Imagine, if you will, that you are fielding a baseball team. You are a player on a team that possesses immense talent. Your opponent has never lost a game. The opposition is undefeated not because its players are superior to your own, but because it makes the rules of the game to assure its own victory. It wins because your team has to play by a fixed set of rules that it does not. Although you have an excellent pitcher on the mound, the strike zone is microscopic and in constant flux. Your opponent’s pitcher, however, enjoys a huge strike zone. Your opponent also owns all of the umpires officiating the contest. Who but a fool would play such a game with the expectation of competing, much less winning? The outcome of that game, no matter how well your team performs, has already been determined. To participate in such a charade is an exercise in futility.Those of us who demand a better America find ourselves the unwitting participants in just such a game. We are in good faith trying to operate in a system that is inherently unjust. Corporate lobbyists have overrun the capitol, as well as every branch of government, including the judiciary. Corporations lord immense power over both people and process, when they should be servants to the people. Legislation is sold to the highest bidder. Workers, comprising some ninety percent of the populace, have no representation or protection against the industry predators that exploits them. We are bound by rules that our rulers are not. We cannot possibly compete in this system; much less create democratic freedoms and equality. The system operates on monetary capital, not moral capital. The system does not deserve our loyalty or our participation. The time has come to create a new game with a level playing field. Working people are weary of serving “The Man.”Justice cannot be served without the full participation of the people in the process, and at every level.Thinking that we can reform a system of economics and politics that is rotten to the core only serves the interest of wealth and power. Reform can do no more than maintain the status quo; it will assure the continuation of the present system in which power and influence is concentrated in the hands of a few, at the expense of the many.Let us finally have the courage to acknowledge that the root cause of virtually everything that ails America can trace its origins to capitalism in its various incarnations. We have built our political and economic institutions upon a rotten foundation. The system cannot long stand. Under capitalism, the large majority will always be subservient to the small minority. To call this form of plutocratic despotism a democracy is an insult to our intelligence. How can any nation declare itself free when the great majority of its people are wage slaves to plutocrats and corporations? When they are cannon fodder for its powerful military?If ever we are to have a chance at becoming a free and democratic society, rather than the permanent war economy we have become, capitalism must go. Working class people must come to see capitalism as the enemy it is. The way to democracy lies in putting the means of production into the hands of the workers themselves. But first the economy must be pried lose from the fingers of the plutocrats and the corporatists who claim to own it.Political freedom can only occur through economic emancipation. Not only can the present economy not long endure -- it must inevitably collapse of its own excess and waste. Meanwhile, we must organize the work place with an old revolutionary unionism that was in vogue more than a hundred years ago. It was revolutionary unionism that gave us the weekend, paid vacation, and the eight-hour workday by prying them from the hands of the capitalists.Loyalty to a system that is inherently unjust cannot provide justice to the masses. This will only assure the unbroken continuation of the unjust outcomes that are injurious to the great majority of the people. America is dying from the cancer of capitalism. The malignancy cannot be cured by giving her a few aspirins. Radical treatment is the only hope for her survival. The alternative is the certain death of hope for the vast majority of the people. Hope lies in the smoldering rubble of empire.Working people must be more than the property of their employers. We must be more than machines to be exploited by those with wealth and power. Workers must emancipate themselves from the system of power and corruption that enslaves them and smothers their dreams for social and economic justice. The way to that freedom is through the economy -- industrial freedom.The machinery that produces wealth for the small minority through the enslavement of the great majority came into being with public funds. For example, huge tracts of land were given to the railroads at the behest of corporate lawyers -- an advantage not enjoyed by people of average means. Never mind that this land was stolen from the Indians. However, capitalism allows the private ownership of the economic engines that drive the country. It fosters the concentration of wealth at the top by exploiting everyone below the top. That which was created with public funds belongs to the public, not to those with the capital to buy control through the courts and congress. Power to the people means that those who produce should enjoy fully the fruits of their labor, not merely a small percentage of it. This is assuredly the most just and expeditious means of self-emancipation from industrial slavery.Through the deliberate perversion of language, with the aid of the commercial media and its lackeys, truth has been distorted almost beyond recognition. We the people must wake up from our stupor and understand how and why we are in the present predicament. Let us speak plain and clear truth to power whose meaning cannot be mistaken: Power to the people!It is the pervasion of language that enables those who plunder the earth, which enslave the work force; and buy legislation from the law makers that legalizes criminality, to be called patriots or super patriots; while those who defend the earth from corporate marauders; who uphold and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are labeled unpatriotic or terrorists. We cannot allow this perversion of language to stand. Its sole purpose betrays our just cause and serves those with wealth and power, by betraying the core values that govern the behavior of the rest of us.George Bush and his minions are not an aberration. They are the natural and expected fruit of capitalism run amok. Capitalists believe in plutocratic and corporate rule, the concentration of wealth and power. They are the product of a system of economic inequality and privilege that exploits the huge majority of the population and subjugates them into wage slavery as ‘at will’ employees. It preys upon the just -- those who play by the rules. The quagmire in Iraq, and the one to come in Iran, and in hundreds of other places, is the result of the social and economic injustice fostered by capitalism. Treating the symptoms will not affect a cure. Only addressing root causes can do that.By engaging in party politics, the practice of pitting conservative against liberal, liberal against conservative, we are playing into the hands of the status quo. I have been all too guilty of this practice myself. It is an easy trap to fall into. By so doing we are unwittingly creating a diversion, a smoke screen, for the empire builders and power brokers to continue to play the game safely out of public view, assuring the same results, regardless of which party is in power.To illustrate this point, consider the difference between George Bush and John Kerry in the last presidential election was more a matter of semantics than of substance. Both men are the product of wealth and privilege; neither of them represents the great majority of the people, the working class. Neither do their cohorts in Congress, an increasing number of which are millionaires. The appearance of choice is only an illusion, designed to deceive and to paralyze. By such means the system – capitalism -- wins and the people lose by being the unwittingly servants of empire. The ruling class remains in power and the working class remain their obedient servants. We must stop working against ourselves. We have enough to do to overcome the real enemy.As incredible as it may seem, the average liberal and the average conservative have more in common with one another, than they have in common with their respective political parties and their champions. The great majority of conservatives and liberals are victims of a system that not only does not serve them -- it exploits them. Thus when conservatives take to heart the rhetoric of the vitriolic Rush Limbaugh, a wealthy white man, a product of the system; a member of the ruling class -- they are in fact working against their own self interest. They are allowing themselves to be exploited and played for fools, while thieves make off with everything they own. Who benefits? Limbaugh and the ruling class who are using the system for their own ends -- that is who benefits. Ordinary people of average means would be wise not to set foot into that trap because it does not serve their cause. We are spending too much time and energy fighting one another, rather than the real enemy, the system itself -- capitalism. History bears me out on my assertion that capitalism has never served the interest of ordinary working people. It never will. The sooner we understand this fact, the better.
An e-mail threat that prompted the evacuation of more than a dozen Brandeis University buildings on January 18 led to an unusual standoff in a public library in Newton, Mass., a few miles from the Brandeis campus.Federal Bureau of Investigation agents tried to seize 30 of the library's computers without a warrant, saying someone had used the library's Internet connection to send the threat to Brandeis. But the library director, Kathy Glick-Weil, told the agents they could not take the machines unless they got a warrant first. Newton's mayor, David Cohen, backed Ms. Glick-Weil up.After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge. Meanwhile, Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message. They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime.Late that evening, the FBI received a warrant to cart away the three computers. According to Mayor Cohen, the warrant allows the FBI to view only the threatening e-mail message and the messages sent immediately before and after that message.Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a "clear and present danger." If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them."We were able to both protect public safety and also protect the rights of people, the sense of privacy of many, many innocent users of the computers," he said. "Had we given them the computers, they would have gotten to see e-mails from ordinary citizens doing ordinary things and would not have preserved privacy."About a half hour before FBI agents arrived at the library, Mr. Cohen had received a call from the U.S. attorney's office in Boston saying that Brandeis had received a credible threat, and that it had come from a computer in a Newton library. Newton and Waltham, where Brandeis is located, are suburbs of Boston.Ms. Glick-Weil was not available for comment Monday.Dennis Nealon, a spokesman for Brandeis, declined to disclose details about the e-mail message other than to say that it warned of an impending terrorist attack against the Heller School for Social Policy and Management. The message was sent to the university's office of public safety that day at about 11 a.m.Local police and FBI agents came to the campus, said Mr. Nealon, and advised the university to evacuate the Heller building and 12 surrounding structures. The buildings, along with a local elementary school, remained empty for six-and-a-half hours."Since September 11th, the university's response is to take something like this very seriously," Mr. Nealon said, "and go above and beyond to make sure that there is no threat to anybody on campus."Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokesman for the FBI's Boston branch, declined to talk about the investigation into who sent the e-mail message.But she said the FBI had a right to seize the computers because the agents who went to the Newton library thought Brandeis students, professors, and staff members were in immediate danger. "We could have done this," said Ms. Marcinkiewicz. "It is supported by case law."Nonetheless, she said, the FBI decided to seek a warrant. By the time agents had determined that they needed to seize only three of the computers, about 5 p.m., they realized that people at Brandeis were not about to be killed, she added.Michael J. Sullivan, the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, also said in an interview Monday that the FBI had acted within its authority to ask for the computers without a warrant.The event prompted talk-show hosts and newspaper columnists in Boston to lash out at Newton officials, arguing that they acted irresponsibly and could have jeopardized people's lives. But Mr. Cohen said he had also received many positive comments from people all over the country supporting his actions.
Iran struck back Tuesday at the Big Five powers' decision to refer Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying referral would mean the end of diplomacy over its nuclear program.Still, in what appeared to be an attempt to show cooperation with the West, Iran handed over documents last week on casting uranium into the shape of a warhead to the U.N. nuclear agency, diplomats in Vienna revealed.At a London meeting that lasted into the early hours of Tuesday, envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States decided they would recommend that at its Thursday meeting the International Atomic Energy Agency should report Iran to the U.N. Security Council. They also decided the Security Council should wait until the agency issues a formal report on Iran in March before tackling the issue.Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, reproached Europe for the London decision."Reporting Iran's dossier to the U.N. Security Council will be unconstructive and the end of diplomacy," he said, according to state-run television."Europeans should pay more attention. Iran has called for dialogue and is moving in the direction of reaching an agreement through peaceful means," Larijani said. "The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't welcome this. We still think that this issue can be resolved peacefully. We recommend them not to do it."Iran has previously threatened to stop allowing surprise IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities if it is put before the Security Council. Iran's parliament has passed a law requiring the government to stop such cooperation and resume large-scale uranium enrichment in case of referral to the Council.Iran insists it has the right as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to build nuclear power stations and produce fuel by enriching its own uranium. But the United States and Europe suspect Iran aims touse enrichment to produce nuclear weapons, an accusation Iran denies.Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who also runs Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said there was no "legal justification to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council," according to the the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency.In Vienna, Iran's oil minister said the gathering storm over the nuclear issue would not affect Iran's oil policy."We have no reason to stop our exports" because of the nuclear issue, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said before Tuesday's meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. "From our point of view there's no link between the two."British, French and German representatives met Larijani's deputy, Javad Vaedi, in Brussels on Tuesday for last-ditch talks on the dispute, but failed to make any progress.The decision by Russia and China to vote for referral surprised observers as they have consistently counselled caution on Iran's nuclear file. Both have major economic ties with Iran.In an apparent attempt to reassure Tehran, Russia underlined that referral to the Security Council will not mean immediate action."The Security Council will not make any decisions," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said said.Russian and Chinese diplomats will head to Tehran shortly to explain the meaning of the agreement reached in London and urge Iran to meet IAEA demands, he said, according to the RIA-Novosti news agency.Moscow is trying to prevent the referral from scuttling negotiations that it hopes will persuade Iran to accept a compromise proposal -- that Iranian uranium enrichment take place on Russian territory.Diplomats close to IAEA in Vienna said Tuesday that agency inspectors in Iran had received last week 1{ pages that describe how to cast fissile uranium into the hemispherical shape of warheads. The document, which Iran acquired on the nuclear black market, was apparently handed over to allay suspicions ahead of Thursday's meeting.The diplomats said the IAEA inspectors asked Iran for a response to U.S. intelligence that suggested it has been pursuing nuclear weapons.Iran broke IAEA seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and resumed small-scale enrichment. That prompted Britain, France and Germany, who had been negotiating with Iran, to press for referral to the Security Council.While the IAEA has said it has found no evidence of Iran's building nuclear weapons, it has refused to give Iran a clean bill of health because of numerous unanswered questions over its atomic program.
Iran struck back today at the Big Five powers' decision to refer the country's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying it would be the end of diplomacy.At a London meeting that lasted into the early hours of today, envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States decided they would recommend that the International Atomic Energy Agency, when it meets on Thursday, should report Iran to the UN Security Council. They also decided the Security Council should wait until March to take up Iran's nuclear file after a formal report on Tehran's activities from the atomic agency."Reporting Iran's dossier to the UN Security Council will be unconstructive and the end of diplomacy," said top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, according to state television.Iranian Foreign Ministry officials could not be reached for further comment today.
A New Website Against DTC Prescription Drug AdvertisingLast week, Commercial Alert launched the website StopDrugAds.org (www.stopdrugads.org), devoted to ending direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in the United States. The purpose of the website is to educate the public about the dangers of prescription drug advertising, and to mobilize thousands of Americans to voice their opposition to the ads.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comment on DTC prescription drug advertising until February 28th. The stopdrugads.org website says that is not the proper role of drug executives to tell Americans what drugs to buy, and it encourages visitors to send comments to the FDA in opposition to DTC drug advertising.“In effect, drug companies are practicing medicine without a license, and that should be illegal,” said Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert. “We’ve got to halt prescription drug advertising before the next Vioxx tragedy happens.”On October 27th, Commercial Alert released a statement from 211 professors from U.S. medical schools that “direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs should be prohibited.” The statement’s endorsers include prominent medical school professors from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Stanford, Yale, Duke, University of California, San Francisco and other top medical schools, along with two former editors-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.The American public has little trust for the pharmaceutical industry, and believes it should be more closely regulated. According to a Harris Poll in November, only 9% of American adults believe that the pharmaceutical industry is “generally honest and trustworthy.” Fifty-one percent believe that the pharmaceutical industry “should be more regulated by the government.”Commercial Alert is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to keep the commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting the higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy. For more information, see our website at: http://www.commercialalert.org.
World Oil Transit Choke PointsControl all 'tyrannical' world oil chokepoints?In recent public speeches, George W. Bush and others in the Administration, including Condi Rice, have begun to make a significant shift in the rhetoric of war. A new 'War on Tyranny' is being groomed to replace the outmoded War on Terror. Far from being a semantic nuance, the shift is highly revealing of the next phase of Washington's global agenda.In his 20 January inaugural speech, Bush declared, "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Bush repeated the last formulation, 'ending tyranny in our world' in the State of the Union. (author's emphasis). In 1917 it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy," and in 1941 it was a "war to end all wars."The use of tyranny as justification for US military intervention marks a dramatic new step on the road to Washington's quest for global domination. Washington of course today is shorthand for the policy domination by a private group of military and energy conglomerates, from Halliburton to McDonnell Douglas, from Bechtel to ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, not unlike that foreseen in Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of excessive control of government by a military-industrial complex............*Poverty Around the World January 28, 2006http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract.html"Your imagination is your preview of life's coming attractions."— Albert Einstein“Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.”— Albert EinsteinI want a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on the ballot.Posted by: A. at January 30, 2006 09:39 PM------------------------------------------------Support my Ballots Must Be Cast By A Minimum Required Percentage Of Total Registered Voters initiative.Posted by: Crank Bait at January 30, 2006 09:47 PM
Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories.The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state and instead takes a more ambiguous position by saying that Hamas had decided to compete in the elections because it would contribute to "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem".The shift in emphasis comes as Hamas finds itself under pressure from the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and from foreign governments to accept Israel's right to exist and to end its violence if it wants to be accepted as a political partner in a future administration.The group is expected to emerge as the second largest party after Mr Abbas's Fatah in the next Palestinian parliament. Opinion polls give it more than a third of the popular vote, built on a campaign against Fatah's endemic corruption and mismanagement and failure to contain growing criminality, and by claiming credit for driving the Israeli army and settlers out of Gaza.But the manifesto continues to emphasise the armed struggle. "Our nation is at a stage of national liberation, and it has the right to act to regain its rights and end the occupation by using all means, including armed resistance," it says.Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip, yesterday said the manifesto reflected the group's position of accepting an interim state based on 1967 borders but leaving a final decision on whether to recognise Israel to future generations."Hamas is talking about the end of the occupation as the basis for a state, but at the same time Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist," he said. "We cannot give up the right of the armed struggle because our territory is occupied in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is the territory we are fighting to liberate."But Mr Hamad said the armed resistance was no longer Hamas's primary strategy. "The policy is to maintain the armed struggle but it is not our first priority. We know that first of all we have to put more effort into resolving the internal problems, dealing with corruption, blackmail, chaos. This is our priority because if we change the situation for the Palestinians it will make our cause stronger."Hamas is looking to establish a new political strategy in which all Palestinian groups will participate, not just dominated by Fatah. We will discuss the negotiation strategy, how can we run the conflict with Israel but by different means."Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian cabinet minister and member of the secular Palestinian People's party, said he believed Hamas was being forced to face reality as it prepared to sit in parliament, and that it would have to embrace a negotiated settlement with Israel: "Having Hamas inside the system is a positive development whereby they have to abide by the rules of the majority and respect the arguments of the administration they are part of, which includes a state built on 1967 borders. It will take time but Hamas will no longer have their own militia. It will be solely a political force."But Israel's security establishment predicts that if Hamas does as well as expected in the election it will damage the Palestinian Authority and further undermine the prospects for an agreement.
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and MICHAEL SLACKMANPARIS, Jan. 29
After more than a year and a half of resistance, Iran has given inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency access to a razed military site, but it has failed to meet other demands under its international treaty obligations, officials knowledgeable about the inspections said Sunday.The concession seemed aimed at derailing an American and European initiative to immediately send Iran's nuclear case for judgment by the United Nations Security Council.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany will meet in London on Monday to plot a joint strategy on how best to curb Iran's nuclear activities. Then on Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-country board will hold an emergency session in Vienna to decide whether and how the case should be considered by the Security Council.But the limited cooperation given to the inspectors leaves open a number of major issues about the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear program that have been raised by the United States and Europe. News of Iran's uneven cooperation came as the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, in an interview in Tehran on Sunday, reiterated Iran's position that it would not close down its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, as demanded by the United States, Russia, China, the Europeans and the atomic energy agency. Like other Iranian officials, he argued that Iran has only restarted nuclear research, a sovereign right it would never relinquish."Nuclear technology is the right of Iran," he said. "We can discuss about the way this right can be implemented, but realization of this right is not bound by any preconditions."Iran's decision to allow inspectors into the razed military facility in Tehran, named Lavisan, followed repeated demands by the atomic energy agency for access and information since June 2004, several months after the site was dismantled, the officials said. Inspectors were allowed to take environmental samples that they will examine for traces of uranium particles. They also examined equipment taken from the site when it was bulldozed, before it could be inspected, the officials said.A report by the nuclear agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei, in November 2004 said that the destruction of the site raised "the possibility of a concealment effort" by Iran to hide uranium-enrichment activities.But the inspectors failed to persuade Iran to be more forthcoming on a number of other outstanding issues. That means that the agency will most likely deliver a mixed report to its board before the emergency session, the officials said. The officials were speaking on condition of anonymity under customary diplomatic rules."Some people will see this as an important step; others won't," said one diplomat familiar with the issue. "It can be said that this should have happened a year and a half ago. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done."Iran's cooperation on the visit to Lavisan is certain to be seen as an inadequate gesture by the United States and its European allies, which believe that the Security Council must begin to pass judgment now on Iran for its nuclear behavior, most recently its reopening of its nuclear enrichment plant.But the small steps by Iran may strengthen the position of Russia and China, which are resisting Security Council action and at the very least prefer to give Iran another month, as it was promised, to meet international demands.Among the other unresolved issues is the inspectors' limited access to documents and materials that Iran received from the clandestine nuclear network of Pakistan's nuclear research pioneer, A. Q. Khan, and others in 1987 and 1994. The agency has not resolved the mystery of how Iran first obtained centrifuges used to enrich uranium, for example, or how many of them the Iranians may have built. There is particular mystery around a more sophisticated version of the centrifuges that Iran denies ever building.In addition, the inspectors may not have had access to the nuclear scientists who worked at the Lavisan site, a key demand, one official said.In a more recent issue, Iran has yet to explain its possession of computer data, obtained secretly by the United States, that suggests work on a missile that some experts believe could be fitted with a nuclear weapon. Intelligence information on the issue was provided by the United States to the agency, which presented it to Iran earlier this month.In the interview in Tehran, Mr. Mottaki dismissed the issues that needed to be resolved under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed, as "ambiguities, questions, uncertainties."Mr. Mottaki did not discuss the visit by the international inspectors to Lavisan or address the matter of the inspections last week, which were intended to give Iran a last chance to cooperate fully with the agency's demands concerning the country's nuclear activities in past years.The immediate trigger for the emergency meeting in Vienna was Iran's reopening of the Natanz enrichment facility this month in violation of an agreement with France, Britain and Germany in late 2004 that froze most of its nuclear activities.Inspectors with access to the Natanz site, which is under strict agency monitoring, have reported that there was no evidence that nuclear fuel was being enriched.Enriched uranium can be used for energy purposes or for making atomic bombs; the process of enrichment for peaceful purposes is allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.But Iran's concealment of secret and suspicious nuclear activities over nearly two decades has contributed to such deep distrust of the country that there is an increasing unwillingness by the international community to allow it to do work that could contribute to its mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle.Mr. Mottaki reiterated Iranian statements in recent days that the country was seriously examining a compromise proposal by Russia allowing Iran to enrich uranium, but only in Russia and only to levels suitable for use in nuclear reactors.Mr. Mottaki also reiterated that Iran had agreed to bring additional "partners" into the Russian project, without elaborating.But he suggested that Iran had not violated the 2004 agreement with the Europeans because Iran had proceeded only with research and not with fuel production. He also accused Washington of raising the specter of nuclear weapons to serve its own domestic political needs."In the nuclear issue we are not seeking anything other than nuclear energy, neither military, nor political, nor anything else," he said. "But others want to, as we say in Farsi, make a hat out of this wool to use to their own benefit. When the polls were showing Mr. Bush may not get enough votes, he tried to change the general atmosphere of the American public into a security one and by insinuating insecurity, to gain some votes."Despite his defiant tone, Mr. Mottaki also repeatedly said there was still room for negotiation. "There exists a readiness for compromise, why not?" he said. "The first element is to alleviate the concerns that some European countries have been expressing. We are committed to alleviating those concerns."In a separate news conference on Sunday, Mr. Mottaki said he would be in London, attending a donor conference on Afghanistan, on Monday, and available to meet the six foreign ministers discussing Iran's case.
World Can't Wait, Philadelphia Chapter 30 Jan 2006 04:42 GMT Bush Step Down - Join the mass demonstrations nationwide on January 31st during Bush’s State of the Union Address and come to Washington DC on February 4th to demand that BUSH STEP DOWN!STATE OF EMERGENCY: BUSH STEP DOWN!Waging murderous war in Iraq, the open torture of people, illegally spying domestically, the unprecedented violation of civil and human rights both domestically and abroad, the Bush regime has made their agenda clear and now it is time for us to state our agenda loud and clear during Bush’s State of the Union Speech 1/31: BUSH STEP DOWN and take your agenda with you!!!As each day passes we are faced with revelations that reveal the truth of the Bush regime’s dangerous and malevolent agenda. It was only a short month ago that it was revealed that illegal wiretapping is being conducted on large numbers of the population phrased by Bush as the ‘terrorists surveillance program’ in an attempt to distract us from his complete disregard to civil liberties and personal privacy. And with the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court already underway the threat of denying women the right to birth control, family planning, and abortion may soon become a harsh reality. We are at a cross roads: Either the Bush Regime will successfully sweep away another indictment and lying scandal under the rug by fooling the country OR the people successfully mobilize a nation-wide movement that halts the whole Bush program of war, repression, and religious fundamentalism.“That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn - or be forced– to accept.”THE WORLD CAN’T WAIT!There are no Democratic Saviors to stop the Alito nominations, to Stop the War in Iraq, or to rebuild New Orleans for New Orleans people. Only a movement of resistance can drive out the Bush regime now! In less than one week on January 31st George W. Bush will deliver his State of the Union address in an attempt to reset his agenda for 2006 and legitimize his criminal actions to the American people. We must demonstrate the urgency and threat of this regime and declare our opposition to the Bush agenda loud and clear. The opposition to the Bush regime is growing rapidly and we must continue to mobilize and unite across differences to make our voices heard that we are tired of their lies and injustice. And as we get this movement going we are determined to bring together the millions and millions of people who have been so badly fooled. We must politically confront Bush and repudiate his agenda to drive out this regime and their relentless abuse of executive power. The Bush regime’s criminal agenda does not represent us or our views. The challenge is before us to take responsibility to change history.TAKE ACTION NOW!!!Join the mass demonstrations nationwide on January 31st during Bush’s State of the Union Address and come to Washington DC on February 4th to demand that BUSH STEP DOWN!Tuesday, January 31st 200512th & Market – 8pmDrown out Bush’s Lies: Bring noise makers, pots & pans, bring flashlights tooSaturday, February 4th 2005Get your tickets to D.C.Moblize for a national protest marching around the White House. Bush Lied. Bush Spied. Bush Step Down. 2006. 2008. Too late. Turn your outrage into mass political action.The Bush regime is wasting no time pushing their agenda and that is why we must waste no time pushing ours.The world can’t wait any longer, the time is now, the task is clear, DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME!Contact: World Can't Wait: Philadelphiaemail: philly@worldcantwait.orgphone: 215.888.7563World Can't Wait: Nationwidewww.worldcantwait.netphone: 1.866.973.4463e-mail:: info@worldcantwait.org homepage:: http://www.worldcantwait.net
Whether or not one believes a single word of absolutely anything emanating from anyone, anywhere within the current US maladministration isn’t really important right now.But this is important.This shows the shocking but true state of the current neo-con maladministration’s American nation. Watch it and weep. Then ask not for whom the bell tolls — for it tolls for theeThis is a banned BBC video/documentary by made Greg Palast which Americans are not [officially] allowed to see.But thanks to one of Richard and This Old Brit’s finest fellow bloggers, courageous cyber patriot and fearless, truth telling kindred spirit Tom Rushen — today things are different. Damned different.For a full fourteen minutes and more, censorship itself is censored. Which means both the the Bush brothers and their larger controlling cabal can be shown up for the shady, scary SOBs they actually are.The fact is that together they helped to pull off the greatest heist in history.With the encouragement, connivance, financing, backing and blessings of the real [corporate criminal] powers that be, the Bush brothers helped see to it that the United States of America — was stolen from it’s citizens.Yep. It was that plain & simple. Stolen.Okay, enough preamble already. Bugger any more big build up. Why are we wasting time waffling ?Go right now to Tom Rushen’s ‘Current Era’ blog.Then like we said earlier, since it’s well worth repeating - watch the banned BBC block-buster — and weep. And afterwards, ask not for whom the bell tools, for it tolls for thee.Incidentally, thanking Tom Rushen for his tireless work would be greatly appreciated. Of that, This Old Brit is certain.Perhaps paying some attention to his ‘Depleted Uranium’ video piece would prove extremely enlightening too. Of that, Tom tells us he is certain.
There is a strange presumption in recent thought about human values. When we think about basic issues in ethics and politics, it is taken as a given that we face a choice between liberalism and relativism. Believing that human values are cultural constructions that vary widely across time and space, relativists urge us to be conscious of difference. If they have a political message it is one of tolerance: "Don't try to impose your way of life on others; be sensitive to the claims of cultural minorities in your own society." Liberals, on the other hand, insist that there are requirements of justice or rights that apply to all human beings regardless of the communities or cultures to which they belong. The liberal political message is one of universalism: "The human species is--or may one day become--a single moral community in which the same values are honored everywhere." Either we commit ourselves to liberal universalism or we must embrace moral relativism. There are many things wrong with this dichotomy. One of the most obvious is that it is highly parochial. Liberalism may look like the only game in town these days, but just a generation ago there were Marxists, anarchists, socialists and others who believed a systematic alternative to liberal society was desirable, imaginable and practically feasible. Further back in the history of thought, there were many versions of universalism--most of them nonliberal. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas all believed in universal values, but no one would call them liberals. Looking outside the Western tradition, the same is true of Confucian, Buddhist and Islamic thinkers. It is one thing to assert the existence of universal values, quite another to claim these values are in some sense liberal. It is also true that most relativists have not been greatly concerned with issues of difference. Often relativism has gone hand in hand with the idea that society is an organic whole--a highly dubious notion, which if it tends to support diversity does so only at the level of entire cultures. Herder and the Romantics celebrated the differences among peoples, but they were indifferent or hostile to the claims of cultural minorities. The idea that we must choose between liberalism and relativism reflects the poverty of the contemporary political imagination and a disabling loss of historical memory. Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers is a welcome attempt to resurrect an older tradition of moral and political reflection and to show its relevance to our current condition. Appiah, a professor of philosophy at Princeton, seeks to revive cosmopolitanism, a view of humans as citizens of the world that was advanced by the Cynics in Greece in the fourth century BCE and elaborated by Stoic philosophers in Roman times. In Appiah's view cosmopolitanism has two intertwined strands: the idea that we have obligations to other human beings above and beyond those to whom we are related by ties of family, kinship or formal citizenship; and an attitude that values others not just as specimens of universal humanity but as having lives whose meaning is bound up with particular practices and beliefs that are often different from our own. Appiah sees this cosmopolitan perspective re-emerging in the Enlightenment and expressed in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Kant's idea of a League of Nations. As a position in ethical theory, cosmopolitanism is distinct from relativism and universalism. It affirms the possibility of mutual understanding between adherents to different moralities but without holding out the promise of any ultimate consensus. There are human universals that make species-wide communication possible--and yet these commonalities do not ground anything like a single universally valid morality or way of life. Clearly this is a position that carries within it a certain tension. The idea that we have universal moral obligations is not always easily reconciled with the practices and beliefs that give particular human lives their meaning. Appiah recognizes this tension, and writes: "There will be times when these two ideals--universal concern and respect for legitimate difference--clash. There's a sense in which cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge." A large part of Cosmopolitanism spells out the philosophy that underpins this position. What Appiah has to say in defense of cosmopolitanism is eminently sensible, but it is in no way new. In a move that will be familiar to anyone who recalls the ideas about "open texture" and "essential contestability" that were at the forefront of philosophical debate about language and values a generation ago, Appiah suggests that moral discourse is essentially practical in character. It seeks to express our desires and shape the attitudes of others rather than to report the way things are in the world. Like other types of discourse, moral language requires the use of judgment, which means different people will use it in different ways; but that does not mean morality is subjective. Rather, it means the possibility of moral conflict is built into language itself. As Appiah puts it: "When we describe past acts with words like 'courageous' and 'cowardly,' 'cruel' and 'kind,' we are shaping what people think and feel about what was done--and shaping our understanding of our moral language as well. Because that language is open-textured and essentially contestable, even people who share a moral vocabulary have plenty to fight about." Appiah argues that as a result of the influence of positivism, an erroneous view of moral language has come to be widely accepted. For positivists science is the model for all other modes of discourse, and since moral reasoning contains nothing like the procedures for verification and falsification that are found in science, ethics is bound to seem a second-rate form of thought. Quite correctly, Appiah maintains that a great deal of human discourse does not fit this positivist model. When people with divergent moral outlooks talk to one another about the good life, he suggests, they are usually not engaged in argument. They are best understood as partners in conversation--an open-ended encounter that can be useful and enlightening even if, as is commonly the case, it does not end in consensus. As Appiah elegantly puts it: "We enter every conversation--whether with neighbors or with strangers--without a promise of final agreement." We can enter into the moral worlds of others and come to see that we partake in a common humanity without ever converging on a shared morality. Appiah's version of cosmopolitan ethics strikes me as being very close to the value-pluralism defended by Isaiah Berlin, and it suffers from some of the same weaknesses. The advantage of Berlin's view is that it can acknowledge rationally insuperable moral differences without falling into relativism. Contemporary relativists follow the ancient Greek Sophists in holding that judgments of value are matters of opinion. However, human life contains goods and evils that do not depend on our opinions. To be at risk of genocide or subject to torture is an evil for all human beings whatever their beliefs. These evils are not culture-relative, and protection from them is a species-wide good. Once we recognize this, we cannot avoid speaking of universal human values; but this is not the same as having a universal morality. As Berlin never ceased to remind us, the most fundamental human values can make conflicting demands in practice, and in some of these conflicts reasonable people end up with different views of what is right. That is one reason there are different ways of life. Value-pluralism undercuts the claims of all universal moralities, including liberal morality. Like Berlin in some of his writings, Appiah seems to want to celebrate moral diversity and at the same time endorse the universality of liberal values. The result is that he is constantly pulling liberal rabbits out of cosmopolitan hats. In discussing the issue of gay marriage, for example, Appiah informs us that while most Americans are against it they don't quite know why, whereas for those who favor gay marriage it just seems right. He adds: "The younger they are, the more likely it is that they think gay marriage is fine. And if they don't, it will probably be because they have had religious objections reinforced regularly throughout life in church, mosque or temple." It's not clear how Appiah knows this to be true, but that is not the point. What some people end up feeling cannot decide a question of this kind. If many religious people preach against gay marriage, it is because they believe being gay is wrong. If others think that "gay marriage is fine," it is because they believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. The point is that one cannot avoid making a moral judgment, and this inescapably means accepting or rejecting certain religious beliefs. Those who favor gay marriage--as I do--do so because they reject the belief that being gay is in any way bad or wrong. Cosmopolitanism has very little bearing on the issue. Appiah defends cosmopolitanism in the apparent belief that it tends to bolster liberal values, when in fact it is bound to be open-ended. Cosmopolitan thinkers may endorse some liberal positions, but this has nothing to do with the logic of cosmopolitan theory. As a political theory, cosmopolitanism is a doctrine of live and let live--a very different thing from liberalism as usually understood today. Appiah tells us that the cosmopolitan view was expressed in modern times in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, but actually it was most clearly held by thinkers who had no truck with declarations of rights. For Thomas Hobbes and David Hume the end of politics was not a regime of rights but peace--and they were ready to curb freedom whenever it posed a serious threat to the achievement of that end. Again, Michel de Montaigne is surely one of the great early modern exponents of cosmopolitan ethics. He affirmed a common humanity transcending differences of custom and tradition--and at the same time denied that any one way of life was best for everyone. These modern cosmopolitans were too aware of the intractability of human affairs to imagine that great human evils such as anarchy, war and tyranny could be overcome by seeking to make a single form of government universal. They believed--to my mind rightly--that pursuing such a goal would only add to the sum of human evils. Nothing could be more alien to these cosmopolitan thinkers than the missionary certainties of the kind of liberalism that seeks to establish one type of regime throughout the world. Appiah believes that cosmopolitan theory has a special relevance today, and he succeeds in showing that this neglected and attractive tradition of thought deserves serious attention as a habitable middle ground between liberalism and relativism. Where he fails is in not exploring the points at which cosmopolitanism and liberalism diverge. Yet these are precisely the areas where a cosmopolitan viewpoint is currently most needed. As Appiah notes, contemporary thought is beset by the notion that we can live together only if we are alike. In international relations this idea is expressed in the prevailing belief that only regimes that respect human rights or practice democracy (it's not always clear which) can be legitimate--a view that has been used by the neoconservative right to justify the calamitous attack on Iraq. If we are to avoid similar disasters in the future, we need an account of legitimacy as applied in the society of states that is not just a recent version of liberalism writ large. Cosmopolitanism could surely help frame such an account, but it would have to be more willing to challenge current pieties than the version presented by Appiah.
CARACAS, VenezuelaU.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, said she was considering running for office against Sen. Diane Feinstein while she waited for the California lawmaker to back a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.Sheehan issued her statement Friday, the same day Feinstein announced she would support the filibuster, despite saying earlier this month that she did not see anything to justify one. Democrats fear Alito would shift the court rightward on issues including abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.Sheehan's statement was sent by e-mail while she was in Venezuela attending the World Social Forum. She said she had "decided to run" against Feinstein if the lawmaker did not join the filibuster."I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said in the statement.Sheehan, a 48-year-old from Berkeley, California, emerged as an anti-war activist after her son was killed in Iraq in 2004. She gained international attention when she set up a protest camp near U.S. President George W. Bush's ranch in Texas last year.Sheehan couldn't immediately be reached for comment after Feinstein's announcement that she would back the filibuster.But her close confidante and assistant Dede Miller, a co-founder of the group Gold Star Families for Peace, said she believed Sheehan still was considering running."We'll see. There are still a lot of other issues," Miller said, noting Sheehan strongly disagreed with Feinstein's stance on Iraq as well.Miller said it was good news that Feinstein would back the filibuster."It's the right thing to do," Miller said. "It still remains to be seen how well she follows it through."Miller said many supporters have been asking Sheehan to run for office. "Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if she did," she said.
The United States and Israel have been itching to go to Tehran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. That Revolution was a strategic setback for both powers. It overthrew the Iranian monarchy, a great friend of the US and Israel, and brought to power the Shi'ite Mullahs, who saw themselves as the legitimate heirs of the Prophet's legacy, and, therefore, the true defenders of Islam. As a result, the Iranian Revolution was certain to clash with both the US and Israel, as well as their client states in the Arab world. Israel was unacceptable because it was an alien intrusion that had displaced a Muslim people: it was a foreign implant in the Islamic heartland. But the US was the greater antagonist. On its own account, through Israel, and on the behalf of Israel, it sought to keep the Middle East firmly bound in the chains of American hegemony. The US-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East had won a great victory in 1978. At Camp David, the leading Arab country, Egypt, chose to surrender its leadership of the Arab world, and signed a separate 'peace' with Israel. This freed Israel to pursue its plans to annex the West Bank and Gaza, and to project unchecked power over the entire region. The Arab world could now be squeezed between Israel in the West and Iran to the East, the twin pillars of US hegemony over the region's peoples and resources. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 ended this partnership. At that point, real men in Washington would have loved to take back Tehran from the Mullahs but for the inconvenience of Soviet opposition. But great powers are rarely stymied by any single development however adverse. It took little encouragement from Washington to get Iraq to mount an unprovoked invasion of Iran. In the twentieth century, few Arab leaders have seen the difference between entrapment and opportunity. The war between Iran and Iraq served the United States and Israel quite well. It blunted the energies of Iran, diverting it from any serious attempts to export the revolution, or challenging American influence in the region. The Israeli gains were more substantial. With Egypt neutered at Camp David, and Iraq and Iran locked in a bloody war, Israel was free during the 1980s to do what it pleased. It expanded its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak, expelled the Palestinian fighters from Lebanon, and established a long-term occupation over much of Southern Lebanon. Israel was closer to its goal of commanding unchallenged power over the Middle East. The end of the Cold War in 1990 offered a bigger opening to the United States and Israel. Freed from the Soviet check on their ambitions, and with Iran devastated by the war, the United States began working on plans to establish a military control over the region, in the style of earlier colonial empires. This happened quickly when, with American assurance of non-intervention in intra-Arab conflicts, Iraq invaded Kuwaiti in August 1990. The US response was massive and swift. In January 1990, after assembling 600,000 allied troops in Saudi Arabia about half of them America,n it pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and mounted massive air strikes against Iraq itself, destroying much of its industry, power-generating capacity and infrastructure. The US had now established a massive military beachhead in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. It established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, continued its economic sanctions against Iraq, created a Kurdish autonomous zone in the north of Iraq, and, together with Britain, continued to bomb Iraq on a nearly daily basis for the next thirteen years. With the US beachhead in place, where did the real men in the US and Israel want to go next? There was no secrecy about their plans. At a minimum, the Neoconservatives in the US and their Likud allies in Israel wanted 'regime change' in Iraq, Syria and Iran. This would be delivered by covert action, air strikes, or invasion - whatever it took - to be mounted by the US military. Israel would stay out of these wars, ready to reap the benefits of their aftermath. The Likud plans were more ambitious. They wanted to redraw the map of the Middle East, using ethnic, sectarian, and religious differences to carve up the existing states in the region into weak micro-states that could be easily bullied by Israel. This was the Kivunim plan first made public in 1982. It would give Israel a thousand years of dominance over the Middle East. The attacks of September 11, 2001 were the 'catalyzing event' that put these plans into motion. The US wasted no time in seizing the moment. Instantly, President George Bush declared a global war against terrorism. The first target of this war was Afghanistan, but this was only a sideshow. On January 29, 2002, the President announced his initial targets for regime change: the 'axis of evil' that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The plan was to invade and consolidate control over Iraq as a base for operations against Iran, Syria and perhaps Saudi Arabia. This sequencing was based on two assumptions: that the invasion of Iraq would be a cake-walk and American troops would be greeted as liberators. The US invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003 and Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. It was indeed a cake-walk, and it appeared to television audiences that American troops were also being greeted as liberators. Understandably, the mood in Washington and Tel Aviv was triumphant. The US is unstoppable: it was time for real men now to go to Tehran. Nearly three years after the Iraqi invasion, the real men are still stuck in Baghdad. Yes, there has been a great deal of talk about attacking Iran: plans in place for air strikes on Iran's revolutionary guards, on its nuclear installations and other WMD sites, and even talk of a ground invasion. There have been reports of spy flights over Iran and operations by special forces inside Iran. Israel too has been goading the US to strike, and if the US shrinks from this duty, threatening to go solo. What has been holding back the real men in Washington and Tel Aviv? One reason of course is that the cake walk very quickly turned into a quagmire. The apparent Iraqi welcome was replaced by a growing and hardy insurgency, which has exacted a high toll on US plans for Iraq even though it was led mostly by Sunni Arabs. As a result, close to 150,000 US troops remain tied down in Iraq, with little prospect that they can be freed soon for action against Iran. Most Shi'ites aren't resisting the American occupation, but they are ready to take power in Iraq, and want the Americans to leave. While the US cannot mount a full-scale invasion of Iran without a draft, it does possesses the capability, despite the Iraqi quagmire, to launch air and missile strikes at Iranian targets, using nuclear weapons to destroy underground weapon sites. On the other hand, despite its saber rattling, most analysts agree that Israel does not possess this capability on its own. Unlike Iraq, Iran has dispersed its nuclear assets to dozens of sites, some unknown. Then, why hasn't the US mounted air attacks against Iran yet? Or will it any time soon? More and more, as the Americans have taken a more sober reckoning of Iran's political and military capabilities, they realize that Iran is not Iraq. When Osirak was attacked by Israel in June 1981, Iraq did nothing: it could do nothing. One thing is nearly certain: Iran will respond to any attack on its nuclear sites. Iran's nuclear program has the broadest public support: as a result, the Iranian Revolution would suffer a serious loss of prestige if it did nothing to punish the attacks. The question is: what can Iran do in retaliation? Both the CIA and DIA have conducted war games to determine the consequences of an American air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to Newsweek (September 27, 2004), "No one liked the outcome." According to an Air Force source, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." In December 2004, The Atlantic Monthly reported similar results for its own war game on this question. The architect of these games, Sam Gardner, concluded, "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran." What is the damage Iran can inflict? Since preparations for any US strike could not be kept secret, Iran may choose to preempt such a strike. According to the participants in the Atlantic Monthly war game, Iran could attack American troops across the border in Iraq. In responding to these attacks, the US troops would become even more vulnerable to the Iraqi insurgency. One participant expressed the view that Iran "may decide that a bloody defeat for the United States, even if it means chaos in Iraq, is something they actually prefer." Iran could also join hands with al-Qaida to mount attacks on civilian targets within the US. If Iranian losses mount, Iran may launch missiles against Israel or decide to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, options not considered in the Atlantic Monthly war game. What are the realistic options available to the US? It could drag Iran to the UN Security Council and, if Russia and China climb on board, pass a motion for limited economic sanctions. Most likely, the US will not be asking for an Iraq-style oil embargo. Not only would this roil the markets for oil, Iran will respond by ending inspections, and accelerate its uranium enrichment. If Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear program, then it will, perhaps sooner rather than later, have its bomb. Once that happens, one Israeli official in the Newsweek report said, "Look at ways to make sure it's not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger." But the US and Israel have been pursuing that option since 1979. It would appear that US-Israeli power over the Middle East, which had been growing since World War II, may have finally run into an obstacle. And that obstacle is Iran, a country the CIA had returned to a despotic monarch in 1953. Paradoxically, this has happened when American dominance over the region appears to be at its peak; when its troops occupy a key Arab country. When it has Iran sandwiched between US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and when it has trapped Iran inside a ring of US military bases running from Qatar, through Turkey and Tajikistan, to Pakistan. Could it be that al-Qaida's gambit is beginning to pay off? It had hoped that the attacks of September 11 would provoke the US into invading the Islamic heartland. That the US did, but the mass upheaval al-Qaida had expected in the Arab streets did not materialize. Instead, it is Iran that has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion. As a result, it is Iran that now possesses the leverage to oppose US-Israeli aims in the region. Al-Qaida had not planned on a Shi'ite country leading the Islamic world. It is possible that the US, choosing to ignore the colossal risks, may yet launch air attacks against Iran. President Bush could be pushed into this by pressure from messianic Christians, by Neoconservatives, by Israelis, or by the illusion that he needs to do something bold and desperate to save his presidency. By refusing to wilt under US-Israeli threats, it appears that the Iranians too may be following al-Qaida's logic. We cannot tell if this is what motivates Iran. But that is where matters will go if the US decides to attack or invade Iran. No one have yet remarked on some eerie parallels between the US determination to deepen its intervention in the Islamic world and Napoleons' relentless pursuit of the Russian forces, retreating, drawing them into the trap of the Russian winter. It would appear that the United States too is irretrievably committed to pursuing its Islamic foe to the finish, to keep moving forward even if this risks getting caught in a harsh Islamic winter. On the other hand, the Neoconservatives, the messianic Christians, and the Israelis are convinced that with their searing firepower, the US and Israel will succeed and plant a hundred pliant democracies in the Middle East. We will have to wait and see if these real men ever get to add Tehran to their next travel itinerary or they have to give up the comforts of the Green Zone in Baghdad.
And who will tell the peoplethat free speech is a ruse;The corporations run the countryand then they make the news.Is it media or mind controlheroic victories or crime?Who will tell the people...that we are living in these times.~Song by Willie NelsonIn his essay on "Character" Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "A chief event in life is the day in which we have encountered a mind that startled us." I've had such days, many of them through encounters with Emerson himself, but never have I been startled or even remotely surprised by anything belched out by the Barbie and Ken assembly line of today's corporate mind-control media.George Orwell wrote that people who neither read nor ask questions will ultimately lose all desire to question "Big Brother." What is so frightening as we descend into the new world order fascism is not that we no longer read -- it's that we no longer can read.Researchers estimate as many as 30 million Americans -- many of them college graduates -- cannot read. They're unable to comprehend news stories or even instructions. They said they were "stunned," but could offer no explanation for the steep drop in literacy. I don't know what's more depressing -- that Americans can't read or, after studying the phenomenon, researchers lack the critical skills to discern why.Today, as in Orwell's 1984, the sound and fury of Big Brother's repetitive visual stimuli has apparently crippled our ability to think critically. If it's not on television, it isn't happening. Even then, we can't be sure of what is true until the paid TV "analyst" or pundit with the biggest stash of "Newspeak" talking points wins the debate. When there's no one left to tell the people the truth, Orwell said, "the people will believe what the media tells them they believe."I had almost come to the sad conclusion that Orwell was right when, late one September night in 2004 as I was surfing for something "soothing" on the radio, the door of my mind was unceremoniously bashed in and I was startled by..."I'm pissed off -- and I'm Mike Malloy."Malloy, clean-up guy for Air America Radio (10pm-1am), rode in on the strident vibrations of Pink Floyd's Run Like Hell and, for the next three hours, relentlessly hit both spineless Democrats and Republican "sonszabitches" with the truth about the Bush crime family, pummelled them with the truth about spineless and quivering democrats, bitch-slapped them with the truth about where we're headed if we don't wake up, stand up and speak up...Then, with a friendly and quiet "watch your back," he was gone. I just sat there, grinning. Maybe we aren't doomed to slip-slide into fascist hell after all. By sheer luck, I had stumbled across a guy with the ability to see the truth and the courage to tell the people...Who IS this guy?Mike Malloy is the canary in the political coal mine -- the bane of the Bush administration and of hypocrites of all stripes. He is a liberal gadfly whose light shines so brightly on the truth that even Air America struggles to keep him hidden under its late-night barrel. Far from being a "loose liberal cannon," Malloy has a solid background of writing, reporting, editing and broadcasting. He is a former news writer and editor for both CNN and CNN-international, and a former publisher of Atlanta's Creative Loafing newspaper.But it was in radio broadcasting in the 90's that Malloy literally came into his own. Malloy has been named "One of the Heavy Hundred" three times by Talkers Magazine, an honor given to only the top 100 radio talk show hosts out of more than 4,000, of which all but a handful are right-wing blustering liars like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et al.Malloy has worked for WSB in Atlanta, WLS in Chicago and the now defunct I.E. America Radio Network. So, some may ask -- if Malloy's so damn good, why did WSB, WLS -- let him go? Why is Air America Radio afraid to stick him in prime time so more people can hear the truth?Because he is so damn good, that's why. Because the truth Malloy tells is raw, straightforward, stripped of all spin -- every word shoved right in the faces of those who have seized power to destroy the democratic safeguards of the U.S. Constitution, to steal elections, to abandon society's most vulnerable, and to slaughter their own citizens as a pretext for war. But even Air America knows that not everybody can handle the truth, especially in prime time. Malloy can be heard each night on Air America affiliate stations, the Internet, and on XM Satellite Radio, Channel 167. Missed programs are available at the White Rose Society website.Each night, Malloy exposes the Bush administration for what it is -- a murderous, evil, lying, fascist regime. Each night, I am amazed that he has somehow managed to slip through enemy lines yet again to shout truth to power. He asks no quarter, and gives none, regardless of the consequences."I'm like a cork," Malloy says with a laugh, "You can't submerge me. You push me down and I pop up somewhere else. That's a given." He's uncomfortable with praise, and stresses often that he is there neither to educate nor entertain, but to "get together" with sane people in the evening and talk about the insanity. "I'm not arrogant enough to think I can educate you," he said. "I'm not that condescending, not that patronizing. Take what you want from this program and run with it.""Truthseekers" get a fast-moving mixture of music selected by Malloy's producer-wife Kathy Bay, occasional interviews, self-incriminating audio clips straight from the mouths of right-wing rat bastards, raisin brain politicians, simple Scotty McClellan, and President Chuckle Nuts himself. Malloy encourages listeners to call the show, although he warns Republicans they will get bounced if they start slinging Rovian "flying monkey" talking points at him. Most Republican callers, incapable of applying logic to the message, get their butts kicked off the air by the messenger in about five seconds -- seven tops.Like most progressives, Malloy is disillusioned with the state of the Democratic Party, but maintains he will always be a "traditional" Democrat. Republicans accuse him of being nothing but a "Bush basher" or a "left-wing nutcase," but Malloy's late-night "Paul Revere" cry emanating from Air America comes straight from a man who is angrily committed to ousting the criminals who are hell-bent on destroying all that is good and decent not only in this country, but throughout the world.Considering the wounds inflicted on this country in the last five years, Malloy has concluded that the Republican Party is now the American Nazi Party, and most of its members are vile deceivers."Republicans are liars, cheats, and sneaks; they are deceivers," he said. "They are immoral, and they have no ethical structure whatsoever...If they are Republicans, they are thugs. They have abondoned whatever moral sense they ever had, if any. They support mass murder. They support the destruction of this country."Malloy is not known for pulling punches when addressing the administration or the Bush Crime Family either. "I hate you to the depths of my soul," he said. "I will hate you when I'm dead. I will hate you a million years after I'm dead...My hate will be a star in the firmament that will shine down on your Republican asses forever. That's how deep my hatred is, because of what you're doing to this country."A good way to end the dayMalloy is not alone. His counterparts at Air America are all conversant with history and capable of critical thinking. Like Malloy, they struggle each day to tell the people the truth about what the Bush administration is doing to this country.Scores of books have been written pointing out that Bush has arrogantly placed himself above the law and outside the constraints of the U.S. Constitution. He has bestowed upon himself a god-like superiority to decide who deserves to live or die. And Bush kills with malevolent, inhuman brutishness. Authors sound the alarm that what happened in 1933 in Hitler's Germany and in Orwell's 1984 is descending upon us today because we are losing the will to combat it. The Internet is throbbing with articles on the same subject.The vigilance required to preserve our freedoms is impossible when we're whipped into submission by terror and convinced to give up a few freedoms we never use anyway, such as questioning those who are waging war to protect us.We are no longer vigilant. That's why Malloy and those like him are so important. Over and over, Malloy tells the people that their continued silence will soon crush all of us into a 1984 world so aptly described by Aristotle as being fit for "only the gods and the beasts."Malloy is a modern-day Tom Paine, who told the people in 1776 that the time had come to break free from oppression. "Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own families," Paine wrote in Common Sense, his little 47-page pamphlet that ultimately sparked a revolution and gave us our world. But then, people could read back then...It's time to take that world back. Last week, Malloy began reading to the people, devoting a short six-minute segment of the show's second hour to Orwell's 1984. He will read the book in its entirety, and has completed Chapter 1 and a portion of Chapter 2. For those few chilling minutes each night Malloy transports us to London and into the dreary world of "Big Brother," a world much like Bush is striving for today -- constant surveillance and total obedience.Malloy quietly records the slow, but steady eradication of individuality -- of humanity itself -- through fear. The parallels are obvious. Now, as in 1984, in the words of former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, we must "watch what we say; watch what we do" lest we be found guilty of the heinous offense of "thoughtcrime."Now, as in 1984, Malloy says there are three things we can take to the bank as Bush's "truth." He encourages people to not only watch Bush's speeches for amusement as he mangles the language while stammering and stumbling through one photo Op after another -- but to listen to the words and phrases he repeats endlessly. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. After we accept that, the rest is easy...Encountering Malloy may startle you; rock your world. You may even go to bed screaming. But hey -- it's a good way to end the day.Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net.
