Mesmo : Meanderings on Obama

A couple of Chicago pols.

If he wins, maybe he can finally sit still
By Gerry Storm / The Rag Blog / July 22, 2008

After reading the long article on Obama in the controversial issue of the New Yorker, I am not convinced that he can focus on any problem for very long. The rhythms of his success are fast, hop from one crowd to another, win their support for an election, and then before accomplishing much in office, repeat the routine into a higher office. Many of his original cronies in Chicago have dumped him, some supported Hillary. One thing about it, if he becomes president he won’t have any higher office to seek, and we will see if he can sit in the same place for four years and rule. He has Neptune squared to the Sun which bothers me, super slick but maddeningly unable to give a straight, unnuanced answer.

So how is he going to control the corporations, kick the asses of the chemical and healthcare and oil monsters and bring them into line? It is just possible that he could do it with law, that is, enforcing the law…and maybe creating some new law to enforce, more nuanced law. We sometimes forget that the criminals in the white house have allowed broad law breaking and that a simple enforcement of the law can have a big impact on the society. He will certainly tighten things up a bit but how far will he go?

In spite of his hangups he has stayed clean. Nothing in his record to indicate that he went for the money. He has always had enough, both personal and campaign financing. The trail he left as a lawyer was carefully chosen, civil rights specialist, gave him an intro to Chicago politics. He played a few serious political chess matches and won most all of them. The trail of his career indicates that he has crafted his rise to Demo nominee in a very ingenious way.

When Jesse Jackson jumped on him it was not a recent feud. Obama was in a different faction of Chicago politics that was often at odds with Jesse’s gang, once supported a candidate running against Jesse Jr.

Wish you could share the weather we are having [in the southwestern New Mexico desert]. Time to sit on the porch and wait for my masseuse to arrive.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reality in Palestine – Unconscionable IDF Brutality

Middle East: Rights group hails video as new weapon against Israeli army
By Rory McCarthy / July 22, 2008

JERUSALEM — Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, yesterday promised an inquiry after video footage showed an Israeli soldier shooting baton rounds at a Palestinian detainee who was blindfolded and cuffed.

“The Israeli military will investigate the incident, learn its lessons and hold those responsible to account,” he told MPs from his Labour party. “Warriors do not behave like this.”

The advocate general, Brigadier General Avichai Mendelblit, is said to have ordered a military police inquiry after he saw the footage released on Sunday by the Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem. The incident happened on July 7 in Nil’in village. Several other soldiers were present, including a lieutenant colonel who was holding the arm of the Palestinian man.

The man shot, Ashraf Abu Rahma, 27, was treated for an injury to his toe and was then released.

It was the latest incident in which video footage has been used to highlight violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. B’Tselem has been running a project since January last year in which it has given out around 100 video cameras to Palestinians to allow them to film human rights abuses in the West Bank. The Nil’in footage was filmed on a private camera by a 17-year-old girl who lives in the village. B’Tselem has now given her one of its cameras as part of its Shooting Back project.

Sarit Michaeli, spokeswoman for B’Tselem, said the footage was intended as much for an Israeli audience as for an international one. She said spoken or written testimony from Palestinians involved in such cases was often given little weight in official police or military investigations into apparent abuses, but video footage was much more powerful.

“I see no better way of encouraging accountability among members of the security forces,” said Michaeli.

Source / The Guardian

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bobby Seale : Still Revolutionary After All These Years

Former Black Panther Party chairman Bobby Seale. Photo By Adam Wallacavage.

An interview with the former chairman of the Black Panther Party
By Kam Williams / July 20th, 2008

Robert George Seale was born on October 22, 1936 in Dallas, Texas where, from the age of six, he was raised by his father to be a carpenter-builder and a hunter-fisherman. During WWII, the family migrated to Northern California where Bobby graduated from Berkeley High with plans of becoming an architect.

However, those plans were put on hold when he instead enlisted in the Air Force, serving for almost four years, till being discharged for insubordination. He then moved to Los Angeles to take a shot at showbiz as a stand-up comedian and as a jazz musician, before returning to the Bay Area in 1961.

The next year, while working the night shift, full-time in the aerospace industry, Bobby attended Merritt College as an Engineering Design major. It was during this period of his life that he would meet Huey Newton and develop a passion for grassroots organizing and progressive politics. After identifying some pressing needs of Black America, the two decided to create a grass roots community-based organization. On October 15, 1966, they founded the Black Panthers, outlining the new political party’s 10-Point Platform, and naming Bobby its Chairman, and Huey its Minister of Defense, after flipping a coin.

The organization membership rolls surged in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, when most young African-Americans began to question the wisdom of the late civil rights leader’s philosophy of civil disobedience and passive resistance. But the government would come down hard on the Panthers, using the FBI’s notorious Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) along with local authorities to discredit, kill, frame, imprison and otherwise neutralize its members and sympathizers.

Although Bobby would himself spend over two years in jail on a variety of trumped-up charges, he was ultimately vindicated in every case. The most famous trial he was ever associated, dubbed the Chicago 8, began after his arrest along with 7 other activists for conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic Convention in Chicago during the Summer of 1968.

The proceedings became something of a shameful spectacle when the judge had Bobby bound, shackled and gagged in the courtroom for repeatedly demanding that he be allowed to exercise his Constitutional right to represent himself. Here, he reflects on the new animated docudrama about the trial called Chicago 10, and on his enduring career as an unwavering advocate of the rights of the disenfranchised and the downtrodden.


So, what did you think of the film, Chicago 10?

BobbyS: Well, it needed my voice.

I take it you would’ve preferred to do your own voice for the animation, instead of having Jeffrey Wright do you.

BobbyS: Sure, the director [Brett Morgen] has since admitted to me that when he heard I was 70 years-old, he didn’t even consider me. He expected that I was going to be an old guy with a shaky voice going, “Well, you know, back in the day…” I said, “No, brother,” and got to reciting strings of historical facts about the Black Panther Party, and he said, “My God! You run off at the mouth like you’re 19!”

I guess it must be strange to hear someone else doing you, especially since you have such a distinct and recognizable voice.

BobbyS: Well, it’s alright, thought I feel he should have at least made a better effort to contact me and consult me about the film and about the history, regardless of how he ultimately made the movie. Plus, I had produced my own documentary, so I’m aware of a lot of the factors that go into making a halfway decent movie. I think I could’ve made a hellified contribution in terms of the storyline.

I even had a problem with the title. I felt it should be called The Chicago 8, as the defendants were known collectively, not Chicago 10.

BobbyS: I think it was a bad title, too. It should have been The Chicago 7 or The Chicago 8, preferably, the latter, because that’s the historical reference point for the average person who knows something about the Sixties. It reminds me how in 1988 I put a bad title on my own cookbook, calling it just “Barbeque’n with Bobby.” Only in small letters at the bottom did it say “recipes by Bobby Seale.” The title should have been Barbeque’n with Bobby Seale, because 100 million people know my name. So, that was bad marketing on my part.

Other than the title and not using your voice, what did you think of Chicago 10?

BobbyS: I thought it was pretty good, for a doc. It could have been about ten minutes longer to include more about what happened to me when I was in lockup, because I was in jail the whole time of the trial. The other seven defendants were out on bail, except for Jerry Rubin for three weeks.

Why do you think Judge Hoffman had you bound and gagged, and had your trial separated? Do you think he got an order from above, from someone like J. Edgar Hoover?

BobbyS: Nah, he just couldn’t handle me. He kept trying to say that William Kunstler was my lawyer. I kept telling him that Kunstler was not my lawyer. He and I went around and around arguing about that.

Charles Garry was your attorney, right?

BobbyS: Yeah, but Charles Garry was in the hospital recovering from a gall bladder operation. So, I had made a motion to defend myself at the beginning of the trial, before the jury had heard even one shred of evidence, since my lawyer wasn’t there. Every time anyone would mention my name in the courtroom, I would jump up out of my chair and yell, “I object! I object, because my lawyer, Charles R. Garry, is not present.” He’d order me, “Sit down, Mr. Seale.” And I’d respond, “No, I want the record to reflect that I am objecting, and I am going to continue to object because you denied me my right to defend myself.” So, he chained, shackled and gagged me for three days, until finally the press went against him.

Did you behave yourself after the restraints came off?

BobbyS: No. For instance, after the defense attorneys finished cross-examining an FBI agent on the witness stand, the judge would say, “Are there any more questions?” I would jump up and say, “Well, I want to cross-examine the witness.” And I’d walk over to the lectern and say, “Looka here, what the hell were you doing following me around in the first damn place?” I wasn’t a learned lawyer, but I but I was still doing my best to defend myself by asking logical questions. The judge would interrupt and say, “No, no, no, you don’t have to answer him” And I’d ask, “Why not? Why shouldn’t he have to answer the question? I’ve been denied the right to defend myself. Somebody has to answer these pointed questions if I’m going to be given a fair chance to prove my innocence.” At that point, Hoffman decided to charge me with 16 counts of contempt, and to sever my trial from that of the others. So, really, he got rid of me because he couldn’t handle me.

Do you think he would have had you bound, gagged and shackled, if you weren’t Black?

BobbyS: I don’t know. That’s hard to say. The fact that I was a Black Panther, a political revolutionary, had a lot more to do with the mentality of Judge Julius Hoffman, and his, quote-unquote, putting Bobby Seale the Black Panther leader down. In other words, J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI, the right-wing, the prosecution, the Nixon Administration, etcetera had all declared me and the other defendants a threat to the internal security of America. The government hated us. And Hoffman knew this. So, his thinking in gagging me was “I’m going to gag this Black Panther.”

I was fifteen in the 1968, and like the typical Black teenager, the Panthers became my heroes after Martin Luther King was assassinated. We saw where non-violence and passive resistance would get a pacifist begging for equality in a racist society.

BobbyS: Before King was killed, my friend Huey was in jail. To that point, I had only organized about 400 Black Panther Party members up and down the West Coast, between San Diego and Seattle. There were no other branches or chapters elsewhere in the country. All right? Then, in April, 1968 King is murdered, and by late May, when schools start letting out, I begin getting a flood of people into the organization, folks flying from cities all over the nation into Oakland to talk to me and the central committee about setting up new chapters in their hometowns. Young Black people were reacting to the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King had been killed. That tragedy enabled my organization to spread across the country. By November, I had 5,000 members and 49 branches. That’s 49 cities that we operated offices of the Black Panther Party in. We had the Free Breakfast for Children Program, free Sickle Cell Anemia Testing and Free Preventative Medical Healthcare Clinics in every last one of them. These programs organized and unified people on the grassroots level in the Black communities where we operated. And it is a real threat to the power structure, when you can organize and unify people around something concrete. Do you see what I’m getting at?

So, here is the Counter-Intelligence Program of the FBI (COINTELPRO) doing everything it can to distort and stereotype us. They don’t tell you that I was an engineer on the Gemini missile program, and an architect, and a stand-up comedian. All they said was that I was a hoodlum and a thug. They never said that Huey Newton had finished two years of law school by the time that we created the Black Panthers. They don’t say that I was actually employed by the City of Oakland when we created the Black Panther Party.

Do you think the Panther 10-Point Program is as relevant today as it was then?

BobbyS: Yes, as profoundly relevant. In fact, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who worked with my organization for five years, back then, says that the Black Panther Party’s 10-Point Program is just as relevant today as it was years ago. And we could add some points to this son of a gun.

The big sister of a friend of mine was married to one of the Panther 21 arrested in NYC in 1969. I remember him telling me they had all been framed on bogus charges. Did you ever determine exactly when the FBI began infiltrating the Panthers and to what lengths it went to bring down the organization?

BobbyS: First of all, let’s say it this way. The FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Program would work hand-in-hand with police departments, literally planning attacks on Black Panther Party offices throughout the United States of America. They did this over a period of time. They also used provocateurs, and had agents infiltrating the organization. And they would issue press releases every month or so which they would send to politicians and the press in cities where we were operating. But the most profound thing the FBI did was being complicit in the murder of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in Chicago, working with a special police division. The FBI was complicit in setting up that operation in December of 1969. A former FBI Agent named Wesley Swearingen even admitted it in a book published by South End Press called “FBI Secrets.” He also shows how the FBI was involved in the killings of Black Panthers John Huggins and Bunchy Carter at UCLA in January of 1969. COINTELPRO was trying to terrorize us out of existence. They didn’t say you’re under arrest on a bullhorn and ask for us to surrender. They just came in shooting. By the end of ‘69, every Black Panther Party office in this country had been attacked.

In 1969, there was also a lot of tension in L.A. between the Panthers and Ron Karenga’s Black nationalist organization, US.

BobbyS: It was half generated by COINTELPRO. The FBI admitted it in the Senate investigation hearings.

Would you say the FBI succeeded in bringing you down?

BobbyS: No, we weathered everything they threw at us. At a certain point, the U.S. Senate started investigating their attacks on us. When the FBI couldn’t give a good explanation as to why they were attacking all our offices, the raids finally stopped.

Meanwhile, how were you holding up behind bars?

BobbyS: In the end, I won all my cases. They had to let me out after holding me for two years in jail without bail. Lots of people think I went to prison. I never went to prison. I was in jail without bail. After I won all the cases, they had to release me. And from 1971 to 1974 there were no shootouts. We maintained our programs and ran for political office. So, the Black Panther Party was not destroyed in that sense, but our Constitutional, democratic, civil, human, and life rights had been violated.

What would you have done differently, had you known the government was going to come down on you like that?

BobbyS: What would I have done differently? I don’t know. I’ve tried to assess that. You know that racists are going to attack you. When we started out, we accept the fact that sooner or later they were going to try to kill us. But we decided not to let that deter us. We chose to stand on the right to self-defense as best we could. And it just so happened that they came down on us. Ultimately, 28 of my Black Panther Party members were killed in various attacks by or shootouts with the police. And in those confrontations, at least a dozen black police officers were killed. I still have 10 political prisoners in jail to this day behind some of those dead cops, when they were just defending themselves against those policemen. They were convicted of first-degree murder, but they were really only defending themselves. I wish I could get amnesty for them, and get my political prisoner friends out. At any rate, I can’t obsess about what I would have done if I knew they were going to come down on me, because I did kinda know they were going to come down on us. They were coming down on the Black community in the first place via institutional racism, rampant police brutality and so on.

What do you think of the New Black Panthers? Their philosophy strikes me as being totally different from yours.

BobbyS: Thumbs down! They hijacked our name. They do not represent what we represent. Our program was about all power to all the people. We had a progressive program, a relevant humanistic program, a true human liberation program. I have no time for the so-called New Black Panthers. We have invited them to three different Black Panther reunions, and every time they act stupider and stupider. I’m tired of them and have not time for them. It’s gotten to the point where we believe that their leadership is nothing but government operatives. They spout stuff that we were not about. The rank-and-file New Black Panthers probably don’t even know this. It’s like a COINTELPRO operation. I think the leadership is working for the government to spout a bunch of Black racist remarks and attitudes, saying they support Al-Qaeda and that sort of crap. I’m very skeptical. I feel for the young brothers who don’t know this is what’s happening. They should get out of that group. They act so silly and stupid. For instance, they took that famous picture of me and Huey standing in front of the original Black Panther Party office, and cut my head off and replaced it with Brother Khalid Muhammad’s. In other words, they want to hijack our reunions. They’re arrogant, and I have no time for that. So, I told them, “Don’t talk to me. And don’t try to act bad, just because you’ve got some little pistols under your coats there, because if you jump up in people’s faces here, they will defend themselves.” In fact, I said, “Your damn leadership ain’t nothing but a bunch of CIA a-holes.” That’s what I believe.

Yet, I always see some spokesman for them on Fox.

BobbyS: Fox News never calls up Bobby Seale to articulate a stance in opposition to right-wing conservatives. To me, giving the New Black Panthers a platform on Fox is a subtle tactic to scare people. As far as I’m concerned, any extremist organization whether it’s Al-Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, or any other a-holes who indiscriminately murder and blow-up innocent people, need to be routed out and dealt with. If they claim to be fighting for human liberation, they’re liars, because when you start killing indiscriminately on that level, you have totally stepped outside the civility of what human liberation is all about.

Were you politicized while serving in the Air Force?

BobbyS: Oh, no. I didn’t know politics back then. They put me in the stockade twice. I had been an honor student. But I ran into racism in the military and didn’t know how to handle it. I’d knock a racist out. So, they put me in the stockade.

So, what would you say politicized you?

BobbyS: The first thing that began to politicize me was Jomo Kenyatta’s “Facing Mount Kenya.” I started reading that in the Spring semester of 1962. From there, I went to hear Martin Luther King speak. In the early part of ’63, I was working on the freedom of Nelson Mandela and on ending apartheid. Next, I was listening to Malcolm X after he’d left the Nation of Islam. I was thinking about joining his new organization, the OAAU, but that never happened, because he wound up getting assassinated before I had an opportunity. I was steeped in African-American history and in and out of many different organizations in the Oakland area. I was a programmatic organizer. I quit my engineering job after three years to work at the grassroots level. I wasn’t married and had no kids, so I was able to do those things.

What was at the heart of your and Huey Newton’s creating the Panthers?

BobbyS: Patrolling the police, the breakfast and job programs were all political moves, but our overall objective was to organize a mass membership organization and to evolve a political, electoral, community unity in the Black community. That was my objective.

Do you think the government would have come down as hard on you if you hadn’t exercised your right to bear arms?

BobbyS: Yeah, because they came down hard on peaceful protesters. They were already shooting, killing, murdering and brutalizing peaceful protesters, so what’s the difference?

How do you think you managed to survive the Sixties when so many Black leaders either ended up dead, in prison or in exile?

BobbyS: I think they thought it was best to put Bobby Seale in jail and to try to convict him than to kill him, because killing him might make him a martyr and cause his organization to grow some more.

What do you think of Barack Obama?

BobbyS: I like Obama very much. He’s representative of a lot of changes which are necessary for the country. He might just be another guy who has been handed the keys by the corporate establishment. But if he can make it to President and actually use the bully pulpit to become a driving force for some progressive legislation related to human liberation, then that’s all the better.

How would you describe yourself politically today?

BobbyS: I am still a progressive, political revolutionary. I am a revolutionary humanist, like I was in the Sixties. Do you understand what I mean by revolution? Revolution is about the need to re-evolve political, economic and social justice and power back into the hands of the people, preferably through legislation and policies that make human sense. That’s what revolution is about. Revolution is not about shootouts.

Is there any question no reporter has ever asked you, that you wished one would?

BobbyS: Yeah, Where’s my eldest son?

Where is he?

BobbyS: In Iraq. He just got shipped there on June 19th. He’s been in the Army Reserves from the age of 18 to 30. He was going to leave, but he agreed to reenlist if they would make him a Military Police Officer, because that would help him get a higher paying job he wanted as a security guard with a bio-tech company. And right after that Bush started that damn, dumb-ass Iraq War. And my son just got shipped to Iraq for the first time.

Are you able to sleep, or are you always worried now?

BobbyS: Sure, I’m able to sleep. But I got a kid in Iraq, and I just don’t want him to be killed over there. I call him and email him and tell him I’m behind you and the troops, but not behind Bush. I also have a son who’s a doctor, and a daughter who’s 30. She’s finished school and needs to get married. I’m hoping she’ll find somebody really nice soon. But she’s got her job, and her principles, and her independence, which are all important in terms of her personalized liberation.

So, what else do you want ask? How much my income is?

How do you think I survive?

By giving lectures and writing books.

BobbyS: Yep, college lectures. I do about 20 lectures a year. I haven’t written any books for a while, although I have two books in the works. I’ve almost finished “The Eighth Defendant.” I’m looking for a top publisher who’ll give me a half-million dollar advance for it. I need a big advance to make my family secure. Are you going to write include that in the article?

Source / Black Star News

Also go to Bobby Seale’s website.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HEALTH CARE : Depressed? Try An Anti-depressant and Get Really Depressed


Gives a whole new meaning to sex and drugs
By Duncan Echelson / The Rag Blog / July 22, 2008

Here’s a story from Jim Edwards’ blog NRx. He gives some facts and figures on how SSRI’s are having a devastating effect on people’s sex lives. We have been going through all these years thinking about how sex and drugs were connected in a positive correlation (more drugs, more sex) when all of a sudden they have a negative correlation (more drugs, less sex).

Not to worry though. Another story of the day is about how a research study shows that if women taking Paxil are experiencing a rotten sex life, the solution is to take Viagra. A wonderful deal for Pfizer which just happens to manufacture both drugs. Ain’t chemistry wonderful!!!

[Duncan Echelson also blogs at PharmCritic]

Worst Side Effect Ever: The ‘Pleasureless Orgasm’

File this one under “Why isn’t this on the front page?!” It’s a natural audience-grabber that actually has some proper science behind it:

SSRI antidepressants — such as Paxil, Lexapro, Zoloft, Luvox and Prozac — have rates of “decreased libido, delayed orgasm, anorgasmia, erectile dysfunction, and difficulties with arousal, of between 36 and 70%,” according to a new study.

First reported on the excellent (but badly named) psychiatry blog “Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look,” the study is a comprehensive review of sexual side effects triggered by selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. (That’s happy pills, for us lay-folk.)

One of the worst side effects, seemingly designed by the devil himself, is the “pleasureless orgasm.” The condition goes hand in hand with “genital anaesthesia” (meaning “can’t feel anything,” presumably).

Let’s do a little math: According to Scientific American, close to 10% of Americans are on antidepressants. Let’s make it easy and say that’s 30 million of 300 million yanks. Of those, possibly 23 million are walking around in a state of sexual frustration. And they have partners — so that’s somewhere in the neighborhood of a possible 46 million of us who are inexplicably tetchy and bad tempered on most days. (Yes, I know that some of them will be dating each other — but you can see my point.)

Source. / Jim Edwards’ NRx

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

African Anglican Leaders Call For Ouster of Gay Bishop

Rev. Gene Robinson touring stalls at Lambeth. He is not invited to the conference itself. Photo by Peter Macdiarmid / Getty Images.

‘Should resign for good of the church…’
By Riazat Butt / July 22, 2008

Rev. Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of New Hampshire should resign in order to save the Anglican Communion, a senior African archbishop said today.

The call came from the Rt Rev Dr Daniel Deng, the archbishop of Sudan, and followed a strongly worded statement that accused the US Episcopal church of exposing Anglicans to ridicule and damaging their credibility in a multi-religious environment.

African bishops who signed the statement rejecting homosexual practice said they could not accept it as part of their church. They reiterated their opposition to developments in the US and Canada, where gay clergy are ordained and where same-sex relationships are blessed.

“This has not only caused deep divisions within the communion but it has seriously harmed the church’s witness in Africa, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.”

The statement was endorsed by more than 150 bishops attending Lambeth, who represent 17 of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion.

Deng said: “He [Robinson] should resign for the sake of the church. The people who consecrated him should confess to the conference because they created an outcry in the whole Anglican world. God is not making a mistake creating Adam and Eve – he would have created two Adams if he wanted. If he was a real Christian he would resign.”

There was already a breakdown in the Anglican Communion, with around 230 bishops boycotting the conference because of Robinson’s election, he said.

“Can he not resign to allow the 300 bishops to come back to the house? The norms of the communion have been violated. We’re asking them as Christians to keep the Anglican world intact.”

Robinson’s election divided the communion and his exclusion was intended to appease traditionalists. However, the decision of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to keep Robinson away angered the Episcopal church, which until 48 hours ago was lobbying to have him brought back into the fold.

US bishops expressed their anger and hurt over his exclusion at a closed meeting. However, the leadership declined to take up the issue and an increasing number of bishops are said to be distancing themselves from the New Hampshire cleric in order to avoid conflict with conference organisers.

Officially, today was the second day of the most important gathering in the Anglican calendar. But the crucial summit is descending into farce, with bishops publicising their disputes and grievances. Robinson complained at being shut out, not only from Lambeth but also from a key US House of Bishops meeting.

On his blog, he wrote: “It really puts all of us in a lose-lose position: if I abide by their ruling, I am excluded; if I fight it or simply show up, then I’m the troublemaker and rebel. This is not a ditch I feel called to die in. I will just mourn the sadness of it, and move on.”

Source / Guardian, UK

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Turning Into the Main Actors of Our Present & Future


Bolivian President Evo Morales on the WTO’s Round of Negotiations
By Evo Morales Ayma / July 22, 2008

International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty. We recognize the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. The majority of WTO members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration. Doha World Trade Organization Ministerial Declaration, November 14, 2001

With these words began the WTO round of negotiations seven years ago. In reality, are economic development, the alleviation of poverty, the needs of all our peoples, the increased opportunities for developing countries at the center of the current negotiations at the WTO?

First I must say that if it were so, all 153 member countries and in particular, the wide majority of developing countries should be the main actors in the WTO negotiations. But what we are seeing is that a handful of 35 countries are invited by the Director-General to informal meetings so that they advance significantly in the negotiations and prepare the agreements of this WTO “Development Round”.

The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies.

The agricultural subsidies in the North, which mainly go to agricultural and food companies in the US and Europe, will not only continue but will actually increase, as demonstrated by the 2008 Farm Bill[1] in the United States. The developing countries will lower tariffs on their agricultural products while the real subsidies[2] applied by the US or the EU to their agricultural products will not decline.

As for industrial products in the WTO negotiations, developing countries are being asked to cut their tariffs by 40% to 60% while developed countries will, on average, cut their tariffs by 25% to 33%.

For countries like Bolivia the erosion of trade preferences due to the overall lowering of tariffs will have negative effects on the competitiveness of our exports.

The recognition of asymmetries, and the real and effective special and differential treatment in favor of developing countries is limited and obstructed when implemented by developed countries.

In the negotiations, there is a push towards the liberalization of new services sectors by countries when we should be definitely excluding basic services in education, health, water, energy and telecommunications from the text of the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services. These services are human rights that cannot be objects of private commercial relations and of liberalization rules that lead to privatization.

The deregulation and privatization of financial services, among others, are the cause of the current global financial crisis. Further liberalization of services will not bring about more development, but greater probabilities for a crisis and speculation on vital matters such as food.

The intellectual property regime established by the WTO has most of all benefited transnational corporations that monopolize patents, thus making medicines and other vital products more expensive, promoting the privatization and commercialization of life itself, as evidenced by the various patents on plants, animals and even human genes.

The poorest countries will be the main losers. The economic projections of a potential WTO agreement, carried out even by the World Bank,[3] indicate that the cumulative costs of the loss in employment, the restrictions to national policymaking and the loss in tariff revenues will be greater than the “gains” from the “Development Round”.

After seven years, the WTO round is anchored in the past and out of date with the most important phenomena we are currently living: the food crisis, the energy crisis, climate change and the elimination of cultural diversity. The world is being led to believe that an agreement is needed to resolve the global agenda and this agreement does not correspond to that reality. Its bases are not appropriate to resist this new global agenda.

Studies by the FAO point out that with the current forces of agricultural production it is possible to feed 12 billion human beings, in other words, almost more than double the current world population. However, there is a food crisis because production is not geared towards the well-being of humans but towards the market, speculation and profitability of the big producers and marketers of food. To deal with the food crisis, it is necessary to strengthen family, peasant and community agriculture. Developing countries have to recover the right to regulate[4] our imports and exports to guarantee our populations’ food supply. We have to end consumerism, waste and luxuries. In the poorest part of the planet, millions of human beings die of hunger every year. In the richest part of the planet, millions of dollars are spent to combat obesity. We consume in excess, waste natural resources and we produce the waste that pollutes Mother Earth.

Countries should prioritize the consumption of what we produce locally. A product that travels half around the world to reach its destiny can be cheaper than other that is produced domestically, but, if we take into account the environmental costs of transporting that merchandise, the energy consumption and the quantity of carbon emissions that it generates, then we can reach the conclusion that it is healthier for the planet and for humanity to prioritize the consumption of what is produced locally.

Foreign trade must be a complement to local production. In no way can we favor foreign markets at the expense of national production.

Capitalism wants to make us all uniform so that we turn into mere consumers. For the North there is only one development model, theirs. The uniform models of economic development are accompanied by processes of generalized acculturation to impose on us one single culture, one single fashion, one single way of thinking and of seeing things. To destroy a culture, to threaten the identity of a people, is the greatest damage that can be done to humanity.

The respect and the peaceful and harmonic complementarity of the various cultures and economies is essential to save the planet, humanity and life.

For this to be in fact, a round of negotiations about development and anchored in the present and future of humanity and the planet it should:

-Guarantee the participation of developing countries in all WTO meetings, thus ending exclusive meetings in the “green room”.[5]

-Implement true asymmetric negotiations in favor of developing countries in which the developed countries make effective concessions.

-Respect the interests of developing countries without limiting their capacity to define and implement national policies in agriculture, industry and services.

-Effectively reduce the protectionist measures and subsidies of developed countries.[6]

-Insure that the right of developing countries to protect their infant industries, for as long as necessary, in the same manner that industrialized countries did in the past.

-Guarantee the right of developing countries to regulate and define their policies in the services sector, explicitly excluding basic services from the General Agreement on Trade in Services of the WTO.

-Limit the monopolies of large corporations on intellectual property, foster the transfer of technology and prohibit the patenting of all forms of life.

-Guarantee the countries’ food sovereignty, eliminating any limitation to the ability of the States to regulate food exports and imports.

-Adopt measures that contribute to limit consumerism, the wasting of natural resources, the elimination of greenhouse gases and the creation of waste that harms Mother Earth.

In the 21st century, a “Development round” can no longer be about “free trade”, but it rather has to promote a kind of trade that contributes to the equilibrium between countries, regions and mother nature, establishing indicators that allow for an evaluation and correction of trade rules in terms of sustainable development.

We, the governments, have an enormous responsibility with our peoples. Agreements such as the ones in the WTO have to be widely known and debated by all citizens and not only by ministers, businessmen and “experts”. We, the peoples of the world, have to stop being passive victims of these negotiations and turn into main actors of our present and future.

Evo Morales Ayma
Presidente of Bolivia

[1] The 2008 Farm Bill was approved on May 22 by the US Congress. It authorizes spending that includes subsidies to agriculture of up to 307 billion dollars in 5 years. Of these, there will be approximately 208 billion dollars that can be spent on food programs.
[2] The current text in Agriculture proposes the reduction of US subsidies by a range between 13 and 16.4 billion dollars per year. However, the real subsidies that will actually apply to the US are of approximately 7 billion dollars per year. On the other hand, the European Union is offering in the WTO negotiations the reform it carried out in 2003 to its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), without proposing further opening.
[3] Developing countries have little to gain in the WTO Round: the projected gains are of 0.2% for these countries, the reduction in world poverty is of 2.5 million (less than 1% of the world’s poor) and the losses due to forgone tariff revenues will be of at least 63 billion dollars. (Anderson, Martin, and van der Mensbrugghe, “Market and Welfare Implications of Doha Reform Scenarios,” in Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, Anderson and Martin, World Bank in Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations” by Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, RIS Policy Brief #36).
[4] This regulation must include the right to implement taxes on exports, to lower tariffs to favor imports, ban exports, subsidize domestic production, establish price bands, and in short, any measure that, given each developing country’s reality, better suits the purpose of guaranteeing the population’s food supply.
[5] The green room meetings is the name of the informal negotiation meetings at the WTO in which a group of 35 countries selected by the Director-General participates.
[6] A real cut in agricultural subsidies in the US would have to reduce them to less than 7 billion dollars per year.

Source / Upside Down World

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MUSIC : Gringos Recording Mexican Songs…

Doug Sahm and The Texas Tornados, 1996:(From Left) Flaco Jimenez, Sahm, Freddy Fender, and Augie Meyers.

Class personified: Nat King Cole.

The bueno, the bad and the muy ugly
By Gustavo Arellano and John Nova Lomax

Mexican artists have recorded English-language songs for decades, but the opposite is rare. American musicians have historically treated Mexican music like they treat Mexicans, and when they do bother to cover a classic, they tend to sound absolutely awful. Here, we present our favorite American covers of Mexican songs, plus a couple of efforts that deserve deportation. And for the purposes of continuity, wabs such as Linda Ronstadt and El Chicano don’t count, nor do semi-Spanish tracks such as “Que Sera Sera” and “Spanish Bombs.” (San Antonio-style Spanglish gets a pass, though.)

Anything by Nat King Cole: The man was class personified, even when he recorded three albums in Spanish during the ’50s and ’60s. Although he wasn’t fluent in español and had to pronounce every line phonetically, Cole still earned the love of Latin America, not just because of his earnest effort tackling Mexican and Latin American standards, but because his backing bands always rocked — witness the rollicking rumba on “Ay Cosita Linda.”

Pete Seeger: Not only did the big boss man of the folk movement and the founder of the modern-day protest song popularize the Cuban anthem “La Guantanamera,” he also recorded a banjo version of “Cielito Lindo,” the Mexican standard composed by Quirino Mendoza y Cortés in the 19th century. Perhaps it was Seeger’s version that inspired Frito-Lay to adopt the song for their ill-fated, ethnically insensitive Frito Bandito campaign, which, in turn, inspired the iconography of the San Leon-founded motorcycle gang the Bandidos. But it’s just as likely to have come from any of several other Anglo versions, including all-Spanish renditions by Nederland’s Tex Ritter (who went on to father John Ritter) and Riders in the Sky, and English-language versions by Homer and Jethro, and Count Basie with the Mills Brothers.

Doug Sahm: No Anglo artist was ever better at weaving in and out of Spanish, Spanglish and English vocals, not to mention Tex-Mex music styles, as Doug Sahm. Sahm’s Spanish vocals began with a verse on “Nuevo Laredo” on Sir Douglas Quintet’s debut album (which I think Sahm’s Hispanic bandmates sing without him) and continued with the Mexican folk instrumental “La Cacahuete” on Groover’s Paradise and the words “soy Chicano” and a full-throated grito on “Chicano” on Texas Tornado. Sahm was an hombre of two culturas, all through his various projects and alter egos (including the Mexican-American “Doug Saldaña”) right up to the end of his days. “Hey Baby (Qué Paso),” the unofficial municipal anthem of San Antonio, finds Sahm leading the Texas Tornados through inimitable South Texas Spanglish as only he could. (Both Tornados albums also came out in all-Spanish versions.) Come to think of it, fellow San Antonian Johnny Bush can swing this kind of stuff, too: Check out his “Dos Tacos” for proof.

Carl Stallings: The legendary Warner Bros. cartoon composer was more responsible than anyone else for popularizing Juventino Rosas’ “Sobre las Olas” (“Over the Waves”), a slow waltz that Stallings sped up whenever a cartoon needed to show people getting seasick — think any adventures with Bugs Bunny on a ship and turning green. Trust us, you’ve heard this song — and if you haven’t, you probably eat puppies for dinner.

The Breeders: How this alt-rock supergroup came across “Regálame Esta Noche” (“Give Me This Night”) is a testament to their genius — and perhaps to their Hispanic rhythm section of José Medeles and Mando López. This wistful bolero — made famous by Mexican ranchera icon Javier Solis — is treated nicely by Kim Deal, even though her Spanish is a bit too gabacha. And since we’re tangentially discussing the Pixies, special mention goes to their “Vamos,” which starts with Dominican-tinged Spanish and launches into some pro-immigrant moshing afterward.

The Simpsons: You catch only a snippet of them singing “La Bamba” in full mariachi outfits (to pay off a dinner) in the episode when Homer becomes Mr. Burns’ prank monkey, but it’s a hoot. Even better, though, is this exchange:

Marge: “When did this happen? When did we become the bottom rung of society?”

Homer: “I think it was when that cold snap killed off all the hobos.”

Neil Diamond: Speaking of “La Bamba,” he recorded a horrid version for his 1966 debut album, The Feel of Neil Diamond. It’s not his butchered pronunciation that offends — most Mexicans can’t even properly speak the language of Cervantes. No, the problem is in the music — out-of-place handclaps, wimpy backing vocals, and a piano riff stolen from Ray Barretto’s “El Watusi.” Hey, Neil: That intoxicating beat is Cuban, not Mexican — learn to differentiate your spics!

The Ventures: Besides “La Bamba,” “Perfidia” is probably the Mexican song most covered by Americans, a melancholy remembrance written by Alberto Dominguez in 1939, sung by any major Latin American artist since, and attempted stateside by everyone from Glenn Miller to Jimmy Dorsey to ska gal Phyllis Dillon’s rocksteady English take. The best version, however, is by surf-rock gods the Ventures, whose twangy reverb adds melancholy to the group’s trademark relentless chug.

Jon Dee Graham: The native of Quemado, a small town on the Rio Grande between Del Rio and Eagle Pass, grew up hearing plenty of Spanish, especially renditions of the song “Volver Volver,” the “Sweet Caroline” of south Texas. The gravel-voiced Graham recorded the tune on his 2002 album Hooray for the Moon, and if you’ve ever wondered what might have happened if Tom Waits had learned Spanish and grown up in southwest Texas, this might give you an idea. (Graham was also in the True Believers with Alejandro Escovedo, one of the most influential and revered Mexican Americans in underground rock ‘n’ roll history.)

Ted Kennedy: The Know-Nothing nation nearly exploded when clips of the Massachusetts senator singing in Spanish on El Piolín’s show hit the Internet and when he sang again at various campaign stops for Barack Obama. They theorized Ted was drunk, that he was butchering some romantic serenade, but the lovable liberal lush actually did a pretty good job with “¡Ay Jalisco, No Te Rajes!” (“Jalisco, Don’t Chicken Out!”), a mariachi song immortalized by Javier Solis and made popular in los Estados Unidos when it appeared in Disney’s 1944 propaganda effort, The Three Caballeros.

Big Walter Horton and Ronnie Earl: All you hear about nowadays is that Mexicans and blacks hate each other. Both sides should shut up and listen to the cross-cultural love that surfaces when these two blues legends do an awesome version of “La Cucaracha,” a rendition so great, I dare say it’s the greatest “La Cucaracha” not played out of a car horn.

Robert Ealey: Also in this black and brown, two-tone vein, we have late Fort Worth bluesman Robert Ealey’s “Tica,” which finds the north Texas boogie king declaring his love for a fair señorita in what sounds very much like, but is most definitely not, actual Spanish. “Siño no noma tita,” Ealey begins. “Sico camba ñe-yeeer.” Later he shouts some even more garbled faux-Spanish encouragement to his guitarist. The whole thing is too sweet-natured and funny to cause offense.

Source / Phoenix New Times / Posted July 17, 2008

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

McCain : Is Foot-In-Mouth Disease Age-Related?

John McCain crying on Dubya’s shoulder after latest gaffe?

McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on
By Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei / July 22, 2008

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” on Monday when he apparently meant “Afghanistan”, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.

Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken “Somalia” for “Sudan,” and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs.

McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party’s nomination for president at the age of 47, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain’s advanced age three days before the start of his own convention.

The McCain campaign says Obama has had plenty of flubs of his own, including a reference to “57 states” and a string of misstated place names during the primaries that Republicans gleefully sent around as YouTube links.

McCain aides point out that he spends much more time than Obama talking extemporaneously, taking questions from voters and reporters. “Being human and tripping over your tongue occasionally doesn’t mean a thing,” a top McCain official said.

But McCain’s mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?

Voters, thinking about their own relatives, can be expected to scrutinize McCain’s debate performances for signs of slippage.

Every voter has a parent, grandparent or a friend whose mental acuity declined as they grew older. It happens at different times for different people — and there is ample evidence many people in their 70s are as sharp and fit as ever.

In McCain’s case, his medical records, public appearances and travel schedule have suggested he remains at the top of his game.

But his liberal critics have been pouncing on every misstatement as a sign that he’s an old man.

Late-night comics have made McCain’s age an almost nightly topic, with CBS’s David Letterman getting a laugh just about any time he says the words “McCain” and “nap” in the same sentence.

Last week, McCain tried to defuse the issue by pretending to doze off during an appearance on NBC’s “Late Night with Conan O’Brien.”

Republicans would like to make the case that McCain is seasoned and Obama is a callow newcomer to the public stage. But that’ll be harder if he keeps up the verbal slips, which make it easier for comedians and critics to pile on.

“First Gaffe of Obama Trip … Goes To McCain,” blared Monday afternoon’s banner headline on the left-leaning Huffington Post, accompanied by a photo of McCain appearing to slap his forehead.

That referred to an ABCNews.com posting asserting that McCain appeared to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan in a “Good Morning America” interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, who asked whether the “the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent.”

McCain responded: “I’m afraid it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border.” The ABC posting added: “Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.”

Unfortunately for McCain, that wasn’t an isolated slip. Among the other lapses:

• “Somalia” for “Sudan”: As recounted in a reporter’s pool report from McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus on June 30, the senator said while discussing Darfur, a region of Sudan: “How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?”

Senior adviser Mark Salter corrected him: “Sudan.”

• “Germany” for “Russia”: A YouTube clip from last year memorializes McCain referring to Vladimir Putin of Russia — following a trip to Germany — as “President Putin of Germany.”

• This spring, McCain said troops in Iraq were “down to pre-surge levels” when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began.

• Also this spring, McCain twice appeared to mistake Sunnis and Shiites, two branches of Islam that split violently.

• In Phoenix earlier this month, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.

• In perhaps the most curious incident, McCain said earlier this month that as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he had tried to confuse his captors by giving the names of Pittsburgh Steelers starting players when asked to identify his squadron mates. McCain has told the story many times over the years — but always correctly referred to the names he gave as members of the Green Bay Packers.

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Source / Politico

Is John McCain too old to be president? Guest host David Shuster gets the latest reaction from GOP strategist Kevin Madden, Democratic analyst Tonya Acker and MSNBC analyst Carl Crawford.

Source. / MSNBC

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Free Speech Graveyard at the Democratic Convention in Denver?

Free speech zones have been employed by both Democrats and Republicans at past political conventions. This year, however, Democrats face the embarrassing possibility that they will be the only party actually caging dissenters. Yet as John W. Whitehead points out in this week’s vodcast, when political protest is caged, it’s not just the rights of a few protesters that are at stake—the very definition of freedom is in danger.

Source / On Target / The Rutherford Institute / Posted July 21, 2008

Thanks to Michael Pugliese / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

JOURNALISM : The Tragic Decline of the Printed Page

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch: ‘Will it make a profit?’ Photo by AP.

Bad Days for Newsrooms—and Democracy
By Chris Hedges / July 21, 2008

The decline of newspapers is not about the replacement of the antiquated technology of news print with the lightning speed of the Internet. It does not signal an inevitable and salutary change. It is not a form of progress. The decline of newspapers is about the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and public responsibility on the part of much of our entrepreneurial class and the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print.

All these forces have combined to strangle newspapers. And the blood on the floor, this year alone, is disheartening. Some 6,000 journalists nationwide have lost their jobs, news pages are being radically cut back and newspaper stocks have tumbled. Advertising revenues are dramatically falling off with many papers seeing double-digit drops. McClatchy Co., publisher of the Miami Herald, has seen its shares fall by 77 percent this year. Lee Enterprises Inc., which owns the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, is down 84 percent. Gannett Co., which publishes USA Today, is trading at nearly a 17-year low. The San Francisco Chronicle is now losing $1 million a week.

The Internet will not save newspapers. Although all major newspapers, and most smaller ones, have Web sites, and have had for a while, newspaper Web sites make up less than 10 percent of newspaper ad revenue. Analysts say that although Net advertising amounts to $21 billion a year, that amount is actually relatively small. So far, the really big advertisers have stayed away, either unsure of how to use the Internet or suspicious that it can’t match the viewer attention of older media.

Newspapers, when well run, are a public trust. They provide, at their best, the means for citizens to examine themselves, to ferret out lies and the abuse of power by elected officials and corrupt businesses, to give a voice to those who would, without the press, have no voice, and to follow, in ways a private citizen cannot, the daily workings of local, state and federal government. Newspapers hire people to write about city hall, the state capital, political campaigns, sports, music, art and theater. They keep citizens engaged with their cultural, civic and political life. When I began as a foreign correspondent 25 years ago, most major city papers had bureaus in Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Moscow. Reporters and photographers showed Americans how the world beyond our borders looked, thought and believed. Most of this is vanishing or has vanished.

We live under the happy illusion that we can transfer news-gathering to the Internet. News-gathering will continue to exist, as it does on this Web site and sites such as ProPublica and Slate, but these traditions now have to contend with a new, widespread and ideologically driven partisanship that dominates the dissemination of views and information, from Fox News to blogger screeds. The majority of bloggers and Internet addicts, like the endless rows of talking heads on television, do not report. They are largely parasites who cling to traditional news outlets. They can produce stinging and insightful commentary, which has happily seen the monopoly on opinion pieces by large papers shattered, but they rarely pick up the phone, much less go out and find a story. Nearly all reporting—I would guess at least 80 percent—is done by newspapers and the wire services. Take that away and we have a huge black hole.

Those who rely on the Internet gravitate to sites that reinforce their beliefs. The filtering of information through an ideological lens, which is destroying television journalism, defies the purpose of reporting. Journalism is about transmitting information that doesn’t care what you think. Reporting challenges, countermands or destabilizes established beliefs. Reporting, which is time-consuming and often expensive, begins from the premise that there are things we need to know and understand, even if these things make us uncomfortable. If we lose this ethic we are left with pandering, packaging and partisanship. We are left awash in a sea of competing propaganda. Bloggers, unlike most established reporters, rarely admit errors. They cannot get fired. Facts, for many bloggers, are interchangeable with opinions. Take a look at The Drudge Report. This may be the new face of what we call news.

When the traditional news organizations go belly up we will lose a vast well of expertise and information. Our democracy will suffer a body blow. Not that many will notice. The average time a reader of The New York Times spends with the printed paper is about 45 minutes. The average time a viewer spends on The New York Times Web site is about seven minutes. There is a difference between browsing and reading. And the Web is built for browsing rather than for reading. When there is a long piece on the Internet, most of us have to print it out to get through it.

The rise of our corporate state has done the most, however, to decimate traditional news-gathering. Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., General Electric and Viacom control nearly everything we read, watch, hear and ultimately think. And news that does not make a profit, as well as divert viewers from civic participation and challenging the status quo, is not worth pursuing. This is why the networks have shut down their foreign bureaus. This is why cable newscasts, with their chatty anchors, all look and sound like the “Today” show. This is why the FCC, in an example of how far our standards have fallen, defines shows like Fox’s celebrity gossip program “TMZ” and the Christian Broadcast Network’s “700 Club” as “bona fide newscasts.” This is why television news personalities, people like Katie Couric, have become celebrities earning, in her case, $15 million a year. This is why newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune are being ruthlessly cannibalized by corporate trolls like Sam Zell, turned into empty husks that focus increasingly on boutique journalism. Corporations are not in the business of news. They hate news, real news. Real news is not convenient to their rape of the nation. Real news makes people ask questions. They prefer to close the prying eyes of reporters. They prefer to transform news into another form of mindless amusement and entertainment.

A democracy survives when its citizens have access to trustworthy and impartial sources of information, when it can discern lies from truth. Take this away and a democracy dies. The fusion of news and entertainment, the rise of a class of celebrity journalists on television who define reporting by their access to the famous and the powerful, the retreat by many readers into the ideological ghettos of the Internet and the ruthless drive by corporations to destroy the traditional news business are leaving us deaf, dumb and blind.

We are cleverly entertained during our descent. We have our own version of ancient Rome’s bread and circuses with our ubiquitous and elaborate spectacles, sporting events, celebrity gossip and television reality shows. Societies in decline, as the Roman philosopher Cicero wrote, see their civic and political discourse contaminated by the excitement and emotional life of the arena. And the citizens in these degraded societies, he warned, always end up ruled by a despot, a Nero or a George W. Bush.

Source / truthdig

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Diabolical Plot by Bell Canada and Telus


Death of Free Internet is Imminent: Canada Will Become Test Case
By Kevin Parkinson / July 21, 2008

In the last 15 years or so, as a society we have had access to more information than ever before in modern history because of the Internet. There are approximately 1 billion Internet users in the world B and any one of these users can theoretically communicate in real time with any other on the planet. The Internet has been the greatest technological achievement of the 20th century by far, and has been recognized as such by the global community.

The free transfer of information, uncensored, unlimited and untainted, still seems to be a dream when you think about it. Whatever field that is mentioned- education, commerce, government, news, entertainment, politics and countless other areas- have been radically affected by the introduction of the Internet. And mostly, it’s good news, except when poor judgements are made and people are taken advantage of. Scrutiny and oversight are needed, especially where children are involved.

However, when there are potential profits open to a corporation, the needs of society don’t count. Take the recent case in Canada with the behemoths, Telus and Rogers rolling out a charge for text messaging without any warning to the public. It was an arrogant and risky move for the telecommunications giants because it backfired. People actually used Internet technology to deliver a loud and clear message to these companies and that was to scrap the extra charge. The people used the power of the Internet against the big boys and the little guys won.

However, the issue of text messaging is just a tiny blip on the radar screens of Telus and another company, Bell Canada, the two largest Internet Service Providers (ISP’S) in Canada. Our country is being used as a test case to drastically change the delivery of Internet service forever. The change will be so radical that it has the potential to send us back to the horse and buggy days of information sharing and access.

In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites. The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point.

From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered that the ‘demise’ of the free Internet is slated for 2010 in Canada, and two years later around the world. Canada is seen a good choice to implement such shameful and sinister changes, since Canadians are viewed as being laissez fair, politically uninformed and an easy target. The corporate marauders will iron out the wrinkles in Canada and then spring the new, castrated version of the Internet on the rest of the world, probably with little fanfare, except for some dire warnings about the ‘evil’ of the Internet (free) and the CEO’s spouting about ‘safety and security’. These buzzwords usually work pretty well.

What will the Internet look like in Canada in 2010? I suspect that the ISP’s will provide a “package” program as companies like Cogeco currently do. Customers will pay for a series of websites as they do now for their television stations. Television stations will be available on-line as part of these packages, which will make the networks happy since they have lost much of the younger market which are surfing and chatting on their computers in the evening. However, as is the case with cable television now, if you choose something that is not part of the package, you know what happens. You pay extra.

And this is where the Internet (free) as we know it will suffer almost immediate, economic strangulation. Thousands and thousands of Internet sites will not be part of the package so users will have to pay extra to visit those sites! In just an hour or two it is possible to easily visit 20-30 sites or more while looking for information. Just imagine how high these costs will be.

At present, the world condemns China because that country restricts certain websites. “They are undemocratic; they are removing people’s freedom; they don’t respect individual rights; they are censoring information,” are some of the comments we hear. But what Bell Canada and Telus have planned for Canadians is much worse than that. They are planning the death of the Internet (free) as we know it, and I expect they’ll be hardly a whimper from Canadians. It’s all part of the corporate plan for a New World Order and virtually a masterstroke that will lead to the creation of billions and billions of dollars of corporate profit at the expense of the working and middle classes.

There are so many other implications as a result of these changes, far too many to elaborate on here. Be aware that we will all lose our privacy because all websites will be tracked as part of the billing procedure, and we will be literally cut off from 90% of the information that we can access today. The little guys on the Net will fall likes flies; Bloggers and small website operators will die a quick death because people will not pay to go to their sites and read their pages.

Ironically, the only medium that can save us is the one we are trying to save- the Internet (free). This article will be posted on my Blog, realitycheck.typepad.com, and I encourage people and groups to learn more about this issue. Canadians can keep the Internet free just as they kept text messaging free. Don’t wait for the federal politicians. They will do nothing to help us.

I would welcome a letter to the editor of the Standard Freeholder from a spokesperson from Bell Canada or Telus telling me that I am absolutely wrong in what I have written, and that no such changes to the Internet are being planned, and that access to Internet sites will remain FREE in the years to come. In the meantime, I encourage all of you to write to the media, ask questions, phone the radio station, phone a friend, or think of something else to prevent what appears to me to be inevitable.

Maintaining Internet (free) access is the only way we have a chance at combatting the global corporate takeover, the North American Union, and a long list of other deadly deeds that the elite in society have planned for us. Yesterday was too late in trying to protect our rights and freedoms. We must now redouble our efforts in order to give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance in the future.

Author’s website: realitycheck.typepad.com

Source / Information Clearing House

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

I Do Not Intend Holding My Breath While Waiting


Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
By Robert Thompson / July 21, 2008

Subject: Selection of persons to be charged

To Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court

Dear Mr Moreno-Ocampo,

For over fifty years I have been a lawyer (now in retirement), and during that time I have had practical hands-on experience of international law at the highest level and criminal law (among other disciplines) at all levels. My experience has also caused me in many fields to work under two very different judicial systems, namely that in operation in England and Wales and that applied in France.

I was greatly upset to hear on the radio that you had decided to seek an arrest warrant against Mr Omar el-Basheer, the current President of Sudan, for his alleged personal responsibility for crimes committed in Darfour, but that you had no desire to initiate proceedings against either Mr George Walker Bush, the current President of the United States of America, or Mr Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for their admitted personal responsibility for crimes affecting Iraq.

To an experienced lawyer such as I am this seems an extraordinary attitude on your part, since it would seem normal to act first in cases where the accused person admits (and even boasts of) extremely serious breaches of the Nuremberg Principles, as well as provisions of certain Geneva Conventions.

It also seems to me that there is a difference of scale in the offences which either apply or could apply to the facts. The thousands of victims of repression in Darfour are much fewer in number than the victims of the actions of Mr Bush and Mr Blair (and many of those to whom they gave orders) when they decided to wage war against the people of Iraq and subsequently to occupy that country.

It seems to me that you, as Chief Prosecutor at the I.C.C., have an absolute duty to pursue those who admit that they have acted in ways which are so seriously in breach of international criminal law.

If you take the trouble to re-read the Nuremberg Principles, you will find in Principle VI extremely clear definitions of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, and Principle VII adds that complicity in any one or more of these crimes set out in Principle VI is also a crime under international law.

If you consider these simply definitions, it seems impossible for you not to draw the conclusion that these two men (and many of their advisers and servants) are clearly guilty of Crimes against Peace and also appear to have been complicit in both War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

A summary of these three forms of criminality under Principle VI can be made as follows:

a) Crimes against Peace, in that they planned, prepared, initiated and waged a war of aggression against Iraq in direct violation of the international agreement set out in clearly worded United Nations Security Council Resolutions;

b) War Crimes, in that they were party to the ill-treatment and deportation of civilians, and prisoners of war, such as those who were sent to Guantanamo Bay from Afghanistan and elsewhere, and also in the destruction of cities, towns and villages in Iraq (there have also been the use of torture on prisoners);

c) Crimes against Humanity, in that they were involved in the murder and extermination of civilians (as in Fallujah) and the deportation of civilians to Guantanamo Bay.

Under Principle VII things look even worse for both men, since they have been complicit in many crimes committed in many countries including those already mentioned.

I have limited myself in this letter to specific crimes committed in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan, but similar points can be made concerning both men (and their advisers and servants) regarding other lands, particularly the Lebanon and Palestine, under Principle VII, for having provided the aggressors with vast quantities of arms knowing full well that they would be used for unjustified aggression.

The obvious question is therefore why you do not immediately seek arrest warrants against Mr George Walker Bush and Mr Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (and some of the others suggested above). The fact that the United States of America refuses to recognise the I.C.C. should not prevent your so doing, since these people could be arrested if and when they might dare to enter any country which does recognise the Court.

I would be very happy to hear from you, but I do not intend holding my breath while waiting, since your decision to act against Mr Omar el-Basheer seems to be a sign both of shocking partiality against such a man while failing to act against much worse offenders and of an unwillingness to act against persons for the sole reason that they are powerful.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Thompson
Avocat Honoraire au Barreau de Boulogne-sur-Mer
22 rue de l’Eglise

62990 RIMBOVAL
FRANCE

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com

Source / Axis of Logic

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment