Wednesday, May 31, 2006
by Joe London
Ecological concerns also entail an ecology of the mind, or an ecology of values.
The problems of the environment must prompt a questioning of the priorities of our societies.
Is it worth to pollute and destroy the delicate equilibriums of nature for life-styles that are light-years far from the way we are? From the way evolution has shaped us in millions of years of life in an environment which never has been so populated and, at the same time, squandered and spoiled?
Does all the emphasis placed on possession, typical of current capitalistic and consumeristic societies, the media-induced obsession to gain matter, toys, gadgets, cars, often unnecessary or over-dimensioned, which in turn implies a growing consumption of limited resources, actually make sense, when even our senses would be made to enjoy more the sound of the wind or of the ebbing of the sea, than that, dull and repetitive, of machines?
Are our societies, and the environment we live in, tuned to reflect our organic nature, or do they represent a monstruous warping? Are they tuned to make us happy or, rather, their messages and values are more like a will-o'-the-wisp, an illusion, an iterated neurotic symptom replacing a joy we have lost the capacity to feel and pursue?
In modern, affluent societies, even our own bodies often turn into something monstruous. We are overfed, with all the consequences of overfeeding, cardiologic and circulatory problems, diabetes etc. Less and less used to walking and running, even for minimal distances, we are easily breathless, and we are less likely to enjoy the rarer and rarer smells of nature.
Our body, which by nature would be lean, is unnaturally fattened, made slow and dull, unresponsive. Our skin of urban beings has lost its glow, and has turned into an inert, grey, lifeless coat. Even when we want to appear fit, we treat our body like a pliable machine subject to unnatural movements, and build an armour of muscles that, too, represents a barrier between senses and the ourside world. We have lost the grace that animals have.
We do not sing anymore, but we have iPods. We do not walk, we drive. We do not explore the beauty around us, we destroy it and we browse the little left on a computer. We reject silence as a disturbing state, and immerse ourselves in an unnatural, incessant noise. We accurately avoid expression (which would entail a self and a substance nourished by portions of silence left intact), but we repeat, relay, entertain, seduce. We do not live, we watch TV. We do not nourish ourselves, we gulp down flavour-enhanced products we are seduced into purchasing. We do not love, we masturbate ourselves, even when we call it making love, with the bodies that best reflect the televised fashion of our era. Our body has been made insensitive, thus we torture it to feel alive. We are so incapable to feel happy that the apparent happiness of others raises envy and hate. We claim we are spiritual, but our religions are only cages of rituals and prescriptions. We are not loyal to ourselves, but we are to those who work against our interest as human beings. We claim we are free, but we are unable and even scared to think with our own mind and constantly check, in fear, signs of perplexity in the fellow-man for things we may inadvertently say, that do not fit the standard established by an indistinct mass. We say we care for teaching the best to our children, but we only train them, indoctrinate them and abuse their individuality since birth, exposing them to vulgarity, ordinariness and prejudices, while humiliating originality, curiosity and joy. We claim we hold justice in high-esteem, and yet accept that only the unpriviledged pays for crimes caused indirectly by the crimes of the powerful, who will never pay for them. We call ourselves humane, but we easily resort to war and rather spend on weapons than on solutions that would prevent conflicts from occurring. We even make our pets neurotic and fat.
So much for our celebrated civilisation and modernity. Maintained at the cost of alienation, so widespread and intense that many people in affluent nations do not even know why they are living, having lost touch with their self. Maintained at the cost of destroying our planet, on the altar of immediate profit, the only item in our world which enjoys unconditional protection. Maintained at the expense of millions of unfortunate people who would survive for months on what we eat in one day (and considering the way the world economy is structured, we literally steal food from their mouths).
The problem of the environment is not surely about having pretty parks only. It is about discussing the direction our societies are speeding along, like on a train with no driver which nobody cares to stop. It is about discriminating what truly is in our interest as human (animal) beings and what is not. It is about discussing about the values we want at the core of our life.
How do we learn to want less?
The globe downshifted
There are practical ways in which we could immediately start to save our species from ecological and social crisis and our planet from being destroyed by our greed. So why aren’t we adopting them? What prevents us from desiring a simpler and better way of life?
The dream of building a self-sufficient and economical society is widely shared, even if under many names. Décroissance (degrowth), downshifting, anti-productivism, requalified development and even sustainable development all evoke roughly the same goal. The French Greens, mean exactly the same thing by anti-productivism as growth objectors (1) mean by degrowth (2). The organisation Attac has appealed for “a move towards progressive and reasoned deceleration in world growth, under particular social conditions, as the first step towards reducing predatory and devastating production in all its forms”.
Agreement on the re-evaluation our economic system needs, and on the values that (3) we should bring to the fore, is not confined to degrowth advocates thinking in terms of post-development. A number of sustainable or alternative development activists have made similar proposals (4). All agree on the need for a drastic reduction of humanity’s ecological footprint. None would contradict John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, published in 1848, in which he wrote that all human activities that do not involve unreasonable consumption of irreplaceable materials, or do not damage the environment irrevocably, could be developed indefinitely. He added that those activities many consider to be the most desirable and satisfying - education, art, religion, fundamental research, sports and human relations - could flourish (5). [...]
(Read the whole article here)
Global warming worry flows from Arctic ice to tropical waters
[...] Global warming is a direct threat to the survival of the Maldives, 80% of which sits less than 3 feet above sea level and is vulnerable to rising waters as polar ice melts. "A catastrophe in the making," the Maldives government said in a 2003 report on the impact of climate change.
David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser, raised eyebrows two years ago when he warned that climate change posed a bigger global threat than terrorism. But there's no question that rising temperatures are poised to change life as we know it.
[...] In less than 100 years, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer, which would allow ships to take the polar route from Europe to Asia, say the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. Navy. At current rates, 75% of glaciers in the Swiss Alps and two-thirds of those in China will melt by 2050, according to separate studies by the European Environment Agency and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.Hurricanes, typhoons and windstorms, which draw energy from warmer ocean waters, are likely to increase in intensity, saddling the insurance industry with $27 billion a year in annual losses by the 2080s. That's an increase of nearly 70%, the Association of British Insurers reported last year.
The changes have already begun, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP):
• Glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating, leaving behind swollen lakes that threaten to flood mountain villages.
• Rising sea levels are eroding beaches in the South Pacific.
• Tundra in Siberia is thawing.
The European Environment Agency, based in Copenhagen, Denmark, says fish in the North Sea are migrating farther north than ever before. [...]
(Read the whole article here).
Watch here how Stephen Colbert asks neocon leader Bill Kristol the questions that mainstream media carefully avoid to ask on PNAC. And how all Kristol's arguments about the Iraq war are refuted. (From a Prisonplanet.com's post of Apr. 28th).
How Stephen Colbert Got Picked, Got Truthy, And Got Panned
This White House has challenged the frontiers of propaganda and political discourse in ways that make previous administrations look like rank amateurs. Mainstream news media outlets may occasionally report, but the vast majority shy away from labeling government accounts as propaganda. [...] (More here).
Two Iraqi women shot dead at checkpoint
31/05/2006 - 11:58:17
The US military said today two Iraqi women were shot to death in a city north of Baghdad after coalition forces fired at a car that failed to stop at an observation post.
The statement came after Iraqi police said a pregnant woman and her cousin were killed by American troops as they were driving to a maternity hospital in Samarra, a predominantly Sunni city 60 miles north of Baghdad.
A car entered a clearly-marked prohibited area near coalition troops at an observation post but “shots were fired to disable the vehicle” after it failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory signals, the military said in a statement.
“Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds … and one of the females may have been pregnant,” the statement said, adding the incident was under investigation.
“The loss of life is regrettable and coalition forces go to great lengths to prevent them,” the military said.
Read the article here.
COMMENT: Democrats need to speak up like this. Their words must reflect a difference in vision and perspective. They must show courage to speak up and say what any sound person should think. The Bush administration IS a band of extremists.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: May 29 2006 21:52 | Last updated: May 29 2006 21:52
[...] Neo-conservative commentators at the American Enterprise Institute wrote last week what amounted to an obituary of the Bush freedom doctrine.
“Bush killed his own doctrine,” they said, describing the final blow as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. This betrayal of Libyan democracy activists, they said, came after the US watched Egypt abrogate elections, ignored the collapse of the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, abandoned imprisoned Chinese dissidents and started considering a peace treaty with Stalinist North Korea.
The neo-conservatives offered no explanation for desertion of the doctrine, other than a desire to make quick but transitory short-term gains. “The president continues to believe his own preaching, but his administration has become incapable of making the hard choices those beliefs require,” they wrote.
But the ranks of the neo-conservatives are also being depleted. In his new book, America at the Crossroads, Francis Fukuyama, perhaps the movement’s most outstanding intellectual force, confirms his defection from the brand concepts of “pre-emption, regime change, unilateralism and benevolent hegemony as put into practice by the Bush administration”.
“It seems to me better to abandon the label and articulate an altogether distinct foreign policy position,” he writes.
[...] Short-term economic costs of the empire have been bearable, says Mr Fuller, but long-term indicators show it is not sustainable – massive domestic debt, growing trade imbalances, an extraordinary gap in wealth between rich and poor Americans, the growing outsourcing of jobs.
More immediately, the unprecedented unilateral character of the US exercise of global power has proved its undoing.
Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has tried to redress this in Mr Bush’s second term, but key allies – Britain’s Tony Blair, for example – are also suffering from weakened credibility.
In contrast, Russia, which Mr Bush saw as a declining power when he came to office in 2001, is asserting itself on the international stage. So is China.
[...] Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate’s powerful foreign relations committee, suggested that “there are a good many who would feel that the possibilities for devastation of countries, including our own, may come much more from our myopia in terms of energy policy than our ability to track down the last of the al-Qaeda cells”. [...]
Peter Brookes, May 30, 2006
European Union Tells Citizens to Help Fight Climate Change
BELGIUM: May 30, 2006
BRUSSELS - The European Commission urged citizens in the 25-nation European Union on Monday to turn off the lights, defrost the fridge, and put on some walking shoes in an effort to fight global warming.
The Brussels executive launched its "You control climate change" campaign with a list of 50 tips that people can take to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) that are blamed for warming the earth. [...]
(Read the whole article here)
Fox Analyst: Global Warming is ‘Bogus…Dreamed Up by The Greens Because They Hate Industry’
This weekend on the show “Cashin’ In,” Fox News analyst Jonathan Hoenig asserted that global warming was “bogus,” and “dreamed up” by environmentalists to stop economic development:
There’s no scientific proof that global warming even exists. To be honest, it’s a bogus consensus dreamed up by Greens because they hate industry. They hate advancement. They hate technology… Greens will lead us back to the stone ages.
It’s Hoenig that’s living in a dream land. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. [...]
(Read the whole post from Think Progress here.)
U.S. Policy Was to Shoot Korean Refugees
Ambassador's 1950 Letter Shows That U.S. Had Policy of Shooting Refugees During Korean War
By CHARLES J. HANLEY and MARTHA MENDOZA
May 29, 2006 (AP)— More than a half-century after hostilities ended in Korea, a document from the war's chaotic early days has come to light a letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that American soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines.
The letter dated the day of the Army's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950 is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea, and the first evidence that that policy was known to upper ranks of the U.S. government. [...]
(Read the whole article here)
Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 29 May 2006
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.
Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.
The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items. [...]
(Read the whole article here)
Monday, May 29, 2006
WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING?
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
 |
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. |
|
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level. |
|
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. |
|
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles. |
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
|
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year. |
|
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide. |
|
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. |
|
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. |
|
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. |
|
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050. |
There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – TAKE ACTION
Some would like to transform the issue of global warming, a real one on which nearly all scientists agree, into merely an ideological opinion.
So much ideologically-driven is America nowadays, that it seems that on any issue facts and evidence are the last thing certain people consider. As if facts do not even exist, as if only a dogged faith counts, in a God and/or in a leader and/or in the beauty of carbon dioxide.
A recent campaign, by Exxon-sponsored Competitive Enterprise Institute has even the brazen face of spreading the following message "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life", which really is a message of revolting, immoral falsity, at least they should say "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it money".
Another example: Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (backed by guess who? Exxon too) "compared watching Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to watching a movie by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels" [read here on this].
Is there such a thing as intellectual honesty?
Based on their researches and observations, the vast majority of scientists state that global warming is a grave issue, with possibly catastrophic consequences. Is it so silly to act on such a fact, encourage alternative cleaner forms of energy, induce people to change habits, limit the squandering of earth resources (which are not endless, and on which wars are even started) and reduce pollution? It is a matter of survival on earth. It is a matter of respect for the mechanisms of nature and for the delicate equilibrium of life. It is a matter of consideration for future generations.
But what happens nowadays is that some people who believe in classic economic liberalism, think human activities are intrinsically good, as long as they provide profit. The rest will be fine. Forget data, measurements and observations: they can be created to support policies, not viceversa! This, to me, is a stupid, faith-based (in the God of profit), irresponsible position.
The propensity to dodge facts, creating evidence and fixing it around a policy, is utterly dangerous. And it is shameful and disgusting that some politicians, and even the president of the United States, act with the interest of corporations in mind, and not that of people in the medium and long-term.
Moreover, spreading a mental attitude by which doubt is constantly cast on evidence to privilege ideology, is not in the interest of truth and people, but in the short-term interest of who screams louder, having power and money to do so, only to make more money, despite the possible catastrophic outcomes of their uncontrolled, blind activities.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
The children of Guantanamo Bay
The 'IoS' reveals today that more than 60 of the detainees of the US camp were under 18 at the time of their capture, some as young as 14
Published: 28 May 2006
The notorious US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been hit by fresh allegations of human rights abuses, with claims that dozens of children were sent there - some as young as 14 years old.
Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.
They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.
The disclosures threaten to plunge the Bush administration into a fresh row with Britain, its closest ally in the war on terror, only days after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, repeated his demands for the closure of the detention facility. It was, he said, a "symbol of injustice". [...]
But even a 10 year old kid has been held as prisoner in Guantanamo Bay for 17 months, and was released in 2004:
From SF.Indymedia.org:
by Sonia Verma, Chronicle Foreign Service Friday February 13, 2004 at 07:08 AM
Boy, 12, recounts days as terror inmate Youngest captive spent 17 months at Guantanamo
Struggling to remember the exact date he was captured by American soldiers, or when he was flown to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where the United States holds "enemy combatants" without charges, he presses his fingers to his temples to conjure memories that have grown fuzzy after months in detention.
He was just 10 years old when American soldiers stormed the compound of the local Afghan commander who was holding him captive, he says. They grabbed his gun. There were handcuffs and blindfolds. Since then, he has seen the inside of three separate interrogation rooms.
On Jan. 29, after being released with two other young detainees, he returned to this village in eastern Afghanistan, a three-hour drive along dirt roads from Kabul. He was free but burdened with the uncomfortable distinction of being the youngest person ever jailed in America's war on terror. [...]
(Read the whole article here.)
COMMENT: The horror increases, if possible, as more details come to surface. But as I said in my previous post, this atrocious story is only the last episode of a timeline of terror started in 2003 with an illegal war, based on lies, waged in cold blood against a defenseless country which posed no threat. War which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. And Bush and Blair should be held accountable for this, even more than the marines who massacred the innocent Iraqis in Haditha, as their responsibility is incommensurably larger and all these deaths, since the onset of the war, would not have occurred were it not for them.
From The Times Online:
[...] The events that followed are the subject of two military inquiries due to report soon: one into the facts, the other into a cover-up.
One witness, Aws Fahmi, heard his neighbour, Yunis Salim Khafif, plead for his life in English, shouting: “I am a friend, I am good.”
“But they killed him, his wife and daughters,” Fahmi said. [...]
Investigators have established that the killings unfolded over three to five hours. “This was not a burst of fire, but a sustained operation,” a Pentagon official said.
The Sunday Times has reconstructed the events with the help of Abdul Rahman al-Mashandani, of the Hammourabi human rights group in Iraq. It appears the first killings took place when a taxi carrying four students pulled up at a checkpoint set up by the marines.
Abu Makram, 50, had been awakened by the roadside bomb and watched from his window as the terror unfolded. The car’s occupants were all ordered out and shot.
The marines then stormed three nearby houses. “They blew open the front door of the first house,” Makram recalled, “Once they were inside, we heard another explosion followed by a hail of gunfire.”
It was the home of 76-year-old Abdul Hameed Ali Hassan, whose leg had been amputated because of diabetes. “He was a blind old man in a wheelchair,” Makram said.
Hassan’s granddaughter, Iman Waleed, 10, was in her nightclothes. “About 10 marines entered the house,” she said. “They threw hand grenades and began firing in all directions. Grandpa was sitting close to the hall and they shot him dead.”
In a nearby room, her father was reading the Koran. “The American soldiers went into the room and killed him too,” Iman said. “They gathered all of us into one room — my grandma, my mama, my brothers and my uncles. They threw in two handgrenades and started shooting at us.”
The adults tried to protect the children with their bodies, but were slain. When Iman dared to look, she saw that “everyone was dead around me except for my brother and my uncle”.
Both were injured and Iman was hurt in the leg. The rest of the family, including her brother, Abdullah, 4, died.
Iman fled next-door, where her other grandfather Yunis lived, only to find everybody there appeared to have been killed too. There was in fact one survivor, Safa Yunis Salim, 12.
“My daddy tried to open the door to let the Americans in, but he was immediately shot in the head and body,” Safa said.
“I managed to hide under the body of my brother Mohammed. His blood covered me and protected me as I pretended to be dead.” They also killed her four sisters including Aysha, 4, and Zainab, 2.
Five hours passed before Safa managed to escape. “I was the only one who survived. I watched them kill my entire family. I am all alone now,” she said, crying.
When the marines stormed the third house they changed tactics. The men were separated from the women and stuffed into a large cupboard, according to Yussef Ayed Ahmad, the brother of the dead men, who lived next-door.
“They placed my four brothers into the wardrobe and proceeded to shoot them as they were inside,” he said. “My mother and sister told me later how they died."
The marines found an AK 47 in the house — the only gun found in all three homes — but there is no evidence it was fired.
The marines’ cover story quickly began to unravel. In March, Time magazine revealed the existence of a video shot the day after the attack by an Iraqi student journalist. It showed the victims still in their nightclothes, a trail of blood and shrapnel and bullet marks on the walls.
At the local morgue Waleed al Obeidi, who received the corpses 24 hours after the killings, also disputed the marines’ account. “Two bodies were completely charred,” he said. “The others, including women and children, had all been shot at close range.”
According to some reports, American warplanes dropped 500lb bombs on the houses.
The marines paid $2,500 (£1,350) in compensation for each of the 15 victims who were shot in their homes. They refused to pay for the four brothers and five occupants of the taxi, claiming they were insurgents. Officials now say those men were innocent. [...]
From the Guardian:
[...] "Eyewitnesses and human rights groups believe the marines swept through the town in a lust for revenge. The attack may have lasted for several hours. At the end of it, 24 Iraqi civilians had been killed. They included a 76-year-old amputee and a four-year-old boy. In one house an entire family, including seven children, were attacked with guns and grenades. Only a 13-year-old girl survived.
British soldiers currently in Iraq said they were anxious to distance themselves from the Americans but that Iraqis did seem able to make a distinction. One private, who did not wish to be named, said: 'We are given an education: the Americans get shown how to use a gun. The Iraqis know the difference.'
Captain Victoria Wedgwood-Jones, of 20 Armed Brigade, said: 'When the British come and say we are British, they welcome us warmly.'"
From ProgressiveU:
[...] The blood on the hands of those 4 (or more) Marines is blood on the hands of every American citizen. We put our soldiers in a foriegn land and told them to fight an enemy we barely even knew. Even if we didn't support the war we had a chance in 2004 to effectively end--or at least drastically change--the course of the war, and we did not. As American citizens each and every one of us should be ashamed. The public outcry at this incident should be shouted throughout the streets--the injustice and immorality of it all is beneath America--or so we had hoped. Fighting any war is not easy, even watching a war is rough--but for any moral high ground to be established and maintianed the citizens to whom the soldiers must come home have to take a stand. They need to make it clear that they will not tolerate abuse, they will not allow thier soliders to turn into beasts. They expect men and women to behave like people.
US troops could face death penalty for what is seen as potentially the worst war crime since Iraqi invasion
By Raymond Whitaker
Published: 28 May 2006
US Marines could face the death penalty after one of their number took horrific photographs of a massacre in Iraq on his mobile phone, The Independent on Sunday has learned.
The photographs, seized by the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), show many victims shot at close range in the head and chest, execution-style, according to sources who have seen them. One image shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer. Both have been shot dead. [...]
COMMENT
So these "liberators", these "bringers of freedom and civilisation", kill women and children and then they even take photographs!
But this is only the last episode of a timeline of terror started in 2003.
First, some people based in Washington decided to exploit the "opportunity" of 9/11 to attack Iraq, based on cold-blooded lies, occupy a harmless country, in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. With blatant mendacity, those who resist the occupation are called "insurgents" as if the American occupation were legitimate. In the meanwhile some of these "liberators" have "a bit of fun" at Abu Ghraib by torturing and killing and smiling in front of corpses with the thumb up.
And now, again, again, AGAIN, another occurrence of their obviously systemic barbarism, immortalised by the camera of a cellular phone, which - be that said incidentally - comes across as the compulsive behaviour of alienated idiots who do not have any touch with reality, but live in a sinister fictional plane of reality where morality, civilisation, humanity do no exist, but only the kicks of murdering and slaughtering innocent people and then taking some iconographic trophy to show to their pals. Or, worse - but perhaps more correctly - people who behave as if they were shooting their own gory movie and playing the part of the main character in them. As if they were the heros. Iniquity matched to the civilisation of TV, movies and Coke. Delusional murderers.
Who are the terrorists?
In what way do these marines who kill women and children differ from those who are labelled as "terrorists" (a somewhat effective, PR expression, repeated over and over again, that appear to have been made - like many other expressions - by TV-savvy directors who want to achieve a "marketing effect" in the "public" in order to sell wars and have power).
In what way are these soldiers different from the "others" labelled as "terrorists"?
Of course, some will find excuses too. They will say: "war changes people, tranforms them into beasts". The Independent reports that "LA Times said yesterday that most of the fatal shots appeared to have been fired by only a few of the Marines, possibly a four-man 'fire team' led by a sergeant [...].. The same sergeant was suspected of filing a false report, blaming the bomb explosion for most of the deaths and claiming that Marines entered the Iraqis' homes in search of gunmen firing at them."
Surely not all the soldiers are the same. But likely these barbaric murders are not so unfrequent either, they just likely go unreported, as some have pointed out.
But it has to be noted that the real background of this barbarism, the first instance of this "terrorism" done while wearing a U.S. uniforms, was attacking Iraq in the first place, for no reasons but lies and deceit, cold-bloodedly.
The war itself provided the framework of disrespect of law and humanity and barbarism in which these episodes of murder occur. And, sorry, thinking "we are always on the right side, by intrinsic virtue, ever morally virgin and pure" is delusional and idiotic.
Strictly speaking, if one cared for truth, one would have to admit that, yes, those marines killed perhaps two-dozens of poor, innocent, harmless people, including women and children. And they will be judged for this. But hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed by a war started with cold-blooded lies by people who comfortably sit in Washington. Are those who perpetrated this barbaric, terrorist war going to be judged?
iraq, impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, haditha
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Photos Indicate Civilians Slain Execution-Style
WASHINGTON — Photographs taken by a Marine intelligence team have convinced investigators that a Marine unit killed as many as 24 unarmed Iraqis, some of them "execution-style," in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha after a roadside bomb killed an American in November, officials close to the investigation said Friday.
The pictures are said to show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head and some in the back, congressional and defense officials said.
The case may be the most serious incident of alleged war crimes in Iraq by U.S. troops. Marine officers have long been worried that Iraq's deadly insurgency could prompt such a reaction by combat teams.
An investigation by an Army general into the Nov. 19 incident is to be delivered soon to the top operational commander in Iraq. A separate criminal investigation is also underway and could lead to charges ranging from dereliction of duty to murder.
Both investigations are centered on a dozen Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. The battalion was on its third deployment to Iraq when the killings occurred.
Most of the fatal shots appear to have been fired by only a few of the Marines, possibly a four-man "fire team" led by a sergeant, said officials with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The same sergeant is suspected of filing a false report downplaying the number of Iraqis killed, saying they were killed by an insurgent's bomb and that Marines entered the Iraqis' homes in search of gunmen firing at them. All aspects of his account are contradicted by pictures, statements by Marines to investigators and an inspection of the houses involved, officials said. [...]
(Read the whole article here)
COMMENT:
From all evidences, it appears that some American marines killed harmless, unarmed people, including women and children.
Innocent people have been killed in a country where, supposedly, those marines were to bring freedom, democracy and justice. It is surely fair that these marines face a trial.
But if we want to be fair, we cannot stop at considering them only as deserving a trial for war crimes and murder.
If an illegal war had not been started on false pretenses, in total disrespect of truth, morality, humanity, civility, justice (that is all that the USA claims to be an example of) tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans alike would not have died. If an illegal war had not been started, those marines would not have been put in the conditions of being murderers either.
Isn't it a bigger war crime to attack a country that poses no threat? Isn't it a crime to intentionally spread lies to start a war?
And is it fair that only simple soldiers are put on trial for war crimes, and not those who started an illegal war in the first place, which caused tens of thousands of deaths?
Of course all the above are rhetorical questions.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Arundhati Roy is the author of The God of Small Things, and of a various books of political essays, like An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire.
The interview touches a variety of subjects and is an eye-opener on what globalisation and neoliberalism are doing in various parts of the world. Also interesting her opinions on the use of media by the power.
Indian author Arundhati Roy [Picture found here, where you can also read a lecture she gave in NY]
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
WORLD’S FIRST HYDROGEN CITY
[...] H2PIA really does look like an otherworldly utopia, but the designers make a point of having us know that this is not a fantasy. No, we can have a fully sustainable lifestyle, free of addiction to oil, coal and gas, well before the widely projected date of 2050. If all goes well, H2PIA will begin contruction in 2007.
Here’s how it works: “The renewable energy comes from solar or wind power and is used to split H2O – ordinary water – into H2 and O2 – hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is vented into the atmosphere, which already contains about 20 percent O2. The hydrogen is used in fuel cells that can produce energy, for instance in the form of electricity and heat. In the fuel cell, the energy is created by silent electrochemical processes with no pollution. The only product left over when the hydrogen is used up, is pure water. During periods with low energy demand, we can store the hydrogen. Then, when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we use the stored hydrogen.”
(Read the whole post here)
Free speech in the USA?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatrotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
26th president of the United States
For years now the above quote has been as pertinent as ever, exactly because many Americans seem to forget it.
Many Americans appear locked in a ill-intended sense of loyalty or fear and seem to forget that their highest duty is towards the American people - all of them - and towards truth, not towards a single politician or a party.
These are times in which the whole world has seen arrogance, deceit, violence, war, torture, secret prisons, corruption, disrespect of the law, incompetence coming from the administration of a country that would deserve better. People deserve better than this.
They have stepped on the law with spite, they are attempting to elude the system of checks and balances made exactly to guarantee people against the arrogance of the power and of those who, instead of working for the wellbeing of everybody and instead of respecting the covenant between the people and their representatives - that is the Consitution - pursue their own interests or the interests of some corporations or single parties.
This is the time to speak up. It has been for years, but the more we go on the more it becomes urgent.
A war was started, for nothing, based on lies. Lies.
A war. Based on lied. Does that count at all?
And that was only part of the many disasters of this administration.
The representatives of a nations should be the best, morally irreprehensible, truly working for the interests of everybody, privileging peace over war, and respecting the law.
They should not be people who make you want to pray that yet another disaster does not arrive, caused or amplified by their iniquity or incompetence. Or another war, as it is obvious that their mindset is that of individuals incapable, or - worse - unwilling - to use other pacific means effectively. As it is obvious that some agendas remain hidden.
This is the time to speak up. And to ask for accountability on the many lies and swindles.
What the point of celebrating the USA as a country of freedom and free speach, if one is a prisoner of fear or if one surrenders to the easier, more superfical, broadcasted news, without trying to see what the situation is actually like?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatrotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public."
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
From Newswise.com:
"Newswise — People who smoke marijuana—even heavy, long-term marijuana users—do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd. [...]
The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all. [...]"
[Well, of course, they have not smoked the 22,000 joints in a weekend]
'The new findings are surprising for several reasons, Dr. Tashkin said. Previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, he noted. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. “Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there’s less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled,' Dr. Tashkin said. 'And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers—they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung.'”
One possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."
*
In my opinion, prohibiting a non dangerous substance like marijuana - while other dangerous addictions are socially and legally accepted - does not make any sense.
Therefore marijuana should be legalised.
Besides, I have a very personal theory on the positive social consequence of a reasonable use of it: perhaps some fundamentalist freaks would relax and some others, instead of playing war games with human lives, would perhaps enjoy life more. In other words, a joint per week or so (a bit more in case of wackos grown up in certain areas) would increase peace in the world.
Monday, May 22, 2006
From the Huffington Post:
Response to McCain's Aide Mark Salter
by Jean RoheI'd like to say first of all, that I don't believe that anything I've written to the public so far has been quite as nasty to Senator McCain as Mr. Salter was to me. On the contrary, I think that my writing clearly reflected my values, which is to say, never was I rude to the Senator nor did I show any disrespect. In fact, I think my compassion was made clear. To pick on me in such a bullying and sarcastic way is a clear admission on Mr. Salter's part that his fear is far deeper than any I might have felt when sticking up for myself.
The following is addressed directly to Mr. Salter:
Without taking issue with your statement point by point, I'd just like to draw attention for a moment to a few things you said. Firstly, it was clear to me why Senator McCain chose to give the same speech at every school. It was meant to show consistency in his message, and, contrary to what you suggested, there is no place in my speech or my other writing where I take issue with that. However, interestingly, it is precisely because the senator's speech had nothing to do with our graduation or anyone else's that it worked so marvelously in all settings. It was equally out of place no matter where it was delivered. [...]
(Read the whole article here)
And here a comment of Arianna Huffington:
Jean Sara Rohe: A New (School) Role Model of Fearlessness
Rohe was one of two distinguished students invited by the faculty to speak to the graduates before McCain delivered his speech. But when it was her turn to address the crowd, she announced that she was throwing out the prepared remarks she was going to make to address McCain directly.
With the Senator, and likely 2008 presidential candidate, seated just a few feet away (shades of Stephen Colbert taking on Bush), Rohe said, "The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded," drawing cheers from the crowd. (The rest of her impassioned remarks are at the end of her blog.)
Can you imagine the courage that took? Not just to speak truth to power, but to do so in such a personal and public way? [...]
(Read the whole editorial here).
A top McCain Aide has insulted an entire College Graduating Class... in a comment posted on the Huffington Post.
What had happened? Senator McCain had been invited to the graduation ceremony of New School University, to the disappointment of students. In her commencement speech, a young student, Jean Rohe voiced eloquently that disappointment and expressed criticism towards McCain and the war. The speech was firm, but balanced and full of ideals (you can read it in full here, right after her editorial).
But obviously Jean Rohe touched a nerve. Probably more than one.
After Jean Rohe wrote her editorial on the Huffington Post, Mark Salter, a chief of staff to Senator John McCain, replied to Jean Rohe. With elusive rhetoric, but also insults, Mark Salter manages to suggest that criticism is a lack of respect. Which is ironic since even McCain, was quoted by Jean Rohe as saying that "dissent is a 'civic and moral obligation' in times of crisis".
Obviously some politicians enjoy expressing principles as long as they remain abstract.
Criticism is not lack of respect. Rather, it means you care enough for your country and the world to criticise and prompt for things to improve, rather than acting in a servile and fearful way under an incompetent and mendacious administration which - should that reminded? - is elected to work for the wellbeing of everybody.
It is indeed a responsible and moral thing to do to criticise an administration which has started an illegal war, with a price paid of thousands and thousands of people and billions squandered which could have been used to help people domestically and abroad. An administration actively engaged in extraordinary renditions and torture, casting a negative image on the US, supposed beacon of civilisation. An administration in which cronyism and corruption thrive as well as the warping and thwarting of facts and thruth. An administration which privileges a few at the expense of the most and promotes a corporate-militaristic, power-ridden ideology.
Kudos to Jean Rohe, the student who in her commencement speech criticised McCain and the war and voiced ideals that should not be only abstract words:
[...] Finally, Senator Mc Cain will tell us that we, those of us who are Americans, "have nothing to fear from each other." I agree strongly with this, but I take it one step further. We have nothing to fear from anyone on this living planet. Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace. We have nothing to fear from people who are different from us, from people who live in other countries, even from the people who run our government--and this we should have learned from our educations here. We can speak truth to power, we can allow our humanity always to come before our nationality, we can refuse to let fear invade our lives and to goad us on to destroy the lives of others. These words I speak do not reflect the arrogance of a young strong-headed woman, but belong to a line of great progressive thought, a history in which the founders of this institution play an important part. I speak today, even through my nervousness, out of a need to honor those voices that came before me, and I hope that we graduates can all strive to do the same.