Chomsky and Zinn on Democracy Now!

Fans of Howard Zinn and/or Noam Chomsky will be interested to know that Amy Goodman of Democracy Now conducted wide-ranging interview in two parts in Boston with Chomsky and Zinn. Here they are:

Part I
Part II

For those interested in hearing Chomsky on Pelosi's trip to Syria:

The only thing wrong with it, it was that it was the third person in line. I mean, if the United States government were sincerely interested in bringing about some measure of peace, prosperity, stability in the region instead of dominating it by force, now they would of course be dealing with Syria and with Iran. Pretty much the way the Baker-Hamilton report proposed except beyond what they proposed because they proposed, they should be dealing with it in matters concerning with Iraq. But there are regional issues. In the case of Syria, there are issues related to Syria itself, but also to Lebanon and to Israel. Israel is in control of, in fact has annexed in violation of Security Council orders, has annexed a large part of Syrian territory, the Golan Heights. Syria is making it very clear that they are interested in a peace settlement with Israel, which would involve, as it should, the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from occupied territories.

The arrest of Kasparov

The famous chess player Garry Kasparov was arrested among others at a protest in Moscow. They were arrested for holding a rally that had been banned because the space had been reserved for a pro-Kremlin group simply to block Hasparov's group from using it.

Kasparov and some other activists were detained near Pushkin Square almost upon their arrival and were placed on a police bus. As he was being driven off, Kasparov managed to shout out an open window, "This regime is criminal. This is a police state. They arrest people everywhere."

His lawyer later said Kasparov had been charged with "shouting anti-government slogans in the presence of a large group of people," the Russian news agency Interfax reported.

He was released late in the evening after being fined $39 for violation of public order.

Around the same time that Kasparov was arrested, other protesters began approaching the police who had cordoned off Pushkin Square.

"Why are you not allowing people to get together and hold rallies as the constitution provides?" one man, who later identified himself as Yevgeny Shimenkov, 67, said to an officer.

"The constitution is for you. For us, there are orders of our commander," the policeman replied.

"You must know your orders are criminal. Your commander is a criminal and you are his accomplices," Shimenkov said.

We hear your cries, Kasparov.

Noam Chomsky puts Iran in context.

From TomDispatch, here's Noam Chomsky, very aptly putting the whole US "should we go to war with Iran" line in context.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

He also places the issue of a nuclear armed Iran in context, and puts the hypothetical Iranian shoe on the American foot.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.

Share Power: Make Canadian companies respect human rights

I am a member of the Business and Human Rights working group of Amnesty International at the Pacific Regional office in Vancouver.

We promote respect for universal human rights standards on the part of Canadian companies. Our focus is usually on those who operate in other countries, especially those in developing countries. We engage in advocacy as well as awareness-raising and education to meet pursue this end. One of our key programs is called Share Power.

I have pasted some info from the Amnesty Canada site to explain the campaign. Tara Scurr, Business and Human Rights Camgaigner for the Pacific Region, you have the floor.

SHARE POWER is a project of Amnesty International’s Business and Human Rights campaign, which harnesses the powerful connection between individuals and companies to advance corporate responsibility for human rights.

SHARE POWER shows you what you can do to hold companies accountable for human rights.

No matter who you are, where you work, or where you study, you can find your connection to powerful multinational corporations and pressure change from the inside! Share Power helps you find this connection and use it to help end corporate abuses of human rights.

All members of the public have the right to send a direct message to the CEO of any company to raise concerns about their company. This is one technique that we can all use. For Share Power to be most effective however, we will use a variety of campaigning techniques.

By approaching companies indirectly, through our connection to other people and institutions that hold shares in those companies, we have a great potential for impact. This approach to corporate change is called shareholder activism and it is a key component of the Share Power campaign.

Please visit the site today to sign the letters on-line. For more information, please go to: www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/sharepower. The companies profiled in Share Power this year are:

1. Dow Chemical (AI-USA) issue: Bhopal
2. Chevron (AI-USA) issue: Environment
3. Power Corporation issue: Human Rights in China
4. Nortel Networks issue: Human Rights in China and Iraq
5. Weyerhaeuser issue: indigenous land rights in Canada
6. Canadian Natural Resources issue: Human Rights in Gabon and Ivory Coast 7. Ivanhoe Mines (2 resolutions) issues: Human Rights in Mongolia and Environmental clean-up in Burma

There is also a letter-writing action to the Canada Pension Plan, which invests significantly in each of these companies.

Please feel welcome to contact us with questions, suggestions or comments at bhr@amnesty.ca. We’d also love to hear your own stories of your campaigning efforts!

Many thanks,
Tara Scurr
Business and Human Rights Campaigner

IPCC summary for governments released

The International Panel on Climate Change released its summary report on climate change for policy makers. It makes it clear that climate Change real, it's happening and we're contributing to it, but that it can be mitigated.

New era of diplomacy?

Perhaps it is undue optimism. Perhaps it is highly premature. However, in light of events over the last couple of days, I have to wonder, or at least I have to hope, that we have entered a new era of international diplomacy on the part of Western nations in their dealings with the Middle East.

First, there is the British hostage crisis in Iran (even though they're technically not hostages). US Marines have said that if they were in place of the Britons, they would have gone down fighting. Indeed, of course, they would have gone down. John Bolton has harshly criticized the British government for its diplomatic approach. We have since learned that the hostages have been released without harm, and Tony Blair uttered the following words:

To the Iranian people I would simply say this, we bare you no ill will. On the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilisation, as a nation with a proud and dignified history. And the disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue.

Second, there is Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, to meet with the president of Syria, with the good wishes of Israeli president Olmert. BBC says of the comments made by Pelosi:

Speaking in Damascus after the talks, Ms Pelosi praised Mr Assad's attitude towards Israel.

"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process," she said.

"He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel. The meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."

She said that she and other members of her congressional delegation raised concerns about Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Syria's relationship with the militant Islamist groups was also discussed, she said, as well as the issue of fighters illegally entering Iraq from Syria.

Earlier, Ms Pelosi met Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem and Vice President Faruq al-Shara.

The trip to Syria of course occurred over the predictable objections of the Bush administration, and moreso John Bolton. Also predictable is the reaction of the conservtive media, saying she is giving a gift to the enemies.

While I'm on the subject, Conor Clark of the Guardian does and excellent piece on the reaction oof the neoconservative right to Pelosi's visit:

It isn't surprising. Attempts to score political points usually aren't. But it is confusing: the conservatives' fury comes in two flavours, and neither makes much sense. First, the right seems to be upset because Pelosi wore a headscarf when she visited a Syrian mosque. Like clockwork, the conservative blogosphere has transformed itself into an army of feminists and taken to the battlements. "This picture disgusts me. What message is Nancy Pelosi trying to send?" writes the New Editor. "The modern Democratic leadership," telegraphs Little Green Footballs, over a picture of Pelosi's sartorial choice. "How ... quaint."

They're grasping at straws. For one, Pelosi's critics ignore the inconvenient fact that First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have also, on several occasions, worn headscarves while visiting mosques. I suppose you could make a fetish of consistency and say that all of these women are wrong for engaging in flights of multiculturalism. But why? No one would argue that elected officials should indulge every cultural peccadillo on a trip abroad. (Genital mutilation? Cannibalism?) But it would be equally foolish to argue that culture is totally non-negotiable: Sometimes the benefits outweigh the harms, and, in the grand scheme of things, the headscarf seems trivial. It's both silly and desperate to say, as one blogger did, that she could have just worn a hat.

The second flavour of conservative ire is that Pelosi's trip makes for bad foreign policy. National Review argues that the speaker's congressional majority is doing "its best to raise the white flag over the Middle East" by indulging a murderous regime like Assad's. "We can't believe that a majority of Americans - impatient though they are with the Iraq War - thought they were voting for this last November."

Well, believe it. In a poll released in December 2006 - just after the election the National Review cites - the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that three out of four Americans - including seven in ten Republicans - supported holding talks with both Iran and Syria. And, of course, diplomatic engagement with the two countries was also the centrepiece of the Iraq Study Group's report - an exercise in ostentatious bipartisanship if there ever was one. You can still make the argument that engaging with Syria is a mistake, or that the message of Pelosi's visit is the wrong one. But please, don't pretend that most Americans agree with you, or that the trip is the work of a crazed radical.

In fact, such trips happen all the time. Three Republican congressmen met with Assad over the weekend. Yesterday's papers reported that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson - a Democratic presidential candidate! - will soon head a bipartisan mission to North Korea. Nor do these visits always happen at the president's pleasure: When Jimmy Carter, Sam Nunn and Colin Powell visited Haiti to broker a last-minute peace deal in 1994, President Clinton was furious. He even ordered a military strike - called off in the nick of time - while the three were still in the country.

But partisan football isn't a game that's played with facts. "Nancy Pelosi tends to forget that there is an executive branch," chortles the National Review. Well, America's executive branch tends to forget that there's this thing called diplomacy. Which is worse?

Now, my optimism is certainly tempered by a consideration of reality. I recognize that these events in themselves do nothing to diminish the power of the military-industrial-complex. Indeed, it has, and will continue to have, its slimy tentacles all around both major US politcal parties. Until it crumbles, the peaceful and just world I envision will never be realized.

Nevertheless, these events provide hope that the extremely aggressive militaristic posture of the Bush administration will soon be a thing of the past.

Robert Fisk "America is not at war"

Robert Fisk argues, elequently as ever, and better than I could, that it is fear of an imagined enemy that is consuming America. The seminar to which he refers is at Valdosta, Georgia:

Dr Michael Noll's students at Valdosta are as smart and bright-eyed as Dr El-Baradei's in Cairo. They packed into the same lecture I had given in Egypt and seemed to share a lot of the same fears about Iraq. But a sullen seminar that same morning was a miserable affair in which a young woman seemed to break down in anger. If "we" left Iraq, she said in a quavering voice, the jihadists, the "terrorists", could come here to America. They would attack us right here.

I sighed with frustration. I was listening to her voice but it was also the voice of the woman on Fox TV, the repeated, hopeless fantasy of Bush and Blair: that if we fail in Iraq, "they", the monstrous enemy, will arrive on our shores. Every day in the American papers now, I read the same "fear" transformed into irrationality. Luke Boggs - God, how I'd love that byline - announces in his local paper: "I say let the terrorists rot in Guantanamo. And let the Europeans ... howl. We are a serious nation, engaged in the serious business of trying to kill or capture the bad guys before they can do us more harm." He calls Guantanamo's inmates "hardcore jihadists".

And I realise that the girl in Dr Noll's seminar isn't spouting this stuff about "jihadists" travelling from Iraq to America because she supports Bush. She is just frightened. She is genuinely afraid of all the "terror" warnings, the supposed "jihadists" threats, the red "terror" alerts and the purple alerts and all the other colour-coded instruments of fear. She believes her president, and her president has done Osama bin Laden's job for him: he has crushed this young woman's spirit and courage.

But America is not at war. There are no electricity cuts on Valdosta's warm green campus, with its Spanish style department blocks and its narrow, beautiful church. There is no food rationing. There are no air-raid shelters or bombs or "jihadists" stalking these God-fearing folk. It is the US military that is at war, engaged in an Iraqi conflict that is doing damage of a far more subtle kind to America's social fabric.

Read the enire article.

Plame testimony

Here is a partial transcript of Valerie Plame's testmony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday. I think it speaks for itself.

I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials.

Today, I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq I worked in the counter proliferation division of the CIA -- still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.

I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs.

While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

I loved my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer and I was dedicated to this work.

It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked.

But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States -- all of my training, all of the value of my years of service -- were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.

In the course of the trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, I was shocked by the evidence that emerged.

My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department.

All of them understood that I worked for the CIA and, having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer.

Neil Young: Live at Massey Hall

I just bought the new Neil Young CD, Live at Massey Hall

It is a solo acoustic performance -- just the man, his guitar, and a piano. Not even his harmonica. The sound quality is excellent for a 35 year old recording. Taken from a 1971 performance signifying Neil'as return to Canada after five years in the States, his voice is clear and strong, at the peak of its powers. His guitar playing is complex and passionate. Contains many of my favourite Neil Young standards, including Old Man, Needle and the Damage Done, Don't Let It Bring You Down, and I Am a Child.

The package I purchased contained a DVD as well for only about two dollars extra. I haven't seen it yet. You can also buy the CD alone.

I highly recommend this release for any casual Neil Young fan.

Sudan response to ICC charges

This from Human Rights Watch, on the government of Sudan trying lower level officials who have been charged for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

“The decision to try Ali Kosheib immediately following the ICC prosecutor’s announcement is obviously an attempt to pre-empt the international court case,” said Sara Darehshori, senior counsel in Human Rights Watch’s International Justice program. “Sudan should let independent international monitors into the country to observe the trial in if it wants to show that it’s anything other than window dressing.”

NY Times: Canada regains high ground

In response to the Canadian parliament voting to bring down two elements of anti-terrorist legislation, one that permits detention without charge, and one that allows coerced testimony, the NY Times wrote an editorial supporting the decision of the Canadian parliament, saying

The United States was not the only country to respond to the horror of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with policies that went much too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses, but that heartening news comes from Canada and not the United States.

Read more:

Housing and homeless in Vancouver, and 2010

I live in Vancouver, BC, where the gap between the very rich and the extreme poor is all to apparent. In the same day that I see droves of people drive to work in their fifty thousand dollar SUVs, I see more droves of people barely surviving in the Donwtown Eastside. One thing that really gets me as much as anything is the relentless ignorance of those who would believe that the extreme poor are in that state by choice, leave them to their own devices, and demand that they just "get a job." Well, it's not as simple as that.

Choices are very important in life, but they don’t exist in a vacuum. They are constrained by the social, economic, environmental, societal, and biological context within which one exists. If you have a mental illness, you have the inability to make rational choices from the start. The cards are stacked against you. Alot of the mentally ill on the streets are there because of the de-institutionalization by the Socred government in the 80s. if you come from a poor background, you have the cards stacked against you. If you have a disability, you have the cards stacked against you. If you come from an abusive background, you have the cards stacked against you. If you are an aboriginal, you have the cards stacked against you.

And, if you live in a society that doe not look after the weakest of the citizens, as we do, and you are already homeless, you virtually don’t have a chance. It is a trap that is extremely, extremely difficult to escape. How are they going to do that? They don’t have a place to sleep, a place to shower or change, let along anything to change into. All they probably have are the smelly, torn clothes on their back. Their nutritional intake is extremely poor. And that’s assuming that they’re even capable of working, as opposed to having a mental illness or some undiagnosed physical disability?

Recent events are a symptom of this continual ignorance. First is the government money spent on a countdown clock for the 2010 Winter Olympics, money that could easily have been spent instead on helping the homeless. Second is this past week's provincial government budget, proudly promoted by Carole Taylor as the housing budget. There were shelter beds for the homeless promised, but not nearly enough, and decent affordable housing rather than shelter beds would have been much better.

With the 2010 Olympics coming, the well-known prediction from the Pivot Legal Society that homelessness may triple between now and 2010, and the lack of sufficient response from all levels of government to the issue of housing and homelessness, I am very concerned about what the future is going to hold for the homeless. Are the fears that the Downtown Eastside will be gentrified and the extreme poor pushed even further into the margins of society actually likely to materialize?

At this point, my temptation is to say that this is a crossroads for our city and we have to decide which path we will take: continued self-absorbtion and ignorance, or a new enlightenment recognizing social as well as personal responsibility.

However, society doesn't change that much in three years, so I will put it this way: Our governments can go one of two ways on this problem. Either way, the end result must be that visitors to our fine city in 2010 to not perceive a homelessness problem. The tact that I'm afraid will materialize is to push the homeless even further into the margins of society; this will backfire, as crime will increase. The better long-term approach is to show visitors that we are a conscientious, inclusive society, and feed, house, and clothe our homeless citizens.

Vulture Funds

This is disgusting. I have to say I was completely unaware of this phenomenon.

On Thursday 15 February a high court judge in London will rule whether so-called vulture fund can extract more than $40m from Zambia for a debt which it bought for less than $4m.

There are concerns that such funds are wiping out the benefits which international debt relief was supposed to bring to poor countries.

Martin Kalunga-Banda, Zambian presidential adviser and a consultant to Oxfam told Newsnight, "That $40m is equal to the value of all the debt relief we received last year."

Vulture funds - as defined by the International Monetary Fund and Gordon Brown amongst others - are companies which buy up the debt of poor nations cheaply when it is about to be written off and then sue for the full value of the debt plus interest - which might be ten times what they paid for it.

Mockery

Caroline Pearce from the Jubilee Debt campaign told Newsnight it makes a mockery of all the work done by governments to write off the debts of the poorest.

"Profiteering doesn't get any more cynical than this. Zambia has been planning to spend the money released from debt cancellation on much-needed nurses, teachers and infrastructure: this is what debt cancellation is intended for not to line the pockets of businessmen based in rich countries."

As it turns out, Zambia lost the vulture funds case.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now had an excellent interview with Greg Palast on vulture funds today, which initially drew my attention to the issue.

URGENT: Hunger Strike in Kingston reaches 80 days.

Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Hassan Almrei have been held for six years in Kingston on security certificates without charge. To protest this, is well as poor treatment, they have held a hunger strike for the last 80 days. During this strike, they have been refused doctor's visits. From Verbani-19, here is their letter.

We are the undersigned Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Hassan Almrei. We have been imprisoned over six years under so-called security certificates. We have never been convicted of any crime, much less charged with one. We have been told we are dangerous to the security of Canada and a threat to the public, without even seeing anything in evidence against us. Neither our lawyers or ourselves have the right to challenge or see what the government claims they have on us. These rights everybody takes for granted in this country or in any country that applies the rule of democracy.

Since our arrests we have been thrown in solitary confinement for years without any explanation, surviving in a small, concrete, frozen cell.

We faced many difficulties in practicing our religion, or contacting our families, and countless nights without sleeping from hunger.

On April 24, 2006, the government decided to move us to a new facility after the provincial government’s refusal to keep us in their detention centre. From that time we are detained in a small trailer parked in a parking lot on the grounds of Millhaven.

Shortly after our arrival here we realized that we are in a no-man’s land and everybody applies his own rules: guards, supervisors, directors. We don’t know whose rules we should follow. Policies change by the shift. We thought our life at this facility will be better than Toronto West Detention Centre. Were we wrong in our thoughts?

This is all humiliating and insulting not only for ourselves but to our families as well.

We requested repeatedly that these unjust treatments be changed and to be treated as adult human beings. When all our requests and complaints have been rejected by the director to cover up her staff’s wrongdoing, we decided to engage in a hunger strike, which is the last option for us to change our conditions.

We are on a hunger strike for the last 80 days for Mahjoub, 69 days for Jaballah and Almrei. Until recently, we have never seen a doctor to treat us, not even one single time, even though we requested daily to see a doctor and get treatment. We would only see a nurse behind the closed door through a small glass window. We are unable to get to the so-called treatment room because of our fear of our own safety from the guards because we have been abused by them many times.

There were many many media reports about our hunger strike and 2 visits by Members of Parliament and several questions put to the government in the House of Commons about our conditions and hunger strike. Only then did the CBSA [Canadian Border Services Agency] decide to send a doctor to see us on February 7, 2007, for the first time, and order a supervisor to escort us to the treatment room to see a doctor and a nurse. We have requested a supervisor to escort us any time we have to move in the facility. The supervisor is only now being provided temporarily. This is not a solution.

We feel some small changes have happened here because of pressure from the public and MPs. But we still need your help to fix the big problems here.

We may not have much more time, so please keep up the pressure in standing for our rights.

We thank you for all of your kindness and support. May Allah bless you and reward you for all of your efforts.

Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub, Hassan Almrei.

(letter dictated by phone to the Campaign to Stop Secret trials in Canada)

For more details, and tips on how to take action, see Verbani-19

Chirac on Iran.

Gwynne Dyer is bang on in the Straight this week, basically arguing that Iran is not a threat, that its purpose in acquiring nucelar weaponry is basically defensive in nature, and that

the danger is not that Iran would be irresponsible with its nuclear weapons but that they would lead to a general proliferation of such weapons in the Middle East.

Now, I'm not always the biggest Chirac fan. He acts purely out of self-interest, whether its opposing the war in Iraq, or selling arms to China. Here I am sure there must be self-interest involved as well. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that his is right.

Dyer concludes:

The truth may be that Iran is for the moment seeking only a “threshold” nuclear-weapons capacity: a level of technological expertise from which it could, in an emergency, develop actual nuclear weapons in only six months or so. Such a position is entirely legal, and some 40 countries currently occupy it.

The truth may also be that the nuclear-armed neighbour Iran really worries about is not Israel but Pakistan, whose 1998 nuclear tests scared Iranian strategists half to death. They don’t worry about the intentions of Pakistan’s current dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, but they know that it is a one-bullet regime and they worry a great deal about what kind of fanatics might succeed him in power.

IPCC report; fossil fuel industry responses

The International Panel on Climate Change Report has been released, providing us with the strongest evidence yet that signifigcant climate change is caused by human activity, and that it is a threat to life on this planet.

Of course, the fossil industry hacks are disputing this finding:

The American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 to scientists prepared to write papers opposing findings of the IPCC report.

The Fraser Institute will be giving a press conference in London on Monday to give their reaction to the findings. Media Identification will be required for admission.

George Bushes hedges taking action on the issue.

For info as it comes in on this issue, read the DeSmog Blog.

Tory ads backfire

It looks like the Tory attack ads have backfired sooner than expected. For my thoughts on this, see my Stop Stephen Harper Blog site

new posts at my Stop Stephen Harper Blog.

Please check out two new posts at my Stop Stephen Harper Blog.

The complicity of the Canadian media.

There was an excellent article in the Georgia Straight this week on media complicity in the misleading of Canadians on the extent of the threat from human-activated climate change with which we are faced. This is no surprise to me, as I have long intuitively felt the existence of this bias.

On principle, I am all for the questioning of received wisdom in our society. However when that questioning has no rational basis, when that questioning flies in the face of virtually all peer-reviewed scientific evidence, when that questioning is an apparent stall tactic instigated by the US fossil fuel industry, and when we find that these rent-a-scientists are the same folks who disputed the link between smoking and cancer, then it is time to seriously question the questioners. It is time to hold the questioners to account for their irresponsibility.

Read more

US missile defence bases in Europe may be a go

Very disturbing news.

According to BBC, The US is seeking to build missile defence bases in Eastern Europe. Apparently, the Czech republic has agreed to offer some its land for this purpose, and Poland has confirmed that the US wnats to negotiate with them.

A Russian General, has indicated that this move could be interpreted as a military threat:

Our analysis shows that the deployment of a radar station in the Czech Republic and a counter-missile position in Poland are an obvious threat to us.

It is very doubtful that elements of the national US missile defence system in eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated.

Fortunately, it seems that Czech compliance still has to pass both levels of Parliament.

Let's hope it won't. Otherwise, looks like we may have to move up the doomsday clock another notch.

MLK - Radical revolution of values

I also though I would reprint a passage from a Martin Luther King speech I published two years ago on my old blog.

From Martin Luther King's "Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam" speech, 1967. Put it in the modern context.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. When machines and computers, profit and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triple ts of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs re-structuring. A true revolution of values will soon look easily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: " This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling difference s is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlef ields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from re-ordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are the days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense aga inst communism is to take: offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

What MLK meant to me, in poetic form

Today is Martin Luther King's birthday. As I explained last year, Dr. King is one of my heroes, one of the greatest intellectual/philosophical influences on my thinking. I was going to be at a poetry reading tonight, so I decided this year to write a poem, in his memory. Here it is:

I found you
Back in the day when
I was discovering myself
I discovered you
Because when you lived
You were discovering righteousness.

You were the first one
To make me believe
That a better world was possible
You rocked my world
You shifted my consciousness

You had a dream
I share it
Many of us share it
Even in the new millennium
Even in a world
So far
From the one you envision
Your dream gives hope
In a world that needs it

I share your dream
I cling to it
Because sometimes
It seems like all we have

Blood for oil in Iraq.

And they kept denying it was about the oil. That's a good one. From the Independent.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Read more

Israel has plans to bomb Iran

The Times of London reports that Israel is planning to drop targeted nuclear bombs on nuclear installations in Iran.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

Read more

Attention to my new blog, "The Stop Stephen Harper Blog"

I have just created The Stop Stephen Harper Blog, which is dedicated to defeating Stephen Harper in the next federal election. Yes, I think it is important enough to create a whole blog devoted to that purpose. I have already referred to my dislike for the Harper government several times in this blog.

I've been musing about doing this, but with his appointment of blowhard John Baird to the Environment Ministry, I have decided to speed things up a bit.

Christmas wish

This is transcribed from a generic Christmas card I'm sending too my family this year.

What is Peace?
Peace is simple...
It's holding the door open for a stranger and waving to a child in the care next to you.
It'd doing something nice for someone withou getting caught, and giving and sharing with those who are in need.
Peace is reaching out and holding back.
It's practicing the golden rule as often as you can, and remembering to say please and thank you.
Peace is saying hello to people you pass on the street and letting cars pull out ahead of you in busy holiday traffic.
Peace is living each day with the spirit of CHRISTMAS in your heart...
(open card up)
...and peace is what's wished for you -- at Christmas and always.

Merry Christmas one and all!
Love and Peace,
Stephen

Stock Day shows his true colours

Read this lovely piece of ecological sensitivity from the blog of my parent's MP, Stockwell Day

Hey who knows, maybe Al Gore is right.

Maybe all my constituents living high up on the West Bench, or Lakeview Heights , or the hills of Logan Lake will soon be sitting on lakeside property as one of the many benefits of global warming.

All I know is last weekend when I got home from Ottawa there was more snow in my driveway than we usually get in a year.

And I was begging for Big Al's Glacial Melt when the mercury hit -24°. Do not despair, my fellow dwellers of the Okanagan and Nicola Valleys .

Lest the Tories try to change their tune and pander to Canadians with a new, more sensitive approach to the environment, please keep this Stock Day blog post in mind come election day.

Twenty-six years ago, John Lennon died.

Well, another year gone by, and another anniversary (26th) of the murder of John Lennon, except this year, I missed it. It was yesterday. Anyway, every year I post the lyrics to one or more of John's songs in memory of his life. Lst year, I posted "Imagine" and "Happy Xmas (War is Over)." This year, I will post "Give Peace a Chance" and "In My Life." We miss you John.

Give Peace a Chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, Evolution, Mastication, Flagelolation, Regulations.
Integrations, Meditations, United Nations, Congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Oh Let's stick to it
Ev'rybody's talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy smothers, Bob Dylan,
Tommy Cooper, Derek Tayor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

In My Life

There are places I'll remember
All my life, though some have changed
Some forever, not for better
Some have gone and some remain
All these places had their moments
With lovers and friends, I still can recall
Some are dead and some are living
In my life, I've loved them all

But of all these friends and lovers
There is no one compares with you
And these memories lose their meaning
When I think of love as something new
Though I know I'll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I'll often stop and think about them
In my life, I'll love you more

Though I know I'll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I'll often stop and think about them
In my life, I'll love you more

NDP hurtling toward irrelevance

I think that the NDP are hutling towards irrelevance. My problem with them is that they seem to be more interested in attacking the Liberals and trying to make deals with the Conservatives rather than the other way around.

They strike me of late as being shallow and politically opportunistic. They brought down the Liberal government which was going to pass a child care act. Child care advocates criticized the NDP for this. At the time, I was kind of with the NDP on this, but after I've seen what the Conservatives have done on this file, I wish I hadn't.

The NDP beats it's chest talking with the Tories about the Clean Air Act, but it's all show. It's grandstanding. The Tories won't move toward anything approaching a responsible green plan, and the Jack Layton knows it.

Yes, the Liberal governments of the past were corrupt. I'm not a Liberal; I have no horse in this race. They had to be held account to that, and they were, in the last election.

However, the times have changed since then. The Martin/Chretien Liberals were merely corrupt. The Harper Conservatives are threatening to tear are the fabric of Canadian society as we know it.

The Liberals have a new leader. Fair is fair, and he should be given a fair chance, instead of trying to tie him to the sponsorship scandal as the NDP are trying to do, when he had nothing to do with it. Stephane Dion is a man who is known for his honesty and integrity. In fact, to my knowledge, serious political commentators, even those critical of Stephane Dion, have not mentioned the sponsorship scandal.

I think much more helpful and instructive is the example being set by Elizabeth May and Adrienne Carr of the Green Party, who are welcoming his leadership of the Liberal Party with open arms. They are moving beyond petty partisanship, thinking about what is best for the country, and actually hoping he will be a good Liberal leader.

The progressive movement in Canada has much bigger fish to fry than Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper is the leader of by far the most right wing government in Canadian history, he must be stopped at all costs. The best bet for that in a majority of ridings across the country right now are probably the Libs.

Blogosphere, meet Andrea McKenzie.

I'd like to introduce you to an old friend of mine (not in terms of age but in terms of years knowing), Andrea Mackenzie from Victoria. She is an aspiring writer, and has just started up her new blog. She has had published a book of her finest poetry, A Mother's String.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Andrea.

World AIDS Day

Today is world AIDS Day. I'm too tired to put up a lengthy post on it, suffice it to say the global AIDS pandemic, especially in Africa, is one of the critical issues of our time.

My generation will be defined in part by how it responds to this pandemic. Will we stand up, take notice, and demand that Western governments provide support to battle it, or would we rather carry on with our mindless, insular lives.

I like what Matt Good has to say about the day.

History for the Greens

In brighter news, the Green Party of Canada has made history yesterday, coming in second in a federal by-election in London North-Centre.

I am very excited by the news, as I have been attracted to the Green philosophy for years. While I do think it is very important to ensure that Harper's Conservatives aren't re-elected in the next election, I think that the Liberals and New Democrats have largely made themselves irrelevant to me and other voters who are looking for a new set of priorities for the creation of a more humane society. I also like the Green's approach to practicing politics, which is generally much more conciliatory and cooperative.

Anyway, I'm quite pleased. For more on their platform,, go here.

Quebec as a "nation"

Canadian history was made on two counts yesterday.

First, the House of Commons, in contrast to the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians, passed a motion to declare the Quebecois a nation within Canada. Most members of all major parties in the Commons supported the motion.

There are many problems I have with this, not the least of which, there was no consultation at all. It was said by proponents that the motion was in effect meaningless, that it was simply meant to defuse a Bloc Quebecois motion to declare Quebec a nation outside of Canada.

The question I have is, if it was meaningless, why have the motion in the first place; why not simply defeat the Bloc motion. If it was not meaningless, and we should be concerned, why was there no consultation? I would submit that there is great concern.

I could very easily see the Bloc presenting a motion to the House asking that the Quebecois status as a nation be constitutionally recognized. How could the other parties say no? If informally, then why not constitutionally?

I think that we could be opening a pandora's box that we could very much regret opening.

Ken Dryden's speech in the House sums of my feelings precisely:

This is pure politics. All this started with the ludicrous concept of having a debate fundamental to the country based on different understandings of the word "nation." In the last few days, it has deteriorated into the ludicrous reality of such a debate in practice.

To those who want to engage the debate honestly, seeking definitional clarity - forget it. Other parties to the debate want none of it. They want to say "nation" means whatever they want it to mean, now and to change definition whenever they decide they want it to mean something different. So they can go to the public and argue and spin, and try to achieve by misunderstanding what they can't by understanding.

When I first arrived in Montreal, it was the pride of Quebecers that struck me. The whole world's being taken over by the English language, American culture; Quebecers had no chance. But they said no, not me, not here. I know what I am. And that's who I'm going to be. Forever.

And Quebecers know who they are. They've had to. They couldn't have made it if they didn't. They don't need any official definers to tell them. And some day we, all Canadians, will get down on paper what Canada really is, what Quebec really is, what together we have made ourselves to be. But it won't happen this way. It can't happen this way.

Does the Bloc really want to engage Canadians outside Quebec so they will agree that "Quebec is a nation"? Not at all. They want the process to be so inappropriate that all such Canadians will reject the question. To grease that slippery slope, so that Canadians inside Quebec will reject those outside Quebec, and the Bloc's cause of independence will be advanced.

The pawn in this game is the public. As Canadians, we feel deeply about our country. Politicians and political advocates for decades have been playing games with our emotions, manipulating them for their/our own purposes. They/we have completely poisoned the well of discussion and debate on this question. No side trusts any other, no citizen trusts any politician.

It's snowing!

(Well OK, this pic was taken the day after it started).

Water

It's something that we take for granted. It's probably our second most important natural resource, next to air. I never thought I'd realize how much it is taken for granted, and how lucky we are to live in a part of the world where access to clean water isn't normally a problem. I still don't think I really know how much, but I do believe I have a vague idea.

Here in Vancouver, we've been under a boiled water advisory for almost a week now. Don't know when it's going to be lifted, but hopefully soon.

It has been a very humbling experience, and I think there are two lessons to draw. One, we have to be humbled by the wealth of our society that allows us access to commercial "substitutes" such as bottled water that ensure we don't go thirsty. We don't realize how many people die in various parts of the world for want of food. Two, we have to realize what in important and precious part of our ecosystem water is. It is a finite resource, we can run out, and we must start making a real effort to conserve.

Something else I've been thinking about is climate change as it relates to impacts on the weather generally, and more specifically the wind-and rain-storm that let to the soiling of the reservoirs. Of course I don't know for sure if it is climate-change related, and if so, how much, but it does make me think about the lack of respect we show for our environment, whether in the form of carbon emissions or water waste, and how it all could come back on us in the long run.

The next time I do the dishes, I think I'm gonna use less water.

Sy Hersh on a secret CIA report.

According to Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, a secret CIA report has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons-building program in Iraq:

The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)

The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House’s dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.” The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.’s analysis. “The D.I.A. is fighting the agency’s conclusions, and disputing its approach,” the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, “but they can’t stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community.” The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney’s office, had made just such an assumption—that “the lack of evidence means they must have it,” the former official said.

Appearing on Democracy Now! today, Hersh indicated he didn't know if the Bush Administration would attack Iran. Some of his contacts say that Bush will not be prevented from bombing Iran before leaving office. Others say that the foreign policy realists in the administration may well prevail.

This is basically what we're down to: hoping that the far right wing foreign policy realists in the US will prevail over the even farther right wing neocons. I think the stakes are too high to allow the Bushies to go into Iran.

Grameen Bank

Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the revolutionary Grameen Bank that has freed gosh knows how many Bangladeshis from extreme poverty, has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Essentially, the Grameen Bank provides microcredit loans, small loans to the extremely poor, without collateral or interest. I have a bit of a bakcground in community economic development, so such concepts are not new to me. The result is that poverty levels are reduced, and the wealth created by the loan stays in the community. Go here for more basic info on microcredit.

Ray McGovern: Cheney-Gates Cabal

From Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst:

The “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal ” may now be down to one. But there is every sign that Cheney will continue to be the dominant force in the White House, and he recently asserted:

You cannot make national security policy on the basis of [elections]. It may not be popular with the public. It doesn’t matter, in the sense that we have to continue the mission [in Iraq].

Granted, Cheney made those comments before the election. But it is virtually certain that Bush vetted with Cheney the nomination of Robert Gates to succeed Rumsfeld and, if past experience is precedent, it is a virtual certainty that Gates will continue to earn an A+ for “loyalty.” Look for a “Cheney-Gates cabal.”

Dems take Congress; Rumsfeld resigns

Great news. The Democrats have captured, easily, the House of Representatives and narrowly captured the Senate. It is not likely that a whole lot will change as a result with respect to foreign policy, but it is a sweeping repudiation of the US policy vis a vis Iraq. The Democrats didn't even have a position, didn't even say anything meaningful, and they still won. That's gotta hurt if you're a Repuglican.



An offshoot of this that is another important development is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Bush has chosen former CIA analyst Bob Gates to replace him.

There is certainly no guarantee that Gates will be anything more than marginally better. He may well not be. However, given that Rumsfeld resigned immediately after his party's ouster in the congressional elections, I can arrive at no other conclusion that he has resigned in disgrace. That is entirely appropriate, and that is an important statement on the policies he has supported.

That he has resigned is a good start but not nearly enough though. He should be tried for war crimes.

Constitutionally, all decision-making power with respect to foreign policy rests in the executive branch. However, this also gives the Democrats some leverage on two counts, hypothetically speaking. Whomever Bush chooses must be confirmed by the Senate. If they don't like him, the can defeat the nomination.

Second, if they choose to, they can impeach the president. They can either choose to do so outright, in which case Dick Cheney would be president (gulp), or they can hang it over his head and blakcmail him with it in order to encourage more sensible policies from Bush. I highly doubt it will happen, but it could.

Amnesty Award for Mandela

Nelson Mandela has been awarded Amnesty International's highest honour, the Ambassador of Conscience Award. I'm pleased that one of my heroes is being honoured in such a way. How his activism has continued through his life span, from anti-apartheid activist to political prisoner to resurrected movement leader to president of South Africa to elder statesmen for the world, is truly inspiring. The presenting of this award to him is a vindication not only of his life's work, but also the need to continue to stand up for human rights in the world, as Mr. Mandela does.

Reasons not to vote for Stephen Harper

These are the reasons I can come up with at this point in time. I will publish a more extensive list when the next federal election comes.

1) abandoning Kyoto commitments, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the climate change threat, which Canada and almost all other industrialized countries had already signed.

2) refusing to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, a document that many countries including Canada has worked on for 20 years, thus further harming relations with aboriginals in Canada.

3) phony choice in child care policy, in place of national child care policy agreed to by Canada and the provinces

4) trashing of the Kelowna accord for aboriginal peoples, again agreed to by the feds and the provincesw

5) raising the income tax of the poorest income group.

6) supporting the Israeli flattening of Lebanon.

7) gutting of social programs which support women, aboriginals, volunteers, and adult literacy.

7) language and decisions used by Stephen Harper which is eerily similar to language and decisions used by George Bush, such as "cut and run," "stay the course," banning coverage of soldier's caskets.

8) as detailed above, an unwillingness or inability to work with the provinces or the international community.

9) inability or unwillingness to work with the opposition parties, after complaining as the official opposition in the previous Parliament that the government was unwilling to work with them. The Difference is that the previous government did work with the opposition; it was just a different party. The Harper regime is unable or unwilling to work with any of the opposition parties.

10) David Emerson.

11) Garth Turner.

12) threatening to kill gun registry.

13) proposed legislation that would allow police to spy on internet users without a warrant.

14) if elected with a majority, a Harper Conservative government will likely sign on to the US's dangerous misguided ballistic missle defence program.

15) breaking promises to increase foreign aid to G* average, and instead letting it fall.

Bill Maher takes on the neocons

From Crooks and Liars, check on Bill Maher do a new segment in which he rips into the neon "thinktanks'" histry of abject failure.

Bad move, Stephen Harper.

I'm not a member of the Liberal Party, but as a concerned Canadian citizen, I do care who will be prime minister of Canada after the next election. When Michael Ignatieff called the Israel attack on Qana a war crime, I finally felt that he might actually be OK after all in that position.

I don't think he had in mind what was coming from the Conservatives in response, but I'm not surprised. When Stephen Harper called not only Ignatieff but all Liberal leadership candidates anti-Israel, he implicitly also called all of us who agree with Ignatieff anti-Israel, and that's a lot of Canadians. He called me anti-Israel.

I think that even most Canadians who would disagree with Ignatieff and agree with Harper on Israel wouldn't be so myopic and simple-minded as to believe that that necessarily means that Ignatieff is anti-Israel.

I think Ken Dryden said it best, when he said that Harper is "completely wrong."

He said, “all that is, is creating divides and Mr. Harper has shown himself to be a great divider," and went on to say that since Harper became prime minister, he has proven himself to be a great divider, dividing Canada into black and white, into those with us and those against us.

Now to the heart of the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The indiscriminate killing of civilians is wrong, regardless who the victim is and who the perpetrator is. Simple and easy to understand, one would think, but apparently beyond the comprehension of many.

One of those many, the Prime Minister of Canada, called myself and many other good Canadians anti-Israel. Bad move, Harper.

Give me hegemony or give me death

This is from Antiwar.com

The problem is not that the Democrats are intimidated. The problem is that the Democrats are part of the problem. The editors of Impeach the President indirectly acknowledge this fact when they report that Congress "looked the other way" when Bush acknowledged that he lied to cover up his felony of illegally spying on U.S. citizens and declared the real criminal to be the NSA official who blew the whistle. Democrats, no less than Republicans, have permitted the Bush regime to violate the separation of powers and the rule of law. A branch of government that no longer defends its power is a branch of government that no longer believes in its power. Just as the Reichstag faded away for Hitler, the U.S. Congress has faded away for the Bush administration.

Claes Ryn is correct when he says a change of mind has occurred. The Constitution and the political system based on it are on the ropes because the players no longer believe in them. They believe in executive power to act forcefully in behalf of "American exceptionalism."

Civil libertarians rely on the judiciary to defend constitutional rights, but the Supreme Court has been compromised by Bush's appointments of Roberts and Alito, men who believe in "energy in the executive." Without support from Congress, the judiciary cannot protect civil liberty. With the passage of the recent detainee and spy bills, Congress has allied itself with the Bush regime against civil liberty.

Beliefs are more important than institutions. Michael Polanyi wrote that if people believed in the principles of Stalinism, democracy would uphold Stalinism. If people believe in American hegemony, they will not complain when barriers to hegemonic actions are removed. If people believe fighting terrorism is more important than civil liberty, they will lose civil liberty.

What America needs to refurbish is its beliefs. Without renewing our beliefs, we cannot renew our civil liberties and hold government accountable.

Chomsky on 9/11 conspiracy theories

Here's Chomsky making the best succinct statement I have heard yet against the proliferation of 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a Znet sustainer forum.:

ZNet Sustianer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice’s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission’s report in accuracy and lucidity (see,http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustianer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

Tick-tock on Darfur.

The situation in Darufr right now is extremely, extremely critical. After months end, a race of people could be literally wiped off the face of the earth. The African Union is leaving at the end of September. If the UN doesn't come in to fill the void and protect the Darfurian people, the aid workers will leave. 2 and a half million innocent people could be starve or slaughtered to death simply because of their race.

Canadian retired General Romeo Dallaire, veteran of the Rwandan genocide: "Darfur is tasting, smelling, looking in every way, shape and form like a repetition on a similar scale of what happened in Rwanda."

George Clooney, speaking to the UN Security Council:

The United States has called it genocide. For you, it’s called ethnic cleansing. But make no mistake, it is the first genocide of the 21st century, and if it continues unchecked it will not be the last.

Now, my job is to come here today and to beg you, on behalf of the millions of people who will die — and make no mistake they will die — for you to take real and effective measures to put an end to this. Of course it’s complex, but when you see entire villages raped and killed, wells poisoned and then filled with the bodies of its villagers, then all complexities disappear and it comes down to simply right and wrong.

It’s not getting better. It’s getting much, much worse, and it is only the international community that can help us. Now, I know there are members of you here that, for what I’m sure are sensible reasons, have failed to use leverage at times to keep the — to get the peacekeepers on the ground. Well, we now have a date. The date is September.

My generation will be marked by how it responds now. This is a critical point in human history. Now is the time to take a stand and stop would could become the worse genocide in decades. Join a Darfur advocacy organization, like Canadian Students for Darfur. Join a human rights organization like Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. Educate yourself on this issue. Write letters to your government leader and to you Sudanese ambassador. Do what you have to.

Update: African Union troops have agreed to stay through the rest of the calendar year. Still, that does nothing to stop the genocide; it merely impedes it's progress. The AU is still severely understaffed, and the UN is still not living up to its responsibility to stop a genocide in progress.

One hundred year anniversary of Satyagraha

Today is the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Significantly, it is also the 100 year anniversary of a speech given by Mohandas Gandhi, marking the beginning of Satyagraha. He was at a meeting in South Africa where he presented a resolution encouraging a protest of the unjust pass law. He was emphatic that the refusal to comply had to be nonviolent. I believe in the movie Gandhi, he says something like they may have our bodies, but not our obedience.

Thus, this day finds us with not only redisover a phiilosophy that could help us out of this mess. To that end, here is part of that speech, from Gandhi's Satyagraha in South Africa.

We all believe in one and the same God, the differences of nomenclature in Hinduism and Islam notwithstanding. To pledge ourselves or to take an oath in the name of that God or with him as witness is not something to be trifled with. If having taken such an oath we violate our pledge we are guilty before God and man. Personally I hold that a man, who deliberately and intelligently takes a pledge and then breads it, forfeits his manhood. And just as a copper coin treated with mercury not only becomes valueless when detected but also makes its owner liable to punishment, in the same way a man who lightly pledges his word and then breaks it becomes a man of straw and fits himself for punishment here as well as hereafter. Sheth Haji Habib is proposing to administer an oath of very serious character. There is no one in this meeting who can be classed as an infant or as wanting in understanding. You are all well advanced in age and have seen the world; many of you are delegates and have discharged responsibilities in a greater or lesser measure. No one present, therefore, can ever hope to excuse himself by saying that he did not know what he was about when he took the oath.

I know that pledges and vows are, and should be, taken on rare occasions. A man who takes a vow every now and then is sure to stumble. But if I can imagine a crisis in the history of the Indian community of South Africa when it would be in the fitness of things to take pledges that crisis is surely now. There is wisdom in taking serious steps with great caution and hesitation. But caution and hesitation have their limits, and we have now passed them. The Government has taken leave of all sense of decency. We would only be betraying our unworthiness and cowardice, if we cannot stake our all in the face of the conflagration which envelopes us and sit watching it with folded hands. There is no doubt, therefore, that the present is a proper occasion for taking pledges. But every one of us must think out for himself if he has the will and the ability to pledge himself. Resolutions of this nature cannot passed by a majority vote. Only those who take a pledge can be bound by it. This pledge must not be taken with a view to produce an effect on outsiders. No one should trouble to consider what impression it might have upon the Local Government, the Imperial Government, or the Government of India. Every one must only search his own heart, and if the inner voice assures him that he has the requisite strength to carry him through, then only should he pledge himself and then only will his pledge bear fruit.

A few words now as to the consequences. Hoping for the best, we may say that if a majority of the Indians pledge themselves to resistance and if all who take the pledge prove true to themselves, the Ordinance may not be passed and, if passed, may be soon repealed. It may be that we may not be called upon to suffer at all. But if on the hand a man who takes a pledge must be a robust optimist, on the other hand he must be prepared for the worst. Therefore I want to give you an idea of the worst that might happen to us in the present struggle. Imagine that of us present here numbering 3,000 at the most pledge ourselves. Imagine again that the remaining 10,000 Indians take no such pledge. We will only provoke ridicule in the beginning. Again, it is quite possible that in spite of the present warning some or many of those who pledge themselves may weaken at the very first trial. We many have to go to jail, where we many be insulted. We many have to go hungry and suffer extreme heat or cold. Hard labour may be imposed upon us. We may be flogged by rude warders. We may be fined heavily and our property may be attached and held up to auction if there are only a few resisters left. Opulent today we may be reduced to abject poverty tomorrow. We may be deported. Suffering from starvation and similar hardships in jail, some of us may fall ill and even die, In short, therefore, it is not at all impossible that we may have to endure every hardship that we can imagine, and wisdom lies in pledging ourselves on the understanding that we shall have to suffer all that and worse. If some one asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near. If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be prolonged. But I can boldly declare, and with certainty, that so long as there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there can only be one end to the struggle, and that is victory.

A word about my personal responsibility. If I am warning you of the risks attendant upon the pledge, I am at the same time inviting you to pledge yourselves, and I am fully conscious of my responsibility in the matter. It is possible that a majority of those present here many take the pledge in a fit of enthusiasm or indignation but may weaken under the ordeal, and only a handful may be left to face the final test. Even then there is only one course open to some one like me, to die but not to submit to the law. It is quite unlikely but even if every one else flinched leaving me alone to face the music, I am confident that I would never violate my pledge. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this out of vanity, but I wish to put you, especially the leaders upon the platform, on your guard. I wish respectfully to suggest it to you that if you have not the will or the ability to stand firm even when you are perfectly isolated, you must not only not take the pledge yourselves but you must declare your opposition before the resolution is put to the meeting and before its members begin to take pledges and you must not make yourselves parties to the resolution. Although we are going to take the pledge in a body, no one should imagine that default on the part of one or many can absolve the rest from their obligation. Every one should fully realize his responsibility, then only pledge himself independently of others and understand that he himself must be true to his pledge even unto death, no matter what others do.

In the same chapter, he went on to explain his philosophy:

None of us knew what name to give to our movement I then used the term ‘passive resistance' in describing it. I did not quite understand the implications of ‘passive resistance' as I called it. I only knew that some new principle had come into being. As the struggle advanced, the phrase ‘passive resistance' gave rise to confusion and it appeared shameful to permit this great struggle to be known only by an English name. Again, that foreign phrase could hardly pass as current coin among the community. A small prize was therefore announced in Indian Opinion t o be awarded to the reader who invented the best designation for our struggle. We thus received a number of suggestions. The meaning of the struggle had been then fully discussed in Indian Opinion and the competitors for the prize had fairly sufficient material to serve as a basis for their exploration. Shri Maganlal Gandhi was one of the competitors and he suggested the word ‘Sadagraha,' meaning. ‘firmness in a good cause.' I liked the work, but it did not fully represent the whole idea I wished it to connote. I therefore corrected it to ‘Satyagraha.' Truth (Satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement ‘Satyagraha,' that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase ‘passive resistance,' in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the work ‘Satyagraha' itself or some other equivalent English phrase, This then was the genesis of the movement which came to be known as `Satyagraha, and of the word used as a designation for it. Before we proceed any further with our history we shall do well to grasp the differences between passive resistance and Satyagraha, Which is the subject of our next chapter.

Watching the watchers of Human Rights Watch

It seems that no one can criticize the government of Israel without being labelled anti-Semetic or anti Israel. Absurd as it may seem, a Phillip Roth of a reputable organization like Human Rights Watch is not immune to these attacks.

Phillip Roth is a Jew whose father fled Nazi Germany. According to Rosa Brooks, upon criticizing Israel for war crimes against Lebanon,

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive Israel-basher … who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make Israel look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust.

Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch — or with Roth — knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan — it doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane.

But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism. Think Israel's tactics against Hezbollah were too heavy-handed, or that Israel hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military support for Israel? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be called an anti-Semite — and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.

How did adopting a reflexively pro-Israel stance come to be a mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism — a willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma — has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in Israel, where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.

RIP Steve Irwin aka Cocodile Hunter