November 30, 2005

Chomsky vs Dershowitz

John F. Kennedy School of Government video debate between Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz, Israel and Palestine after Disengagement (November 29, 2005).

The Harvard Crimson, Prominent Profs Spar Over Israel (November 30, 2005). An excerpt:
In response to Dershowitz's claim that his knowledge of the peace process--including the 2000 Camp David summit--was based on what President Clinton had told him "directly and personally," Chomsky said that his own arguments were based on written and accessible evidence.

"You can believe one of two things," Chomsky said. "The extensive published diplomatic record...or what Mr. Dershowitz says he heard from somebody."

November 29, 2005

Columbia Journalism Review Daily

...a real-time daily critique of journalism and a continuing discussion and analysis of where it is and where it's going.

Operating under the auspices of the Columbia Journalism Review, the country's premier media monitor, we focus on three areas: an ongoing critique of political journalism; an ongoing analysis of the larger forces -- political, economic, technological, social legal -- that affect press performance day in and day out; and a new emphasis on monitoring and critiquing the journalism of the business and financial press. We've labeled these three reports Politics, Behind the News and The Audit, and we update them daily -- sometimes hourly.

This site was born as Campaign Desk in 2004, with a mandate to monitor news coverage of the presidential election campaign, for which we were awarded honorable mention from the National Press Club for our distinguished contribution to online journalism. After the campaign, we broadened our mandate to critique all of purportedly serious journalism, and changed our name accordingly to CJR Daily.

Our newest addition to the site, The Audit, has come about thanks to funding from the Winokur Family Foundation and others. We live in a time when there is heightened competition among the business press -- think Bloomberg News, cable television ventures and the rapidly growing number of Web sites entirely devoted to business news -- just as business itself has become more complex and corporate scandals have led to mandated increases in disclosure. There is opportunity in that combination , but there is peril as well -- heightened deadline pressure combined with a greatly increased volume of news is not necessarily a recipe designed to produce quality. We'll be here to tell you when it does and when it doesn't.

Eventually, in the months to come we hope to take a closer critical look at other specialties, such as environmental journalism, science journalism and medical journalism.

Beyond that, working in concert with CJR, our parent, we're committed to examining the continuing tribulations of the trade itself -- one that is going through considerable turmoil of its own as it seeks to define and redefine itself. Many journalists to whom we talk, day in and day out, have the vague sense that calcified old forms and formats are failing them; the trick will be to find new frameworks up to the task at hand.

We'll be dissecting and deconstructing all of that in the days, weeks, and months to come, and we can't think of a topic more vital. So hang on for the ride. We hope you'll keep visiting both CJR Daily and CJR, which is published six times a year and at www.cjr.org (and please consider subscribing to CJR).

SleeplessInSudan.blogspot.com

Uncensored, direct from a dazed & confused aid worker in Darfur, Sudan

An aid worker diary from Darfur, Sudan: real stories, random observations and occasional rants on the lives of Darfur’s two million displaced people and the somewhat bewildered humanitarian agencies who are trying to help them. Sleepless in Sudan is just another website on just another violent conflict in Africa – but uncensored, direct and without the sugar-coating that the tightly controlled and highly politicized environment demands from the official sources.

The Language of Empire - Abu Ghraib and the American Media

by Lila Rajiva

[--]

The ancient myth of Prometheus connects a murdered contractor, the torture of prisoners, and the emergence of a new form of fascism in American.

The Language of Empire is a study of how and why the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was white-washed by the American media. Tracing the connections between such apparently unrelated incidents as the videotaped beheading of the American contractor Nicholas Berg and the massive siege and bombing of Fallujah—the Guernica of the 21st century—it builds a compelling case that the torture of Iraqi prisoners was not an aberration but systematic, rehearsed, and in line with the history and policies of the U.S. military.

It explains why American journalists and commentators ignored or defended what happened.

It shows that the torture was committed by Delta forces and Marines not just low-level reservists; that it was directed at innocent civilians, not terrorists.

Fuck Chris Matthews!!

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Nov. 23rd
Guests: Jim Gilmore, Paul Hackett, Amy Goodman, Frank Gaffney, Bob Shrum, Christopher Kennedy Lawford

MATTHEWS: Let‘s go to Amy Goodman. I wondered what your reaction would be to this staged withdrawal proposal that‘s out there?

AMY GOODMAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My reaction is, people in this country are demanding that there be a change. President Bush is at an all-time low in approval ratings and he has got to do something right now. So they are responding to public pressure. The question is, how far up that public pressure will be amped. I don‘t think people can rely on the Democrats. In fact, Congressmember Murtha, who has very bravely spoken out -- many of the Democrats—Democratic leadership in the Senate and the House, are really keeping a distance from him. I think this is coming from grassroots pressure in this country. And—

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Amy—

GOODMAN: -- for President Bush, it‘s coming from his Republican allies.

MATTHEWS: I just want to check you on this assertion. You said he has to. He‘s commander-in-chief. He‘s got three more years of his constitutional term as president. He controls the Congress. What does he have to do he doesn‘t think is right? If he thinks we need troops in there, as Frank says, for another year or two or five more years or until the end of his term, what‘s to stop him from keeping them there?

GOODMAN: Well, Chris, remember when President Bush was in China and he finished speaking and couldn‘t make it outside the door because it was locked? President Bush‘s problem is he doesn‘t have an exit strategy, whether when he‘s trying to leave the stage or with Iraq.

But it has been exposed in this country. And people—Republicans as well as Democrats—and that‘s what‘s key here, it‘s actually Republican allies who are terrified for their own jobs when they run in 2006, whether or not President Bush has a few years longer. He is getting a lot of pressure from the Republican leadership to come up with some kind of plan. Now, you have Vice President Cheney saying—and you‘ve got Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld saying they are going to stay the course, if not keep troops there, up the number. But you see how the American people are responding. And so they are shifting course. The question is, of course, will they be forced to pull out now, which is the only answer.

MATTHEWS: Okay. Great. I‘m looking for a period if not a comma here.

Let me go right now to Frank.

GAFFNEY: Or even a breath.

GOODMAN: That‘s an exclamation point, not a question mark.

MATTHEWS: Thank you for that. It‘s an interruption at least. Let me ask you about the president.

Where is the Iraq war headed next? by Seymour Hersh

[--]


A high-level Pentagon war planner told me, however, that he has seen scant indication that the President would authorize a significant pullout of American troops if he believed that it would impede the war against the insurgency. There are several proposals currently under review by the White House and the Pentagon; the most ambitious calls for American combat forces to be reduced from a hundred and fifty-five thousand troops to fewer than eighty thousand by next fall, with all American forces officially designated “combat” to be pulled out of the area by the summer of 2008. In terms of implementation, the planner said, “the drawdown plans that I’m familiar with are condition-based, event-driven, and not in a specific time frame”—that is, they depend on the ability of a new Iraqi government to defeat the insurgency. (A Pentagon spokesman said that the Administration had not made any decisions and had “no plan to leave, only a plan to complete the mission.”)

November 28, 2005

Sibel Edmonds

"...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public’s interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight."

U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft

*
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/politics/28cnd-scotus.html

Court Turns Down Case of F.B.I. Translator

By DAVID STOUT -
Published: November 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - The Supreme Court declined today to consider the case of a former F.B.I. translator who contends she was fired after accusing the bureau of ineptitude in the handling of intelligence related to terrorism.

The justices refused without comment to take the case of Sibel Edmonds, who was a contract linguist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for about six months, translating material in Turkish, Persian and Azerbaijani, before she was dismissed on April 2, 2002.

Ms. Edmonds had complained repeatedly that bureau linguists produced slipshod and incomplete translations of important intelligence before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. She also accused a Turkish linguist in the bureau's Washington field office of blocking the translation of material involving acquaintances who had come under F.B.I. suspicion. She said, too, that the bureau had allowed diplomatic sensitivities to impede the translation of some intelligence.

The F.B.I. said Ms. Edmonds's allegations were incorrect and that she was disruptive.

Ms. Edmonds's accusations had caused great discomfort within the bureau. Justice Department officials had complained that allowing the suit to proceed could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked a rarely used power and declared that the case fell under the "state secret" privilege.

Mr. Ashcroft's declaration persuaded a federal district judge to dismiss Ms. Edmonds's suit in July 2004. The dismissal was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last May, and today's rejection by the Supreme Court is apparently the last legal word in the matter.

But while it lasted, the episode was highly embarrassing to the bureau. A classified investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general's office concluded in 2004 that Ms. Edmonds's assertions "were at least a contributing factor" in her dismissal.

In addition to raising questions about the F.B.I.'s treatment of whistle-blowers, the Edmonds episode focused yet more attention on the bureau's handling of terrorism-related intelligence. The bureau had already been under fire for its handling of intelligence before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Intergalactic War

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=6750

Hellyer went on to state: "The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today." Mr. Hellyer stated the Canadian people may be threatened with the consequences of war in outer space over our sovereign territory: "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning."

WATCH PAUL HELLYER'S SPEECH: http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_toronto_exopolitics_symposium.htm

*

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb314382.htm

Former Canadian Minister Of Defence Asks Canadian Parliament To Hold Hearings On Relations With Alien "Et" Civilizations

A former Canadian Minister of Defence has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on with Alien “ET” Civilizations. Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head." Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. Mr. Hellyer went on to say, "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something." “Now is the time for open disclosure that there are ethical Extraterrestrial civilizations visiting Earth,” a spokesperson for the Non-Governmental Organizations stated. “Our Canadian government needs to openly address these important issues of the possible deployment of weapons in outer space and war plans against ethical Extraterrestrial societies.”

OTTAWA, CANADA (PRWEB) November 24, 2005 -- A former Canadian Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister under Pierre Trudeau has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on Exopolitics -- relations with “ETs.”

By “ETs,” Mr. Hellyer and these organizations mean ethical, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.

On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

November 27, 2005

Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy

by William Blum

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate -- the Church committee of the Senate, the Pike committee of the House, and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

November 26, 2005

Zapatistas: Intergalactic encounter

by Bastian Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 at 8:52 AM

The Zapatistas from Chiapas, Mexico, announce their plans for a intergalactic encounter “from below and from the left”. Intergalactic because they struggle for “a world in which all worlds can fit”.

Last summer, the nature of the Zapatista struggle has changed. The Zapatistas are known as the “first post-modern revolutionaries”. They have struggled for the rights of ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, transsexuals and the poor in Mexico.

During the past 22 years, the main achievements of the Zapatistas have been on the local level. Some 2000 communities in
Chiapas have organised in about thirty autonomous municipalities and 5 autonomous regions. The autonomous authorities on these three administrative levels “lead by obeying”.

De Zapatistas are opposed to a leading elite, against technocracy and to a revolutionary vanguard. Their alternative is a system in which all strategic decisions are made directly by the population. Leadership is not about the person, but about the position. When a autonomous administrator doesn’t fulfil his or her task according to the will of the people, he or she is immediately replaced by the people. Civil authorities fulfil their role for a year and after that period, they are replaced to prevent possible clientelism and corruption. Last year the Zapatistas published an assessment of their own achievements and fallacies:

http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/leerunvideo.html

The Zapatistas oppose rigid ideology and dogmatism. They do not present a blueprint for revolution. This is reflected in the principle of “progressing by asking questions”. Progress is achieved little by little and after each small step, new questions are raised. This can be seen as a reaction to the grand theories like communism, capitalism and other ideologies that do not tolerate dissent.

Last summer, the Zapatista movement gained national relevance when it announced the creation of a national movement “from below and from the left”. This movement has to be horizontal and aimed at voluntary consensus. In the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, the Zapatistas explain how they see Chiapas, Mexico and the world:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/selva6.html

In this document, known as “La Sexta”, the Zapatistas criticize neoliberal free trade and the Mexican three party-system. They do not see the difference between the leaders of the different parties. “Because we believe that a people which does not watch over its leaders is condemned to be enslaved, and we fought to be free, not to change masters every six years.”

The Zapatistas propose the creation of something “very otherly”. This summer they announced the creation of “the Other Campaign”. A very otherly campaign that does not want to take power, but tries to organise from below and from the left to create an alternative for the allegedly corrupt Mexican political system. At this point, some 900 Mexican organisations and 2000 individuals have joined the Other Campaign.

The Zapatistas played an important role during the emergence of the anti-globalist movement. Their call for a international alternative media network played an important role in the creation of the Indymedia network. Two intercontintal encounters in 1996 and 1997 in Zapatista territory were followed by numerous national, continental and intercontinental social fora.

This month, the Zapatistas have called for a intercontinental encounter with movements from the left and from below. All around the world, meetings will be organised to prepare for this encounter. During this period everybody can voice their support, advice or opposition to the shape and content of this encounter and of a international network to help “struggles and resistances for humanity and against neoliberalism throughout the world”. You can find the announcement here:

http://zaptranslations.blogspot.com/2005/11/ezln-2-communiques-new-website.html

From the small, colourful threads of local resistance, the Zapatistas aim to weave a grand tapestry of rebellion. Together.

There will be a website on which the preparations around the world will be coordinated.

http://zeztainternazional.ezln.org

will launched on November 30th. All organisations from below and from the left are called upon to organise local meetings. The Zapatistas, if invited, will try to send a delegation to listen to the discussions and to report on the preparatory meetings back home in Chiapas. If the period of consultation is finished within the coming seven months, the Zapatistas propose that the Intergaláctica will take place in july of 2006.

The Origins of the Overclass By Steve Kangas

“In 1999, a journalist who had written exposes of Richard Scaife was by all appearances murdered in the Oxford Centre of Pittsburgh, PA - the office complex of the foundation of his subject - Scaife. Richard Mellon Scaife is the heir of the Mellon fortune and a major funder of the Heritage Foundation and other right wing organizations, although, like the Coors family, Scaife also funds abortion and gay rights organizations. Shortly before his death in February 1999, Kangas catalogued the gruesome accomplishments of the CIA and issued a scathing indictment of their paymasters - the very elites who created the CNP!”

Goerge Bush Sr., former CIA director The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

Christopher Dickey

Award-winning author Christopher Dickey is the Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek Magazine. Previously he worked for The Washington Post as Cairo Bureau Chief and Central America Bureau Chief. Chris's Shadowland column, about counter-terrorism, espionage and the Middle East, appears weekly on Newsweek Online. For links to recent columns and articles, visit the archive.

November 25, 2005

"Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire"

By William Blum's latest book, (2004) -

It reads like a primer to his work and offers this election year nugget on the back cover:

"If I were president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United states in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize-very publicly and very sincerely-to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished ad tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce to every corner of the world that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but-oddly enough-a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions, and sanctions. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

The Internet vs. the State

by Eric Garris

At the 1977 Libertarian Party Convention, mind-expansion advocate and LSD guru Timothy Leary gave a speech that few of us took very seriously. He spoke of something called the Internet, a network that would connect computers worldwide, allowing participants from around the globe to sign on and retrieve text, photographs, audio and video instantaneously, and to communicate in realtime with anyone in the whole world who also had a computer and a connection. He said that it would be the new revolution against the current social order and stifling status quo. He predicted it would be much, much bigger than drugs in its ability to overthrow the establishment. Whereas tuning in, turning on and dropping out had been of great interest to a somewhat narrow subset of the population, everyone would be able to use the Internet, in his own way, and thus the new revolution against the old order would transcend class, age, nationality and all other demographics. The bourgeois would have just as much interest and use for it as the so-called counterculture. And nothing would ever again be the same.

As I said, no one at the time really believed it. We figured Leary had just done a little too much acid and his imagination had gotten the best of him. The network of information he described seemed totally impossible – and yet it exists, precisely as he predicted it, right now.

In fact, even Timothy Leary might be surprised to see the newest developments. Hardly a week goes by without some substantial revolution in cyberspace. When Leary died in 1996, data storage, processing and transfer had yet to approach anything anywhere near their current magnificent levels of utility and speed. And next year will make this year look like nothing. Already, we think back five years and can hardly comprehend the breathtaking progress over that time.

ArmChairDiplomat.com - Links

What Every American Should Know About the Rest of the World

Read between the lines, fill in the blanks, enlarge your worldview, check out these links.

November 24, 2005

I'm Thankful For Howard Zinn

http://teresi.us/html/writing/howard_zinn.html

"I remember going to school and I would learn about Indians who came to Thanksgiving dinner gratefully. I would learn about Custer’s Last Stand, I would learn about Sitting Bull. There were a few moments in Indian history that we’d learn about. What we didn’t learn about was the fact that the American colonists that came here from the beginning were invading Indian soil and driving the Indians out of their land and committing massacres in order to persuade the Indians that they’d better move. And the history of the U.S. is a history of hundreds of little wars fought against the Indians, annihilating them, pushing them farther and farther onto a smaller and smaller piece of the country. And finally, in the late 19th century, taking the Indians that were left and squeezing them onto a reservation and controlling them."

"The story that’s not told is the deceptions that were played on the Indians, the treaties that were made with them, the treaties that were then broken by the American government. It’s important to know that, because if you do, then you will become aware that the American government can lie. It can deceive people. It can do it not only in relation to Native Americans, it can do it in relation to all of us."

-Howard Zinn

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Ultimate_Betrayal.html

The quick Thanksgiving visit of Bush to Iraq, much ballyhooed in the press, was seen differently by an army nurse in Landstuhl, Germany, where casualties from the war are treated. She sent out an e-mail: "My 'Bush Thanksgiving' was a little different. I spent it at the hospital taking care of a young West Point lieutenant wounded in Iraq.... When he pressed his fists into his eyes and rocked his head back and forth he looked like a little boy. They all do, all nineteen in the ward that day, some missing limbs, eyes, or worse.... It's too bad Bush didn't add us to his holiday agenda. The men said the same, but you'll never read that in the paper."

November 23, 2005

WorldPress.org

News and Views From Around the World

November 22, 2005

I ♥ Chomsky

http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm

MediaLens media alert, Smearing Chomsky -- The Guardian Backs Down (November 21, 2005). An excerpt:

On November 4, we published a Media Alert, 'Smearing Chomsky', detailing the Guardian's October 31 interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes. The alert produced the biggest ever response from Media Lens readers - many hundreds of emails were sent to the newspaper.

The Guardian has since published a "correction and clarification" in regard to Brockes' piece by ombudsman Ian Mayes, which we discuss below ('Corrections and clarifications. The Guardian and Noam Chomsky,' The Guardian, November 17, 2005; http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,,1644017,00.html) The Guardian editor has also sent a form letter advising of the paper's retraction and apology.

[...]

It is clear that the Guardian's distortions were so obvious on this occasion -- and so obviously damaging to its reputation - that the editors felt obliged to respond seriously to complaints. We are willing to accept the Guardian claim that Mayes - who deserves real credit for the newspaper's apology - would have published his correction if just Chomsky had complained. But the editor's additional reply to readers clearly suggests that mass public engagement +did+ raise the issue to a higher level of seriousness within the Guardian. For example, a number of correspondents wrote to the editor saying they had been buying the paper for many years - sometimes as long as 30 or 40 years - and would not be doing so again. This is something the Guardian could ill afford to ignore - a point well worth reflecting on for all who aspire to a more honest and democratic media.

The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Who are the world's leading public intellectuals? FP and Britain’s Prospect magazine would like to know who you think makes the cut. We’ve selected our top 100, and want you to vote for your top five. If you don’t see a name that you think deserves top honors, include them as a write-in candidate. Voting closes October 10, and the results will be posted the following month.


NameOccupationCountry
Chinua AchebeNovelistNigeria
Jean BaudrillardSociologist, cultural criticFrance
Gary BeckerEconomistUnited States
Pope Benedict XVIReligious leaderGermany, Vatican
Jagdish BhagwatiEconomistIndia, United States
Fernando Henrique CardosoSociologist, former presidentBrazil
Noam ChomskyLinguist, author, activistUnited States
J.M. CoetzeeNovelistSouth Africa
Gordon ConwayAgricultural ecologistBritain
Robert CooperDiplomat, writerBritain
Richard DawkinsBiologist, polemicist Britain
Hernando de SotoEconomistPeru
Pavol DemesPolitical analystSlovakia
Daniel DennettPhilosopherUnited States
Kemal DervisEconomistTurkey
Jared DiamondBiologist, physiologist, historianUnited States
Freeman DysonPhysicistUnited States
Shirin EbadiLawyer, human rights activistIran
Umberto EcoMedievalist, novelistItaly
Paul EkmanPsychologistUnited States
Fan GangEconomistChina
Niall FergusonHistorianBritain
Alain FinkielkrautEssayist, philosopherFrance
Thomas FriedmanJournalist, authorUnited States
Francis FukuyamaPolitical scientist, authorUnited States
Gao XingjianNovelist, playwrightChina
Howard GardnerPsychologistUnited States
Timothy Garton AshHistorianBritain
Henry Louis Gates Jr.Scholar, cultural criticUnited States
Clifford GeertzAnthropologistUnited States
Neil GershenfeldPhysicist, computer scientistUnited States
Anthony GiddensSociologistBritain
Germaine GreerWriter, academicAustralia, Britain
Jürgen HabermasPhilosopherGermany
Ha JinNovelistChina
Václav HavelPlaywright, statesmanCzech Republic
Ayaan Hirsi AliPoliticianSomalia, Netherlands
Christopher HitchensPolemicistUnited States, Britain
Eric HobsbawmHistorianBritain
Robert HughesArt criticAustralia
Samuel HuntingtonPolitical scientist United States
Michael IgnatieffWriter, human rights theoristCanada
Shintaro IshiharaPolitician, authorJapan
Robert KaganAuthor, political commentatorUnited States
Daniel KahnemanPsychologistIsrael, United States
Sergei KaraganovForeign-policy analystRussia
Paul KennedyHistorianBritain, United States
Gilles KepelScholar of IslamFrance
Naomi KleinJournalist, authorCanada
Rem KoolhaasArchitectNetherlands
Enrique KrauzeHistorian Mexico
Julia KristevaPhilosopherFrance
Paul KrugmanEconomist, columnistUnited States
Hans KüngTheologianSwitzerland
Jaron LanierVirtual reality pioneerUnited States
Lawrence LessigLegal scholarUnited States
Bernard LewisHistorianBritain, United States
Bjørn LomborgEnvironmentalistDenmark
James LovelockScientistBritain
Kishore MahbubaniAuthor, diplomatSingapore
Ali MazruiPolitical scientistKenya
Sunita NarainEnvironmentalistIndia
Antonio NegriPhilosopher, activistItaly
Martha NussbaumPhilosopherUnited States
Sari NusseibehDiplomat, philosopherPalestine
Kenichi OhmaeManagement theoristJapan
Amos OzNovelistIsrael
Camille PagliaSocial critic, authorUnited States
Orhan PamukNovelistTurkey
Steven PinkerExperimental psychologistCanada, United States
Richard PosnerJudge, scholar, authorUnited States
Pramoedya Ananta ToerWriter, dissidentIndonesia
Yusuf al-QaradawiClericEgypt, Qatar
Robert PutnamPolitical scientistUnited States
Tariq RamadanScholar of Islam Switzerland
Martin ReesAstrophysicistBritain
Richard RortyPhilosopherUnited States
Salman RushdieNovelist, political commentatorBritain, India
Jeffrey SachsEconomistUnited States
Elaine ScarryLiterary theoristUnited States
Amartya SenEconomistIndia
Peter SingerPhilosopherAustralia
Ali al-SistaniClericIran, Iraq
Peter SloterdijkPhilosopherGermany
Abdolkarim SoroushReligious theoristIran
Wole SoyinkaPlaywright, activistNigeria
Lawrence SummersEconomist, academicUnited States
Mario Vargas LlosaNovelist, politician Peru
Harold VarmusMedical scientistUnited States
Craig VenterBiologist, businessmanUnited States
Michael WalzerPolitical theoristUnited States
Florence WambuguPlant PathologistKenya
Wang JisiForeign-policy analystChina
Steven WeinbergPhysicistUnited States
E.O. WilsonBiologistUnited States
James Q. WilsonCriminologistUnited States
Paul WolfowitzPolicymaker, academicUnited States
Fareed ZakariaJournalist, authorUnited States
Zheng BijianPolitical scientistChina
Slavoj ZizekSociologist, philosopherSlovenia

November 21, 2005

ThisNation.com

Dedicated to providing factual, unbiased information about government and politics in the United States of America.

November 20, 2005

KillingHope.org

If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...

invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing
governments ... suppressing movements
for social change ... assassinating
political leaders ... perverting
elections ... manipulating labor unions ...
manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...
torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...
mercenaries ...

It's not a pretty picture. It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.

Read the full details in: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. by William Blum

The Anti-Empire Report

November 19, 2005

Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?

Bush says Congress had the same (faulty) intelligence he did. Howard Dean says intelligence was "corrupted."

We give facts.


The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted." Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

November 18, 2005

Chomsky! The Guardian retracts, and withdraws the interview from its website

The readers' editor has considered a number of complaints from Noam Chomsky concerning an interview with him by Emma Brockes published in G2, the second section of the Guardian, on October 31. He has found in favour of Professor Chomsky on three significant complaints.

Principal among these was a statement by Ms Brockes that in referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war he had placed the word "massacre" in quotation marks. This suggested, particularly when taken with other comments by Ms Brockes, that Prof Chomsky considered the word inappropriate or that he had denied that there had been a massacre. Prof Chomsky has been obliged to point out that he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian has no evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the statement with an unreserved apology to Prof Chomsky.

The headline used on the interview, about which Prof Chomsky also complained, added to the misleading impression given by the treatment of the word massacre. It read: Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.

No question in that form was put to Prof Chomsky. This part of the interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone (not Diane as it appeared in the published interview) over the withdrawal of a book in which she discussed the reporting of casualty figures in the war in former Yugoslavia. Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone, who has also written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of an open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech. The Guardian also accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was wrong and unjustified by the text.

Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views on Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his support for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have ever denied the fact of the massacre.

Prof Chomsky has also objected to the juxtaposition of a letter from him, published two days after the interview appeared, with a letter from a survivor of Omarska. While he has every sympathy with the writer, Prof Chomsky believes that publication was designed to undermine his position, and addressed a part of the interview which was false. Both letters were published under the heading Falling out over Srebrenica. At the time these letters were published, following two in support of Prof Chomsky published the previous day, no formal complaint had been received from him. The letters were published by the letters editor in good faith to reflect readers' views. With hindsight it is acknowledged that the juxtaposition has exacerbated Prof Chomsky's complaint and that is regretted. The Guardian has now withdrawn the interview from the website.

See also Brian Leiter's apt comments on the subject.

Iraq WMD Timeline: How the Mystery Unraveled

Iraq's history with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a long and winding path that eventually ended in an American invasion of the country.

In between Saddam Hussein's rise and fall from power, Iraq developed and used so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It also reluctantly submitted to international inspections and destroyed its stockpiles and means of WMD production.

In the end, though, the government's opaque and obstinate nature made it difficult for outsiders to tell exactly what Iraq was doing, if anything, in the realm of WMD.

Saddam Becomes President ::: July 16, 1979
Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq after pushing his cousin Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr to resign.

Iran-Iraq War Begins ::: Sept. 22, 1980
Iraq invades Iran, beginning a war that ends in stalemate eight years later.

Israel Attacks ::: June 7, 1981
Israeli warplanes make a surprise attack on the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin says that his country had to act before Iraq could successfully build a nuclear weapon to use against the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government says the reactor was not part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

Chemical Attacks on Iran ::: 1983
Media reports describe Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces. Mustard gas is the first weapon used. In 1984 reports say Iraq uses the nerve agent Tabun.

Gassing the Kurds ::: March 1988
Iraq uses chemical weapons against its own population during an attack on the rebellious Kurdish city of Halabja.

Invading Kuwait ::: Aug. 2, 1990
Iraq invades Kuwait, easily overwhelming its tiny neighbor.

Resolution 687 Bans Iraq WMD ::: April 3, 1991
Shortly after Iraq is ejected from Kuwait by an international military coalition, the United Nations Security Council passes its first resolution addressing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Resolution 687 states that Iraq must destroy its presumed stockpile of WMD, and the means to produce them. It also limits the country's ballistic missile capability. The U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) is established to oversee the inspection, destruction and monitoring of chemical and biological weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is asked to document and destroy Iraqi efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq accepts the resolution three days later, agreeing to disclose the extent of its WMD program to inspectors.

Unilateral Destruction ::: Summer 1991
Iraq unilaterally destroys WMD equipment and documentation in an effort at concealment of pre-war work.

Resolution 715 Demands Compliance ::: Oct. 11, 1991
Responding to Iraq's consistent efforts to interrupt or block inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 715. The resolution says Iraq must "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission".

'Defensive' Biological Weapons ::: May 1992
Iraq officially admits to having had a "defensive" biological weapons program. Weeks later, UNSCOM begins the destruction of Iraq's chemical weapons program. Progress is halted in July when Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Denial and Acceptance ::: 1993
Inspections are again held up when Iraq attempts to deny UNSCOM and the IAEA the use of their own aircraft in Iraq. In late 1993 Iraq accepts resolution 715.

Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs Destroyed ::: 1994
UNSCOM completes the destruction of Iraq's known chemical weapons and production equipment. IAEA teams largely complete their mandate to neutralize Iraq's nuclear program, including the destruction of facilities Iraq had not even declared to inspectors.

Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

Al-Hakam Destroyed ::: May 1996
Iraq's main facility for the production of biological weapons, Al-Hakam, is destroyed through explosive demolition supervised by UNSCOM inspectors.

The Fight Against Proliferation ::: 1997
The Additional Protocol is added to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving IAEA inspectors more authority to investigate programs in member states. The protocol is in response to the realization that Iraq -- a NPT signatory -- had been able to move swiftly and covertly toward the construction of a nuclear weapon in the late 1980s under the treaty's previous safeguards. Inspections in the 1990s revealed that Iraq was much closer to building a nuclear weapon in the 1980s than had been suspected by IAEA officials.

Resolution 1115 ::: June 1997
In another effort to end Iraq's interference with inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1115. The resolution again calls for Iraq to comply with all previous resolutions regarding WMD. By the end of 1997, a diplomatic stalemate forces UNSCOM to withdraw most of its staff from Iraq.

Memorandum of Understanding ::: Feb. 20-23, 1998
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan visits Iraq in an effort secure inspections of what Iraq terms "presidential sites." The U.N. and Iraq agree to support the terms of the newly drafted "Memorandum of Understanding." The Memorandum secures UNSCOM access to eight previously off-limits presidential sites.

Operation Desert Fox ::: 1998
Cooperation ends between Iraq and inspectors when the country demands the lifting of the U.N. oil embargo. UNSCOM and the IAEA pull their staffs out of Iraq in anticipation of a US-led air raid on Iraqi military targets. The four-day military offensive known as Operation Desert Fox begins on December 16, 1998. According to a U.S. military Web site, the mission of Desert Fox was "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The operation is considered a success, largely finishing off what was left of Iraq' s WMD infrastructure.

From UNSCOM to UNMOVIC ::: Dec. 17, 1999
The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1284, replacing UNSCOM with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Hans Blix of Sweden is named to head the organization. UNMOVIC's staff are employees of the United Nations. UNSCOM's staff had been experts on loan from U.N.-member countries, calling into question the motives of individual team members.

World Trade Center Attacks ::: Sept. 11, 2001
Terrorists attack New York City and Washington, D.C., with passenger jets, radically altering America's view of national security issues.

'Axis of Evil' ::: Jan. 29, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of being part of an international "axis if evil" during his State of the Union address. Bush tells Congress:
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade … This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

'A Grave and Gathering Danger' ::: Sept. 12, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of failing to live up to its obligations to the U.N. during an address to the General Assembly. Bush tells the U.N.:
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."

'Material Breach' ::: Nov. 8, 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 says Iraq "remains in material breach of its obligations" under various U.N. resolutions and gives the country "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament" commitments.

The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Invading Iraq ::: March 20, 2003
The U.S. military and other members of an American-led coalition invade Iraq. Baghdad falls on April 9. President Bush declares an end to major combat operations on May 1. Shortly afterward, the Pentagon announces formation of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to search for WMD.

A Different Niger Story ::: July 6, 2003
Former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson questions the Bush Administration's use of intelligence about Iraqi WMD programs with an opinion piece in the New York Times titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Wilson says he was sent to Africa by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore in Niger. He reports that he didn't find any evidence of Iraq attempting to procure uranium in Niger, contradicting regular statements from the White House that Saddam Hussein was after the radioactive material there.

Tenet Takes the Blame ::: July 11, 2003
Director George Tenet says that the CIA should not have allowed the president to say in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to procure uranium in Africa. Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley also accepts responsibility for failing to stop the president from using the information. Tenet says:
"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

Novak Unmasks a CIA Agent ::: July 14, 2003
Robert Novak, in his syndicated commentary, reveals that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative. Novak attributes the information to "two senior administration officials."

No Weapons Found ::: Oct. 2, 2003
After three months of looking, Iraq Survey Group (ISG) inspector David Kay tells Congress in an interim report that his American team of weapons inspectors has yet to find any evidence of WMD. Kay says:
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist, or that they existed before the war."

Kay Resigns ::: Jan. 23, 2004
David Kay resigns as head of the ISG. CIA Director George Tenet names Charles Duelfer to replace Kay, whose team failed to find evidence of active WMD production or stockpiles. Kay tells NPR:
"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is that we are very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. I don't think they exist."

Bush Responds to Kay ::: Feb. 3, 2004
With David Kay saying that he didn't believe WMD existed in Iraq, President Bush reiterates his belief that Saddam Hussein was dangerous. Bush says:
"We know from years of intelligence, not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence-gathering organizations, that he had weapons. After all, he used them."

Hutton Inquiry ::: Feb. 4, 2004
The Hutton Inquiry into allegations from the BBC that the British government had hyped WMD intelligence reports before the war with Iraq finds no basis for the allegations. Tony Blair says:
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on weapons of mass destruction is itself the real lie."

Senate Intelligence Report ::: July 9, 2004
The Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq is released. It faults America's ability to gauge Iraq's capabilities before the war. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) says:
"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. They were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."

Britain's Butler Report ::: July 14, 2004
Britain releases the Butler Report, which concludes that Iraq did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons ready for deployment. Blair responds to the report:
"On any basis, he [Saddam Hussein] retained complete strategic intent on weapons of mass destruction, and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 U.S. and British troops on his doorstep. He had no intention of ever cooperating fully with the inspectors."

No Weapons Found ::: Sept. 30 - Oct. 6, 2004
The ISG releases its final report and chief inspector Charles Duelfer testifies before congress about his team's findings. After 16 months of investigation, Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. This effectively ends the hunt for WMD. Bush responds to the report:
"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

The Hunt is Over ::: Jan. 12, 2005
White House spokesman Scott McClellan tells reporters that the "pysical search" for WMD, having found no weapons, is over.

Robb-Silberman Report ::: March 31, 2005
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction delivers its report to the president. Commonly known as the Robb-Silberman report -- in reference to the commission's co-chairmen -- the document describes the failure to find WMD in Iraq as one of the "most public -- and most damaging -- intelligence failures in recent American history." The report, which was commissioned by President Bush, asks what went wrong and conlcudes that wide-ranging reform of the intelligence bureaucracy is needed to guard against global WMD threats.

November 17, 2005

LeeP www.angelfire.com/oh/leepaxton/

Jerry Fartwell Falwell Versus the Ass Babies and the Brownish Indigo Children

(Improv Fictional Comedy written here on this MRR Blog)

Jerry Fartwell was sitting in his wickedly Religious Fortress in Lynchtheblacks, Tennessee as he wrung his hands together like a sick and twisted fiend. "Whom shall I try to brainwash today and claim that it is in the name of the Lord?", thought Fartwell as he kissed an electronic picture of Jesus H. Christ and walked into his private study. "What Would Jesus Destroy?", thought Fartwell as he looked over photographs of different groups of people whom he hates. There were pictures of homosexuals involved in raunchy rectal play, and though some of the pictures actually aroused Fartwell, he would probably never admit, instead he admonished his own boners and screamed "Be healed" at them. Then he looked at pictures of pagans and screamed like a banshee. He took a few swigs of whiskey and turned on Fox News and saw a story about gay men having children, then he saw a story regarding some New Age nonsense about "Indigo Children", then he popped a couple of Oxycontin pills that Rush Limburger gave him and mixed it all up with his bi-polar medication. He started to see swirling images and all the stories on the TV screen blended into one and he exclaimed, "Now I'm starting to get my mystical visions", and he picked up the phone to talk to his friend Pat Robuttson.

Jerry Fartwell and Pat Robuttson discussed who they hated and whom they should attack that day. "I'm going to attack towns in this country", exclaimed Pat Robuttson, and as soon as he hung up the phone he got on his private plane.

Fartwell then heard a story on the news about gays wanting to have children, and then later he logged into the Majority Report Radio Blog and saw some comical people making jokes about "Ass Babies". Fartwell was so high on all his insanity, jesus juice and medication that all these stories blended into one and he began to believe that it was possible for people to actually give birth to ass babies!

"These wicked pagans are messing with human DNA to allow the homosexers to fuck each other up the assholes and have kids so that they can spread their evil gay disease over the planet", rambled Fartwell as he popped some other strange pills and picked up his Bible and read a passage about how God killed a bunch of people. Then Fartwell turned on CNN and saw Andersen Cooper doing a story about "Indigo Children", which was a hokey bullshit New Age story, but Fartwell was very afraid of any competition in the fucked-up theories and bullshit religion department so he started to get more and more freaked out and popped more and more pills while flipping through his bible and talking wildly.

Then, somehow, a strange transformation took place in the mind of Jerry Fartwell and he saw something on the news about the bird flu and after realizing that he had just ate a whole bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken he began squawking and pecking the ground. He took a dump on the floor of his office, but it looked like an egg to him. After this strange display, Fartwell decided that he was going to call Fox News and issue a statement live on National Television.

Fartwell's people tried to make him look appropriate before he went on the air, and they powdered-puffed his pudgey putrid puss and tried to slap some sense into him before he went on TV. "In 5, 4, 3, 2..."

"Hello America", said Jerry Fartwell into the cameras, "What we have going on here in America today is a bunch of misguided and evil pagan homosexuals who are sodomizing each other up their behinds and creating Ass Babies on a scale never before seen. These Ass Babies, or Brownish Indigo Children as the pagans call them, are wicked because they do not come from the holy womb, as most children do, but they come from the raunchy rectal regions of evil homosexers!"

By this time even the anchors on Fox News realized that Fartwell was off his fucking rocker, so they turned the cameras over the Pat Robuttson who was joining them live via satelite. "Are you there Pat?", asked the skanky Fox News anchor.

"Hello", replied Pat Robuttson, "I'm here".

"Where are you joining us from, Pat?"

"I'm here in Dover, Pennsylvania, and I'm trying to make sure that God sends his wrath onto this community because they don't want God in their schools, so instead they will have the devil and me! Soon they'll be calling this town Ben-Dover because everyone will turn into sodomites and probably be having a plague of the ass babies, as my friend Jerry Fartwell mentioned earlier".

"Pat, that doesn't look like Dover, PA", replied the Fox News anchor, surprisingly observent for someone working at Fox, but he noticed that everyone in the screen shots looked like Hispanic, and even a stupid Fox News anchor could realize something was going on here.

"Well", said Pat, "Umm, I'll have to ask the pilot where we are... Oh, I guess we made a wrong turn somewhere, and it appears that we accidently landed here in Venezuela".

"Venezuela, Pat?", replied the Fox News anchor, "isn't that the country where you insulted their elected leader and said that the U.S. government should assassinate him out?"

"What?", replied Pat, but he couldn't hear what was going on. An angry crowd of organized Venezuelan workers attacked him and beat him with hammers and chopped off his head with a sickle. Pat didn't seem to mind having his head chopped off though, his lips kept right on flapping as long as he could keep it up.

The Fox News idiots flipped the cameras back on to Jerry Fartwell, who was completely flipping out by this time and was starting to see Ass Babies appear out of thin air in between strange outbursts and chicken squawking.

This is what Fartwell thought he was seeing: An Ass Baby of a Brownish Indigo aura was walking up to him and telling him that they understood all of the wicked deception that people like Fartwell were doing through lies and pseudo religious brainwashing. "No, No!!", screamed Fartwell as he waved his hands trying to push the Ass Babies out of his field of vision. "We know that you seek to warp the minds of humankind. Jesus stood for peace and truth but you stand for lies, corruption, brainwashing, injustice and warfare", said the Ass Babies unto him. "Leave me alone!!!", screamed Fartwell.

"Jerry?" asked the Fox News anchor, not knowing what was causing such strange outbursts from Fartwell.

Suddenly, Fartwell saw hundreds of Ass Babies with Brownish Indigo auras jumping out of cosmic short buses encircling him and accusing him of all his wicked deeds and he couldn't take it anymore. He started screaming, "No, No!!!" and pushing at the air around him, and then suddenly he jumped completely out a 10 story window and fell to his death as the Fox News Cameras were rolling.

"Ummm, next on Fox News, we interview Prick Cheney...."

Hopefully the Ass Babies will appear again and spread the message of truth and cause wicked men to destroy themselves for the good of the asses of the masses.

The End [?]

November 16, 2005

Ode to Smart Women, and to the Only Jan Smithers Site on the Web

Ok, I know I promised I'd never do a drooling fan page. But I got to thinking about the ultimate Cloth Monkey Quirky Babe, the one celebrity woman who most exemplifies womanly perfection for me, the one fantasy woman who can after 20 years still move me . . .

Yep, it's Jan Smithers, who played the touchingly shy and neurotic Bailey Quarters on the wonderful sitcom WKRP in Cincinnati. In addition to being an intelligent cut above the competition, it also featured in its outstanding cast Ms. Smithers and the truly scary Loni Anderson. Why Loni captured the public attention instead of Jan is one of those mysteries, like Bill Clinton's second term, that sometimes make me think I'm the only sane person on the planet.

I don't know very much about Jan's private life. She was born in North Hollywood on July 3, 1949, and was married to James Brolin for some years. (He's now married to, of all people, Barbra Streisand, and I've been seeing him a lot more on TV lately.)

Her first claim to fame was a picture on the cover of a 1966 Newsweek, for a story on rebellious youth. According to those who have seen it, she was sitting on the back of a motorcycle, looking over her shoulder at the camera. (If anyone has a copy of this picture, I'll be glad to post it.) Her connection with motorcycles also led to an accident which left her with the slight winsome scar on her chin.

Her film career has been, well, a little lackluster. Her Internet Movie Database entry lists just three movies ("Where the Lillies Bloom (1974)," "When the North Wind Blows (1974)," and "Our Winning Season" (1978)) before her role in WKRP, and only two ("The Love Tapes (1982)" and "Mr. Nice Guy" (1987)) since. Only the first, written by The Waltons' Earl Hamner, garnered any critical notice. The fact that her last movie coincided with her marriage to Brolin would indicate she got out of the business to have children, but that's pure speculation.

When producer/creator Hugh Wilson was casting the pilot for WKRP, he made some inspired decisions, like offering the Johnny Fever role to Howard Hesseman, who had originally read for the Herb Tarlek part. But his casting of Jan was a no-brainer. "All the other actresses played shy," he said. "Jan was shy."

Why does Jan do it for me? Well, in addition to being simply beautiful, the glasses play a big part. I have always had an attraction for four-eyed women, and thinking about it now, I think that I got it from Bailey. (It's a chicken-and-egg question.) We all have our "types," a physical ideal we pick up from God knows where, against which we judge everyone we meet. Bailey was "my type" so exactly that for the last twenty years, I get a twinge in my heart whenever I see someone who even slightly resembles her.

We tend to think of women with glasses as "plain," in the sense that they have surrendered conventional beauty for the utility of being able to see better. The stereotype that women with glasses are smarter than others is also at work here -- I'll take brains over most everything else every time. I've always been a sucker for the almost obligatory scene in old movies where the "right hand gal" type, the smart one (Jean Arthur or Barbara Bel Geddes spring to mind), whips off her glasses and our hero, catching his breath, blurts out, "Why, Betty . . . you're beautiful!" (The absolute best such scene: Dorothy Malone in "The Big Sleep." Oh, my God . . . )

John Updike once wrote about plain, unadorned, natural women being "juicier" than the more conventionally attractive types, and as time has passed I have learned the great wisdom of that observation. All my best nights have been with librarians. None of them, unfortunately, have been with Jan Smithers.

If anyone has any further info on Jan, pictures I can post, or if (God help me) Jan herself runs across this page, please let me know. This page has the distinction of being the only Jan Smithers page on the Web, so by definition it's the best. Let's keep it that way.

November 15, 2005

A Military History Timeline of War & Conflict Across the Globe

3000 B.C. to A.D. 1999
This timeline is presented in order to give the user the ability to see what major conflicts were going on across the globe in any given year or time period. With the thousands of conflicts that man has been engaged in over the past 5,000+ years of recorded history, I have been able to include the major ones and many of the minor ones. This is an ongoing project which will take a great deal of time to finish but, in the meanwhile, it still does present some very interesting information. Most of the listings are color coded according to the continent or continents on which the conflict occured. My primary source of information is George C. Kohn's Dictionary of Wars. Please note that most of the dates for events that occured prior to about 400 B.C. are only approximate. The relative dearth of historical data for many of these events does not allow for exact dating.

20th Century
1900-1924
1925-1949
1950-1974
1975-1999
19th Century
1800-1824
1825-1849
1850-1874
1875-1899
18th Century
1700-1724
1725-1749
1750-1774
1775-1799
17th Century
1600-1624
1625-1649
1650-1674
1675-1699
16th Century
1500-1524
1525-1549
1550-1574
1575-1599
15th Century
1400-1424
1425-1449
1450-1474
1475-1499
14th Century
1300-1324
1325-1349
1350-1374
1375-1399
13th Century
1200-1224
1225-1249
1250-1274
1275-1299
12th Century
1100-1124
1125-1149
1150-1174
1175-1199
11th Century
1000-1024
1025-1049
1050-1074
1075-1099
10th Century
900-924
925-949
950-974
975-999
9th Century
800-824
825-849
850-874
875-899
8th Century
700-724
725-749
750-774
775-799
7th Century
600-624
625-649
650-674
675-699
6th Century
500-524
525-549
550-574
575-599
5th Century
400-424
425-449
450-474
475-499
4th Century
300-324
325-349
350-374
375-399
3rd Century
200-224
225-249
250-274
275-299
2nd Century
100-124
125-149
150-174
175-199
1st Century
1-24
25-49
50-74
75-99
1st Century B.C.
99-75 B.C.
74-50 B.C.
49-25 B.C.
24-1 B.C.
2nd Century B.C.
199-175 B.C.
174-150 B.C.
149-125 B.C.
124-100 B.C.
3rd Century B.C.
299-275 B.C.
274-250 B.C.
249-225 B.C.
224-200 B.C.
4th Century B.C.
399-375 B.C.
374-350 B.C.
349-325 B.C.
324-300 B.C.
5th Century B.C.
499-475 B.C.
474-450 B.C.
449-425 B.C.
424-400 B.C.
6th Century B.C.
599-575 B.C.
574-550 B.C.
549-525 B.C.
524-500 B.C.
7th Century B.C.
699-675 B.C.
674-650 B.C.
649-625 B.C.
624-600 B.C.
8th Century B.C.
799-775 B.C.
774-750 B.C.
749-725 B.C.
724-700 B.C.
9th Century B.C.
899-875 B.C.
874-850 B.C.
849-825 B.C.
824-800 B.C.
10th Century B.C.
999-975 B.C.
974-950 B.C.
949-925 B.C.
924-900 B.C.
11th Century B.C.
1099-1075 B.C.
1074-1050 B.C.
1049-1025 B.C.
1024-1000 B.C.
12th Century B.C.
1199-1175 B.C.
1174-1150 B.C.
1149-1125 B.C.
1124-1100 B.C.
13th Century B.C.
1299-1275 B.C.
1274-1250 B.C.
1249-1225 B.C.
1224-1200 B.C.
14th Century B.C.
1399-1375 B.C.
1374-1350 B.C.
1349-1325 B.C.
1324-1300 B.C.
15th Century B.C.
1499-1475 B.C.
1474-1450 B.C.
1449-1425 B.C.
1424-1400 B.C.
16th Century B.C.
1599-1575 B.C.
1574-1550 B.C.
1549-1525 B.C.
1524-1500 B.C.
17th Century B.C.
1699-1675 B.C.
1674-1650 B.C.
1649-1625 B.C.
1624-1600 B.C.
18th Century B.C.
1799-1775 B.C.
1774-1750 B.C.
1749-1725 B.C.
1724-1700 B.C.
19th Century B.C.
1899-1875 B.C.
1874-1850 B.C.
1849-1825 B.C.
1824-1800 B.C.
20th Century B.C.
1999-1975 B.C.
1974-1950 B.C.
1949-1925 B.C.
1924-1900 B.C.
21th Century B.C.
2099-2075 B.C.
2074-2050 B.C.
2049-2025 B.C.
2024-2000 B.C.
22th Century B.C.
2199-2175 B.C.
2174-2150 B.C.
2149-2125 B.C.
2124-2100 B.C.
23th Century B.C.
2299-2275 B.C.
2274-2250 B.C.
2249-2225 B.C.
2224-2200 B.C.
24th Century B.C.
2399-2375 B.C.
2374-2350 B.C.
2349-2325 B.C.
2324-2300 B.C.
25th Century B.C.
2499-2475 B.C.
2474-2450 B.C.
2449-2425 B.C.
2424-2400 B.C.
26th Century B.C.
2599-2575 B.C.
2574-2550 B.C.
2549-2525 B.C.
2524-2500 B.C.
27th Century B.C.
2699-2675 B.C.
2674-2650 B.C.
2649-2625 B.C.
2624-2600 B.C.
28th Century B.C.
2799-2775 B.C.
2774-2750 B.C.
2749-2725 B.C.
2724-2700 B.C.
29th Century B.C.
2899-2875 B.C.
2874-2850 B.C.
2849-2825 B.C.
2824-2800 B.C.
30th Century B.C.
2999-2975 B.C.
2974-2950 B.C.
2949-1725 B.C.
2924-2900 B.C.

November 14, 2005

Open Letter to The Guardian by Noam Chomsky

This is an open letter to a few of the people with whom I had discussed the Guardian interview of 31 October, on the basis of the electronic version, which is all that I had seen. Someone has just sent me a copy of the printed version, and I now understand why friends in England who wrote me were so outraged.

It is a nuisance, and a bit of a bore, to dwell on the topic, and I always keep away from personal attacks on me, unless asked, but in this case the matter has some more general interest, so perhaps it's worth reviewing what most readers could not know. The general interest is that the print version reveals a very impressive effort, which obviously took careful planning and work, to construct an exercise in defamation that is a model of the genre. It's of general interest for that reason alone.

A secondary matter is that it may serve as a word of warning to anyone who is asked by the Guardian for an interview, and happens to fall slightly to the critical end of the approved range of opinion of the editors. The warning is: if you accept the invitation, be cautious, and make sure to have a tape recorder that is very visibly placed in front of you. That may inhibit the dedication to deceit, and if not, at least you will have a record. I should add that in probably thousands of interviews from every corner of the world and every part of the spectrum for decades, that thought has never occurred to me before. It does now.

It was evident from the electronic version that it was a scurrilous piece of journalism. That's clear even from internal evidence. The reporter obviously had a definite agenda: to focus the defamation exercise on my denial of the Srebrenica massacre. From the character of what appeared, it is not easy to doubt that she was assigned this task. When I wouldn't go along, she simply invented the denial, repeatedly, along with others. The centerpiece of the interview was this, describing my alleged views, in particular, that:

....during the Bosnian war the "massacre" at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)

Transparently, neither I nor anyone speaks with quotation marks, so the reference to my claim that "Srebrenica was so not a massacre," shown by my using the term "massacre" in quotes, must be in print -- hence "witheringly teenage," as well as disgraceful. That raises the obvious question: where is it in print, or anywhere? I know from letters that were sent to me that a great many journalists and others asked the author of the interview and the relevant editors to provide the source, and were met by stony silence -- for a simple reason: it does not exist, and they know it. Furthermore, as Media Lens pointed out, with five minutes research on the internet, any journalist could find many places where I described the massacre as a massacre, never with quotes. That alone ends the story. I will skip the rest, which also collapses quickly.

More interesting, however, is the editorial contribution. One illustration actually is in the e-edition. I did write a very brief letter in response, which for some reason went to the ombudsman, who informed me that the word "fabrication" had to be removed. My truncated letter stating that I take no responsibility for anything attributed to me in the article did appear, paired with a moving letter from a victim, expressing justified outrage that I or anyone could take the positions invented in the Guardian article. Pairing aside, the heading given by the editors was: "Fall out over Srebrenica." The editors are well aware that there was no debate or disagreement about Srebrenica, once the fabrications in their article are removed.

The printed version reveals how careful and well-planned the exercise was, and why it might serve as a model for the genre. The front-page announcement of the interview reads: "Noam Chomsky The Greatest Intellectual?" The question is answered by the following highlighted Q&A, above the interview:

Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated?

A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough

It is set apart in large print so that it can't be missed, and will be quoted separately (as it already has been). It also captures the essence of the agenda. The only defect is that it didn't happen. The truthful part is that I said, and explained at length, that I regret not having strongly enough opposed the Swedish publisher's decision to withdraw a book by Diana (not "Diane," as the Guardian would have it) Johnstone after it was bitterly attacked in the Swedish press. As Brockes presumably knew, though I carefully explained anyway, there is one source for my involvement in this affair: an open letter that I wrote to the publisher, after editors there who objected to the decision, and journalist friends, sent me the Swedish press charges that were the basis for the rejection. In the open letter, readily available on the internet (and the only source), I went through the charges one by one, checked them against the book, and found that they all ranged from serious misrepresentation to outright fabrication. I then took -- and take -- the position that it is completely wrong to withdraw a book because the press charges (falsely) that it does not conform to approved doctrine. And I do regret that "I didn't do it strongly enough," the words Brockes managed to quote correctly. In the interview, whatever Johnstone may have said about Srebrenica never came up, and is entirely irrelevant in any event, at least to anyone with a minimal appreciation of freedom of speech.

The article is then framed by a series of photographs. Let's put aside childhood photos and an honorary degree -- included for no apparent reason other than, perhaps, to reinforce the image the reporter sought to convey of a rich elitist hypocrite who tells people how to live (citing a comment of her own, presumably supposed to be clever, which will not be found on the tape, I am reasonably confident). Those apart, there are three photos depicting my actual life. It's an interesting choice, and the captions are even more interesting.

One is a picture of me "talking to journalist John Pilger" (who isn't shown, but let's give the journal the benefit of the doubt of assuming he is actually in the original). The second is of me "meeting Fidel Castro." The third, and most interesting, is a picture of me "in Laos en route to Hanoi to give a speech to the North Vietnamese."

That's my life: honoring commie-rats and the renegade who is the source of the word "pilgerize" invented by journalists furious about his incisive and courageous reporting, and knowing that the only response they are capable of is ridicule.

Since I'll avoid speculation, you can judge for yourselves the role Pilger plays in the fantasy life of the editorial offices of the Guardian. And the choice is interesting in other ways. It's true that I have met John a few times, much fewer than I would like because we both have busy lives. And possibly a picture was taken. It must have taken some effort to locate this particular picture, assuming it to be genuine, among the innumerable pictures of me talking to endless other people. And the intended message is very clear.

Turn to the Castro picture. In this case the picture, though clipped, is real. As the editors surely know, at least if those who located the picture did 2 minutes of research, the others in the picture (apart from my wife) were, like me, participants in the annual meeting of an international society of Latin American scholars, with a few others from abroad. This annual meeting happened to be in Havana. Like all others, I was in a group that met with Castro. End of second story.

Turn now to the third picture, from 1970. The element of truth is that I was indeed in Laos, and on my way to Hanoi. The facts about these trips are very easy to discover. I wrote about both in some detail right away, in two articles in the New York Review, reprinted in my book At War with Asia in 1970. It is easily available to Guardian editors, because it was recently reprinted. If they want to be the first to question the account (unlike reviewers in such radical rags as the journal of the Royal Institute, International Affairs), it would be very easy for a journalist to verify it: contact the two people who accompanied me on the entire trip, one then a professor of economics at Cornell, the other a minister of the United Church of Christ. Both are readily accessible. From the sole account that exists, the editor would know that in Laos I was engaged in such subversive activities as spending many hours in refugee camps interviewing miserable people who had just been driven by the CIA "clandestine army" from the Plain of Jars, having endured probably the most intense bombing in history for over two years, almost entirely unrelated to the Vietnam war. And in North Vietnam, I did spend most of my time doing what I had been invited to do: many hours of lectures and discussion, on any topic I knew anything about, in the bombed ruins of the Hanoi Polytechnic, to faculty who were able to return to Hanoi from the countryside during a lull in the bombing, and were very eager to learn about recent work in their own fields, to which they had had no access for years.

The rest of the trip "to Hanoi to give a speech to the North Vietnamese" is a Guardian invention. Those who frequent ultra-right defamation sites can locate the probable source of this ingenious invention, but even that ridiculous tale goes nowhere near as far as what the Guardian editors concocted, which is a new addition to the vast literature of vilification of those who stray beyond the approved bounds.

So that's my life: worshipping commie-rats and such terrible figures as John Pilger. Quite apart from the deceit in the captions, simply note how much effort and care it must have taken to contrive these images to frame the answer to the question on the front page.

It is an impressive piece of work, and, as I said, provides a useful model for studies of defamation exercises, or for those who practice the craft. And also, perhaps, provides a useful lesson for those who may be approached for interviews by this journal.

This is incidentally only a fragment. The rest is mostly what one might expect to find in the scandal sheets about movie stars, familiar from such sources, and of no further interest.

November 13, 2005

Google's Uncle Sam Page - Search .mil and .gov Sites

Just for kicks I typed in "George Bush is Lying"

http://boards.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/WebX.fcgi?14@228.WZXxcdayUgi%5E0@.ef272cd/199

Bush Administration Deception

Steve,

I've listend to George W. Bush during his campaign and his presidency. My first observation was when I learned he had 3 to 5 businesses that went under. He didn't loose money but the investors did. Over the years he has been able to con people into doing his bidding by his good ole boy, slap on the back, nick names, cowboy boots. He has presented himself as "I'm like you." Too many, people have fell sink line and sinker for him they thought he was a moral man impeccable integrity. In reality George, his Dad and corporate buddies are devious, vicious and master con artists. I knew he would lie, he talks about religion to get the attention of the Christian right. They fell for it. Now, we are well on the road to a bankrupt country. He is ruining our beautiful company. Everytime I heard him talk about WMDs I replied Bull_ _ _ _! I also believe this color code system is crap. All he is doing is putting fear in people. He's gloom and doom. This is what dictators do. Sooo he's bankrupting the businesses in this country. Fear is the clue to how he hopes to control the people of this country. I believe the country made a mistake when they selected George for pResident. Don't you think it's ironic that George H. W. Bush had two sons that were Governors of two of our largest states, George I was Director of the CIA, Vice President, and President. These people have too much power like the the Carlyle Group, Enrons, etc. They are not your average person and never have been. YOu know how we despised Clinton's Monica lie about sex? Clinton hurt himself. George Bush is lying about intelligence and our young men and women have died - besides thousands of Iraq people. Is this honest?

November 12, 2005

Iraq On The Record


About Iraq on the Record
Presented by Rep. Henry A. Waxman

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” Two years later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration’s assertions about the threat posed by Iraq.

Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Iraq on the Record is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. It contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made. It does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, it was excluded even if it now appears erroneous. For more information on how the statements were selected, see the full methodology. The Iraq on the Record Report is a comprehensive examination of these statements.

Iraq on the Record is searchable by the the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq:

President George W. Bush
Vice President Dick Cheney
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell
Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

It is also searchable by issue area:

Iraq's Nuclear Capabilities
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Iraq as an Urgent Threat

It is also searchable by keyword, such as "mushroom cloud", "uranium", or "bin Laden."

November 11, 2005

Off My Own Topics - Posted by Kenny G wmfu blog

Rant 1

2

3

4

5

6

Francis E. Dec, Esquire, of 29 Maple Ave, Hempstead, New York, is one of the most mysterious characters in all kookdom. He plastered cars with paranoid posters and mass-mailed thousands of his rants to unwitting victims, mostly in media outlets. One of these packets fell into the hands of L.A. newscaster/talk show host "Doc on the ROQ" of KROQ-FM. In 1985, when Doc was employed at WZUU in Milwaukee, the station received a bundle of Dec flyers, which had been mass mailed to the media. He sez: "One chilly Sunday in '86, at Y-108 in Denver, I recorded the 41-minute tape now in circulation, using odd music tracks (Goldfinger, 'Pieces of Ice' by Diana Ross, Tomita, Capitol Library Series) mixed in quite at random, though it turned out nicely. I also used echo-processing for the faint 'mental' effects on the longest track, which I call 'LONG Island Lunacy.'" These are those sessions. It's amazing stuff. You can read some of the transcripts of the pieces here.

November 10, 2005

I ♥ Noam

"Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

Posted by David Peterson

*

Intellectual claims Guardian ‘deceit’ over ‘fake’ interview

Published: Thursday, November 10, 2005, By Dominic Ponsford

*

American grassroots solidarity with the Bolivarian process will not tolerate US intervention

HOV NY correspondent Karin Jaschke: A remarkable event took place at New York's Town Hall, November 8: An evening in solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution ... so far the biggest and most important gathering of this kind, organized by the Alberto Lovera Bolivarian Circle of New York and the International Action Center and endorsed by prominent persons as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and many groups, among them the Hands off Venezuela Campaign.

The importance of the event was underlined by the fact that there was a lot of media present, ranging from the New York Times to alternative media and the Latin American TV station Telesur.

November 09, 2005

News Links

November 08, 2005

When Chavez and Bush go head-to-head, George'll end up looking the fool

The International Forecaster editor Bob Chapman writes: Lo and behold, William A. Arkin, of the Washington Post, writing about US national and Homeland Security says that the Pentagon has begun contingency planning for potential military conflict with Venezuela as part of a broad post-Iraq evaluation of strategic threats to the US.

We knew of this plan long ago and have reported on what our government was up too.

The Washington Post is a mouthpiece for the elitists, so Venezuela should be training a much larger standing military and they should be taking delivery of major strategic ordinance and technical weaponry ASAP.

We also recommend hiring Spanish-speaking professionals from other countries to bring their military up to speed. They should also recruit military from other South and Central American countries and Mexico to defend the southern part of the Americas from the evil that runs our country.

Needless to say, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is ramroding this new invasion.

The Quadrennial Defense Review has North Korea and Iran subjects of invasion because they supposedly have WMD, China because it’s a peer competitor and future threat and Syria and Venezuela because they are rogue nations. Rogue means they disagree with our invasions, torture and the murder of civilian populations by the lunatics running our government. If the neocons attack Venezuela they may have to take on all of South America and legions of volunteers from all over the world.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias has become the champion of opposition to US policies and activities worldwide. Of course, Venezuela is booming and thousands are leaving poverty behind due to his guidance, assisted by high oil prices. 77% of Venezuelans approve of Mr. Chavez’s success. Try invading a country with that kind of exprit de corp. The casualty rate for an invading force will be staggering. During a prolonged conflict how would the US replace 15% of their oil needs they receive from Venezuela?

President Hugo Chavez FriasWe believe that when Chavez and Bush go head to head they’ll be some real fireworks. We expect George will end up looking like a fool.

We predict that FTAA will be a big loser at the Summit of the Americas. Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba will make sure it is a non-issue. Chile has accepted FTA and Mexico is very unhappy with NAFTA, which spills over into FTAA. Ecuador, Colombia and Peru are in negotiations on FTA and in all probability Paraguay will b so soon. We believe FTAA is the last step to bring the Northern and Southern Americas into one world government. Trade is just the bait.

We agree with Hugo Chavez who has said FTAA would only expand the development gap in Latin America. He has proposed his Bolivian alternative for the Americas, which has received strong support in South America. He and we believe FTAA will enrich the wealthy in power in these countries and in the US and increase poverty in Latin America.

Mr. Chavez predicts FTAA will be buried by the people of South America ... let’s hope he is correct.

Paul Craig Roberts says, “George W. Bush is a natural born liar. He lied us into a war, and now he is lying to keep us there.” He said, “Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces.” Just a few days prior to Bush’s National Endowment for Democracy speech, Generals Casey and Abizaid told Congress there was only one battalion able to undertake operations against insurgents. George forgot to mention there are 300 Iraqis dying each month via suicide attacks.

The deceit goes on as the delusional run our country.

You probably saw the demonstrations in Mar del Plata at the Summit of the Americas. 100,000 marched in the city and 40,000 attended a noon rally where Venezuela President Hugo Chavez Frias told attendees that, “Each one of us brought a shovel, a gravedigger’s shovel, because here in Mar del Plata is the tomb of the Free Trade Area of the Americas.”

There continues to be deepening skepticism about the benefits of free trade across poor regions of the continent where the wealth gap continues to grow. George Bush maintains that the accord would “eventually” create jobs and reduce poverty. Yes, as the local wealthy and transnational conglomerates further enrich themselves. Bush spent most of his time with friendlies, such as Colombia, which supplies us with the most of our cocaine, Peru, which runs a close second and other Central American nations. Bush received little FTAA encouragement from Brazil and Argentina. At the meeting Bush and Chavez were seated far apart.

Most demonstrators carried signs comparing Bush to Adolph Hitler as they chanted Bush, the fascist or Bush, the terrorist. Mr. Chavez portrayed the US as the main obstacle between Latin America and prosperity.

Protest marchers turned out in Buenos Aires as well carrying signs depicting Mr. Bush as fascist, a child killer and genocidal beast. The ‘S’ in Bush’s name was replaced by a dollar sign or a swastika.


*
Flies all green and buzzin’

In this dungeon of despair

An evil prince eats a steamin’ pig

In a tumbers right near there

In the chambers right near there

He eats de snouts an trotters first!

*

Afghan poet is beaten to death, Nadia Anjuman, 25, Her husband has confessed to hitting her during a row.

*

The loins and the groins are then dispersed

His carvin style is well rehearsed

He stands and shouts

All men be cursed

And disagree it, well no one durst

*

Libby's a poet, and we didn't know it

*

He the best of cause of all the woist

Best of cause of all the woist

He stinks so bad his stones been chokin’

Weepin’ greenish drops

In the room with the iron maiden

*

Residents of Iraqi town seize chance to flee

*

And the torture never stops, torture

Torture never stops

November 07, 2005

EmpirePage.com

The Empire Page was created in 1999 by Chris Chichester, who at the time was living in the Albany, NY area and had recently left a position in the communications office of Governor George Pataki. When Chris put up a "for sale" sign on the site in the fall of 1999, it was purchased by PoliticalNewsToday.com, LLC, a partnership between Empire Information Services, Inc. of Schenectady, NY, Schwartz Heslin Group of Latham, NY and Wynantskill Capital of Wynantskill, NY. PNT.com has been producing the site since February, 2000.

Each morning Empire Page editors visit the websites of selected national and regional news media and select the news stories, editorials and columns they believe will be of interest to the site's visitors/readers. PNT.com has rejected the idea of using a program to do this job, feeling that in the long run live editors will do a better job of finding the items people most care about.

November 06, 2005

LIAR'S! - What Else Is New?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_051106_republicans_still_ke.htm

Republicans Still Keeping Secret Evidence Administration Used Reports They Knew Were False to Bring US to War

by Rob Kall

The US has been staying in a war for more than a year since senate Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee bottled up information that showed the administration knew that evidence they cited as reasons to go to war was provided by a source who was known to "fabricate" bogus information.

The NY Times reports Bush, Cheney, Powell, and other administration officials repeatedly cited known dissembler's information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Before the 2004 elections, a Republican majority in the Senate Armed Services Committee forced key documents and information to be kept secret, preventing the American public from knowing that the arguments for war were built upon known lies and fabrications.

The NY Times article reports,

"A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons."
And there were numerous other known informants whose bad information, although known to be bad, was used by the administration to lie to the American public and the UN to sell the war, including one who told about mobile bio-weapon labs, and Ahmad Chalabi.

The key document, proving the Bush administration's early knowledge that their claims were false, is called DITSUM No. 044-02. The Times reports
"the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel."
The report was clear in stating the weak, unlikely veracity of the informant's statements,
“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,’’ the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.’’
The Times article says the DIA report states
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,’’ the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’’
In late October, Harry Reid demanded in a closed session of the senate that a report be released to the American people disclosing these and other facts. Senate Republicans said they'd been planning to release it anyway.

Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology.

*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002606885_intel06.html

A high al-Qaida official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaida members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for al-Qaida's work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush; Vice President Dick Cheney; Colin L. Powell, who was then secretary of state; and other administration officials repeatedly cited Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training al-Qaida members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Bush said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."

Democrats' challenge

The newly declassified portions of the document were made available by Sen. Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Levin said the new evidence of early doubts about Libi's statements dramatized what he called the Bush administration's misuse of prewar intelligence to try to justify the war in Iraq. That is an issue that Levin and other Senate Democrats have been seeking to emphasize in recent days, in part by calling attention to the fact that the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to deliver a promised report, first sought more than two years ago, that was to have focused on the use of prewar intelligence.

A White House spokeswoman said she had no immediate comment on the DIA report on Libi. But Senate Republicans have been arguing that Republicans were not alone in making prewar assertions about Iraq, illicit weapons and terrorism that have since been discredited.

Libi, who was captured in Pakistan at the end of 2001, recanted his claims in January 2004. That prompted the CIA a month later to recall all intelligence reports based on his statements, a fact recorded in a footnote to the report issued by the Sept. 11 commission later in 2004.

Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts. Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological-weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi — the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group — who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war.



Earlier report

The report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 questioned whether some versions of an intelligence report prepared by the CIA in late 2002 and early 2003 raised sufficient questions about the reliability of Libi's claims.

But neither that report nor another issued by the Sept. 11 commission made any reference to the existence of the earlier and more skeptical 2002 report by the DIA, which supplies intelligence to military commanders and national security policymakers. As an official intelligence report, the document would have been available to the CIA, the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the DIA document was provided to the Senate panel.

Sketchy details

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the DIA report noted that Libi's claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.

"It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," the February 2002 report said. "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Libi as the foundation for his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing "the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida."

At the time of Powell's speech, an unclassified statement by the CIA described the reporting, now known to have been from Libi, as "credible." But Levin said he had learned that a classified CIA assessment at the time went on to state that "the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

November 04, 2005

Bill Moyers - Finding Justice In Charity

Bill Moyers is a broadcast journalist and former host of the PBS program "NOW With Bill Moyers."This piece is adapted from a speech Moyers presented to a wealth and giving forum on Oct. 22, 2005. Moyers also serves as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, which gives financial support to TomPaine.com.

I was pleased to be asked to join you today. I take hope from the presence in one room of so many people who are committed to using their means to make it possible for so many other people to do good things.

Some people I know love money for its own sake. Some I know love power for its own sake. Sometimes they are the same people.

But over the years, I have found that the people of means who are the happiest and most deeply satisfied are those who use their money to empower others. They feel more than lucky; they feel blessed.

November 03, 2005

Noam Chomsky: being smart is 'using your intelligence to decide what's right'

by Emma Brockes, Monday October 31, 2005, The Guardian

Despite his belief that most journalists are unwitting upholders of western imperialism, Noam Chomsky, the radical's radical, agrees to see me at his office in Boston. He works here as a professor of linguistics, a sort of Clark Kent alter ego to his activist Superman, in a nubbly old jumper, big white trainers and a grandad jacket with pockets designed to accomodate a Thermos. There is a half-finished packet of fig rolls on the desk. Such is the effect of an hour spent with Chomsky that, writing this, I wonder: is it wrong to mention the fig rolls when there is undocumented suffering going on in El Salvador?

Ostensibly I am here because Chomsky, 76, has been voted the world's top public intellectual by Prospect magazine, but he has no interest in that. He believes that there is a misconception about what it means to be smart. It is not a question of wit, as with no 5 on the list (Christopher Hitchens) or poetic dash like no 4 (Vaclav Havel), or the sort of articulacy that lends itself to television appearances, like no 37, the thinking girl's pin-up Michael Ignatieff, whom Chomsky calls an apologist for the establishment and dispenser of "garbage". Chomsky, by contrast, speaks in a barely audible croak and of his own, largely unsuccessful, television appearances has written dismissively: "The beauty of concision is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts." Being smart, he believes, is a function of a plodding, unsexy, application to the facts and "using your intelligence to decide what's right".

This is, of course, what Chomsky has been doing for the last 35 years, and his conclusions remain controversial: that practically every US president since the second world war has been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the "massacre" at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)

While his critics regard him as an almost compulsive revisionist, Chomsky is more mainstream now than ever as disgust with the Bush government grows; the book he put out after the twin towers attacks, called 9-11, sold 300,000 copies. Given that until recently he worked full-time at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there remain suspicions over how he has managed to become an expert, seemingly, on every conflict since the second world war; it is assumed by his critics that he plugs the gaps in his knowledge with ideology.

Chomsky says this is just laziness on their part and besides, "the best scientists aren't the ones who know the most data; they're the ones who know what they're looking for."

Still, of all the intellectuals on the Prospect list, it is Chomsky who is most often accused of miring a debate in intellectual spam, what the writer Paul Berman calls his "customary blizzard of obscure sources". I ask if he has a photographic memory and Chomsky smiles. "It's the other way round. I can't remember names, can't remember faces. I don't have any particular talents that everybody else doesn't have."

His daily news intake is the regular national press and he dips in and out of specialist journals. I imagine he is a fan of the internet, given his low opinion of the mainstream media (to summarise: it is undermined by a "systematic bias in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people". I would argue individual agency overrides this, but get into it with Chomsky and your allocated hour goes up in smoke). So I am surprised when he says he only goes online if he is "hunting for documents, or historical data. It's a hideous time-waster. One of the good things about the internet is you can put up anything you like, but that also means you can put up any kind of nonsense. If the intelligence agencies knew what they were doing, they would stimulate conspiracy theories just to drive people out of political life, to keep them from asking more serious questions ... There's a kind of an assumption that if somebody wrote it on the internet, it's true."

Is there? It's clear, suddenly, that Chomsky's opinion can be as flaky as the next person's; he just states it more forcefully. I tell him that most people I know don't believe anything they read on the internet and he says, seemlessly, "you see, that's dangerous, too." His responses to criticism vary from this sort of mild absorption to, during our subsequent ratty exchange about Bosnia, the childish habit of trashing his opponents whom he calls "hysterical", "fanatics" and "tantrum throwers". I suspect that being on the receiving end of lots "half-crazed" nut-mail, as he calls it (he gets at least four daily emails accusing him of being a Mossad agent, a CIA agent or a member of al-Qaida), has made his defensive position rather entrenched. Chomsky sighs and says that he has never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, then looks merry for a moment and says that the only person who does is his wife, Carol. "My grandchildren call her Truth Teller. When I tease them and they're not sure if I'm telling the truth, they turn to her and say: 'Truth Teller, is it really true?'"

Chomsky's activism has its roots in his childhood. He grew up in the depression of the 1930s, the son of William Chomsky and Elsie Simonofsky, Russian immigrants to Philadelphia. He describes the family as "working-class Jews", most of whom were unemployed, although his parents, both teachers, were lucky enough to work. There was no sense of America as the promised land: "It wasn't much of an opportunity-giver in my immediate family," he says, although it was an improvement on the pogroms of Russia, which none the less Chomsky can't help qualifying as "not very bad, by contemporary standards. In the worst of the major massacres, I think about 49 people were killed."

The house in Philadelphia was crowded, full of aunts and cousins, many of them seamstresses who weathered the depression thanks to the help of the International Ladies Garment Union. Chomsky was four years old when he witnessed, from a passing trolley car, strikers outside a textile plant being beaten by the police. At 10 he wrote his first political pamphlet, against the rise of fascism in Spain. "It was all part of the atmosphere," he says.

The Chomskys were one of the few Jewish families in an Irish and German neighbourhood, and Chomsky and his brother fought often in the street; he remembers there were celebrations when Paris fell to the Germans. His parents kept their heads down and until their deaths, he says, "never had an idea of what was going on outside".

Chomsky had a choice of role models. There was his father's family in Baltimore, who were "super-orthodox". "They regressed back to the stage they were at even before they were in the shtetl, which is not uncommon among immigrant communities; a tendency to close in and go back to an exaggerated form of what you came from." He smiles. "It's a hostile world."

Or there was his mother's family in New York, who crowded into a big government apartment and got by solely on the wages of a disabled uncle, who on the basis of his disability was awarded a small newsstand by the state. Chomsky chose the latter and his radicalism grew out of the time he spent, from the age of 12, commuting to New York at weekends to help on the newsstand.

"It became a kind of salon," he says. "My uncle had no formal education but he was an extremely intelligent man - he'd been through all the leftwing groups, from the Communists to the Trotskyists to the anti-Leninists; he was very much involved in psychoanalysis. There were a lot of German emigres in New York at the time and in the evening they would hang around the newsstand and talk. My uncle finally ended up being a pretty wealthy lay analyst on Riverside Drive." He bursts out laughing.

It was a time, says Chomsky, when no one knew what was going to happen. They discussed the possibility of a socialist revolution, or of the country collapsing entirely. Anything seemed possible. Compared with these sorts of discussion, he found high school and, later, college, "dumb and stupid". He was thinking of dropping out of the University of Pennsylvania when he met his second mentor, Zellig Harris, a linguistics professor who encouraged him to pursue his own academic interests. Chomsky had grown up in a household where language was important; his parents spoke Yiddish and his father wrote a PhD on 14th-century Hebrew, which the young Chomsky read with interest. And so he pursued a study of linguistics and many years down the line formulated a ground-breaking theory, that of "universal grammar", the idea that the brain's facility for language is innate rather than a function of behaviourism. It sounds to me as if he was an arrogant young man who thought, with some justification, that he knew more than his teachers. Chomsky bridles at the word arrogant and says: "No. I assumed I was wrong and took for granted that the standard approach [to linguistics] was correct."

Even though he went on to study at Harvard, he still, in a rare concession to the romance of outsidership, describes himself as "self-taught".

There were only a couple of years in the mid-1950s when he gave up activism altogether. He had met and married Carol Schatz, a fellow linguist, and they had three young children. Chomsky had to choose whether to commit himself to activism or to let it go. The Vietnam war protests were getting under way and, if he chose the former, there was a real danger of a jail sentence, so much so that Carol re-enrolled at college in case she had to become the sole breadwinner. But Chomsky was not, he says, the sort of person who could attend the occasional demo and then hope the world would fix itself.

"Yeah, my wife tried to talk me out of it, just as she does now. But she knows I can be stubborn and that I'll carry on with it as long as I'm ambulatory or whatever."

These days, Carol accompanies her husband to most of his public appearances. He is asked to lend his name to all sorts of crackpot causes and she tries to intervene to keep his schedule under control. As some see it, one ill-judged choice of cause was the accusation made by Living Marxism magazine that during the Bosnian war, shots used by ITN of a Serb-run detention camp were faked. The magazine folded after ITN sued, but the controversy flared up again in 2003 when a journalist called Diane Johnstone made similar allegations in a Swedish magazine, Ordfront, taking issue with the official number of victims of the Srebrenica massacre. (She said they were exaggerated.) In the ensuing outcry, Chomsky lent his name to a letter praising Johnstone's "outstanding work". Does he regret signing it?

"No," he says indignantly. "It is outstanding. My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very careful and outstanding work."

How, I wonder, can journalism be wrong and still outstanding?

"Look," says Chomsky, "there was a hysterical fanaticism about Bosnia in western culture which was very much like a passionate religious conviction. It was like old-fashioned Stalinism: if you depart a couple of millimetres from the party line, you're a traitor, you're destroyed. It's totally irrational. And Diane Johnstone, whether you like it or not, has done serious, honest work. And in the case of Living Marxism, for a big corporation to put a small newspaper out of business because they think something they reported was false, is outrageous."

They didn't "think" it was false; it was proven to be so in a court of law.

But Chomsky insists that "LM was probably correct" and that, in any case, it is irrelevant. "It had nothing to do with whether LM or Diane Johnstone were right or wrong." It is a question, he says, of freedom of speech. "And if they were wrong, sure; but don't just scream well, if you say you're in favour of that you're in favour of putting Jews in gas chambers."

Eh? Not everyone who disagrees with him is a "fanatic", I say. These are serious, trustworthy people.

"Like who?"

"Like my colleague, Ed Vulliamy."

Vulliamy's reporting for the Guardian from the war in Bosnia won him the international reporter of the year award in 1993 and 1994. He was present when the ITN footage of the Bosnian Serb concentration camp was filmed and supported their case against LM magazine.

"Ed Vulliamy is a very good journalist, but he happened to be caught up in a story which is probably not true."

But Karadic's number two herself [Biljana Plavsic] pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity.

"Well, she certainly did. But if you want critical work on the party line, General Lewis MacKenzie who was the Canadian general in charge, has written that most of the stories were complete nonsense."

And so it goes on, Chomsky fairly vibrating with anger at Vulliamy and co's "tantrums" over his questioning of their account of the war. I suggest that if they are having tantrums it's because they have contact with the survivors of Srebrenica and witness the impact of the downplaying of their experiences. He fairly explodes. "That's such a western European position. We are used to having our jackboot on people's necks, so we don't see our victims. I've seen them: go to Laos, go to Haiti, go to El Salvador. You'll see people who are really suffering brutally. This does not give us the right to lie about that suffering." Which is, I imagine, why ITN went to court in the first place.

You could pick any number of other conflicts over which to have a barney with Chomsky. Seeing as we have entered the bad-tempered part of the interview, I figure we may as well continue and ask if he finds it ironic that, given his views on the capitalist system, he is a beneficiary of it. "Well, what capitalist system? Do you use a computer? Do you use the internet? Do you take an aeroplane? That comes from the state sector of the economy. I'm certainly a beneficiary of this state-based, quasi-market system; does that mean that I shouldn't try to make it a better society?"

OK, let's look at the non-state based, quasi-market system. Does he have a share portfolio? He looks cross. "You'd have to ask my wife about that. I'm sure she does. I don't see any reason why she shouldn't. Would it help people if I went to Montana and lived on a mountain? It's only rich, privileged westerners - who are well educated and therefore deeply irrational - in whose minds this idea could ever arise. When I visit peasants in southern Colombia, they don't ask me these questions."

I suggest that people don't like being told off about their lives by someone they consider a hypocrite. "There's no element of hypocrisy." He suddenly smiles at me, benign again, and we end it there.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,1605276,00.html

November 02, 2005

WorldCan'tWait.org

NOV. 2 - THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE BUSH REGIME

The Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime

 Sign the call now!

Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People look at all this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.


Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.

There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing." People who steal elections and believe they're on a "mission from God" will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.

But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn — or be forced — to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.

And there is a way. We are talking about something on a scale that can really make a huge change in this country and in the world. We need more than fighting Bush's outrages one at a time, constantly losing ground to the whole onslaught. We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime's program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush's "re-election", we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US. They will repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement: "NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!"

November 2 must be a massive and public proclamation that WE REFUSE TO BE RULED IN THIS WAY. November 2 must call out to the tens of millions more who are now agonizing and disgusted. November 2 will be the beginning — a giant first step in forcing Bush to step down, and a powerful announcement that we will not stop until he does so — and it will join with and give support and heart to people all over the globe who so urgently need and want this regime to be stopped.

This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will to try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.

The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US.

These next days are crucial. The call you are reading has to get out to millions right away — on the internet, passed out as flyers in communities, published as ads in newspapers. DO NOT WAIT!! GET ORGANIZED!! If you agree with this statement, add your name to it!!! And do more than that: send it to friends, get them to sign it, organize a meeting, take it to your church, your school, your union, your health club, your barber shop, to concerts and libraries and family gatherings, everywhere you go. Raise money, lots of money. Get people together, make plans to be there on November 2, and to build for it.

The world can't wait! Drive out the Bush Regime! Mobilize for November 2!

Sign the call now!

Poll selects Noam Chomsky as world's top intellectual

LONDON:

He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar — and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the Professor of Linguistics who has become one of the most outspoken critics of American foreign policy, has won a poll that names him the world's top public intellectual.

Prof. Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.

More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100.

Missing segments

The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Mr. Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the War, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11.

France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran provide.

Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Prof. Chomsky, Mr. Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to it.

Prof. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Mr. Eco's 2,500. The voters came mainly from Britain and the U.S.

Sceptical winner

"I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Prof. Chomsky on Monday night of the poll. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine!"

Pondering the absence from the list of younger intellectuals, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jurgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events.

But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the Top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.

Alternative perspectives

The choice of Prof. Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to Harold Pinter last week.

In recognition of this, Prospect offers some alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Prof. Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the U.S. abroad.

Oliver Kamm, however, dismisses him as a knee-jerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.

- Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

*

"I have given a great number of illustrations in various publications which reveal, I believe, a very systematic pattern: debate takes place, indeed is encouraged, within a certain system of assumptions. If one challenges these assumptions, one is simply excluded from the debate as "irresponsible" or "anti-American" or "emotional," etc.; these are the characteristic charges leveled against someone who suggests that U.S. foreign policy, like that of other powers, is dominated by the material interests of groups that control the domestic economy, rather than being a unique exercise in benevolence, occasionaly misguided; or against someone who discusses the extensive documentary record of high level planning, always ignored in the media and academic scholarship, which lays bare the real motives for U.S. aggresion in Indochina and so on. Such people are not sent to concentration camps, but they have virtually no access to the public. My own experience is typical. For example, books of mine on international affairs can be reviewed in academic journals or the mass media in Canada or Europe, but this is a virtual impossibility in the United States, since I do not accept the doctrines of the state religion. - Noam Chomsky, 2/3/80

*

MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, who regularly labels the Pentagon as a "fascist institution" has mounted a campaign to expel ROTC from his school.

November 01, 2005

Interview w/ David Icke

Rinf.com: Can we have the low-down on the new book?

David Icke: It is about the illusory nature of reality and how it is manipulated to hold us in a mind-prison. It explains how we live in a holographic version of the Internet in which we are fed a collective reality in waveform which our DNA, a biological computer, decodes into holographic pictures, much as a television does in theme. It also talks about how we disconnect from the program and take control of our own reality, and, therefore, experience.


Rinf.com: Have you ever been contacted by Illuminati agents, received threats, warnings etc?


David Icke: Not in the sense that they have done it openly.


Rinf.com: Do you worry about your personal safety?


David Icke: No


Rinf.com: And what advice would you give to those trying to expose these hidden agendas?


David Icke: Do what you know to be right without fear of the consequences. Fear of the consequences manifests the consequences.