Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who is barred from entering the United States, recently delivered his acceptance speech for the Letelier-Moffitt International Human Rights Award
Arar was detained by U.S. officials in 2002, accused of terrorist links, and handed over to Syrian authorities, who tortured him. In the videotape, Arar describes his extradition and torture in Syria at the discretion of the U.S. government. Arar was not charged, eventually released after his wife lobbied politicians and the media. After his release, the Syrians clearly indicated to Washington that they did not find any links to terrorism. Arar's case was dismissed by the US on grounds of national security (very convenient), but is being appealed.
The video can be viewed here or if you like text, the transcript for his speech can be found here
Friday, October 27, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
9-11 and Conspiracy Theories
I had an hour to kill at the bookstore yesterday and ended up reading a chapter in the new book Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy:: Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice. The book consists of several conversations between Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar. The section I read dealt with "Terrorism and Conspiracy Theories".
Chomsky is fairly critical of conspiracy theories in general and presents an argument on why 9-11 is unlikely to have been engineered by the current administration. His rationale being as follows (summarized from book)
Chomsky also talks about how there is a whole industry centered around trying to find out who assassinated JFK (Chomsky is equally dismissive of claims of a conspiracy theory in JFKs assassination saying its a complete waste of time). He then makes a reference to a document from the Department of Defense which talks about the administration releasing certain pieces of information merely as distraction ...to satisfy the public's "appetite". The document can be found here.
Some the interesting excerpts from this document are:
--"The use of the Internet could reduce the unrestrained public appetite for "secrets" by providing good faith distraction material"
--"Diversion: List of interesting declassified material - i.e. Kennedy assassination data."
Gilbert Achcar then challenges Chomsky saying that even if the US administration didn't engineer 9-11, they did indeed sit back and let it happen and that sitting back and doing nothing didn't really need any planning. But Chomsky sticks to his guns with a simple argument i.e. the results of sitting back and doing nothing by the administration are so unpredictable, that waiting for a 9-11 to happen that somehow by luck benefits them could not have been the administrations main intention. He also goes on to say that fighting terrorism is just a matter of priorities for the US government but it is not very high on that priority list, otherwise they would not be creating conditions and enforcing policies throughout the globe that make such an event more likely.
I find Chomsky's argument to be fairly cogent and I'm inclined to disregard 9-11 conspiracy theories. I also read this article by Diana Johnstone a month ago which has a roughly similar argument as Chomsky although Johnstone does mention that the JFK assassination conspiracy theory does seem more plausible than 9-11. Johnstone also talks about Achcar's argument i.e. the Administration let 9-11 happen by doing nothing, and suggests that angle is worth investigating
If you're still a conspiracy junkie regarding 9-11 and have loads of extra time, then I believe the book to read is Crossing The Rubicon (I haven't read the book, so I won't comment on it). If you do read it, then try to critique it from the perspective presented by Chomsky and Johnstone.
Chomsky is fairly critical of conspiracy theories in general and presents an argument on why 9-11 is unlikely to have been engineered by the current administration. His rationale being as follows (summarized from book)
- If the question is who benefits from 9-11, then the answer in not just the US administration. Chomsky says that all "Power Systems" in the world have benefited from the event. For example, China, India, Israel, Russia etc. have all used the 9-11 pretext to increase local repression by an order of magnitude. So it cannot be said that 9-11 benefited the US exclusively in terms of the policies it is now able to implement which it could not have done before 9-11
- You cannot become a civil engineer by just reading stuff on the internet. Everyone seems to claim to be an expert on how the towers collapsed.
- The administration could not have possibly risked planning an event of such magnitude especially when the results of such a plan are for all practical purposes completely unpredictable (for example, one of the planes could've crashed into the White House for all you know). Planning such a complicated operation would have to involve hundreds of people and any leaks would have resulted in the end of the Republican party forever.
- To prove anything, scientists always perform controlled experiments. Because, if they don't, then there are always too many coincidences, unexplained results that interfere with the experiment. In other words, you can prove anything if the experiment is not controlled. Chomsky goes on to make his point namely that with all the theories floating around, it is possible to prove that the White House was destroyed yesterday.
- The administrators are not capable of planning anything. A look at declassified documents reveals the intense stupidity of planners. Therefore, the planners could not have planned an event such as 9-11 especially when the results of such a plan are completely unpredictable anyway.
- 9-11 conspiracy theories survive because the administration actually wants you to believe them. It is considered by them as a welcome distraction. Not many officials are seriously critical of 9-11 conspiracy theories because they want the theories to flourish and occupy peoples minds. On the other hand, if people start talking about real issues such as the US invading the Middle East for oil etc., then they are immediately vilified.
Chomsky also talks about how there is a whole industry centered around trying to find out who assassinated JFK (Chomsky is equally dismissive of claims of a conspiracy theory in JFKs assassination saying its a complete waste of time). He then makes a reference to a document from the Department of Defense which talks about the administration releasing certain pieces of information merely as distraction ...to satisfy the public's "appetite". The document can be found here.
Some the interesting excerpts from this document are:
--"The use of the Internet could reduce the unrestrained public appetite for "secrets" by providing good faith distraction material"
--"Diversion: List of interesting declassified material - i.e. Kennedy assassination data."
Gilbert Achcar then challenges Chomsky saying that even if the US administration didn't engineer 9-11, they did indeed sit back and let it happen and that sitting back and doing nothing didn't really need any planning. But Chomsky sticks to his guns with a simple argument i.e. the results of sitting back and doing nothing by the administration are so unpredictable, that waiting for a 9-11 to happen that somehow by luck benefits them could not have been the administrations main intention. He also goes on to say that fighting terrorism is just a matter of priorities for the US government but it is not very high on that priority list, otherwise they would not be creating conditions and enforcing policies throughout the globe that make such an event more likely.
I find Chomsky's argument to be fairly cogent and I'm inclined to disregard 9-11 conspiracy theories. I also read this article by Diana Johnstone a month ago which has a roughly similar argument as Chomsky although Johnstone does mention that the JFK assassination conspiracy theory does seem more plausible than 9-11. Johnstone also talks about Achcar's argument i.e. the Administration let 9-11 happen by doing nothing, and suggests that angle is worth investigating
If you're still a conspiracy junkie regarding 9-11 and have loads of extra time, then I believe the book to read is Crossing The Rubicon (I haven't read the book, so I won't comment on it). If you do read it, then try to critique it from the perspective presented by Chomsky and Johnstone.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Nonetheless
Michael Slackman wrote in The New York Times recently about the cluster bombs that were dropped by Israel on Southern Lebanon in the last days of the conflict and how the area is now littered with 1 million unexploded bomblets.
I found some of Slackman's wording a bit interesting, for example in the snippet below:
"Cluster bombs are legal if aimed at military targets and very effective, military experts say. Nonetheless, Israel has been heavily criticized, by UN officials, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.".
So unless my English sucks, I believe nonetheless means "in spite of that". So what is being subtly implied is that the effectiveness of the weapons & choice of victims justifies the grotesque end result. And we're supposed to take Israel at it's word that it targeted only military personnel.
Slackman also frames his words very very carefully making sure that full blame for starting the conflict rests fully with anyone except Israel.
"a conflict that began when Hezbollah lobbed rockets into northern Israel and sent fighters across the border to capture Israeli soldiers"
This is a very myopic view of the entire situation ignoring past history of the conflict. No mention is made of events prior to the conflict. So we're supposed to believe that Israel has never abducted anyone, never repressed anyone, never committed any atrocities, never tried to annex land, never abducted any civilians (mind you, civilians not soldiers were abducted by Israel on June 24th before the conflict supposedly was started by the Hezbollah). And I guess we're also supposed to forget that Israel never invaded Lebanon in 1982.
Now back to those cluster bombs:
Cluster bombs are deadly for 3 main reasons (even if supposedly targeted against military personnel):
It is no secret that a lot of weapons used by Israel (including cluster bombs) have been supplied by the United States. Now at least, the US State Department has certain agreements with Israel on how its weapons can be used (small consolation). In response to the use of cluster bombs, the State Department has unofficially launched an inquiry into whether the bombs where used exclusively against military targets.
According to this article, "The investigation has not been publicly announced; but the State Department confirmed it in response to questions."
Also, the fact that the weapons are supplied by the United States poses very fundamental question. Weapons used by client states of America (such as Israel) are heavily subsidized by US tax-payer money. So, you, innocent reader, are fully complicit in any war by the Unites States or any of its client states.
Textron, Inc. is one of the defense contractors that manufactures cluster bombs.
Look here for the specification of a cluster bomb which has the following snippet ... "A Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) Program will take the existing design and make modifications to the projectile sensor, incorporating a dual mode (active/passive IR) for better target detection; modify the warhead to enhance soft target lethality; and increase the system footprint for better target coverage"
Cluster bombs are just another example of humanity at it's finest.
Latest Update:
According to UN estimates, "Up to a million cluster bomblets discharged by Israel in its conflict with Hezbollah remain unexploded in southern Lebanon. About 40% of the cluster bombs fired or dropped by Israel failed to detonate - three times the UN's previous estimate. The problem could delay the return home of about 200,000 displaced people by up to two years." Talk about collective punishment!
To compound matters, Israel also admits to using phosphorus bombs during the conflict.
References:
1) The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex, Revised and Updated Edition (Paperback)
by Helen Caldicott
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bombs
3) Israel captures pair in Gaza raid
I found some of Slackman's wording a bit interesting, for example in the snippet below:
"Cluster bombs are legal if aimed at military targets and very effective, military experts say. Nonetheless, Israel has been heavily criticized, by UN officials, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.".
So unless my English sucks, I believe nonetheless means "in spite of that". So what is being subtly implied is that the effectiveness of the weapons & choice of victims justifies the grotesque end result. And we're supposed to take Israel at it's word that it targeted only military personnel.
Slackman also frames his words very very carefully making sure that full blame for starting the conflict rests fully with anyone except Israel.
"a conflict that began when Hezbollah lobbed rockets into northern Israel and sent fighters across the border to capture Israeli soldiers"
This is a very myopic view of the entire situation ignoring past history of the conflict. No mention is made of events prior to the conflict. So we're supposed to believe that Israel has never abducted anyone, never repressed anyone, never committed any atrocities, never tried to annex land, never abducted any civilians (mind you, civilians not soldiers were abducted by Israel on June 24th before the conflict supposedly was started by the Hezbollah). And I guess we're also supposed to forget that Israel never invaded Lebanon in 1982.
Now back to those cluster bombs:
Cluster bombs are deadly for 3 main reasons (even if supposedly targeted against military personnel):
- Each bomb is composed of hundreds of bomblets that are packed with razor-sharp shrapnel dispersed at super-high speed over an area of 22 football fields (called footprint) ripping into human bodies
- Bomblets are colored yellow and shaped like a can of soft drink and therefore attractive to children.
- "Unexploded Ordinance" which is what is being referred to in this post. Typically, 5 to 30% fail to explode initially.
It is no secret that a lot of weapons used by Israel (including cluster bombs) have been supplied by the United States. Now at least, the US State Department has certain agreements with Israel on how its weapons can be used (small consolation). In response to the use of cluster bombs, the State Department has unofficially launched an inquiry into whether the bombs where used exclusively against military targets.
According to this article, "The investigation has not been publicly announced; but the State Department confirmed it in response to questions."
Also, the fact that the weapons are supplied by the United States poses very fundamental question. Weapons used by client states of America (such as Israel) are heavily subsidized by US tax-payer money. So, you, innocent reader, are fully complicit in any war by the Unites States or any of its client states.
Textron, Inc. is one of the defense contractors that manufactures cluster bombs.
Look here for the specification of a cluster bomb which has the following snippet ... "A Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) Program will take the existing design and make modifications to the projectile sensor, incorporating a dual mode (active/passive IR) for better target detection; modify the warhead to enhance soft target lethality; and increase the system footprint for better target coverage"
Cluster bombs are just another example of humanity at it's finest.
Latest Update:
According to UN estimates, "Up to a million cluster bomblets discharged by Israel in its conflict with Hezbollah remain unexploded in southern Lebanon. About 40% of the cluster bombs fired or dropped by Israel failed to detonate - three times the UN's previous estimate. The problem could delay the return home of about 200,000 displaced people by up to two years." Talk about collective punishment!
To compound matters, Israel also admits to using phosphorus bombs during the conflict.
References:
1) The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex, Revised and Updated Edition (Paperback)
by Helen Caldicott
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bombs
3) Israel captures pair in Gaza raid
Friday, October 20, 2006
Who is Spider ?
Spider Jerusalem is a fictional character in the comic book Transmetropolitan, created by writer Warren Ellis and artist Darick Robertson, published by the Vertigo imprint of DC Comics
Spider is a journalist who has taken refuge in the mountains, but is forced to return to "The City" after he bullied by his editor (affectionately called Whorehopper). Spider hates The City" with a vengeance, but he can only write when he's amidst the filth of the City. Spider aims to present the truth in an entertaining and blunt manner. His rantings often involve the use of drugs and alcohol. Spider deals with topics such as politics, technology and consumerism. Spider probably takes inspiration from real life journalist Hunter S. Thomson (see Gonzo Journalism). "The City" is unnamed (probably New York, San Francisco or any other major urban sprawl) and is the center of Transmetropolitan's edgy and disturbing universe.
Spider is heavily tattooed, walks around his filthy apartment naked, lives with a two-headed cat and his filthy assistants, dispenses choice quotes, uses a bowel disruptor as weapon of choice and despises almost everyone.
Here is my favorite Spider quote:
"When I talk about the doomed, the scum, the people who no longer give a shit, the people who look away from the pain in the streets, the people who don't care who runs the country....
....when I talk about the filth of the city....
...I'm talking about you"
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Utility Fog
I first read about foglets in Transmetropolitan, an edgy science fiction comic book series written by written by Warren Ellis. Foglets are tiny (human cell sized) robots with substantial computing power with 12 extending arms theorized by Dr. John Storrs Hall (regarded as one of the most significant thinkers in the field of molecular nanotechnology) . Hall then describes a Utility Fog as a space filled with billions of foglets linked together to share information and energy forming a continuous network. But it doesn't stop there. A Utility fog can reconfigure itself into widely varying shapes and can even make itself invisible. The foglets link their "arms" together to form the shape of pretty much anything. The foglets would be able to exert any force and communicate with each other to create any desired visual and auditory environment.The original application was as a replacement for seat belts (in the event of a collision, it would appear that the air around the body would appear to have frozen solid). But, the number of other applications are limitless. Hall envisions a scenario of copying one's mind from the natural substrate of the brain into the Utility Fog (called "uploading"). In this way, whole communities could be uploaded into the Fog.A Utility Fog has all the flexibility of a virtual environment, but it actually exists in the physical world.
When ? According to this article @ Speculist, Utility Fog is not the next big thing. It's more like the big thing that comes after four or five other big things.
References:
Utility Fog: The Stuff that Dreams Are Made Of
By J. Storrs Hall
What I want to be when I grow up, is a cloud
By J. Storrs Hall
The Age of Spiritual Machines
by Ray Kurzweil
The Transformers are coming
Utility Blog
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
What is a "responsible" nation ?
Apparently, any nation that has ALREADY developed nuclear weapons (NWS -- Nuclear Weapons State) can arbitrarily declare itself as "responsible". The countries that have currently developed nuclear weapons (in chronological order) are United States (1945), Russia (1949), UK (1952), France (1960), China (1964), India (1974), Pakistan (1998), North Korea (2006). Presumably, each of these states started off as "rogue" nations but as soon as they developed nuclear weapons, they magically transformed themselves into "responsible" nations. The fact is, nations with nuclear weapons have double-standards. They can have their weapons but no one else can. And if anyone tries to develop their own, they are immediately classified as "rogue" nations. An example of the hypocrisy is the case of India and Pakistan who were censured for causing nuclear instability in the region, but are now criticizing North Korea for doing the same. India, Pakistan, United States and all the other NWSs are not inherently more or less responsible than North Korea.
The reason most nations are currently developing nuclear weapons is because that is the only way they can avoid being intimidated (or even attacked outright) by the NWSs. It is extremely unlikely that the United States will attack any country that has nuclear weapons. This has been proven over and over by the US when it attacks defenseless countries.
NWSs are "responsible" for proliferation of nuclear weapons all over the globe and for creating severe instability. And how can a nation that has actually used nuclear weapons (the pioneer) claim to be "responsible" ?
Check out the timeline of the Doomsday Clock to get any idea of the severity of the problem. Unless, the proliferation stops soon, its time to start singing "Two Minutes To Midnight"
The reason most nations are currently developing nuclear weapons is because that is the only way they can avoid being intimidated (or even attacked outright) by the NWSs. It is extremely unlikely that the United States will attack any country that has nuclear weapons. This has been proven over and over by the US when it attacks defenseless countries.
NWSs are "responsible" for proliferation of nuclear weapons all over the globe and for creating severe instability. And how can a nation that has actually used nuclear weapons (the pioneer) claim to be "responsible" ?
Check out the timeline of the Doomsday Clock to get any idea of the severity of the problem. Unless, the proliferation stops soon, its time to start singing "Two Minutes To Midnight"
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Got Moloko ?
I recently re-watched Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' (based on the novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess), the first viewing being around 8 years ago. Apparently, I wasn't curious enough to research it the first time round, but the curious slang used by Alex and his 'droogs' is actually called 'Nadsat', a slang dialect of English (with Russian influence) invented by Anthony Burgess himself. Nadsat is basically English, with some transliterated words from Russian. Not surprisingly, the word Nadsat is itself in Nadsat, it is a transliteration of the Russian suffix for 'teen' indicating that such a language would probably be invented by small groups of teenagers who then talk 'Nadsat' amongst themselves. What is interesting to me personally is that as a teenager, my 'droogs' and I had unknowingly created our own fairly decent Nadsat (my droogs happened to be very creative, undocumented language though) which is basically English, but would probably make little sense to an outsider (we happened to call it 'Gate Lingo' .. ok doesn't sound as cool as Nadsat). And as I spell check this post, I realize that the ignorant spell checker is blissfully unaware of Nadsat :-)
Some of my fave Nadsat words
devotchka meaning young woman, russian: devochka
horrorshow meaning good, russian: khorosho
gulliver meaning head, russian: golova
What is Nadsat ?
Full Nadsat Lexicon
Some of my fave Nadsat words
devotchka meaning young woman, russian: devochka
horrorshow meaning good, russian: khorosho
gulliver meaning head, russian: golova
What is Nadsat ?
Full Nadsat Lexicon
Monday, October 16, 2006
Will the real thugs please stand up ?
Recently, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president made some comments at the UN General Assembly referring to George Bush as a racist, imperialist "devil" who has devoted six years in office to military aggression and the oppression of the world's poorest people. Bush administration officials dismissed Chavez's remarks as the ravings of a reckless political leader. Here is the article
"I'm not going to dignify a comment by the Venezuelan president towards the United States," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "I think it's not becoming for a head of state."
"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.
To determine who the real thugs (and reckless political leaders) are, consider the following acts on both sides and make your own judgment.
Nancy Pelosi & Unites states policy
Here are the positions of Nancy Pelosi which are more interesting because she is known as a "liberal".
Hugo Chavez & Venezuela policy
"I'm not going to dignify a comment by the Venezuelan president towards the United States," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "I think it's not becoming for a head of state."
"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.
To determine who the real thugs (and reckless political leaders) are, consider the following acts on both sides and make your own judgment.
Nancy Pelosi & Unites states policy
Here are the positions of Nancy Pelosi which are more interesting because she is known as a "liberal".
- Supported a Republican-sponsored resolution calling for increasing military aid to Israel (supporting Tom Delay, a confirmed thug)
- Signed a letter that says that there should be no pressure on Israel to conform to International Law
- Spoke to American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a right-wing lobbying group with close ties to the Sharon government (praising the Israeli government and condemning the Palestinians)
- In the past, she has opposed all congressional efforts to set any date for the withdraw of troops from Iraq, and has repeatedly supported full funding for the continuing occupation. She voted against a modest proposal offered by Congresswoman Woolsey that would eventually remove the U.S. military from Iraq. Only after public pressure did Pelosi finally endorse Murtha's withdrawal resolution (Murtha's resolution has it's own set of problems though).
- Pelosi Defends Assassination as a Political Tool
- Pelosi is a major player in a completely spineless, clueless Democratic party.
- Is Pelosi democratically elected ? In the context of the finance driven, corrupt, 2 party election system in the Unites States, the answer is a resounding no! This applies to most other "elected" leaders.
Hugo Chavez & Venezuela policy
- Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected head of state (a real democratic election in this case).
- Chavez uses multi-billion-dollar oil revenues to fund social projects that help the poor. These programs include literacy, health care, job training, land reform, subsidized food, small loans etc.
- Chavez subsidizes cheaper oil for his cash-strapped Latin neighbors.
- In 1998, Chavez stood on a platform of sharing the nation's oil wealth with the poorest
- According to government figures, unemployment has dropped by 7% since the start of Chávez's presidency
- During the winter of 2005, various officials in the Northeastern United States signed an agreement with Venezuela to provide discounted heating oil to low income families.
- Chávez worked closely with other Latin American leaders following the 1997 Summit of the Americas in many areas—especially energy integration—and championed a decision to adopt the Anti-Corruption Convention
- Chavez is pushing full speed ahead with land reform
- Chavez signed an agreement to build a two-way gas pipeline to provide discounted natural gas to Colombia, and created unique barter arrangements that exchange Venezuelan petroleum for cash-strapped Argentina's meat and dairy products
Now I'm sure it's not all rosy in Venezuela and Chavez has his fair set of criticisms such as corruption and crime, but Chavez's social democratic approach is certainly changing the face of Latin America in a very positive way. And Nancy Pelosi is not all spineless either in that she has finally taken an anti-war stand and has urged the White House to stop using Social Security Administration as Propaganda Tool
However, anti-Chavez sentiment is so rabid that several American public figures have even gone so far as to call for the assassination of Chávez, most notably US Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson.
So will the real thugs please stand up ?
However, anti-Chavez sentiment is so rabid that several American public figures have even gone so far as to call for the assassination of Chávez, most notably US Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson.
So will the real thugs please stand up ?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
In India, Coke and Pepsi put profit over people lives.
Background: There have been 2 studies in India (2003 and 2006) regarding the pesticide content in Coke and Pepsi. Both these studies are consistent and the gist of the report is reproduced below:
The 2006 CSE ( Centre for Science and Environment) study tests 57 samples of 11 soft drink brands, from 25 different manufacturing plants of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, spread over 12 states. The study finds pesticide residues in all samples; it finds a cocktail of 3-5 different pesticides in all samples — on an average 24 times higher than BIS norms, which have been finalised but not yet notified. The levels in some samples — for instance, Coca-Cola bought in Kolkata — exceeded the BIS standards by 140 times for the deadly pesticide Lindane. Similarly, a Coca-Cola sample manufactured in Thane contained the neurotoxin Chlorpyrifos, 200 times the standard. "This is clearly unacceptable as we know that pesticides are tiny toxins and impact our bodies over time," says Sunita Narain, director, CSE.
In response, several public protests were held in India after the study's release. Cola sales are being restricted.
So simple issue, right ? The high levels of pesticide found in the drinks are a direct threat to the health of the local population. So makes sense for the local governments to severely restrict sales of the drink and care for it's population, right ?
Dead wrong (pun intended). Instead here is what we get:
Here's what Undersecretary for International Trade Franklin Lavin has to say. "This kind of action is a setback for the Indian economy. In a time when India is working hard to attract and retain foreign investment, it would be unfortunate if the discussion were dominated by those who did not want to treat foreign companies fairly."
In simple language, Lavin is saying "I don't care if your citizens die if it cuts into profits". According to Lavin, it doesn't matter that the Indian govt. is actually listening to demands of the public (something that rarely happens in the US, I must admit). Lavin believes only in his version of "democracy", namely unrestrained corporate power at any cost, peoples lives be damned. Apparently, its OK to murder people as long as foreign companies are treated "fairly".
Kiran Pasricha, the US head of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) says "I see it as local politics in the Indian context. Investors have to see the bigger picture. We hope that better sense will prevail". So, people's justifiable reaction to high pesticide content is "local politics". Am I dreaming here ?
And what does Coke say ?
Coca-Cola India has questioned the reliability of the studies. "The CSE is not an accredited laboratory," said Asim Parekh, vice president (technical). Wrong !
From the CSE site, here is the truth:
The current study was conducted by the same Pollution Monitoring Laboratory of CSE, which had tested samples in 2003. It will be recalled that the two soft drink companies had raised numerous issues regarding the veracity of the CSE study and the capabilities of its laboratory staff, which were scrutinised and debunked by JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) in its report. The JPC endorsed the methodology and the findings of the 2003 CSE study. This time, further improvements have been made. Firstly, the laboratory is now accredited with ISO 9001:2000 quality management system. Secondly, the laboratory has confirmed the presence of the pesticides using an expensive and state of art equipment — the GC-MS. "We have fully complied with the JPC directions and are even more confident about our findings," says Chandra Bhushan, associate director at CSE.
Another argument presented by Pepsi-Cola
Pesticide levels in Indian tea and milk are far higher than those in their products.
This is a meaningless comparison because Pepsi has consistently failed to disclose any test results to prove the safety of its own products. So we're supposed to believe their comparisons ? Moreover, what exactly does Pepsi mean by its statement ? Essentially, Pepsi is saying "You're filthy, so you deserve filthy products". That sounds pretty wrong to me. The core issue in my opinion should be that regulation is required in this matter and colas are just one aspect of the issue. The CSE does not selectively target colas only. The issue is one of rampant corruption at all levels. Moreover, the CSE has indicated that Pepsi's comparisons are based on selective data. Here is the CSE position on Pepsi's claims.
Pepsi's star PIMP Shahrukh Khan, was today quoted in the media saying, "We are a filthy country." Lets be clear ... Shahrukh Khan is the filthiest corporate shill there is !
Anyone who isn't furious at the despicable need of corporations to put profit over people's lives isn't human.
The 2006 CSE ( Centre for Science and Environment) study tests 57 samples of 11 soft drink brands, from 25 different manufacturing plants of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, spread over 12 states. The study finds pesticide residues in all samples; it finds a cocktail of 3-5 different pesticides in all samples — on an average 24 times higher than BIS norms, which have been finalised but not yet notified. The levels in some samples — for instance, Coca-Cola bought in Kolkata — exceeded the BIS standards by 140 times for the deadly pesticide Lindane. Similarly, a Coca-Cola sample manufactured in Thane contained the neurotoxin Chlorpyrifos, 200 times the standard. "This is clearly unacceptable as we know that pesticides are tiny toxins and impact our bodies over time," says Sunita Narain, director, CSE.
In response, several public protests were held in India after the study's release. Cola sales are being restricted.
So simple issue, right ? The high levels of pesticide found in the drinks are a direct threat to the health of the local population. So makes sense for the local governments to severely restrict sales of the drink and care for it's population, right ?
Dead wrong (pun intended). Instead here is what we get:
Here's what Undersecretary for International Trade Franklin Lavin has to say. "This kind of action is a setback for the Indian economy. In a time when India is working hard to attract and retain foreign investment, it would be unfortunate if the discussion were dominated by those who did not want to treat foreign companies fairly."
In simple language, Lavin is saying "I don't care if your citizens die if it cuts into profits". According to Lavin, it doesn't matter that the Indian govt. is actually listening to demands of the public (something that rarely happens in the US, I must admit). Lavin believes only in his version of "democracy", namely unrestrained corporate power at any cost, peoples lives be damned. Apparently, its OK to murder people as long as foreign companies are treated "fairly".
Kiran Pasricha, the US head of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) says "I see it as local politics in the Indian context. Investors have to see the bigger picture. We hope that better sense will prevail". So, people's justifiable reaction to high pesticide content is "local politics". Am I dreaming here ?
And what does Coke say ?
Coca-Cola India has questioned the reliability of the studies. "The CSE is not an accredited laboratory," said Asim Parekh, vice president (technical). Wrong !
From the CSE site, here is the truth:
The current study was conducted by the same Pollution Monitoring Laboratory of CSE, which had tested samples in 2003. It will be recalled that the two soft drink companies had raised numerous issues regarding the veracity of the CSE study and the capabilities of its laboratory staff, which were scrutinised and debunked by JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) in its report. The JPC endorsed the methodology and the findings of the 2003 CSE study. This time, further improvements have been made. Firstly, the laboratory is now accredited with ISO 9001:2000 quality management system. Secondly, the laboratory has confirmed the presence of the pesticides using an expensive and state of art equipment — the GC-MS. "We have fully complied with the JPC directions and are even more confident about our findings," says Chandra Bhushan, associate director at CSE.
Another argument presented by Pepsi-Cola
Pesticide levels in Indian tea and milk are far higher than those in their products.
This is a meaningless comparison because Pepsi has consistently failed to disclose any test results to prove the safety of its own products. So we're supposed to believe their comparisons ? Moreover, what exactly does Pepsi mean by its statement ? Essentially, Pepsi is saying "You're filthy, so you deserve filthy products". That sounds pretty wrong to me. The core issue in my opinion should be that regulation is required in this matter and colas are just one aspect of the issue. The CSE does not selectively target colas only. The issue is one of rampant corruption at all levels. Moreover, the CSE has indicated that Pepsi's comparisons are based on selective data. Here is the CSE position on Pepsi's claims.
Pepsi's star PIMP Shahrukh Khan, was today quoted in the media saying, "We are a filthy country." Lets be clear ... Shahrukh Khan is the filthiest corporate shill there is !
Anyone who isn't furious at the despicable need of corporations to put profit over people's lives isn't human.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Top 10 reasons to stop watching cricket (or spectator sports)
When you watch cricket, you are a passive observer. The main goal of a cricket telecast is advertisement, not sport. The advertisements are more sophisticated and effective than the Indian cricket team will ever be. Do you really wish to be subjected to movie stars pimping for giant multinationals ?
- It's a spectator sport. Spending inordinate amounts of time watching cricket keeps you from doing things that really matter (for yourself or for others)
- Cricket builds up irrational attitudes of submission to authority and group cohesion.
- All people have an innate need to use their intelligence. Fans have an astounding knowledge of all aspects of cricket. They talk about cricket with extreme confidence. This intelligence is better used elsewhere. The reason people spend extravagant amounts of time watching cricket is because of limited opportunities to participate in other arenas more relevant to their life (such as politics, civic planning, social issues etc.). At a local level ... Try to stop that giant mall that's opening up right in front of your house. You'll immediately feel the iron fist of the government and corporations right in your face. At a global level ...What if you voice your opinions on the "South Asian peace pipeline" for example ? Would you opinion matter ? But any cricket discussion always generates the liveliest of discussions which unfortunately doesn't matter in any real sense. Speak up against cricket and you'll possibly be flamed to death.
- You have no say in the team selection process. In fact, even the coach may not have a say in the selection process. What does that say about possible corruption at high levels in the cricketing organization ? How do regional selection quotas make any sense ? And don't even get started with hangers-on in the team who are well past their prime and just going for records.
- At some point, you have to ask the following questions of yourself.: Do I know anyone on the team personally ? Do they care about me ? Then why should I ? Does the country care about me ? How does this make my life better ? How does this make anyone else's life better ? What can I do instead of spending days watching this stuff ?
- Cricket builds up irrational jingoistic attitudes. This can be clearly seen in any India-Pakistan match. A defeat in such a game is somehow seen as a personal defeat, a blow to your manhood
- True, cricket is a rallying point. But for a negative cause. The cause in this case being completely irrelevant to you life or to your community. Moreover, it is more likely that people watch cricket at home in isolation. Cricket is a rallying point for war. Dwight Eisenhower famously said, "The true mission of American sports is to prepare young men for war."
- Cricket is one of several indoctrination techniques. Implicit in cricket is the suggestion that you must hate Pakistan on and off the field. Cricket makes people increasingly unaware of the corrupt nature of it's own government.
- Match Fixing ? This was the final nail in the coffin for me personally. I don't know if it still exists, but the scandal is a perfect example of the player's and the system's priorities.Note that these arguments apply equally to any spectator sport, so my points aren't directed solely at cricket as if I had a personal vendetta. Cricket just happens to be a familiar sport to me and I'm aware of India's attitudes towards cricket. Neither do I care too much about specific players. The probability of them being corrupt within a corrupt system is very high.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
For the Last Time ...
Repeat after me one thousand times ... "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991". Hmmm .. I guess this isn't working. According to this half of Americans still believe that Iraq had WMD in 2003.
Santorum & Hoekstra recently cynically released an "intelligence" report (one thing for sure we can't credit these 2 hucksters with is intelligence) saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. But as per the article ... "But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such "orphan" munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise."
In other works, the "intelligence" report is a blatant effort at manipulating the compliant populace in spite of incredibly detailed official investigations (Duelfer report, for example) saying otherwise.
Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector released a huge report detailing the negative findings. The report states that Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. Here is a link to the Duelfer report
The Duelfer report was the product of $900-million-plus investigation (that's right) which essentially proved what the UN inspectors had already proven a few years earlier.
Repeat after me ..."Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991". The reasons for invading Iraq have been pure lies since Day 0.
Santorum & Hoekstra recently cynically released an "intelligence" report (one thing for sure we can't credit these 2 hucksters with is intelligence) saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. But as per the article ... "But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such "orphan" munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise."
In other works, the "intelligence" report is a blatant effort at manipulating the compliant populace in spite of incredibly detailed official investigations (Duelfer report, for example) saying otherwise.
Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector released a huge report detailing the negative findings. The report states that Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. Here is a link to the Duelfer report
The Duelfer report was the product of $900-million-plus investigation (that's right) which essentially proved what the UN inspectors had already proven a few years earlier.
Repeat after me ..."Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991". The reasons for invading Iraq have been pure lies since Day 0.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Times as a beacon of democracy and freedom ? Think again
The New York Times prosecution story is misleading to say the least. It makes the NYT appear to be this courageous reporting machine that constantly keeps the public informed and the government in check no matter what. This is an incorrect notion. The NYT for most part supports government policies. Any differences between the government line and the NYT on significant issues is purely at a superficial level (hardly the traits of a courageous crusader). The NYT rarely reflects what is truly going on.
If you think the current NYT story is so important, consider this: would exposing the program really limit its usefulness ? No, because in the words of Bill Keller himself, the executive editor of The Times, "It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods". So why is this story suddenly so earth-shaking ? Bill Keller himself says that the "expose" will most likely have no effect on the program and that the program is most likely already legal. Bill Keller also says that "It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case". So apparently the story is merely exposing something that is most likely already legal and that exposing it will have no effect on the program. I suspect the key reason for exposing this is to make the NYT look good in the eyes of the public, but in the long run is inconsequential.
Why then would the government bother to prosecute the NYT when the NYT is already so compliant ? I suspect that by threatening prosecution (on a non-issue), the government is trying to set a precedent. If we can prosecute the NYT, imagine what we can do to you independent press. If any of you teeny-weeny truth telling journalists ever try to say something against us, we'll crush you. The idea is create an atmosphere of intimidation whereby reporting with real integrity (unlike the NYT) suffers.
The NYT (or all major media) is based on the following model: It sells its audiences to its advertisers (i.e. businesses). Why would the NYT ever be anti-business ? The businesses would immediately withdraw all advertising and revenues would drop. The NYT DOES NOT make money from its subscriptions. It makes money off its advertisers.
Below are some examples on how the NYT isn't exactly the shining beacon of independent and unbiased reporting. These examples are but the tip of the iceberg. You can also refer to some well researched material on this topic (propaganda model) in the book by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky.
Pro-War propaganda
We all know about Judith Miller who was an integral part of the NYT in helping spread baseless propaganda (from unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" ). I repeat, Miller used questionable intelligence to further the administrations pro-war position. Does this sound like the kind of reporting with fierce journalistic integrity ? Remember, the Iraq was is one of the most important issues right now and the NYT wasn't exactly interested in the facts in in pre-war reporting.
NSA spying
The NYT sat on the NSA spying story for almost a year
US complicity in the 1965-1966 Indonesian massacre
The New York Times, ignored the story for nearly two months, then produced (7/12/90) what can only be described as an attack on credibility of the reporter who broke the story.
East Timor Massacre
As Indonesian killing in East Timor reached a peak in 1977 and 1978, New York Times coverage of that area fell to zero
UN Spying Scandal
In March, 2003 it was revealed that the NSA had been spying on the UN Security Council including even the phone conversions of Kofi Annan himself. The spying was committed by the US, the UK and Australia, to get intelligence ensure UN support for the upcoming 2003 war. the NYT took its own time to report this. Apparently, spying on UN offficials is not newsworthy.
For more research on accuracy in media reporting, check the FAIR website. FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986
FAIR's section on the NYT
If you think the current NYT story is so important, consider this: would exposing the program really limit its usefulness ? No, because in the words of Bill Keller himself, the executive editor of The Times, "It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods". So why is this story suddenly so earth-shaking ? Bill Keller himself says that the "expose" will most likely have no effect on the program and that the program is most likely already legal. Bill Keller also says that "It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case". So apparently the story is merely exposing something that is most likely already legal and that exposing it will have no effect on the program. I suspect the key reason for exposing this is to make the NYT look good in the eyes of the public, but in the long run is inconsequential.
Why then would the government bother to prosecute the NYT when the NYT is already so compliant ? I suspect that by threatening prosecution (on a non-issue), the government is trying to set a precedent. If we can prosecute the NYT, imagine what we can do to you independent press. If any of you teeny-weeny truth telling journalists ever try to say something against us, we'll crush you. The idea is create an atmosphere of intimidation whereby reporting with real integrity (unlike the NYT) suffers.
The NYT (or all major media) is based on the following model: It sells its audiences to its advertisers (i.e. businesses). Why would the NYT ever be anti-business ? The businesses would immediately withdraw all advertising and revenues would drop. The NYT DOES NOT make money from its subscriptions. It makes money off its advertisers.
Below are some examples on how the NYT isn't exactly the shining beacon of independent and unbiased reporting. These examples are but the tip of the iceberg. You can also refer to some well researched material on this topic (propaganda model) in the book by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky.
Pro-War propaganda
We all know about Judith Miller who was an integral part of the NYT in helping spread baseless propaganda (from unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" ). I repeat, Miller used questionable intelligence to further the administrations pro-war position. Does this sound like the kind of reporting with fierce journalistic integrity ? Remember, the Iraq was is one of the most important issues right now and the NYT wasn't exactly interested in the facts in in pre-war reporting.
NSA spying
The NYT sat on the NSA spying story for almost a year
US complicity in the 1965-1966 Indonesian massacre
The New York Times, ignored the story for nearly two months, then produced (7/12/90) what can only be described as an attack on credibility of the reporter who broke the story.
East Timor Massacre
As Indonesian killing in East Timor reached a peak in 1977 and 1978, New York Times coverage of that area fell to zero
UN Spying Scandal
In March, 2003 it was revealed that the NSA had been spying on the UN Security Council including even the phone conversions of Kofi Annan himself. The spying was committed by the US, the UK and Australia, to get intelligence ensure UN support for the upcoming 2003 war. the NYT took its own time to report this. Apparently, spying on UN offficials is not newsworthy.
For more research on accuracy in media reporting, check the FAIR website. FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986
FAIR's section on the NYT
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Rang De Basanti Movie Review (warning ... spoilers)
I approached this movie somewhat tentatively considering all the hype surrounding it. I usually shy away from mindless movies that obsess over "desh-bhakti" (translated -- Mindless devotion). But to my pleasant surprise, Rang De Basanti was none of that. In fact, it wasn't even a movie about patriotism (whose meaning has been appropriated by governments and politicians. I hate the word 'globalization' for exactly the same reason because of its twisted and warped usage by corporations). The movie is based on a very simple idea. Only social participation at all levels on a mass scale can make a difference (simply voting doesn't imply participation, you have to be involved in formulating policy). This is how Gandhi succeeded ... he brought political participation to the rural masses. Delegating all responsibility to political charlatans is shying away from your fundamental responsibilities. No amount of complaining from the sidelines will make a blind bit of difference. India is currently hardly a democracy in the real sense of the word (in fact, it never was). The country has always been dominated by the ruling elites who control policy making at every level. It doesn't matter which party is in power. Voting is a fruitless exercise which always puts one of the 2 major parties in power (remarkably similar to the United States, might I add). India is nothing but a gangster state overrun by insane politicians, with underworld connections and ruthless corporations.
The movie perfectly reflects prevailing attitudes about the state of the country. Everyone feels isolated and helpless because the system has drained away any sense of participation.
The movie bears a striking resemblance in spirit to the Tamil movie, Ayutha Ezhuthu -- another movie whose core message is essentially the same and ends on an equally positive note.
Another important point touched upon in the movie is how the elites have always had it good (even under British rule). They've have always been in control (British or Indian doesn't really matter). They are the architects of current neoliberal policies which have created utter devastation among rural farmers (farmer suicides, anyone ? ). This is correctly reflected in the dream of the movie's Bhagat Singh (Siddharth), where his Dad replaces General Dyer in barking the orders to kill innocent people.
The core characteristics of British Rule in India (some of which are accurately reflected in the movie) are:
All in all, a great movie that might just provide that inspirational spark to millions.
On a lighter note, I loved the scene where they jump in front of the plane as its taking off. Priceless. The songs surprisingly were quite relevant to the movie and not fast-forwardable. The songs capture the spirit of the movie quite effectively. While, the movie could have been shortened somewhat, that's only a minor quibble. Aamir Khan, although quite old for the role, pulled it off very well.
Another point to note is when Alice Patten (Sue) regrets the fact that Indians (implied Hindus and Muslims) are hell bent on killing each other, she should probably reflect on the fact that this is in part just another legacy of her grandfather (i.e. British rule)
I think the movie ends on an optimistic note. Could this movie inspire real life actions ? Maybe ... check the link below
Quota stir gets Rang De hue
The movie perfectly reflects prevailing attitudes about the state of the country. Everyone feels isolated and helpless because the system has drained away any sense of participation.
The movie bears a striking resemblance in spirit to the Tamil movie, Ayutha Ezhuthu -- another movie whose core message is essentially the same and ends on an equally positive note.
Another important point touched upon in the movie is how the elites have always had it good (even under British rule). They've have always been in control (British or Indian doesn't really matter). They are the architects of current neoliberal policies which have created utter devastation among rural farmers (farmer suicides, anyone ? ). This is correctly reflected in the dream of the movie's Bhagat Singh (Siddharth), where his Dad replaces General Dyer in barking the orders to kill innocent people.
The core characteristics of British Rule in India (some of which are accurately reflected in the movie) are:
- Taxing the local population into desperate poverty (see Lagaan)
- Divide and Rule policy. People were categorized according to their religion and the British emphasized the differences even if it contradicted how people coexisted at that time
- The British helped establish the M.A.O. College at Aligarh and supported the All-India Muslim Conference, both of which were institutions from which leaders of the Muslim League and the ideology of Pakistan emerged. As soon as the League was formed, they were placed on a separate electorate. Thus the idea of the separateness of Muslims in India was built into the electoral process of India. Details here
- The Indian elite did not participate in the 1847 mutiny (they probably prayed for it to fail, in all likelihood)
- The British were able to gain the the loyalty of the aristocracy who were then able to influence the "urban intellectuals". The "intellectuals" were hardly motivated to rid India of the British because they were benefited from the rule.
- Current neo-liberal policies have been devastating for rural farmers (shades of British rule ?). Both current parties essentially support these policies.
- A common argument is that the British bought modernization to India. But that discounts the very obvious possibility that this could have happened nevertheless and moreover, this would've happened fully under the control of the Indians themselves without having to bear the brunt of disastrous policies of the British.
- In his book, The Discovery of India Nehru pointed out that if you trace British influence and control in each region of India, and then compare that with the level of poverty in the region, they correlate. The longer the British have been in a region, the poorer it is. The worst, of course, was Bengal -- now Bangladesh. That's where the British were first.The British also tried to destroy the existing manufacturing system in the parts of India they controlled. Starting from about 1700, Britain imposed harsh tariff regulations to prevent Indian manufacturers from competing with British textiles. They had to undercut and destroy Indian textiles because India had a comparative advantage. They were using better cotton and their manufacturing system was in many respects comparable to, if not better than, the British system. As a result, India's manufacturing capacity collapses, it became mainly rural, while England prospered.
- At the height of British rule, they never had more than 150,000 people in India. The used the same strategy throughout their colonial rule, use the locals to control their own population. We've seen countless examples of this (Iraq currently by the US). The movie reflects this situation correctly.
All in all, a great movie that might just provide that inspirational spark to millions.
On a lighter note, I loved the scene where they jump in front of the plane as its taking off. Priceless. The songs surprisingly were quite relevant to the movie and not fast-forwardable. The songs capture the spirit of the movie quite effectively. While, the movie could have been shortened somewhat, that's only a minor quibble. Aamir Khan, although quite old for the role, pulled it off very well.
Another point to note is when Alice Patten (Sue) regrets the fact that Indians (implied Hindus and Muslims) are hell bent on killing each other, she should probably reflect on the fact that this is in part just another legacy of her grandfather (i.e. British rule)
I think the movie ends on an optimistic note. Could this movie inspire real life actions ? Maybe ... check the link below
Quota stir gets Rang De hue
Monday, October 09, 2006
Political Amnesia - Part Deux.
We continue with the list of scandals that have enveloped the US in recent times.
Hammer
In the early 2000s, Tom DeLay (former House Majority Leader ) helped to coordinate efforts to redistrict congressional districts in Texas to favor the election of more Republicans. In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during that period
Other Tom Delay antics
NYT and Iraq
Judith Miller was an integral part of the NYT in helping spread baseless propaganda (from unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" ). I repeat, Miller used questionable intelligence to further the administrations pro-war position. Does this sound like the kind of reporting with fierce journalistic integrity ? Remember, the Iraq war is one of the most important issues right now and the NYT wasn't exactly interested in the facts in in pre-war reporting
Details
Taiwan Espionage
In 2005, Donald W. Keyser (born 17 July 1943), a former official of the United States Department of State plead guilty to unauthorized possession of secret documents, and to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his sexual relationship with a Taiwanese intelligence officer, Isabelle Cheng . He has not, however, been charged with espionage, and denies allegations that he passed confidential information to Cheng.
Phone Jamming On Election Night In New Hampshire
Hammer
In the early 2000s, Tom DeLay (former House Majority Leader ) helped to coordinate efforts to redistrict congressional districts in Texas to favor the election of more Republicans. In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during that period
Other Tom Delay antics
NYT and Iraq
Judith Miller was an integral part of the NYT in helping spread baseless propaganda (from unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" ). I repeat, Miller used questionable intelligence to further the administrations pro-war position. Does this sound like the kind of reporting with fierce journalistic integrity ? Remember, the Iraq war is one of the most important issues right now and the NYT wasn't exactly interested in the facts in in pre-war reporting
Details
Taiwan Espionage
In 2005, Donald W. Keyser (born 17 July 1943), a former official of the United States Department of State plead guilty to unauthorized possession of secret documents, and to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his sexual relationship with a Taiwanese intelligence officer, Isabelle Cheng . He has not, however, been charged with espionage, and denies allegations that he passed confidential information to Cheng.
Phone Jamming On Election Night In New Hampshire
The 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal involves the use of a telemarketing firm hired by that state's Republican Party (NHGOP) for election tampering.
Details
UN Wire Tapping
That's right. In March, 2003 it was revealed that the NSA had been spying on the UN Security Council including even the phone conversions of Kofi Annan himself. The spying was committed by the US, the UK and Australia, to get intelligence to ensure UN support for the upcoming 2003 war. The NYT took its own time to report this. Apparently, spying on UN officials is not newsworthy.
Details
Bill Frist Insider Trading
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Frist as one of the thirteen most "corrupt" members of Congress. Frist is currently under investigation for insider trading.
Sex Ed. Misleading information
A December 2 report from Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) shows that the most popular federally-funded abstinence-only sex education curricula contain pervasive errors and misinformation on a wide range of important sexual and reproductive health issues.
Details
Katrina
I take it you know all about this. "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job"
Pentagon/Boeing Contract
The Pentagon's inspector general released a report on a lucrative Air Force contract for Boeing that cost too much for planes the military didn't want. More on this
"Video News Releases"
"News" stories about Medicare were aired on several US TV newscasts – but they weren't news, they were video news releases (VNRs) paid for by the Bush Administration, masquerading as newscast segments. For more on VNRs
Halliburton
This is a plethora of scandals that's too long to enumerate (Nigeria bribery probe, no-bid contracts, business dealings with Iran, extravagant billing etc. etc.). Nice list
Real Costs of Iraq War
According to the GAO, The US government has lost track of the cost of the "war on terror"
Details
Details
Most Funds In Iraq Unused
Almost $9bn (£4.7bn) of Iraqi oil revenue is missing from a fund set up to reconstruct the country
Details
Iraq Revenue Watch
Global Warming Gate
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming (Philip Cooney)
And sure enough, Philip Cooney joins Exxon
President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
Abu Ghraib
I suspect you already know about this one. Hard to miss.
Tobacco Lawsuit diluted
Justice Department lawyers mysteriously announce that they would ask the industry to pay $10 billion -- rather than the $130 billion previously recommended by a government expert witness -- for smoking cessation programs.Tobacco Witnesses Were Told To Ease Up.
Still stuck in your narrow "Democrats" versus "Republicans" vision ? Welcome to the corporate state. And this is probably a tiny fraction of whats going on.
Donald Rumsfeld's following quote should put everything into perspective :-)
"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
Details
UN Wire Tapping
That's right. In March, 2003 it was revealed that the NSA had been spying on the UN Security Council including even the phone conversions of Kofi Annan himself. The spying was committed by the US, the UK and Australia, to get intelligence to ensure UN support for the upcoming 2003 war. The NYT took its own time to report this. Apparently, spying on UN officials is not newsworthy.
Details
Bill Frist Insider Trading
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Frist as one of the thirteen most "corrupt" members of Congress. Frist is currently under investigation for insider trading.
Sex Ed. Misleading information
A December 2 report from Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) shows that the most popular federally-funded abstinence-only sex education curricula contain pervasive errors and misinformation on a wide range of important sexual and reproductive health issues.
Details
Katrina
I take it you know all about this. "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job"
Pentagon/Boeing Contract
The Pentagon's inspector general released a report on a lucrative Air Force contract for Boeing that cost too much for planes the military didn't want. More on this
"Video News Releases"
"News" stories about Medicare were aired on several US TV newscasts – but they weren't news, they were video news releases (VNRs) paid for by the Bush Administration, masquerading as newscast segments. For more on VNRs
Halliburton
This is a plethora of scandals that's too long to enumerate (Nigeria bribery probe, no-bid contracts, business dealings with Iran, extravagant billing etc. etc.). Nice list
Real Costs of Iraq War
According to the GAO, The US government has lost track of the cost of the "war on terror"
Details
Details
Most Funds In Iraq Unused
Almost $9bn (£4.7bn) of Iraqi oil revenue is missing from a fund set up to reconstruct the country
Details
Iraq Revenue Watch
Global Warming Gate
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming (Philip Cooney)
And sure enough, Philip Cooney joins Exxon
President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
Abu Ghraib
I suspect you already know about this one. Hard to miss.
Tobacco Lawsuit diluted
Justice Department lawyers mysteriously announce that they would ask the industry to pay $10 billion -- rather than the $130 billion previously recommended by a government expert witness -- for smoking cessation programs.Tobacco Witnesses Were Told To Ease Up.
Still stuck in your narrow "Democrats" versus "Republicans" vision ? Welcome to the corporate state. And this is probably a tiny fraction of whats going on.
Donald Rumsfeld's following quote should put everything into perspective :-)
"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Political Amnesia
Majority of the population is affllicted with a very malignant disease. Its called "Political Amnesia". We are unable to remember significant events from even a few months/days ago. The general media strategy appears to be to sensationalize the current scandal/war, beat it till its dead, and then promptly switch to the next scandal/war intentionally avoiding any rational discussion. No continuous coverage of any event is even thinkable. This creates a vicious cycle between the media and the amnesiac. The victims have no idea what the current scandal means, have no idea why the next war is fought, forget an event almost immediately and are unable to make any connections between one event and the next. The net result is complete, utter indfference to everything that happens around them. Life (or what's left of it) staggers along from one disconnected moment to another. Political corruption, secret energy plans, elite 2-party systems, forged pretexts for war, bellicose UN ambassadors, billion dollar scandals, "just" wars, oil wars, wiretapping, torture, genocide ... all of these don't matter, what matters is the latest celebrity magazines. mindless fashion, stock prices going up and down, sensational tabloids, reality shows. This is truly a hellish situation. To help somewhat, this is the first in a series of entries summarizing (with links for detailed info) some of the the political scandals that have rocked America in recent years.
Memogate
Meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. The decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. To sell it to the public, the "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
Details
Energy Taskforcegate
In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force with Dick Cheney as chairman. The materials of this Task Force remain mostly classified. On 5 March 2002 the US Government was ordered to make a full disclosure; this has not happened, pending appeal. In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. What was obtained were maps and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. One of the projects disclosures was entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts". Anyone still doubt that energy is calling the shots ?
Details
Yellowcakegate
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium (yellowcake) from Africa". This claim was one of the political justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (subsequently debunked). Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a piece in the NYT in which he explained the nature of the documents and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war (subsequently leading to --- PlameGate)
Details
Plamegate
The Plame affair refers to the political controversy surrounding allegations by critics of the Bush administration that White House officials deliberately leaked Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative as political retaliation against her husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson (see Yellowcakegate)
Details
Abramoffgate
Jack A. Abramoff is an American lobbyist, Republican activist and businesman who has been involved in several political scandals (one of which involves corruption of public offficials, but theres plenty more). Prominent Republican politicians have close ties to Abramoff.
Sordid details here
Gannongate
Memogate
Meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. The decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. To sell it to the public, the "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
Details
Energy Taskforcegate
In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force with Dick Cheney as chairman. The materials of this Task Force remain mostly classified. On 5 March 2002 the US Government was ordered to make a full disclosure; this has not happened, pending appeal. In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. What was obtained were maps and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. One of the projects disclosures was entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts". Anyone still doubt that energy is calling the shots ?
Details
Yellowcakegate
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium (yellowcake) from Africa". This claim was one of the political justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (subsequently debunked). Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a piece in the NYT in which he explained the nature of the documents and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war (subsequently leading to --- PlameGate)
Details
Plamegate
The Plame affair refers to the political controversy surrounding allegations by critics of the Bush administration that White House officials deliberately leaked Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative as political retaliation against her husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson (see Yellowcakegate)
Details
Abramoffgate
Jack A. Abramoff is an American lobbyist, Republican activist and businesman who has been involved in several political scandals (one of which involves corruption of public offficials, but theres plenty more). Prominent Republican politicians have close ties to Abramoff.
Sordid details here
Gannongate
James Dale Guckert (1957) worked under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, representing Talon News. After Guckert came under public scrutiny, in particular for his lack of a significant journalistic background and involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name Bulldog, he resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005
Details
Enron: The Bush Connection
We all know about Enron, but what about the connections of Bush with Ken Lay, the founder of Enron ? (affectionately called KennyBoy). KennyBoy is a big financial backer of Bush. Conflict of intrerest ?
Details
Details
Enron: The Bush Connection
We all know about Enron, but what about the connections of Bush with Ken Lay, the founder of Enron ? (affectionately called KennyBoy). KennyBoy is a big financial backer of Bush. Conflict of intrerest ?
Details
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Michael Crichton's State of Confusion
If you've ever read Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear", you'll know that the novel is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists.
Gavin Schmidt (bio), Earth Institute climate scientist and RealClimate.org contributor refutes several major points made in Michael Crichton's book ....(oddly enough ... apparently Crichton did consult with Gavin Schmidt's lab when researching for his book but didn't "get it")
Some of the main points from the Gavin Schmidt's article as far as I can understand are as follows:
But don't believe my summary .., here is the link to the original aticle. Draw your own conclusions ...
Gavin Schmidt (bio), Earth Institute climate scientist and RealClimate.org contributor refutes several major points made in Michael Crichton's book ....(oddly enough ... apparently Crichton did consult with Gavin Schmidt's lab when researching for his book but didn't "get it")
Some of the main points from the Gavin Schmidt's article as far as I can understand are as follows:
- The global cooling b/w 1940-1970 can be attributed to factors other than CO2 (these other factors are called "forcings" .. such as land use changes, volcanic aerosols etc.). The more recent global warming cannot by accounted for by forcings (other than CO2)
- Global cooling in one area doesn't exclude overall global warming since we're talking about the planet wide mean. The whole globe isn't warming uniformly. Crichton uses cooling trends from selective weather stations.
- Crichton says that the global mean temp. is skewed because of of the Urban heating effect. A correction has already been applied for The 'Urban Heat Island Effect' when calculating global mean temperatures.
- Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988 is often quoted misleadingly and out of context. The reliability of his climate model is often confused with the unpredictability of the forcings.
- Sea level is a surprisingly difficult thing to measure. Crichton uses sea-level data in a confusing manner.
- Crichton claims that climate models differ by 400% in their estimates. That's a misleading statement. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30% -- again the confusion is probably related to misleading interpretation of Jim Hansen's testimony. Crichton is confusing variability in the forcings with accuracy of the model predictions (basically Crichton appears to be saying that the model gives results that vary by 400% when the forcings vary -- which is a really obvious statement --- you give different inputs to the model -- it will give you different outputs). What Crichton is missing is that the model is fairly accurate given a specific set of forcings and that the set of forcings is what is variable. If the set of forcings is variable, then how can Crichton conclude that global warming is a non-issue ? The correct conclusion based on the climate models should probably be ...if the forcings go a certain way then global warming may not happen, but if the forcings go another way, then global warming can happen. No one can predict the forcings themselves, so you can't say "global waming is a non-issue"
But don't believe my summary .., here is the link to the original aticle. Draw your own conclusions ...
Friday, October 06, 2006
HR163 and HR4752 (Universal National Service Acts of 2003 and 2006)
First a bit of history:
Jan 2003:
HR163 (also known as Universal National Service Act of 2003) was was introduced in the House in Jan 2003 by Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY). The following is taken directly from the text of the Bill
"Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense"
The House rejected HR163. At that point, it would probably have been ill-advised for Republicans to pass this bill because it would have had a negative impact on the upcoming elections. So the bill didn't get that far (as expected)
Fast Forward to Feb 2006
HR4752 (also known as Universal National Service Act of 20066) introduced again by Congressman Charles Rangel
The following is taken directly from the text of the bill
"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
Apparently, the age range has been changed from 18-26 to 18-42. Both bills also mention that if not deployed in the uniformed forces, you may be deployed for civilian service. Check out the Citizen Corps program at their official website (note that this is a govt. program). Domestic law and order control ?
As expected, limited coverage in the mainstream media.
Wonder how this new bill is going to fare ? How long can it be pushed off ? In all likelihood, It will fail again this time, but what happens in the future ? (the bleak future of perpetual war, I mean). What happens if the US invades Iran ? I think the government already knows that a civilian army doesn't work (ample evidence from the Vietnam war), so they like to hire mercenaries to do their killing. But what if there's no alternatives to a draft ? (of course there are alternatives such as not invading other countries, but I'm referring to alternatives that are likely to be considered by the US govt. and doesn't look like withdrawal is one of them). Lets face it .. both the Democrats and Republicans are predominantly war parties.
Jan 2003:
HR163 (also known as Universal National Service Act of 2003) was was introduced in the House in Jan 2003 by Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY). The following is taken directly from the text of the Bill
"Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense"
The House rejected HR163. At that point, it would probably have been ill-advised for Republicans to pass this bill because it would have had a negative impact on the upcoming elections. So the bill didn't get that far (as expected)
Fast Forward to Feb 2006
HR4752 (also known as Universal National Service Act of 20066) introduced again by Congressman Charles Rangel
The following is taken directly from the text of the bill
"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
Apparently, the age range has been changed from 18-26 to 18-42. Both bills also mention that if not deployed in the uniformed forces, you may be deployed for civilian service. Check out the Citizen Corps program at their official website (note that this is a govt. program). Domestic law and order control ?
As expected, limited coverage in the mainstream media.
Wonder how this new bill is going to fare ? How long can it be pushed off ? In all likelihood, It will fail again this time, but what happens in the future ? (the bleak future of perpetual war, I mean). What happens if the US invades Iran ? I think the government already knows that a civilian army doesn't work (ample evidence from the Vietnam war), so they like to hire mercenaries to do their killing. But what if there's no alternatives to a draft ? (of course there are alternatives such as not invading other countries, but I'm referring to alternatives that are likely to be considered by the US govt. and doesn't look like withdrawal is one of them). Lets face it .. both the Democrats and Republicans are predominantly war parties.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
US Ambassador John Bolton's "Moral Equivalence"
"I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," Bolton says, while defending as "self-defense" Israel's military action, which has had "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths". Bolton's comments are inherently racist in that he claims that Lebanese civilian deaths are somehow OK and that they are merely the result of self-defense. Consider this. Israel's so called self-defense involves a wildly disproportionate destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure (phone networks, TV stations, hospitals, airport, water, electricity). How can such targeted destruction of civilians ever possibly be justified ? Is razing a country to the ground somehow acceptable in Bolton's twisted mind ? Civilian deaths can never be justified, no matter which side.
To make it more obvious how ludicrous Bolton's position is, lets make a simple analogy to recent events elsewhere. Indian intelligence officials have claimed that Britain has failed to act against a number of wealthy businessman who are channeling up to 8 million pounds to Kashmiri militant groups using bogus charities. So if you apply Israel's rules of the game, India is justified in bombing London and destroying London's civilian infrastructure. And by Bolton's "moral equivalence" idiocy, India can claim that civilian deaths in London would be not as valuable as civilian deaths in India and are merely the result of self-defense. Imagine the outrage if India were to bomb London. but somehow, Israel bombing the life out of Lebanon is morally OK.
To make it more obvious how ludicrous Bolton's position is, lets make a simple analogy to recent events elsewhere. Indian intelligence officials have claimed that Britain has failed to act against a number of wealthy businessman who are channeling up to 8 million pounds to Kashmiri militant groups using bogus charities. So if you apply Israel's rules of the game, India is justified in bombing London and destroying London's civilian infrastructure. And by Bolton's "moral equivalence" idiocy, India can claim that civilian deaths in London would be not as valuable as civilian deaths in India and are merely the result of self-defense. Imagine the outrage if India were to bomb London. but somehow, Israel bombing the life out of Lebanon is morally OK.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
More "Moral Asymmetry" nonsense
My earlier blog entry talked about John Bolton's "Moral Equivalence" and how "Moral Equivalence" is used to justify heinous acts of terror. We have more of the same ridiculous arguments, this time from Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Krauthammer claims that there is "a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel". He claims falsely that "Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides."
Krauthammer also argues that "What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier ... ". Speaking of international frontiers, a quick look at all the UN resolutions that Israel refuses to comply will put things into perspective.
Krauthammer argues "Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah". Phew! Thanks Charles, instead of setting the clock back 20 years, you set it back 19 years. Woo-Hoo!
There is no justification for killing civilians on either side, and there is no moral asymmetry. Krauthammer is a war monger.
Krauthammer also argues that "What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier ... ". Speaking of international frontiers, a quick look at all the UN resolutions that Israel refuses to comply will put things into perspective.
Krauthammer argues "Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah". Phew! Thanks Charles, instead of setting the clock back 20 years, you set it back 19 years. Woo-Hoo!
There is no justification for killing civilians on either side, and there is no moral asymmetry. Krauthammer is a war monger.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Job Opening In Iraq
Interested in applying for a "Protective Security Specialists" position in Iraq ?
Submit your resume and DD-214 here and make sure your weight is proportional to height.
Jokes aside, if you haven't heard of Blackwater USA, they're a private firm proving "diplomatic security" in Iraq and elsewhere.
Read about the govt. contract worth ~ $320 million awarded to Blackwater under the State Department's little-known Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) program. The article also describes blatant accounting irregularities.
And read here about their role during Katrina as well as their republican connections here.
Similar "security" firms include:
DynCorp
Triple Canopy
Submit your resume and DD-214 here and make sure your weight is proportional to height.
Jokes aside, if you haven't heard of Blackwater USA, they're a private firm proving "diplomatic security" in Iraq and elsewhere.
Read about the govt. contract worth ~ $320 million awarded to Blackwater under the State Department's little-known Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) program. The article also describes blatant accounting irregularities.
And read here about their role during Katrina as well as their republican connections here.
Similar "security" firms include:
DynCorp
Triple Canopy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)