before the invasion in March 2003.

In the interview, which Cook gave me in 2004, the year before his death, he described Blair’s actions as ‘a scandalous manipulation of the British constitution’, adding that if the then Prime Minister had revealed his doubts, they would have rendered the war illegal.

Cook, who was in almost daily contact with Blair in the months before his resignation, said that in September 2002, when the Government published its infamous dossier claiming Saddam had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons and could deploy WMDs within 45 minutes, Blair did believe these claims were true. But he added:

‘By February or March, he knew it was wrong. As far as I know, at no point after the end of 2002 did he ever repeat those claims.’

On March 18, Blair had to face the Commons to ask it to vote for war but he knew, Cook added, ‘that if he now publicly withdrew the dossier’s claims, his position would be lost’.

Therefore Blair kept silent and so secured the war resolution, though 139 Labour MPs voted against him.

Cook added that if Blair had revealed his doubts, this would also have made it impossible for Lord Goldsmith to issue the fateful legal advice that Britain’s Service chiefs had been demanding: that war would be lawful.

‘What I’ve never seen satisfactorily defended by the Government is whether that opinion still stands up if the premise on which it was based – the claims in the dossier – turn out to be false,’ Cook said.

‘Tony didn’t focus on WMDs only for political reasons, but for legal reasons. He knew he was not going to get the Attorney General on side on any basis other than that Saddam had illegal weapons and could not be disarmed by any means other than war.’

Cook’s is not the only bombshell that remains unpublished. Last week, Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, told the Chilcot Inquiry that though Blair kept insisting almost to the end that ‘nothing was decided’ on Iraq, his decision to support the invasion actually went back to April 2002, when he visited President Bush’s Texas ranch.

However, both Meyer and other British and American officials told me in 2004 that Blair made up his mind even before April and that even then, Blair was saying in private that Britain would join the attack as long as Bush got UN backing. That meant proving Saddam had active WMDs, as the UN would not authorise an attack on any other basis.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231746/Secret-letter-reveal-new-Blair-war-lies.html

Heart of Dryness: 3400 gallons of water per microchip

November 30, 2009

November 14, 2009

Two out of every five global industries believed that the impact of a water shortage on their business would be severe or catastrophic and fewer than 17% said they were prepared for that calamity. Even innovation-driven optimists worry how California’s information technology firms require 3,400 gallons per microchip, a quarter of Silicon Valley’s dwindling dams. The high-tech panacea, desalination, is so energy-intensive that it relies on power plants which currently burn up 40% of existing freshwater supplies.

 

http://josswinn.posterous.com/heart-of-dryness-3400-gallons-of-water-per-mi

 

James Workman’s book “Heart of Dryness
http://heartofdryness.com/

“God Hates Fags” in Boston!

November 29, 2009

Fred Phelps’ clan is coming to Boston to spread their anti-gay, anti-Semitic message at schools and temples across the city.

The “God Hates Fags” Westboro Baptist Church is planning at least four pickets on Tuesday, December 1st. They will protest the World AIDS Day conference at the University of Massachusetts, then taunt the students at Brookline High School, next they will head over to the Hillel House at Boston University, and then to Temple Israel to attack openly-gay, Jewish, Congressman Barney Frank.

We are hosting a Phelps-A-Thon (1) to counter Fred Phelps’ hateful message.  For every minute the “God Hates Fags” clan is protesting, we will be collecting donations for each of the organizations the clan is protesting against!

On the “God Hates Fags” website, Phelps has this to say about the upcoming protest at one of the schools:

“University of Massachusetts – Thank God For AIDS, stupid! 100 William T Morrissey Blvd That is what WBC has been saying since back in the day when AIDs was the event d’jure. Now we say, that is sooooo last century. How’s that defying AIDs going for you hypocrites? You whose parents told us in Washington D.C. “you say don’t f***, we say F*** YOU!” That’s right, now you have put your friends children on the job, huh? Lot’s of luck. Deuteronomy 28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. God warned you through his prophet, Moses of this day. You did not heed, so you get the curse. Tah dah! That is how Our God rolls, and he is YOUR GOD! Praise Him! AMEN!”


Chris Mason

Chris@Phelps-A-Thon.com

http://www.Phelps-A-Thon.com

 

Notes:

  1. http://www.phelps-a-thon.com/Home.html

400+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

November 29, 2009

400+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50

The Left Should Be Emulating Republican Infighting

November 29, 2009

One of the big political stories in the U.S. right now concerns the in-fighting taking place in the Republican Party. In a nutshell, the extreme-right wing of the already far-right party is attempting to dispel those they consider not socially conservative enough.

In one of the more dramatic examples of this, they ran a Conservative Party candidate against the Republican candidate in a New York state race, which the Democratic opponent ended up winning. Those on the left are having a great time with this because they’ve managed to convince themselves that it marks the end of the Republican Party.

I find much of their criticism to be shortsighted. While I do not agree with much of anything associated with far-right politics, I do think that their struggle to redefine what they stand for is something the left should be doing as well.

 

More: http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/11/left-should-be-emulating-republican.html

“The existence of bigotry, fear, distrust, suspicion, hatred, and even discrimination against atheists in America is undeniable…”

November 29, 2009

“The existence of bigotry, fear, distrust, suspicion, hatred, and even discrimination against atheists in America is undeniable after any sincere appraisal of the evidence — and that evidence is probably just a small piece of the real picture, given how many atheists tend to remain in the closet about their real feelings.”

 

Source: http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/11/words-of-wisdom-austin-cline.html

 

More: http://atheism.about.com/od/excusingantiatheistbigotry/a/CryingWolf.htm

Is Jesus an “Invisible, Magical, Wish-Granting Friend” to Christians?

November 29, 2009

My debate with Tom Gilson of Thinking Christian, after making great progress, came to a sudden halt when Tom quit.

Why did Tom end the debate? I had said that “most Christians believe Jesus is an invisible, magical, wish-granting friend.” (Let’s call that proposition P.) Tom writes:

The main problem with your depiction of Christian belief is… that it distorts the truth by imbalancing its presentation of what Christian belief is.

Tom says it is my “unwillingness or inability to see this” that caused him to quit.

But wait a minute! I explicitly said in my earlier letters that I agree that P is not a balanced or helpful description of Christian doctrine!

For example, in Letter 17 I wrote:

I never said that calling Jesus an “invisible, magical, wish-granting friend” was to offer a good description of Christian belief, either. I know it’s distorted. In the same way, saying that Christianity is belief in an “Almighty Creator and Savior” is also a huge distortion, for it leaves out hugely important attributes like God’s invisibility, supernaturality, prayer-responsiveness, and so on.

…In a “World Religions 101″ article it would be ludicrous to say that Christianity is belief in an invisible, magical, wish-granting friend and then move on!

Tom says he quit because I was unwilling or unable to see that P “distorts the truth by imbalancing its presentation of what Christian belief is.”

But above, you can see that I quite explicitly asserted that P presents a distorted and imbalanced presentation of Christian belief. So Tom’s explanation of why he left the debate is explicitly contradicted by my earlier letter.

 

More: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5187

U.S. refuses to give up landmines yet again

November 29, 2009

By: Derek Ford, Friday, November 27, 2009

In brief

After a review of landmine policy, the U.S. State Department has again refused to sign the international Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty prohibits the production, trade, stockpiling, and use of landmines. Over 150 nations are already signatories of the 10-year-old treaty.

According to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the explosives caused over 5,000 casualties in 2008, a third of which were children. U.S. officials cited “defense needs” and “security commitments” as to why the policy remains unchanged.

The truth is that the U.S. government refuses to surrender any useful tactical weapon. In addition to landmines, it still uses cluster bombs that continue to maim and kill even after the end of hostilities. Post-war casualties are often children.

The review comes just before an international meeting on landmines in December in Cartagena, Colombia. State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly stated that the United States will be sending observers to the conference and that the country has no plans to sign the convention.

More: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13283

Iron Jesus

November 29, 2009

Mary Jo Coady is making news because she “sees” Jesus in her iron.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/11/29/iron-jesus/

90+ Free Audiobooks About Religion

November 29, 2009

90+ Free Audiobooks About Religion

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=24

Traditional carols are ‘nonsense’, says bishop

November 29, 2009

Posted in Funny Ha Ha, Religious Matters

Posted by Phillis November 29, 2009 at 1:14 pm

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/11/traditional-carols-nonsense-bishop/

Some traditional carols are “nonsense” and have turned Jesus into a Father Christmas figure, according to a leading bishop.Away in a Manger cannot be sung “without embarrassment”, Once in Roy al David’s City is “Victorian behaviour control”; and O Come, All Ye Faithful is misleading, said the Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Rev Nick Baines.
He blamed the much-loved carols for adding to confusion over the season’s real meaning and turning Jesus into a figure as fictitious as Father Christmas.

While others defended the traditional songs as “joyful” and “triumphant”, the bishop complained that the carols have contributed to the story of Christ’s birth being seen “as just one more story alongside the panto and fairy stories”.
In a new book published by the Church of England, Why Wish You a Merry Christmas, the bishop argues that carols encourage images of Christmas that have more to do with Victorian sentiment than the Biblical account of Christ’s birth.

“I always find it a slightly bizarre sight when I see parents and grandparents at a nativity play singing Away in a Manger as if it actually related to reality,” he said.

Telegraph

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

November 29, 2009

So you think it’s only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again

By David Sirota, 11-27-09

Pop quiz — name the political leader who said the following:

“We must be willing to pull the plug before sinking more dollars into weapons that do not provide what our warriors need.”

Now name the leader who said this:

“(W)e cannot track $2.3 trillion in (Pentagon spending) … We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion … There are those who will oppose every effort to save taxpayers’ money … Well, fine, if there’s to be a struggle, so be it.”

I’m willing to bet many self-described “conservatives” guessed Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I would make that wager based on the enraged response to my recent column about government data showing that our waste-ridden, $600-billion-a-year defense budget will cost about seven times more than the healthcare legislation currently before Congress.

In e-mails, letters and Web site comments, right-wingers didn’t vent anger at Pentagon profligacy, but at the criticism of Pentagon profligacy — as if brazenly throwing away billions on outdated weapons systems and obsolete military programs is now a “conservative” value. Notably, the vitriol didn’t include contrary numbers disproving the figures I referenced (none exists) — the responses just used Fox News-ish slogans like “the cost of freedom” to deride all criticism of Pentagon spending as unpatriotic ultraliberalism.

Of course, if that’s true, then Stephen Colbert’s refrain that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” is now less a laugh line than a devastatingly accurate commentary on the deranged terms of America’s political discourse. I say that because here are some objective, nonpartisan, non-ideological facts:

 

  • The 2010 Pentagon budget means “every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year,” reports the Cato Institute. “By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China’s per capita spending is less than $100.”
  • “(The Pentagon budget) dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike,” reports Hearst Newspapers.
  • “President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II,” reports National Journal’s Government Executive magazine.
  • In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost — yes, lost — $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal healthcare for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal healthcare plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.

Obviously — obviously! — these points are no cause for alarm and certainly no cause for defense spending reductions, right? All they must prove is that the archconservative Cato Institute, William Randolph Hearst’s newspaper chain, National Journal employees and Pentagon officials are secretly America-hating liberals. And — obviously! — so are two of the most aggressive neoconservative hawks ever to hold government office, Sen. John McCain and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. After all, they’re the ones who issued those scathing statements about wasteful defense spending in the pop quiz above. That means they’re actually terrorist-appeasing lefties, right?

Really, how could anyone other than traitorous communists see the data and then consider backing the mildest Pentagon spending cuts? I mean, come on — in a country whose paranoid conservative movement now makes a dead-serious ideology out of Stephen Colbert wisecracks, how dare any red-blooded American even think of pondering basic budgetary facts?

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/11/27/colbert_conservatism

Obama administration continues Bush policy on land mines

November 29, 2009

By Jeff Lassahn, 28 November 2009

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/land-n28.shtml

 

On Tuesday, the Obama Administration announced that after reviewing US policy it does not intend to sign an international treaty banning land mines. State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly said that the Bush administration policy of abstaining from the treaty “remains in effect.”

Kelly explained, “We determined that we wouldn’t be able to meet our national defense needs, nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this convention.” The latter part of this statement refers to the border of North Korea and South Korea, which is littered with mines as a deterrent to a North Korean invasion.

The administration backpedaled slightly on Wednesday, declaring that it is carrying out a review of the policy, but will not sign the treaty while this review is still pending. “The administration is committed to a comprehensive review of its land mine policy. That review is still on-going,” said Kelly. “The review is going to take some time, given that it is the first review of our policy conducted since 2003.” No explanation was offered as to why the review suddenly went from complete to “on-going.”

The 1997 Ottawa Treaty, also known as the Land Mine Treaty, was signed by 133 countries around the world. Much of Africa, South and Central America, and Europe are among the signatories. The treaty is more limited than its name implies, as it only prohibits anti-personnel mines. Anti-tank mines, remote control mines, and “anti-handling devices” (booby traps) are not covered by the treaty.

The international campaign to ban land mines is in response to their enormous toll on civilian populations, particularly after a conflict is over. An Associated Press report states, “Land mines are known to have caused 5,197 casualties last year, a third of them children, according to the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Land mines (ICBL), which links some 1,000 activist groups.”

Most land mines are fairly small devices shaped as cylinders, rectangles, or discs. They are either buried at a shallow depth, or left in debris and overgrowth. Owing to their simplicity, size, and low cost, millions have been deployed around the world.

Mines are “area-denial” weapons, designed to prohibit access to a specific territory or route. In conflict, this can encompass almost any area critical to the military strategy of the moment, including civilian areas. For example, a supply route might be mined to cut off or hamper supply chains. At the end of the conflict, the same route could be a critical transportation route for civilians, and could still be littered with unknown mines.

The removal of mines is an expensive, dangerous, and complicated process. The mines are highly volatile, and can still explode decades after their placement. In war, the process of mine laying is focused on making them impossible to detect―and post-conflict, they remain just as hard to detect.

In World War Two the metal detector was adapted to detect mines, which have metal parts like firing pins and shrapnel. Producers quickly responded by making as much as possible in a mine with plastic or wood to avoid detection.

In another mine removal process, a mechanical minesweeper (an armored truck) uses weight to set off mines. In response, mines have been created with extremely sensitive firing pins that resist heavy weights but can be set off by a human footstep.

Post-conflict, many militaries will not even reveal where the weapons have been used, or in some cases do not even know. Mine removal organizations must then painstakingly comb a mined region with mechanical mine clearing vehicles, metal detectors, or even animals trained to smell out the explosive powders in a mine.

The scope of mine removal is vastly insufficient to the scale of mining, leaving civilian populations vulnerable for extended periods of time. Anti-personnel mines, which are banned by the Ottawa Treaty, can be particularly horrendous. They are not designed to kill. Instead, they maim, by obliterating a foot or a leg. In war this ties up resources in rescue and recover; in peace it has ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The major nations abstaining from the land mine treaty include China, Russia, India, and above all, the United States. Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, North and South Korea, and most central Asian nations also have not signed.

On Sunday the second review of the Ottawa Treaty is being held in Cartagena, Colombia. For the first time, the United States is sending observers, though not participating directly.

Despite this steadfast avoidance of constraints on the weapons, the US military hasn’t actually used land mines since the first Gulf War in 1991. It is notable that strategists found no need for the weapons in the neo-colonial occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet still insist that the massive American stockpile―10 million antipersonnel mines, and 7.5 million anti-tank mines―will be kept, and are open to usage.

What this points to is the acknowledgment of the possibility for a whole different type of military conflict; not one involving the suppression of a small nation or insurgent groups, but a conflict with a global competitor that would bring with it a very different type of war.

Though not mentioned in press accounts, the US policy on cluster weapons is very similar to the approach to land mines. Cluster munitions are small “bomblets” dropped from bomb or artillery shells, which disperse by the thousands over a wide area. Like land mines, cluster weapons can linger on a massive scale for long after a war, killing and maiming civilians on a regular basis. In every recent US conflict they have been used, to the outrage of humanitarian groups. The United States has steadfastly refused to sign a treaty banning the weapons, leaving its stockpile of tens of millions of bomb ripe for future usage.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,408 other followers