News & views … (open thread)
Back to Main
February 1, 2006
OT 06-12
Comments
Look like poodle Blair got creamed in Parliament yesterday – twice!
Government suffers chaotic double defeat over bill to combat religious hatred
The government last night suffered a chaotic defeat over its bill to combat religious hatred when a lethal mixture of Labour rebels, abstentions and absentees from Westminster delivered an unexpected triumph to the combined Opposition in both Lords and Commons.
Though the racial and religious hatred bill came from Charles Clarke’s Home Office team, and some MPs predicted that chief whip, Hilary Armstrong will today offer her resignation, Tony Blair contributed personally to the defeat by missing the night’s second key vote – which was lost by just one vote, his own.
Labour has a 64 vote majority in the Commons. So 63 of his own party showed him the finger.
Parliamentary system… Is this what they call a no confidence vote? Will there be new elections? [Sorry if these are stupid questions.]
Posted by: gylangirl | Feb 1 2006 18:01 utc | 2
Is this what they call a no confidence vote? Will there be new elections?
No to both. Just that law got turned down and will have to be changed to pass. But it is a loss of political power for Blair and talk will rise that it is time for him to step away, as had promised a while ago, and make room for another prime minister.
AT&T Sued Over NSA Eavesdropping
AT&T mucking about with personal information they’re not supposed to have is nothing new. Buncha creeps.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 1 2006 18:10 utc | 4
Well, i think the issue was the word “reckless”. The Gov did come up with a compromise, according to which people could still debate, insult or ridicule religions as long as they had no intention to stir up hatred, or were “reckless” about stirring up hate.
I kind of do agree that there should be laws that deal with inciting hatred or instigators of violence, but I must be able to draw a picture of Jesus with his pants down having sex with a man and a gun in his hand, and post it on the web or the church house, without having to fear that I’ll be jailed for years because it’s my fault that extreme defenders of the christian faith start to hate me.
I found this comment over at The Guardian blog:
It’s not a case of Blair & co not listening or not having the right “whipping” tactics (what a bloody daft expression) or the right “enforcers” to drive their loony laws through a supine parliament. The problem is a lack of common sense. Blair & his lackeys shows all the tendencies of the more extreme religious nutters – I’m right and thus you can only be wrong. It’s a pity the MPs did not have the balls to impeach him over Iraq. This could have been followed by a treason trial followed by his execution (death penalty still exists for treason). What puzzles me – if Blair (& Bushy) are such big Christians how come, by proxy they break the 6th commandment every day (Thou shalt not kill). Perhaps they like to pick’n mix with respect to their Christianity (nah, 6th’s a bit inconvenient today).
And b, as your linked story says,
As Mr Goggins struggled to make his case he admitted that the cartoons critical of Muhammad which have triggered boycotts and a political crisis in Denmark after being published there could attract prosecution under the bill.
If those laws would have passed, you surely wouldn’t want to be a journo any longer in GB. Because what if what one draws and writes stirs up hatred in Tony? Jail it is.
Posted by: Rondo | Feb 1 2006 18:45 utc | 5
Rumor: Joint Chiefs of Staff write a letter to WaPo about a Tom Toles cartoon.
If true I guess it is this recent cartoon which is mooking Rumsfeld more than anyone else.
So did Rummy order the Generals to beat on WaPo?
a href=”http://cqpolitics.com/cq.com/www.cq.com/public/20060131_homeland.html”>Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 1 2006 19:21 utc | 7
One thing that does occur about Bliar’s censorship is that the unamended Act may have put Salman Rushdie in the slammer for his ‘SATANIC VERSES’. In other words it probably wouldn’t have been published in it’s present form. That may have stopped or slowed a lot of the mutual hatred build-up between the west and Islam.
Don’t get me wrong, the only censorship should have been Rushdie’s self censorship, but the book was deliberately offensive to devout muslims and as such further alienated people at a time when the smart thing would have been to bring them together.
It alway puzzled me that xtians who raced to condemn the gentle humour of ‘The Life of Brian’ also lined up to defend Rushdie’s freedom to humourlessly and resentfully vilify Islam.
Just the same old same old. Freedom of speech means I should have the freedom to shut you up.
I can’t help but feel that if the west in particular USuk were consistent on this issue then it wouldn’t take long for Islam and other marginalised philosophies to accept the result whether it be ‘publish anything you want’ or ‘don’t denigrate any philosophy or culture’.
The hipocrasy serves to reinforce the conviction amongst muslims that the odds are deliberately stacked against them.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 1 2006 21:10 utc | 10
NSA Hearing Action Alert — Upcoming Meeting Announcement
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 2 2006 0:33 utc | 12
just a short note to the comrades to tell you i read every night – here & find such sustenance – for the necessary battles
the constant & very real humanity & its open expression – intimacy makes clear that the history(ies) we are living through will pass – but our resistance is essential to its passing
as usual – a nod to b for his work – moa has become an essential element to my ‘living’ or learning to, ‘apprendre à vivre enfin’ as brother derrida would suggest
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 2 2006 2:02 utc | 13
r’giap,
Good to hear from you as always.
I my less than eloquent but still heartfelt way. Ditto!
Some will evolve some will devolve. All will pass.
Yeah possum, I’m with you tonight.
Posted by: Juannie | Feb 2 2006 3:26 utc | 14
Anyone else noticed how specific foreign policy arguments are being shifted to more general terms now, specifically “isolationism?” I’m in favor of this, as it should call out the alternatives of neoliberalism and neoconservativism (or both at once, Wilsonism)
Just curious if the barflies here would call themselves isolationists? Or if they have a third way?
Posted by: Rowan | Feb 2 2006 3:48 utc | 15
Fitzgerald Reveals Someone’s Been Tampering With Evidence?
?
How does Fitzgerald know of the existence of emails which have been deleted? Speculation leads us to conclude that either someone told him about the emails, or someone has copies of them. Notice Fitzgerald refers to multiple emails in both the Vice-President’s and President’s office.
White House E-Mail
President Reagan tried to shred them electronically…
President Bush tried to take them to Texas…
President Clinton tried to put them beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act…
White House e-mail survived, thanks to a six-year lawsuit brought by the National Security Archive and allied historians, librarians, and public interest lawyers.
Here are the highest-level White House communications on the most secret national security affairs of the United States during the 1980s–shockingly candid electronic exchanges you were never meant to see, virtually none of which has ever before been available to the American public.
“As profound as major foreign policy initiatives and fiascos..as trivial as pizza orders and office flirtations.”
–New York Times
“Forget the Nixon tapes. we’ve graduated to e-mail eavesdropping.” –Publishers Weekly
“The battle for the first outpost of cyberspace–electronic mail–is over. We won; the White House lost.”
–Wired
“It’s of vital importance for historians that such materials be retained.” –Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.
“A rich historical record–and a source of occasional high comedy.” –New York
“The book and diskette, culled from 4,000 sanitized messages that the White House and Iran-contra investigators have released, are a cross between history and voyeurism — a stream of insights into past American policy, spiced with depictions of White House officials in poses they would never adopt for a formal portrait.”
–Michael Wines, The New York Times,11-26-95.
Remember we are dealing w/the same jackels that played the Iran-Contra game.
Maybe that’s why
the Bush administration Politicized the Archives by replacing the Archivist of the United States.
We are concerned about the sudden announcement on April 8, 2004, that the White House has nominated Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States. Prior to the announcement, there was no consultation with professional organizations of archivists or historians. This is the first time since the National Archives and Records Administration was established as an independent agency that the process of nominating an Archivist of the United States has not been open for public discussion and input. We believe that Professor Weinstein must—through appropriate and public discussions and hearings—demonstrate his ability to meet the criteria that will qualify him to serve as Archivist of the United States:
When former President Ronald Reagan signed the National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-497), he said that, “the materials that the Archives safeguards are precious and irreplaceable national treasures and the agency that looks after the historical records of the Federal Government should be accorded a status that is commensurate with its important responsibilities.” Earlier in 1984, when the National Archives Act was being discussed, Senate Report 98-373 cautioned that if the Archivist was appointed “arbitrarily, or motivated by political considerations, the historical records could be impoverished [or] even distorted.”
Sound familiar?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 2 2006 4:01 utc | 16
If by “isolationist” you mean “should Bu$hCo and all the other neocon criminals be isolated behind locked metal doors for the rest of their lives” then I certainly am an isolationist.
By “isolationist” do you mean economically or sociologically or both?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 2 2006 4:19 utc | 18
American librarians get screwed as badly as the rest of us, but, unlike the rest of us, they do not have a history of being quiet while it is being done to them.
The FCC is being sued for its new rules requiring broadband Internet providers and Internet phone companies to make wiretapping for police agencies easier. The new rules, which are an extension of 1994’s Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) “to apply CALEA obligations to new technologies and services,” were passed last Fall (they take effect in Spring 2007), and are broad enough to encompass universities and other non-traditional broadband providers . Thus, the organizations filing the suit include the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Library Association, the Association of American Universities, Pulver.com (“The ‘Voice’ of IP Communications”), and Sun Microsystems. The suit deals with interpretations of CALEA, which requires phone companies to rewire their networks to provide police with better access to wiretapping features.
Forcing Universities and phone companies to absorb the costs of being compliant with the new rules (viz. facilitating stickybeak federales to snoop and mine data with no cost or effort on their part)is just a new low. It’s like a lazy rapist who just sits in thier bloated corpulence and says “Hey, lady, c’mere. No, really. Don’t make me get up and chase you.” Odd, but when the government does it, the victims-to-be actually comply.
Anyone who feels like wading through 56 pages of the new FCC rules, they can find a PDF version of it here. It’s a boring read, but that’s where you tend to find all those nasty little riders hiding.
“Send them back your fierce defiance!
Stamp upon the cursed Alliance!”
Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 2 2006 4:54 utc | 19
Uncle, it depends primarily on what you think of when the term “isolationist” shows up.
Posted by: Rowan | Feb 2 2006 5:01 utc | 20
@ Rowan Count me among those who would gladly adhere to
a Progressive Isolationist Party (PIP), uniting two buried
currents of the American political tradition.
@ Monolycus The librarians are my favorite lobby: it’s incredible that those supposedly timid souls are the one’s
manning the barricades in defense of civil liberties which
seem not to matter to the silent (but not silent reading) majority.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Feb 2 2006 8:05 utc | 21
isolationism is a pejorative, tar baby term. Like the word “appeasment” i.e. to bring peace, too soothe,etc. has accumulated negative political baggage. Isolationism is usually used by the current neo-liberal viewpoint to tar adherents of non-interventionist militarist and protectionist (economic)policies with the apparent failure of such views as refrenced to WWII mentality(as with appeasment) and used now as a retort to anti-globalism and anti- interventionalism. All of course, in an effort to hide the tar of “imperialism” that covers them from head to foot.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 2 2006 8:36 utc | 22
Thanks annie, I’ll bring a bottle of Vashon wine if you can come!.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 2 2006 9:17 utc | 24
uncle , i’m hot on the new fitz info. according to the letter
quoting the fitz himself
“
we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal achiving process on the White House computer system.”
tho the press is running w/the storyline of missing emails, i don’t buy it. he never says he doesn’t have the email. he only states earlier in the letter…
“we are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against the defendant libby has been destroyed” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and what does that tell you? it tells me it pertains to other charges to libby and possibly others!!!!!!! this is a bombshell. and libby’s lawyers are going on a fishing expedition trying to get fitz to disclose what he’s got. fitz is just saying, nah, it doesn’t relate to the charges…. very excitng
Posted by: annie | Feb 2 2006 9:45 utc | 26
Riverbend: Election Results…
I know some perfectly educated Iraqis who take criticism towards parties like Da’awa and SCIRI as a personal affront. This is because these parties are so cloaked and cocooned within their religious identity, that it is almost taken as an attack against Shia in general when one criticizes them. It’s the same thing for many Sunnis when a political Sunni party comes under criticism.
That’s the danger of mixing politics and religion- it becomes personal.
I try not to dwell on the results too much- the fact that Shia religious fundamentalists are currently in power- because when I do, I’m filled with this sort of chill that leaves in its wake a feeling of quiet terror. It’s like when the electricity goes out suddenly and you’re plunged into a deep, quiet, almost tangible darkness- you try not to focus too intently on the subtle noises and movements around you because the unseen possibilities will drive you mad…
@Rowan
I like the ideal of 1920s liberal isolationism, I Personally prefer real democracy and mutual cooperation to isolationism, America should co-operate with other “peace-loving nations” accept for the fact that we have never ever been peace-loving.
The neocon-victs believe American isolationism would leave humanity defenceless in its hour of need, at least that’s the ruse. Reminds me of the Desmond Tutu quote, “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said “Let us pray.” We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
I did a paper in my anthro class once, that argued that always, with out fail, the vanguard in every inter- and intra-action with the “other” were missionaries, followed by the overt military siege. Externalization of the hierarchy. Perhaps, as with the ideals of Sir Karl Popper’s, The Open Society and Its Enemies [1945],–not to be confused with George Soros globalist bullshit– is more toward what I’d like to see. That and synthesis of the wonderful philosophy resources of John Rawls. Alas, to dream. What thinkst?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 2 2006 10:09 utc | 28
@Uncle $cam – I’ve dealt with Popper in philosophy of science, but didn’t know about The Open Society. It looks like it would be a good read for when I (finally) finish the social history of Nazi Germany I’ve been working on.
@anna missed – I am not certain if isolationism has the same perjorative sense as appeasement does. It seems to me that it might be something which is out of fashion, certainly, but not viewed as overtly wrong, as appeasement is. And I don’t think the two terms are necessarily tied together in people’s minds. I could be wrong, I certainly don’t speak for general American society.
@Hannah K O’Luthon – I might sign up, or found, or something, a PIP, but I’d be concerned that globalization and international militarization have pushed the United States into a position that it really wouldn’t have much of an economy left if it turned within. I’m not an economist, but I am a job-hunter, and it seems to me that most jobs being created now exist to facilitate the flow of goods through the US to its citizens (service and papershuffling jobs). We don’t “create” our own goods anymore, and it might take a long time to get back to a point where the US could be self-sufficient enough to be isolationist.
Posted by: Rowan | Feb 2 2006 10:58 utc | 29
Debs: Satanic verses should have been censored? I don’t see anything that offensive in them, at least nothing as massive as some of the cartoons.
And it begins with the nice attack on all these fuckhead Xtian fundies: To be born again, you first have to die.
Then of course the main reason Khomeiny went mad at the book is not because of Muhammad but because of the Iranian revolution, where he ended up being portrayed as some huge Moloch eating up his own people – something eerily accurate alas.
And if you think the hatred dates back to Rushdie, you may want to watch recent and more ancient history a bit closer.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 2 2006 11:45 utc | 30
West Cowers From Defense of Dane’s Liberty to Draw by Pierre Tristam
Here’s the story. Back in September the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons by various artists lampooning Islam and the prophet Muhammad. In Islam, the mere depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous. Imagine the anger cartoonish depictions would provoke. The cartoons are on the whole cheaply funny, Islamophobic and in terrifically bad taste, though one showing Muhammad at the gates of heaven telling a string of suicide bombers “Stop, stop! We ran out of virgins!” and another showing a cartoonist fearfully drawing a picture of the prophet speak truths bigger than their offense. Good or bad, the quality of the cartoons is beside the point. Free expression is by definition unlimited. It lives and dies by its public reception, and alternately by its conviction and truths. Just because a work is universally rejected at first doesn’t deny its value. Public morals are notoriously slow-witted. The work could be ahead of its time. Socrates was condemned to death, Galileo was convicted of heresy, James Joyce’s “Ulysses” was banned from the United States, all in the name of higher morals. In every case, the condemning judges proved to be the fools.
Posted by: beq | Feb 2 2006 12:47 utc | 31
A legal questions.
Can the president fo the United States on his sole power commit the U.S. to defend a foreign country? Would this not require a treaty between the U.S. and the foreign country which again would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate?
There is no such treaty between the U.S. and Israel I am aware of. Then how can Bush make these statements?
“Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel’s defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It’s not only disturbing to the United States, it’s disturbing for other countries in the world as well,” he added.
Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel’s defense militarily, Bush said: “You bet, we’ll defend Israel.”
With this, Bush potentially comitted the U.S. to fight war for Israels behalf.
I am not asking if this would be right or wrong in itself. But how can Bush make such a committment if there is no treaty and no formal Senate decision on the issue?
Why would Bush care if it’s legal to fight for Israel? He’s his own law. Or Cheney’s.
How will the Xtian Right view a war in Israel? What do they want to see happen in Jerusalem so that they can get raptured up (and maybe leave the rest of us alone…)
Posted by: catlady | Feb 2 2006 16:04 utc | 33
IT’S OFFICIAL!
The left hand of the Pentagon fears the right.
The Pentagon has formed a team of nuclear experts to analyze the fallout from a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil in an effort to identify the attackers, officials have said.
The team, which can draw on hundreds of federal experts, uses such tools as robots that gather radioactive debris and sensitive gear to detect the origins of a device, whether a true atomic weapon or a so-called dirty bomb, that uses ordinary explosives to spew radioactivity.
The objective is to determine quickly who exploded the device and where it came from, in part to clarify the options to strike back, the officials said. The government also hopes that terrorists will be less likely to use a nuclear device if they know that it can be traced.
[snip]
In the cold war, learning a nuclear attacker’s identity was seen as simply a matter of tracking a missile from its blastoff point. But the threat of domestic terrorism using unconventional arms has changed that, adding the potential for anonymity.
Comforting to know that we have actual patriots working in the Pentagon to foil Reichstag II.
Posted by: citizen | Feb 2 2006 18:39 utc | 34
Funny:
Repubs choosing their leader: Election Update: Do-Over on First Ballot
House Republicans are taking a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting. Stay with RollCall.com for updates.
Well they are used to it. Boehner did win BTW. He has only some 10 ex staffers turned lobbyists.
b.
cracks me up, republicans and their ballots!! just can’t keep their fingers clean.
Posted by: annie | Feb 2 2006 20:35 utc | 36
@b – He has only some 10 ex staffers turned lobbyists.
Correction – 14 related lobbyists
More fun with repubs (and dems):
link
House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), after a three-hour huddle with his Republican colleagues, announced that he would introduce legislation that “will underscore the fact that the Republican Party has been and continues to be the party of reform.” And what would this weighty reform entail? “A ban for registered lobbyists who are former members of Congress from having access to the floor of the House and to the House gymnasium,” Dreier announced solemnly.
…
Dreier’s colleagues argued that the measure was a strange response to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Abramoff wasn’t a former member and didn’t use the gym. “I’ve been going to the gym for 14 years, and nobody’s in there lobbying,” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) protested as he left the meeting. “I’ve never seen any nefarious plots hatched on the treadmill.”
…
But Dreier did not break a sweat. He knew that few members would vote against something labeled “lobbying reform,” no matter what they thought of it. “We don’t have any more speakers,” he announced, closing the debate and surrendering the rest of his time. The measure passed, 379-50.
Perhaps the lobbyists from the American Dental Association were using the house gym.
Some of you may remember a post I wrote back in November about the ADA’s attempt to prevent the first inhabitants of Alaska from getting dental care. They were lobbying the US legislature to stop an Alaskan initiative that permitted trained dental therapists to work on these alaskan aboriginal people’s teeth.
I realise that this may seem a minor issue to many, but if you do take a look at my post on this, you may come to understand why it is actually quite critical.
Anyway the saga continues. It seems that somehow the lobbying failed. I don’t know why, whether the suits decided there wasn’t enough of an earner in it (unlikely thought from a mob who would happily swap their voter’s back teeth for a dime), or perhaps the ‘states rights’ meme held sway(although that also seems unlikely given that that issue hasn’t had much traction, even with repug freepers), so I guess we can safely assume that the hard-working trough snouters haven’t had an attack of philosophical purity, which leaves the most cynical alternative the most likely.
That is the hookers did enough to earn their fee but not enough to satisfy their client. (apologies to any honest hard working sex-industry craftsperson)
This story appears to confirm that P.O.V.
” The American Dental Association (ADA) has filed a lawsuit in Anchorage, Alaska, to stop New Zealand-trained dental workers treating Inuit and Indians in remote villages in the state.”…..
…..”Much of the work has been done in rural villages, where there are no dentists and where the rate of tooth decay is two-and-a-half times that of the rest of the nation. Among those being treated are Athabascan and Tsimshian Indians and Inupiat and Yupik Eskimos.
The ADA, joined by the Alaska Dental Society and several dentists in private practice, argued the programme could put patients at risk. Bob Brandjord, president of the association, claimed in a statement that the lawsuit was about “bringing quality care to all Alaskans”.”…..
…..”The students arrived in Otago in February 2003 to begin their training, but since graduation have faced a barrage of criticism from some members of the US Congress — and the ADA — as having insufficient experience, and having the risk of doing permanent harm to their patients.
Other members of Congress from the mainland states outside Alaska have said they accept the benefits of bringing dental therapists to some rural areas — but don’t want to see the practice come to their own backyards.”
I realise this seems quite minor when compared to big issues like whether the gutter press should be allowed to publish cartoons of mohammed.
If we consider these families lives could ultimately be put on the line over this it may become possible to get ‘het up’ about this.
If any original inhabitants did ever accuse the colonists of ‘speaking with forked tongue’ then this sort of stuff will be the reason why. The concept of giving with one hand and taking away with the other which most white folks have become inurred to just doesn’t play well in a society where lives can depend upon a person’s word.
If the Athabascan and Tsimshian Indians and Inupiat and Yupik Eskimos view the colonizers with the same jaded disrespect that Australian Aboriginals do, the artificial differences we impose on each other like: That bloke’s a state government official who fixes teeth, he wants to help.
Then this bloke fixes teeth privately and he wants to hurt, doesn’t cut it with indigenous people.
As far as they are concerned we are all lying whitefellas, who sold them this food which is a poison that destroys mouths and makes it impossible to eat the traditional, jerky style foods.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 3 2006 4:03 utc | 39
oooh kayy, it’s moments such as these i wish i had the writing capabilities of you folks, but here goes.
in a word, spellbinding. you walk in thru the doors and are immediately zapped w/subtle intensity. the depth of texture pulls you in to the unmistakable mission. it dares you yet never makes you wonder what the artist suggests.tickle is the wrong word. tempting. like a poison that tastes good. almost pretty. delicate, yet unmasking just the same. the familiar images undulating, intertwined.
one of my favorites, so simple, celedon leaves superimposed over machine of war sets you there , a witness, a target in the underbrush.further down the walls, more daring, dramatic.
one of the many aspects of the art you cannot grasp in a photo is the bulk of the canvas, wood, thick slabs. chainsawed, rough gouges, depth… oh.
wish you were all there anna missed is.. cool. very cool and open, available . his wife is beautiful, very present, stunning really. his son is a knockout. i could have chatted him up all night but alas there were interuptions as he is a star, the place was packed. it was fun, we had a hug or 2 and good conversation.he’s good company for sure.
Posted by: annie | Feb 3 2006 5:33 utc | 40
oops, my tickle post didn’t work… btw, this photo is about 10% of the reality. this piece is brilliant, spellbinding, as are the others
Posted by: annie | Feb 3 2006 5:39 utc | 41
Wish I coulda been there annie ;-(
For those whom are into bittorents:
Michel Chossudovsky speaks at the Global Peace Forum, Dec. 2005, Kuala Lumpur.
Michel Chossudovsky is a Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
Chossudovsky has has worked as a consultant for international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
He is a member of research organisations that include the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)and the International People’s Health Council (IPHC).
He is an active member of the anti-war movement in Canada, has written extensively on the war in Yugoslavia, and has been involved in the propagation of alternate theories regarding the September 11 terrorist attacks. He is a frequent contributor to Le Monde diplomatique, Third World Resurgence and Covert Action Quarterly. His publications have been translated into more than twenty languages. His latest book is titled America’s “War on Terrorism”.
http://tracker.spartacuslives.org:10420/announce
Size: 20.56 MB
File hash: [f9b0603875acd3feeccfbab9b52cc8bd45cd970eb1526180a]
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 3 2006 8:17 utc | 42
This is the big one folks!
Downing Street Memo II?
Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo
“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” A newly released memo of a meeting of George W. Bush and Tony Blair reveals a determination to invade Iraq regardless of a second UN resolution or evidence of a weapons program. UK’s Channel 4 News claims to have seen the memo, which is dated 31 January 2003 (two months before the invasion), and aired a report this evening. Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”. Mr Bush added: “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]”. More discussion here, here, here, and here.
More…
Here is the direct link for the Channel 4 news report. THIS IS MUST SEE!!!!
Terror attack! in 4, 3, 2, …
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 3 2006 11:03 utc | 43
annie. Thank you. Would like to be able to write [not to mention, receive] a review like that! Well earned we know. Maybe we can get some pictures of the show? Hmmmm?
Posted by: beq | Feb 3 2006 13:28 utc | 44
anna missed- congrats on your show!!! what a great space for an exhibition!
annie- thanks for sharing this with us. I almost missed the post b/c I’m skimming too much, for lack of time.
Like beq, I would LOVE to see pictures from the show. anyone have a digital camera handy?
Posted by: fauxreal | Feb 3 2006 13:42 utc | 45
I read your link Uncle $cam.
“Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an “insurance policy”, providing “international cover, including with the Arabs” if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
“killing children”?
Posted by: beq | Feb 3 2006 14:11 utc | 47
How endangered are civil rights when even policemen protest and sue because theirs are restricted?
Surveillance Prompts a Suit: Police v. Police
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed.
Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell’s “1984.”
“That’s Big Brother watching you,” the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy’s complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations — many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides — were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
…
Either Blair believed Saddam might start killing children, or he believed that Bush believed it and said it to get a UN resolution.
Either way, just goes to show that power makes stupid.
Annie thanks for the report and Anna missed: really cool place to have an exhibit. I think it is cool that the two of you have met in the real life outside these cyberwalls. Cool and a bit strange. It is an odd experience to only know people through writing.
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Feb 3 2006 15:03 utc | 49
Eva Golinger: Top U.S. Defense Officials Increase Hostility Towards Venezuela
During an appearance [Thursday] at the National Press Club in Washington, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to Hitler, declaring, “We’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He’s a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally, and then consolidated power, and now is of course working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others. It concerns me.”
Concurrently, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. Congress, John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 15 intelligence bodies of the U.S. Government, claimed, “In Venezuela, President Chavez, if he wins reelection later this year, appears ready to use his control of the legislature and other institutions to continue to stifle the opposition, reduce press freedom, and entrench himself through measures that are technically legal, but which nonetheless constrict democracy. We expect Chavez to deepen his relationship with Castro (Venezuela provides roughly two-thirds of that island’s oil needs on preferential credit terms). He also is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea. Chavez has scaled back counter-narcotics cooperation with the US. Increased oil revenues have allowed Chavez to embark on an activist foreign policy in Latin America that includes providing oil at favorable repayment rates to gain allies, using newly created media outlets to generate support for his Bolivarian goals, and meddling in the internal affairs of his neighbors by backing particular candidates for elective office.”
Apart from the dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of Venezuelan social and political life and the absurd comparison to Hitler, with whom the U.S. went to world war, these declarations evidence a scary escalation of aggression towards the Venezuelan government and people by the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld and Negroponte represent the two entities in the United States that wage war: Defense and Intelligence. Their positions go beyond the State Department’s diplomatic rhetoric that has characterized relations between Venezuela and the United States during the past few years and up the ante to an increasing possibility of war between the two nations. As the U.S. prepares to take actions against Iran in the very near future, publicly declaring a link between Venezuela and Iran, as well as North Korea, provides justification for an inclusion of Venezuela on the list of nations targeted by the Bush Administration for military intervention.
Posted by: b real | Feb 3 2006 18:37 utc | 50
b real, pat robertson , shilling for the ptb
COLMES: Should Chavez be assassinated?
ROBERTSON: Well, one day he’s going to be aiming nuclear weapons; and what’s coming across the Gulf isn’t going to be Katrina, it’s going to be his nukes.
COLMES: Would you feel better going back to the original comment that if he were assassinated, the world would be a safer place?
ROBERTSON: I think South America would. He is — he is — got hit squads. He’s a very dangerous man.
COLMES: So, you’re not taking back the comment. You believe assassination of Hugo Chavez would be in the best interests of the world.
ROBERTSON: Well, rather than going to war. One day, we’re going to have to go to war, I’m afraid, if he continues his policy, you know.
Posted by: annie | Feb 3 2006 19:09 utc | 51
thank you for pointing that out, annie. part of a new orcherated campaign to prepare for invasion, or a diversion from the revelations coming out of venezuela re u.s. infiltration?
Posted by: b real | Feb 3 2006 19:43 utc | 52
Women bear brunt of poverty in post-invasion Iraq
Poverty has exploded across Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion.
A recent study by the United Nations Development Program and International Monetary Fund shows that 20 percent of the population has fallen below the international poverty line of $1 per day per person.
The numbers of families registering for assistance with the labor and social affairs ministry has more than tripled since the war to 171,000 and even that, according to Leila Kazem, a director general at the ministry, is a “drop in the ocean”.
“After the war, a new dangerous issue arose in Iraqi society – poverty, which is clear to everyone,” she said, blaming unemployment and violence that has been killing off the main breadwinners, something “which is happening every hour of every day”.
@b – I was wandering around this afternoon and DeAnander had posted it at Eurotrib. Someone wants your list too. =)
Posted by: beq | Feb 3 2006 22:42 utc | 56
(damn) botched the second link. Scroll down to listmania.
Posted by: beq | Feb 3 2006 22:47 utc | 57
Sometimes, however, even ruling party Presidents finally start to seem like criminals to everyone.
Posted by: citizen | Feb 4 2006 0:06 utc | 58
Oh Lord, the Republican Party has finally decided to risk winning with an Erection.
real fun politics
Posted by: citizen | Feb 4 2006 0:25 utc | 59
sorry i haven’t been back with the interview i had intended with momma d and more NOLA info,it seems that in addition to whats being called the katrina cough,the stress of the enormity of loss in my beloved city,6 months of interferon injections and some strange symptoms most likey due to that brain aneurysm a few years back well fuck i’ve not felt well.(god i sound pathetic)anyway i’m feeling a bit better. our local public channel has several hours of just snapshots from all around the city.its about the only presentation that really captures the entirety of what has happened.last series of pics were taken on 12/16 a few weeks ago and its overpowering,i only wish every senator could be forced to see this.i’m still not up to going out and about but if anyone is interested i could send you a video.just let me know.i’ve tried to find it on the internet but have been unable to.i can’t imagine its not out here somewhere its put on by NOA TV.well this mess isn’t going anywhere fast and when i’m up to it i will come through with promised interview. unless one of those human/animal clone hybrids happen to drop by and take me to mars.
Posted by: onzaga | Feb 4 2006 12:48 utc | 60
Be well onzaga. We are thinking of you. Does your local public channel have a website for the snaps?
Posted by: beq | Feb 4 2006 13:39 utc | 61
@onzaga – If you have that video in some common digital format please send it to moonofa at aol.com . I can put it on the blog fro download.
thankyou for your thoughts much appreciated.the public channel only idenifies itself as noa tv.no website mentioned.and i’ve never heard of them,i do have some media contacts at other stations and print i’ll see if they can give me the info i need.if all else fails there are some rap artists around the corner and i’m sure they know someone who can transfer video to digital.actually i should just talk to them first.i swear they can change a toyota into an airplane.even if i don’t feel well i can manage the phone and the corner,so i’ll work on that today.
Posted by: onzaga | Feb 4 2006 17:23 utc | 63
Jeb imports Texans to shred govt documents.
A source inside the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation told Insider magazine that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has ordered the shredding of documents and public records, a clear violation of Florida law.
The department has oversight and approval of state gaming licensees, slot machines, dog and horse tracks, and jai-alai games.
The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said the governor also has brought in personnel from Texas to replace key members of his staff in Tallahassee. The Texans are overseeing the destruction of state documents, according to the source.
A source in the FBI confirmed that public records are being destroyed on orders of Jeb Bush. The source said the governor may have taken that action in response to the continuing criminal probe of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the federal investigation of the 2001 gangland murder in Miami of Gus Boulis, owner of the Sun Cruz casino boat.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 4 2006 20:31 utc | 64