On Authority and Morality

Read this article by Glenn Greenwald titled Authoritarian Temptation. What stands out (frighteningly so) is a reference to this quote from Rudy Giuliani

What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Obviously, Giuliani isn't the first person to subscribe to this kind of ghastly philosophy. One of the core assumptions made when someone maintains such an authoritarian philosophy is that human beings are fundamentally bad and that left to their own devices will commit all kinds of evil acts. This is a fundamental fallacy and takes a rather bleak view of human nature. I think that human beings are fundamentally good, and imposing authority and strict moral standards is extremely counterproductive. Authority is rarely justified except in basic cases of parental authority such as telling a child not to run in front of an oncoming vehicle and so on, but even parental authority must be earned, not imposed.

Instead of letting humans retain their intrinsic good nature, Authority creates Fear and Resistance where there was none before and Morality creates Vice and Sin where there was none before. Authority and Morality are the bane of human existence.

Finally, some parting quotes on Authority and Morality

Whenever there is authority, there is a natural inclination to disobedience.
--Thomas C.Haliburton,1796-1865, Canadian Jurist, Author

The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.
--Lao Tzu

"When you make your peace with authority, you become authority."
--Jim Morrison

Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty.

--Aldous Huxley

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.
--Bertrand Russell

In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart
--Anne Frank (one of the most renowned and discussed of Holocaust victims)

Scientific Materialism

A distinction can be made between Science (in its "unadorned" form) and the philosophy of Scientific Materialism. Science is concerned with rigorous and detailed observations/experimentation which aim to understand the nature of the surrounding world. Hypotheses are made which can be debunked by empirical observations and/or reasoning and new hypotheses can be formed.

The typical steps in the Scientific Method are:

1. Identify the problem
2. Gather relevant information/make observations
3. Propose a solution (scientific hypothesis)
4. Test the hypothesis (via an experiment or by making further observations)
5. If the hypotheses fails, modify or abandon it.
6. Form (or cast doubt) on a scientific theory.
7. Communicate or publish to allow for independent verification.

Unfortunately, one of the key assumptions of Science is itself unproven. This is what one would call a metaphysical assumption (i.e. an assumption about the nature of reality which cannot be proven). So what is this key assumption in Science ? This is where Science (which is by itself a mode of inquiry, a technique) moves into the realm of philosophy known as Scientific Materialism.

There are several layers of philosophical assumptions around Science, the key of which is that the objects of scientific inquiry exist independently of an observer, i.e. an objective "external" reality exists whether it is being perceived by a subject or not. Another assumption is that everything that exists is physical in nature (or can be reduced to a complex interaction of physical processes). This also means that all physical events are caused by other physical events.

In other words, scientific materialism assumes that any mental phenomenon (i.e. non physical events, the obvious one being the fact that we are all conscious and experience subjective thoughts, feelings, desires, fears etc.) cannot affect physical reality, but rather are an epiphenomenon of the complexity of matter. The dictionary defines epiphenomenon as "a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself".

Scientific Materialism thus contends that matter and energy are the only true reality while downgrading the subjective experience to the dustbin of the universe. Scientific Materialism would thus appear to be extremely bottom-up in its approach in that it investigates elementary components and tries to explain high-level features (such as consciousness) COMPLETELY in terms of these elementary particles. This bottom-up approach also seems to be at odds with the concepts in Gestalt psychology where the brain is considered to have self-organizing tendencies and where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

A very important problem that reductionist science has is dealing with the concept of Qualia and the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'. The most familiar example concerning Qualia has to do with the 'Bat Argument' in Thomas Nagel's paper "What is it Like to Be a Bat?". From Wikipedia, here is a concise description of the problem:

Nagel argues that consciousness has an essentially subjective character, a what-it-is-like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism — something it is like for the organism. Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. He claims that "if we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done." Furthermore, he states that "it seems unlikely that any physical theory of mind can be contemplated until more thought has been given to the general problem of subjective and objective."

So, in other words, we must be prepared to face the very real possibility that science cannot solve the ultimate and only problem that really matters. Even if various components of our conscious experience such as vision, sound, emotion, creativity etc. are mapped to corresponding neuronal firings, computation algorithms etc. there would still be something left over that cannot be explained solely via purely physical mechanisms.

Scientific Materialism by paying such scant attention to the subjective experience has certainly resulted in material and technological conquest of the world. Although this has bought a lot of us many comforts and alleviated the suffering caused by physical disease, materialism tends to impose a materialistic lifestyle on people. It has also failed quite badly in improving human lives on the subjective front via happiness, peace and compassion. It also fails to provide satisfying answers to fundamental existential questions by reducing us to the state of mechanical beings driven by purely physical process in pursuit of illusory material gains.

It find it extremely intriguing that many Eastern philosophies make very different assumptions from Scientific Materialism. The subjective experience takes center stage in a world of Mind and Form. Mind and Form are not considered different. Form is Mind and Mind is Form (thereby avoiding the problems with dualism)


References:
Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method
The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness by B. Alan Wallace
A Course in Consciousness
Taped Lectures by John R. Searle on "The Philosophy of Mind"
Qualia and The Bat Argument

Tortured Logic

First, lets look at the main points of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program (thanks to Ray McGovern who wrote here)

• We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program...
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
• We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely...
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
• We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

The same NIE also has the following in bold:

This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.

Now look at the Presidents comments:

Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon

So, I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it

In just these few words, the deeply racist nature of the establishment becomes painfully clear. It also leads to the dark and inescapable conclusion that even a million new Intelligence Reports will be completely useless against a barbaric, racist and genocidal policy.

As Arthur Silber points out in his very informative and insightful blog

The decision to go to war is one of policy, and the intelligence -- whatever it is alleged to show -- is irrelevant. Don't argue in terms of intelligence at all. If you do, you'll lose. The administration knows that; many of its opponents still haven't figured it out, even now.

Johnny Gaddaar

Johnny Gaddaar (or Johnny Traitor) by director Sriram Raghavan is a delicious blend of film noir and thriller/suspense/caper genre elements, with 70s Hindi movie Retro ambiance deftly weaved into the fabric of the film. If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you skip the rest of this post (spoiler warning) and go watch the movie now. Otherwise, enjoy the various pieces of trivia that follow:

Best Scenes:

• Undoubtedly, the 15 minute or so train sequence is the most brilliantly executed part of the movie. There is something surreal about the relentless presence of the ambient sounds at various points as the train moves from one location/time to another. The compartment is perfectly claustrophobic as well.
  
• When Seshadri discovers who the 'Gaddaar' is (whirring fan, dead wife's tapes ...awesome)
• Shardul's expression when he realizes who the Gaddaar is (Gaddaar, indeed! in several ways)

Key Stuff:

• Movie-Parwana (source of Johnny G's plan)
• Movie-Johnny Mera Naam (source of Johnny G's alias)
• Homage to Vijay Anand's movies (Jewel Thief, Teesri Manzil and Johnny Mera Naam)
• During the fateful train journey, Johnny G is reading the novel 'The Whiff of Money' by James Hadley Chase ('Crime Never Pays' is a common moral in Chase novels)
  
• Story comes full circle. The Gaddaar is revealed right at the beginning (so this isn't a whodunit). The events that lead up to the final surprise hold center stage.
• The protagonist isn't evil, but chance plays a key role in how the character mutates.
• Terrific soundtrack, weaving in 70s songs which you can never be quite sure if they really existed in some 70s movie or if they just sound like 70s songs made in 2007 (I'm guessing some are remixes of old songs, some of them are original, but 70s sounding)
• Some resemblance between personalities of Johnny G and Talented Mr. Ripley
• The money counting machine fails to detect the counterfeit notes.
• The movie 'Pulp Fiction' is full of homages to other movies (the story comes full circle as well). Same for Johnny G.
  

Other movie/book references within the movie (no major plot connection):

• The Guide (character reading the novel by R.K. Narayan)
• Amitabh Movies: Zanjeer, Deewaar, Sholay, Amar Akbar Anthony, Don, Satte pe Satta
• Anand
• Shaukeen
• Scarface
• Eyes Wide Shut
• Titanic, Citizen Kane (Shardul's marriage is not working, wife doing jigsaws)

Next on my list: Manorama Six Feet Under

No Smoking

No Smoking is a film by Indian director/writer Anurag Kashyap. This film deals with themes not normally encountered in Indian cinema, which make the movie an interesting watch.

This post contains many spoilers, so if you haven't watched the movie yet, first watch it and then come back.

No Smoking is about systems of control, totalitarian authority figures, and rights and responsibilities in society. The movie follows the travails of smoking addict (K) who enrolls in an unconventional rehabilitation program. K's nightmarish experiences during his treatment reflect a relentless tension between individual freedom and the inevitable conflict it generates with acceptable norms of a broader society. Smoking merely serves as a metaphor for human desires that are not deemed acceptable in the "normal" world. Individual freedom is often overridden by an infinitely larger matrix of rules and regulations. K lives in an illusory world where he believes he has complete freedom in making his own choices, although he has to constantly reassure himself that this is the case and ends up being inconsiderate, arrogant and egotistic. Such an attitude invariably has a negative impact on his relationship with the rest of society (for example, he has a strained relationship with his wife, he has health problems, his brother blames him for his missing lung etc.).

In the end, we see K succumbing to the requirements of a greater system of control, and the only way he can do his is by submitting himself to an existence in full conformance with the world of rules and morals. K's nemesis in the movie represents the relentless power that makes an individual conform (via real repercussions or even just the threat of repercussions).

The movie alternates between K's inner world of resistance to authority and defiance on one hand and the "real" world of rules and constraints on the other. Questioning which world is more "real" is an interesting philosophical discussion.

The significance of the 'one rupee' payment and the eventual destruction of K's self is not clear to me (from my trivial literary knowledge, the only mythological reference I know is to the coins that were placed on the eyes of a corpse (in Greek mythology) as payment for the ferryman who would carry the dead person across the River Styx into Hades)

In the end, K seems to get in line with society and in the process appears to settle into some form of uneasy compromise. Certainly, K's expression at the end doesn't seem to indicate that deep inside he believes this is a good thing. But the benefits for him are many (better health, a good relationship with his wife etc.).

2 possible interpretations:

• Depressing interpretation: K's surrender at the end indicates materialism and freedom are fundamentally incompatible with each other. At some point, all human beings unknowingly (or by being bludgeoned into submission) make a choice to relinquish their freedom in pursuit of short-term material gains. 
• Positive Interpretation: K's submission (sacrifice? relinquishment?) is actually a good thing that enables him to lead a better life. K is no longer egotistical, inconsiderate and clinging on to a false sense of self-importance, but rather is at peace with the world around him. This doesn't mean extinction of K's agency, but rather means that K's individuality and the world as a whole merge together seamlessly, effortlessly and without conflict. (Tat Tvam Asi?)

A second viewing will probably reveal more intricacies and other trivia.

Other interesting tidbits:

• K's one-lunged brother (or is it step-brother ?) is called J (J comes before K, but in the movie, J is probably younger than K)
• Some level of similarity between the experiences of K (from the movie) and Josef K. from Kafka's The Trial. Both characters go through unreal experiences that they can't understand.
• Seems to be no point to the Annie/Anjali angle (other than being reminiscent of David's Julie/Sofia confusion in Vanilla Sky)
• Some resemblance to a Stephen King story (Quitter's Inc.)
• K's wife watches Nazi gas chamber archival footage before breakfast. (why?!)
• Underworld in the movie a reference to Hades?
• I got some serious deja-vu when watching the detectives interrogate K in a cell. Reminded me of the conversations between David/McCabe in Vanilla Sky.
• Best scene in the movie is K’s descent into the underworld (the first time he goes to Kalkatta Karpets or KK). Brilliant!
• I love the mysterious visiting card concept. ‘Kalkatta Karpets’ correspondences in other movies I can think of are ‘Consumer Recreation Services’ or CRS in ‘The Game’, ‘Fleur de Lys’ in LA Confidential, ‘Life Extensions (LE)’ in Vanilla Sky.
• The midget reminds me of a similar character from Twin Peaks.

Movies with related themes (probably many more)

• Vanilla Sky
• The Trial
• Brazil
• 1984

Democracy as an "Internal Problem"

Yet another clear example of how the Foreign Policy establishment's conception of democracy is at best a complete travesty. The hypocrisy was recently revealed in official Indian and American reactions to the failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal which failed to gain enough support in India. I've commented on the numerous problems with the deal earlier here.

Although the Indian Congress Party tried its level best to implement the agreement (with little public debate, of course), the Leftist party in India has been opposed to the deal from the start by contending (correctly) that the benefits of signing such an agreement would be limited to the Indian Elite, Arms Dealers and Nuclear Businesses and would have a minimal impact on India's energy needs and more importantly, the extreme poverty that has pushed India down to 127 in the UN Human Development Index (HDI) of 2003 (was at 115 in 2001). Additionally such an agreement would violate India's long-standing Non-Aligned policies by essentially being an offshore arm of US-led imperialism. Failing to win full support for the passage of the bill, the Congress was forced to back down.

Now to anyone who is not a complete hypocrite, this would be considered as the healthy functioning of the democratic process with checks and balances working as they were intended. But, as has been evidenced recently, it is clear that the United States has no such system although it pretends that it does. The most obvious recent example (there are numerous other examples) being that after a year of the American populace voting the Democrats into a majority in the House and Senate, the war in Iraq continues unabated with virtually no intention of any real withdrawal. The system of checks and balances seems to be complete fiction. Both parties are accountable only to corporate power. When the American establishment thinks that the current system is indeed democratic, it comes as no surprise that they wouldn't recognize a real democratic process even if it slaps them in the face. This is evidenced by the reactions of both establishments to the failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

India's ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen, who appears to think that such deals can be passed without approval of parliament says (speaking for the Indian establishment elite and claiming that democracy is a problem of 'insecurity')

"It has been approved here by the president, and there it's been approved by the Indian cabinet, so why do you have all this running around like headless chickens, looking for a comment here or a comment there, and these little storms in a tea-cup."

"I can understand such a debate over the deal immediately after India's independence. But sixty years after independence! I am really bothered that sixty years after independence they are so insecure ­ that we have not grown up, this lack of confidence and lack of self-respect."

Not to be outdone, the usual suspect Henry Kissinger spouts more rubbish (basically saying that functioning democracy is an INTERNAL PROBLEM and that the deal getting signed or not is a matter of "prestige" of American leaders)

"Does it reflect an immediate Indian internal problem or does it reflect the fundamental choice which makes it difficult to cooperate with India on these issues"

"It (failure of the deal) would certainly, in an intangible way, affect calculations because when an American leader goes down a certain road, he stakes his prestige on the ability to get it executed. So in that sense, it would undoubtedly be a setback"

References:

Ronen Sen apologises for calling MPs "chicken"
The Nuke Deal is DeadFall of n-deal will affect US outlook on India: Kissinger

The American Century

Some important quotes from key public figures of the "American Century"

George Keenan (The "father of containment", historian, political scientist) in 1948, in 'Review of Current Trends, U.S. Foreign Policy', PPS/23, Top Secret.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of it's population ...In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction ... We should cease to talk about vague and ...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization."

Henry Luce, the editor of Time Magazine (who in the Feb. 7, 1941 issue of Life magazine, authored and signed an editorial, "The American Century")

"It now becomes our time to be the powerhouse from which the ideals spread throughout the world and do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the Psalmist called a little lower than the angels."

"America as the dynamic center of ever-widening spheres of enterprise, America as the training center of the skillful servants of mankind, America as the Good Samaritan, really believing again that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and America as the powerhouse of the ideals of Freedom and Justice - out of these elements surely can be fashioned a vision of the 20th Century to which we can and will devote ourselves in joy and gladness and vigor and enthusiasm."

"Draft Memorandum to President Truman," in Diplomatic Papers, 1945: The Near East and Africa, p. 45, Vol. VIII, Foreign Relations of the United States, U.S. Department of State, University of Wisconsin Digital Collections.

"In Saudi Arabia, where the oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history, a concession covering this oil is nominally in American control. It will undoubtedly be lost to the United States unless this Government is able to demonstrate in a practical way its recognition of this concession as of national interest by acceding to the reasonable requests of King Ibn Saud that he be assisted temporarily in his economic and financial difficulties until the exploitation of the concession, on a practical commercial basis, begins to bring substantial royalties to Saudi Arabia."

McGeorge Bundy (United States National Security Advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1961–1966) in "The End of Either/Or," Foreign Affairs, Volume 45, No 2, January, 1967, pp. 189-201.

"There are people who understand that we have to be in Indochina and just differ on the tactics, and then there are the wild men in the wings who think there’s something wrong with carrying out aggression against another country."

Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence (a document produced in 1995 as a "Terms of Reference" by the Policy Subcommittee of the Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) of the United States Strategic Command (current USSTRATCOM, former CINCSTRAT), a branch of the Department of Defense)

"The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

Apocalypse Soon (by Robert S. McNamara who was U.S. secretary of defense from 1961 to 1968 ) wrote in 'Foreign Policy' in 2005.

"It is time—well past time, in my view—for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high."

Dean Acheson (United States Secretary of State in the Truman Administration during 1949-1953) speaks on the Panel: Cuban Quarantine, Implications for the Future, 57 Proc. Am. So. Int'l (Apr 1963)

"I must conclude that the propriety of the Cuban quarantine is not a legal issue. The power, position and prestige of the United States has been challenged by another state and law simply does not deal with such questions of ultimate power - power that comes close to the sources of sovereignty. I cannot believe that there are principles of law that say we must accept destruction of our way of life .....No law can destroy the state creating the law. The survival of states is not a matter of law."

Arthur Schlesinger, Historian and Kennedy aide (see "On the Brink: The Cuban Missile Crisis", John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, October 20, 2002)

"The Cuban Missile Crisis was the most dangerous in the Cold War. It can be argued further that it was the most dangerous moment in human history. Because never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to blow up the world. This was an unprecedented moment in the history of humankind, and we’re lucky to have survived it."

Middle-Class Millionaires

This could be one of the most ridiculous articles ever.

Worth $4 Million -- and Unable to Retire

In a bizarre twist, the word middle-class is given a nonsensical interpretation, and the "plight" of "middle-class" millionaires takes center stage.

Apparently:

"Mansions and yachts are out. The mMillionaires ("clever" acronym for the "middle-class" millionaire) who want to retire before age 65 or 72, find they must live in three- and four-bedroom homes and drive mid-priced four-door sedans and mini-vans." 

"There's no question that more people are accumulating wealth at an unprecedented rate"

I plan to be VERY sympathetic to the "plight" of the mMillionaire.

"Free" Market

More evidence that "free" market is merely an ideological phrase that has nothing to do with how things really are.

By defintion, capitalism implies that the lender takes full risk when he makes a loan. However, its clear that nothing like that applies in reality. What we have instead is a privatization of profit (yes, the capitalist definitely keeps all his profits, also trickle-down theories are a load of crap), but if something goes wrong, then the public has to bear the brunt of the cost (externalization, as it's sometimes called to just to disguise what it really means). If it's not yet clear, the current system works as follows : Privatize Profit, Socialize Risk.

For example, consider these events recently:

The state (undoubtedly that means that the public bears the brunt) rescued the shady hedge funds/investment banks by offering vast sums of money and rate cuts. Apparently, this is through the "overnight discount window". Only it isn't overnight, it's for 30 days, and can be extended for free. It would be nice if all our credit cards had such nice terms. Not! Note that the same banks have made billions (or trillions ?) from the same hedge funds. Where are all the profits ? Offshore banking, perhaps. And why should the public bail these "capitalists" ? What a load of bullshit.

With the Northern Rock debacle, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, not content with rescuing just one bank, grandly announced that all failing banks would have their deposits guaranteed by the taxpayer.

And, then we had the recent Fed interest rate cut. What this means is more cheap cash for Wall Street (yay! soaring stock prices, but shaft the public) and more devaluation of the dollar which means higher prices for food and energy. Ultimately, it's the public that gets shafted. Anyway, if it were truly "free" market, why do we have the Fed regulating interest rates ?
References:

Bernacke's Bail Out of Wall Street
Fed drops the Inflation Bomb
The Era of Global Financial Instability
IMF/WB Debt Forgiveness
The Gotterdammerung of Central Banking

Debt Money System

Below is a very lucid article explaining monetary systems in general, and more specifically goes into the details of a debt-based monetary system. It's also very useful to read some reader's comments in the same article (especially DGW) who adds further clarity to the nature of the unsustainable debt-based monetary system. An analogy to cigarettes makes the entire article less dreary and very simple to understand.

Our Debt Money System Explained
by Michael Nystrom
August 23, 2007

FBI Warning

What Labor Day ?

I always thought Labor Day was on May 1st. Anyway, that what the rest of the world thinks except here in the United States. May 1st is meant to recognize organized labor's social and economic achievements. If you apply that same idea to Labor Day here, you'll quickly notice that there is no Labor Day the first Monday in September.

In the US, the last major legislative victory for Labor was in 1935 with the passage of the Wagner Act which guaranteed workers the right to bargain on an equal footing with management and the right to organize. Its been downhill for most part ever since.

The thought of Labor movements actually having an impact back then must have really scared the big corporations (the "crisis" of democracy as they call it). And the corporations certainly didn't sit back and allow the "crisis" to worsen. Since 1935, the corporate offensive on Labor has been very effective.

The most interesting technique that was used to avert the "crisis" in democracy is the 'Mohawk Valley Formula' which was originally developed by the Remington Rand Corporation. This was called a 'scientific method of strike-breaking'. The main goal of this formula was to generate popular fear and hatred of labor in the general public. From wikipedia, "The Mohawk Valley formula was a corporate plan for strikebreaking to discredit union leaders, frighten the public with the threat of violence, use local police and vigilantes to intimidate strikers, form puppet associations of "loyal employees" to influence public debate, fortify workplaces, employ large numbers of replacement workers, and threaten to close the plant if work is not resumed."

So we appear to have a steady downward slide into wage slavery:

• Minimum wage is a joke. In fact, its so low that a 40 hour week is by default not viable.
• American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9%--levels not seen since 1932.
• In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration essentially informed the business world that they were not going to prosecute them for violating the law. One of the things that happened is that OSHA, the Office of Safety and Health Administration, regulations were either not investigated or prosecuted.
• Service sector jobs ? What's not to like ?
• Bush's anti-labor actions
• See Effort to make unions disappear from ProjectCensored.
• See The Bush Administration's Anti-Labor Record is Bad for Working Families from the Democratic Policy Committee.

What we have here is a clear case of Doublespeak (or Newspeak) with Corporations commemorating their victory over Labor and calling it "Labor Day".

New Chomsky Interview

Read carefully.

On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals: An Interview with Noam Chomsky
August 3, 2007
By Gabriel Matthew Schivone

How can you say you are a Phantom?

Quotes from Seiichi Kirima.
Seiichi Kirima wrote about holographic theories until he was murdered by the organization.(cf. Boogiepop Phantom)

1. "The past will often attack the present with the pain of your memories."
2. "The brain is a microcosm creating its own stories. People then live out these stories."
3. "There is no wish that doesn't come true."
4. "The waking dream called the world is constantly changing. What's so sad about that?"
5. "Time does not exist. Only the illusion of memories exist."
6. "There is a difference between missing the good old days and being stuck in the past."
7. "Pure perfection has no past. That is how you live perfectly."
8. "Existence does not rely on matter. Everything is phantom."
9. "How can you say you are a phantom?"

Documentary Update

Here is a list of documentaries on various topics I've watched in the last 3 months or so.

(war and profiteering)
The War Tapes
Iraq In Fragments
Iraq for Sale
The demolition of Iraq in full swing.

(debt)
In Debt We Trust
Maxed Out
Usury at its most despicable. Watch elected representatives nauseously submit to credit card company executives. It'll make you vomit all over yourself (oh, that's right, can't lose those campaign contributions)

(food)
The Future of Food
(don't miss the special features which are incredibly tedious yet required listening)

(political process)
An Unreasonable Man
Nader is cool. And no, he did not cost the Democratic "Impeachment is off the Table" Party the 2000 elections. Although, the clowns/morons at The Nation will dumbly insist ad nauseum.

The Big Buy
Ah, the despicable Hammer finally gets nailed! I derived some perverse pleasure out of this one.

(big picture)
Imperial Grand Strategy
The Grand Plan. We're fucked.

(environment/art)
Manufactured Landscapes
Brutal Beauty. Grotesque yet fascinating.

(finally ....just plain cool )
Planet Earth - Complete BBC Series. Good complement to 'Manufactured Landscapes' above.
2 words .. Snow Leopard !
Check out the preview on Amazon

(on my list)
Paradise Now

Coming Soon

... to a theater near you. It's all rigged to blow.

Martial Law Threat is Real

by Dave Lindorff

Stamp of Disapproval

Bush going down ?

Candidate Obfuscation

It should come as no surprise that it is virtually impossible to figure out where Presidential candidates stand on any issue. The presidential debates won't help either and neither will the mainstream media.

For example, consider this poll result and accompanying comments that appeared on bloomberg.com (Obama, Thompson Gain on Clinton, Giuliani, Poll Shows)

Even if you look really hard and pore over the poll results, you'll be hard-pressed to find why people are really in favor of or against any particular candidate or what the candidates think about specific issues. Another peculiarity is polls often tend to emphasize issues such as immigration and abortion rights.

However, it's impossible to get a broad idea of the candidate's stand on any issue.

For example, what does Obama think about Universal Health Care ? Defense Spending ? NAFTA ? Tax Cuts ? Iraq ? How many times did Obama vote in favor of the war ? What is his record on social issues ? Who exactly is donating to his campaign and WHY ?

What does Hillary Clinton have to say about Iraq ? Health Care ? Is she a war-monger ? Does she hire expensive PR firms to fine-tune her image ? What exactly does she mean by moral issues ? Does she mean gay rights ? poverty ? genocide ? Which one exactly ? Who are her campaign donors ?

And so on for each candidate (Republican or Democrat or whoever), you could ask the same set of questions and get no answers.

Instead, if you look at the bloomberg article, you'll see outright obfuscation. Here are but a few meaningless snippets as to why people favored (or disliked) particular candidates (also note the focus on making the elections sound like a sporting event). Abortion rights and immigration are mentioned often.

"A majority of Democrats say they favor ``a candidate who can bridge partisan divides'' -- a central theme of his campaign -- over a candidate ``with long experience in government and policy making,'' "

Obama is ``a new breed and I think he can work with other people better than she can,'' said John Bryan (new breed --- wonder what that means ?)

"A strong majority of poll respondents say national security is more important than social issues, such as abortion, where Giuliani's pro-choice position puts him out of sync with the majority of his party's voters. Giuliani does better with women voters than the other Republican candidates."

Thompson, 64, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, may also benefit from his fame as a film and television actor. ``When I watch him on `Law and Order' I've always loved him,'' said Al Pepe, a 79-year-old retired electronics manager from Jacksonville, Florida.

Penny Crider, a 44-year-old bus driver from Livonia, Michigan, says she opposes abortion and likes Thompson partly because he has consistently opposed abortion rights. ``His core beliefs have never changed,'' Crider, a Republican, said in a follow-up interview. ``He doesn't flip-flop.''

``He reminds me of Reagan,'' said Pepe, a Republican who favors Thompson. ``You want to listen to him.'"

Yes, corporate-sponsored candidates are toxic waste products of the PR industry.

CFR gets a new face

Avid Angelina Jolie fans may have already heard about her induction into the Council on Foreign Relations. "Angelina Jolie is accomplished in her field and has demonstrated serious interest in issues such as Darfur, international education and refugees," said Lisa Shields, vice president of communications at CFR. "As such, her profile fits very well with other young professionals we've selected as the next generation of foreign policy leaders."

One might ask, "What is the Council on Foreign Relations ?"

According to wikipedia, the CFR "is an influential and independent, nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921. Through its membership, meetings, and studies, it has been called the most powerful agent of United States foreign policy outside the State Department". Officially, the CFR is "dedicated to increasing America's understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy". The CFR has many high-ranking government officials in its membership. Notable members include Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz and Kissinger (yes, Kissinger is the same guy who called the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a "bitch")

However, others closely associate the CFR with the New World Order (NWO) often citing the words of Bush I: "Now we can see a New World coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order."

Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, stated, "The Council of Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."

New World Order aside, which member of the CFR do you prefer ?

The Biofuel Chimera

What do biofuels have to do with a doubling of the price of corn tortillas in Mexico in late 2006 ?

The following piece appeared in the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) which debunks the "green" alternative to fossil fuels (same piece appeared in NYT as well)

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer

Some interesting points from the article:

"In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops."

"The ethanol industry has also become a theater of protectionism in U.S. trade policy. Unlike oil imports, which come into the country duty-free, most ethanol currently imported into the United States carries a 54-cents-per-gallon tariff, partly because cheaper ethanol from countries such as Brazil threatens U.S. producers" -- so much for "free trade"

"The biofuel industry has long been dominated not by market forces but by politics and the interests of a few large companies," in large part Archer Daniels Midland, the major ethanol producer

"The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year"

"The number of food-insecure people in the world would rise by over 16 million for every percentage increase in the real prices of staple foods. That means that 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025 -- 600 million more than previously predicted."

"Should corn and soybeans be used as fuel crops at all? Soybeans and especially corn are row crops that contribute to soil erosion and water pollution and require large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel to grow, harvest, and dry. They are the major cause of nitrogen runoff -- the harmful leakage of nitrogen from fields when it rains -- of the type that has created the so-called dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an ocean area the size of New Jersey that has so little oxygen it can barely support life"

"Ethanol and biodiesel are often viewed as environmentally friendly because they are plant-based rather than petroleum-based. In fact, even if the entire corn crop in the United States were used to make ethanol, that fuel would replace only 12 percent of current U.S. gasoline use. Thinking of ethanol as a green alternative to fossil fuels reinforces the chimera of energy independence and of decoupling the interests of the United States from an increasingly troubled Middle East."

Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now

Noam Chomsky interview on Democracy Now where he comments on Democracy Deficit, Iraq Troop Withdrawal, Haiti, Democracy in Latin America and the Israeli Elections

Audio
Video
Transcript

This is Reform ?

The current Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh (also the chief architect of India's disastrous neo-liberal 'reforms' since 1991) recently exhorted the corporate world (or "industry captains") in India to assume "social responsibility" to alleviate income inequality, reduce conspicuous consumption and cap exorbitant CEO salaries. He tossed around phrases like "inclusive growth", “socially responsible media and finance socially responsible advertising”, "worker welfare", "extended affirmative action" and "cartelisation". Various commentators are already talking about the PMs transformation from "reform" to "socialism". His speech to the CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) can be found here.

Coming from the chief architect of India's disastrous neo-liberal reforms since 1991, the PMs words sound hollow, superficial and guilt-ridden. In 1991, his neo-liberal reforms resulted in the scrapping on India's previously state-managed economic development with unfortunate consequences. For the period from 1996 to 2005, the annual agricultural growth rate fell to 1.1 percent from an average annual growth rate of 3.2 percent during the 1980-96 period. The 1.1 growth rate was barely a quarter of the 4 percent agricultural growth target that the government had set for the 10-year period of 1996-2005.

During the 1990s the World Bank pushed large loans making India dependent on foreign finance. World Bank loans are always accompanied by "reforms" and "structural adjustments" such as deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, the gutting of all restrictions on the laying off of workers and closure of plants, and the slashing of “non-productive” social expenditure. Indonesia and Argentina are but a few examples of the results of World Bank loans and "structural adjustments" and India is rapidly joining the ranks.

According to the The UN Human Development Index (HDI) of 2003, India ranks 127 (was at 115 in 2001). So clearly the "reforms" aren't working. In 2004, expressing clear displeasure with the so-called reforms, the ruling party was voted out of power. Privatization of water-supply and other crucial public services have resulted in price increases. Reforms require the dismantling of public and social responsibility and opening up domestic markets to transnationals. Debt repayment and military spending prevent the nation from focusing on resolving social issues.

P Sainath, an award-winning Indian development journalist who focuses on social problems, rural issues and poverty describes the magnitude of the problem (see http://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/talks/psainath.htm) below:

"The crisis states are AP, Rajasthan and Orissa. In the single district of Anantapur, in Andhra Pradesh, between 1997 and 2000, 1800+ people have committed suicides, but when the state assembly requested these statistics, only 54 were listed. [see April 29 and May 6 issues of The Hindu, for more details]. Since suicide is considered a crime in India, the district crime records bureaus list categories for suicide - unrequited love, exams, husbands' and wives' behavior, etc.; in Anantapur, the total from these categories was less than 5%. The largest number, 1061 people, were listed as having committed suicide because of "stomach ache". This fatal condition results from consuming Ciba-Geigy's pesticide, which the government distributes free, and is almost the only thing the rural poor can readily acquire."

"In India, people have the perception of "subsidies" being given to farmers, and this is one of the reasons why the urban folks think that farmers need to improve their act. But the vast majority of this subsidy is given not to the farmers themselves but to fertilizer producers. The "farmers" who get this subsidy are called Birla, Tata and Ambani! Also, this is given in such a way that the more you produce the lower the rate of subsidy, and the smaller amounts you produce, the more higher the rate of subsidy. In theory, this should support the "small farmers", but in fact the large producers overproduce and understate their output, just so they can avail of the higher rate of subsidy." 

"The poor farmer is sometimes portrayed as uncompetitive, and that he lives off subsidies; many people take the view that if he cannot compete with global players, he should try something other than farming. But the reality is that Indian farmers are asked to compete with U.S. farmers who get $35,000 in subsidies per farmer! The European Union conducts its milk and cheese bonfire each year, destroying surplus which might depress prices if released in local markets instead. With markets forced open by trade agreements, that produce is dumped in India (and elsewhere), and it kills the livelihood of the everyday milkman."

The New Economics Foundation (UK based) released a report (2006) about the world economy. According to this report, "Growth isn't working: the uneven distribution of benefits and costs from economic growth, shows that globalisation is failing the world's poorest as their share of the benefits of growth plummet"

In India, the reforms only benefit the upper echelons with income inequality skyrocketing. India now has the fourth largest number of billionaires in the world (36, compared with Japan's 24) with a significant portion the population living in villages or in wretched city slums. The CEO-average worker income differentials in India now stand at a mind-boggling 500:1 or 1,000:1.

In a devious move, Manmohan Singh announced a Cabinet shuffle in February 2006 (ostensibly to broaden regional representation). However if you look closer, this was at the same time as the negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear agreement. The two most significant developments associated with the shuffle were the demotion of Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar and Manmohan Singh's decision to retain in his own hands the post of External Affairs Minister. In all probability, this was concession to the US to further the agreement . Mani Shankar Aiyar (Left) was a vocal proponent of the scheme to build a pipeline to deliver Iranian gas to Pakistan and India. The Bush administration repeatedly made clear that it is adamantly opposed to the building of such a pipeline, which would undercut its efforts to isolate the Iranian regime. Aiyar also championed the development of an Asian energy grid to lessen Asian dependence on western-based oil companies, and promoted cooperation between India and China in overseas energy exploration and production. Needless to say, The Unites States was not pleased.

The shuffle was also used to push through a number of right-wing measures (speeding up the pace of "reform" via more privatization, more deregulation, redirection from income-support programs to defense spending) indicating a clear right-wing shift in the Congress party which is prostituting itself to US interests and violating India's traditional non-aligned movement. Note that Manhoman Singh already has a large number of other posts besides that of prime minister. These include head of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Ministry of Planning, Department of Atomic Energy, and Department of Space and External Affairs (sound like a power grab ?)

Also, see Mani Shankar Aiyars speech to the CII here

I've commented in more detail on the various problems with the Indo-US nuclear agreement here

Being the architect of disaster, could it be that the PM is feeling guilty for wreaking havoc on the country ? Its blindingly obvious that his very own policies have caused the very problems that he's now asking corporations to cooperate with the government in solving. Or is it because he sees a huge increase in domestic unrest (quickly getting uncontrollably out of hand) as a result of social inequality and brutal oppression and is switching panic mode ?

Unfortunately, "corporate social responsibility" is a myth. The capitalist model is responsible solely to its shareholders and is motivated only by profit and greed and is inherently self-destructive and inhumane, so voluntary social responsibility is not going to happen. If Manmohan Singh were really serious about corporate social responsibility, he would enforce government regulations to that effect. For starters, he can place a cap on CEO salaries but that's the least he can do. In fact, he has to start undoing all his own "reforms" by passing regulations to reign in corporations, increase (real) agricultural subsidies and increase taxes on the rich, increase spending on social programs and free India from debilitating World Bank loans.

Maybe, in the PMs guilty admission of the failure of his reforms there is still hope for real reform instead of relying on corporate social responsibility.

On the bright side, we're starting to see roadblocks in the Indo-US nuclear agreement with both sides refusing to yield. According to this very interesting update on the status of the Indo-US nuclear agreement:

"Any lingering doubts on the US stance can be said to have been resolved once and for all by the letter of admonition written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by a group of Congresspersons. Dated May 2nd, the letter authored by members of key Congressional foreign relations committees seeks—baldly stated--to browbeat the Indian government into dropping energy-based ties with Iran".

However, in a surprising twist, instead of buckling to US demands, "As recently as May 8 Petroleum Minister Murli Deora affirmed in Parliament that India would not surrender to US threats and that Energy Secretary Sam Bodman had been informed that US interference in the IPI project was unwarranted. The pipeline project could well be the barometer for a cooling off in Indo-US relations and an end to the period of abject submission to US requirements."

Maybe things are looking up.
References:

New Maharajas
World Bank President Wolfowitz pledges $9 billion in loans to India The People who matter most
With cabinet changes, India's UPA government tilts still closer to Washington
Refusing to Pay the Price

Big, Scawy Terrorist Plot

Be vewy, vewy scared.



The whole "Big, Scary Terrorist Plot" hysteria has morphed into a running joke. The plots are created out of thin air and breathlessly reported.

The latest JFK plot isn't the first time this happened. Here is a short list of previous "plots":

• Lackawanna Six
• Detroit
• Virginia Paintball guys
• The tortured Abu Ali
• Jose Padilla
• Lodi, California
• Miami plot against the Sears Tower
• New York subway tunnels
• New York subway station
• “Liquid explosives” plot on UK to US flights
• Ft. Dix Six

The pattern is humorously dissected by The Huffington Post in "How to Foil a Terrorist Plot in Seven Simple Steps"

But, jokes aside, here is something that should cause real concern but barely gets a mention in the media. You'll be hard-pressed to find much coverage of the Noonday (homegrown fascistic right) plot, but there was some cursory coverage in the NYT and a few other sites.

According to the New York Times:

"On April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon — a cyanide bomb — big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building."

And this is even more worrisome regarding the Noonday plot:

"Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: when he sent a package containing counterfeit U.N. and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address"

Needless to say, this plot was very real (i.e. involving real weapons) compared to the fictitious ones manufactured by highly suspect FBI informants. The Noonday plot remains virtually unknown outside of Texas and barely received media coverage. Something wrong with this picture ?

Noonday in the Shade (2004)
Ashcroft Neglects Real Terrorist Threats Because of His Ideological Biases By Paul Krugman

US media, Ashcroft silent on conviction of right-wing terrorists in Texas
Conspirators built chemical bomb By Bill Vann

A clear indicator of the administrations misplaced priorities.
Protect the population ? Right.

What Withdrawal ?

It's official. The United States is digging its heels in Iraq. The clues (more like obvious facts) are coming in thick and fast and its hard to see how anyone can still have any doubts about this.

First, there was the matter of spineless Democrats and continuing war funding.

Next, for those who came in late, the US Embassy in Iraq is currently under construction (by First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting, billed at 592 million $, US taxpayer money, of course). Being the size of the Vatican, it isn't exactly modest. This is basically the largest embassy ever, anywhere. Forget the citizens of Baghdad and their reconstruction needs. That money is lining the pockets of various corporations that were awarded no-bid contracts. However, embassy construction is under full swing and will almost certainly be the only thing in Iraq to be completed on schedule. To add to this, during the construction, several labor laws are being broken as documented in Kuwait Company’s Secret Contract & Low-Wage Labor by David Phinney.
Does the embassy have a Starbucks and "other versatile solutions for modern living" ? Probably. Does this sound like an imminent withdrawal to you ? No.

Then there is the matter of military bases in Iraq. As revealed by Dahr Jamail at truthout in Iraq: Permanent US Colony, there are quite a few not-so-tiny bases in Iraq.
As described by Jamail:

"Camp Anaconda, near Balad. Occupying 15 square miles of Iraq, the base boasts two swimming pools (not the plastic inflatable type), a gym, mini-golf course and first-run movie theater. Air Force officials on the base claim the runway there is one of the busiest in the world" 

"There are several other gigantic bases in Iraq besides camp Anaconda, such as Camp Victory near Baghdad Airport, which - according to a reporter for Mother Jones magazine - when complete will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. The Kosovo base is currently one of the largest overseas bases built since the war in Vietnam" 

"Camp Liberty is adjacent to Camp Victory - where soldiers even compete in their own triathlons. The course, longer than 140 total miles, spanned several bases in the greater Camp Victory area in west Baghdad"

Does this sound like a withdrawal ?

But wait, there are more clues from the foul mouths of the administration officials themselves. I guess they just assume now that people have figured it out anyway and there is no point pretending anymore.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the United States is looking to a long-term military presence in Iraq under a mutually agreed arrangement similar to that it has long had with South Korea.

Gates says "What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans -- mutually agreed with mutually agreed missions -- is present for a protracted period of time" (US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-54 Korean War)

Gates also says " Our military commanders should not have to worry about the Washington clock. That is for us in Washington to worry about".

Not sure what clock Robert Gates is talking about. The Democrats made sure there is no clock. But I bet Iraqi civilians do have a clock unless it gets blown to smithereens by a cluster bomb. Oh, by the way, cluster bomb fragments are intentionally designed to be jagged so that its harder to remove them from the eye of a screaming victim.

Many (well-meaning) commentators have remarked on the similarities between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war. I think Stephen Zunes analysis at FPIF (see The Democrats' Support for Bush's War) is excellent in general, but I think his analogy with the Vietnam war may be flawed.

According to Zunes:

"In certain respects, the movement against the war in Iraq today is in a similar situation to the movement against the war in Vietnam in 1969. After more than four years of fighting, the majority of Americans and increasing segments of the news media and elite opinion are finally recognizing the need for a withdrawal of American troops" 

"And it may take heightened measures, including sustained nonviolent direct action. When Congress forced the withdrawal of American troops from Cambodia in 1970, it came only after anti-war protests shut down more than 300 colleges and universities across the country and more than 100,000 demonstrators converged on Capitol Hill in early May."

I agree that the popular global movement against the Iraq war is unprecedented (doubt if the same applies to the media and elite opinion). However, whether this will change policy at the highest levels of power is debatable. There is good reason why Democrats (or Republicans or the lapdog media) aren't going to react the same way to popular protest against the Iraq war as they did in Vietnam. Iraq isn't Vietnam. The US aims in Vietnam were to destroy its independent nationalist movement before it inspired others in the region to take a similar route. Vietnam's natural resources were not of much significance to the US. However, Iraq is an altogether different scenario. The massive petroleum resources in the region are one of the largest in the world. Control over these resources is essential to continuing US hegemony while allowing the United States to exert considerable influence over its competitors (Europe, Japan, China etc.).

Withdrawal from Iraq would have very serious consequences for the United States in terms of its global hegemony and that's why withdrawal is unlikely even in face of unprecedented public protests. Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch nor the elite media is willing to deal with the consequences of a withdrawal.

As Noam Chomsky puts it quite clearly in a recent FPIF interview, the two fundamental questions to ask are: "Why did we invade? Why don’t we want to get out?"

Iraq Air War: Connecting the Dots

Below is a trace of several important threads (including the most devastating one that recently appeared on TomDispatch by Nick Turse) that show the progression of the US (secret) air war on Iraq which started as early as post Gulf War I. What emerges is a very disturbing and violent picture that is deep inside genocide territory.

Post Gulf War I
Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. and U.K. had been engaged in a low-level conflict with Iraq, enforcing Iraqi no-fly zones with ongoing air raids.

If you look at the BBC coverage in No-fly zones: The legal position, it mentions that "However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution."

Additionally, the sanctions imposed on Iraq after Gulf War I devastated civilian society and resulted in the deaths of at least half million children as well. If you remember the words of Madeleine Albright when asked if it was worth it, she replied "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it.". She regretted saying those words in her autobiography but still supported the sanctions concept.

2001-2002 (Pre Gulf War II)
The US Air Force received its orders from the White House to begin the preparations for a war on Iraq in late 2001 following the September 11 attacks. These attacks we pre-war and were meant to disrupt Iraq’s southern air defenses and communications infrastructure.
US launched air war against Iraq in 2002
It's Imperialism, Stupid

2003 (War begins officially)

2004 (initial reports)
By Tom Engelhardt @ TomDispatch
Icarus (Armed with Vipers) Over Iraq


2005 (aerial war steps up)
The phrase "air war" had not appeared in either the Washington Post or Time magazine even a single time in 2005 in spite of CENTAF reports indicating the existence of an ongoing air war.
Ignoring the Air War

Where is the Iraq war headed next? by Seymour M. Hersh
Up in the Air

Overall till present:
Finally, a devastating and extensively researched report that appeared recently on TomDispatch (by Nick Turse) of the air war (including the use of 59,787 pounds of air-delivered cluster bombs since 2003). This article is exhaustive and includes various casualty figures as well as links to the air war coverage (or lack of) in the past.
Our Shadowy Iraq Air War

-----

To get some historical context, many Nazis were hanged post World War II after the Nuremberg tribunal. They were hanged mainly for crimes against peace i.e. aggression, the supreme international crime.

The Nuremberg indictment involved 4 counts:

Count One: “conspiracy to wage aggressive war,” addressed crimes committed before the war officially began.
Count Two: “waging an aggressive war,” addressed the undertaking of war in violation of international treaties.
Count Three: “war crimes,” addressed more traditional violations of the laws of war, including the killing or mistreatment of prisoners of war and the use of outlawed weapons.
Count Four: “crimes against humanity,” addressed the crimes committed against Jews, ethnic minorities, physically and mentally disabled persons, civilians in occupied countries, and others.

But here is the key point to get out of Nuremberg: Justice Robert Jackson, an American justice who was a prosecutor at Nuremberg said "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these (Nuremberg) defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

The criminal implications of the Iraq war (use of illegal air war on civilians, torture, aggression, fomenting civil war etc.) are staggering but never discussed in "polite" conversation.

New Chomsky Interviews

2 recent Chomsky interviews by Michael Shank in FPIF. Read them.

Chomsky Takes on the World (Bank)
Thoughts on 'Elective Dictatorship', World Bank, Wolfowitz, odious debt.

Chomsky on India-Pakistan Relations
Thoughts on Kashmir, diaspora & identity, Asian economic integration, Indo-US nuclear agreement, proliferation.

Pipe # 111241

The Polaris Institute (Canada) released in 2005 an important publication titled: "In the Bottle, An Exposé of the Bottled Water Industry". "In the Bottle" is being used as a study and action guide by environmental and political groups in Canada.

One of the many interesting facts in this report is about Alaska Premium Glacier (now defunct) bottled water. According to the above report, the "glacier" water "is drawn from the municipal water system in Juneau, Alaska, specifically, pipe # 111241, which is not a glacier". Apparently the label said "Alaska Premium Glacier Drinking Water: Pure Glacier Water From the Last Unpolluted Frontier, Bacteria Free".

Bottled Water is just another example of how lack of regulation (read "private or free enterprise") can cause environmental damage, encourage use of misleading or outright false advertising and huge undeserved profits for private companies (and their lobbyists) who fight against regulation where it is needed the most. Private enterprise is not a guarantee of consumer protection, environmental protection or even efficiency. The only efficiency at play is at making huge profits by duping the public. It is inconceivable that hordes of people pay money for a basic human necessity such as water in spite of the fact that unfiltered tap water is in a lot of cases simply safer that bottled water. The Bottle Water lunacy started during the Reagan administration (with an endless repetition of the deregulation mantra). Bottle Water is a great example of a highly sophisticated propaganda apparatus that is able to convince millions of people to buy into the sham and transforming water into a fashion statement.

As another example, the Bolivian government imposed martial law (and repression that goes along with it) when the public protested the privatization (by usual suspect Bechtel) of the water supply which resulted in a huge increase in the price of water. Happily, the government finally relented to the civil disobedience and Bechtel had to flee.

A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) mentions that "Millions of us are willing to pay 240 to over 10,000 times more per gallon for bottled water than we do for tap water".

The Polaris Institute report is a great step in educating the public and community groups in this critical matter.

A great summary of all the issues can be read in this article by Larry Lack which talks in some more detail about the Polaris report.

The Bottled Water Madness

MoveOn.org and The Nation Magazine (Democracy Inaction)

Two recent articles by John Stauber (Center for Media and Democracy) and Bill Van Auken (World Socialist Web Site) bring into sharp focus the futility of persisting and participating in the compromised two-party system and the lack of a genuine independent political system.

The first is a very cogent analysis/statement by John Stauber on why MoveOn (which strongly aligns itself with the Democratic party) is pursuing the wrong strategy (more specifically on the Iraq war) and why an anti-war movement that is aligned with neither the Democratic or Republican Party is vital to creating real change. Stauber says (rightly, I think) that MoveOn's emphasis is on winning elections and not on ending the war as soon as possible. He says "MoveOn has not been primarily a movement against the war. It has been a movement of Democrats to get the party back into power."

The Nation magazine offers an alibi for Democrats’ support of Iraq war (by Bill Van Auken) expresses a similar sentiment as above and describes how the Democratic party only pretends to be a "people's" party but in reality they are similar to Republicans in that both parties are accountable to the financial elite and not to the common man. He bemoans the lack of an independent and genuine political system.

It is precisely due to the Democratic party's obligation to its corporate contributors that it dare not launch an opposition to the war (other than hopelessly obvious pretence). Manipulative hacks like Pelosi and Reid (and majority of other Democrats) spew out anti-war rhetoric at the right time to garner votes and at the same time ensure that war funding bills get passed easily. It's the ultimate cynical and ruthless betrayal of the populace who voted them into power for a very specific reason (to end the war).

Alien Hand Syndrome

Alien Hand Syndrome (AHS) is a rare neurological disorder, but the symptoms are bizarre. This disorder is usually caused by some kind of brain injury or by surgery that results in separation of the two brain hemispheres. Patients with AHS experience reduced awareness of their actions, more specifically, they lose voluntary control over one hand. The results are both comical and bizarrely unsettling. The patient is completely unaware of what one hand is doing until they "see" it or someone points it out. Alien hands can perform complex acts such as undoing buttons, removing clothing, and yes, alien hands can masturbate :-). In an often-cited example, a lady with the condition was given a cup of tea and immediately commented that it was too hot to drink, so she would let it cool first. As soon as she stated that intention, however, her alien hand grabbed the cup of tea in an effort to drink it, and she had to restrain it with her other hand (possibly spilling the tea).



AHS (or some form of it) is widely referenced in pop culture, the most famous one being Dr. Stranglove. We have the spooky image of the ex-Nazi Dr. Strangelove trying to strangle himself (or give the Hitler salute), while his other hand tries to stop the Alien Hand from doing its thing.

Patients of AHS can fool themselves into believing that their actions are intentional. There is a weird disconnect between the intention and the actual actions. Alien Hand Syndrome raises fascinating questions about the nature of free will and separation of intention from actions.

More on Alien Hand Syndrome at wikipedia

Definitions of Terrorism

Here is the definition of Terrorism from various official sources:

Department of Justice

Patterns of Global Terrorism is a report published each year by the United States Department of State. Mysteriously, the State Department stopped publishing this report in 2004. However, if you look at the introduction to the 2000 report:

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

• The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
  
• The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
  
• The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

United Nations

Any ... act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

Department of Defense

The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

George Bush

And finally, here are some remarks by George Bush (or his speechwriter) on October 6th, 2005

"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account"

-----------------

Your homework assignment, Gentle Reader, is to use these definitions to determine the identity of the egregious offenders (without exception)