The Rag Blog

There’s an Aztec legend of a warrior who was in love with a princess. When he left to go into battle, the lovers promised each other eternal love. The warrior died in battle, but to fulfill his promise to the princess, he came back as a brilliant orange flower. That flower now graces Flamboyan trees throughout Latin America. Another Flamboyan legend speaks of the struggle of the Puerto Rican people against colonial domination.

On Sunday, June, 10, 2007, under a Flamboyan tree, the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) held a press conference to announce the liberation of one of the leaders of the year-long popular struggle for social and economic justice in Oaxaca. Marcelino Coache Verano, secretary general of the free union of Oaxaca municipal workers, had been arrested, severely beaten, and held for six months in prison before he was released on May 31, with all charges against him dismissed

The press conference kicked off a week of actions to commemorate the brutal June 14, 2006 attack by 1,000 armed police against people peacefully demonstrating in support of the demands of some 70,000 teachers for higher wages, improvement of school buildings, and better resources for children. A teacher typically earns the equivalent of $220 every two weeks, and must purchase school supplies herself. Although the Mexican constitution guarantees free education, mothers have to pay registration fees.

State governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz sent in state police, accompanied by dogs, who viciously attacked the sleeping teachers and supporters. They tear-gassed everyone in the vicinity, including pregnant women and children; one woman miscarried as a result. Ninety-two people were wounded. Members of the community reacted with outrage, fighting back with anything they could find. They chased the police from the square, and re-established the camp.

On June 17, several hundred local organizations came together to form the APPO, comprising almost 350 different civil organizations working in areas of indigenous issues, sustainable community development, human rights, and social justice. APPO demanded that Governor Ulises Ruiz step down. Meanwhile, the movement continued to grow, with large but peaceful demonstrations. On August 1, hundreds of women marched, and when denied air time by the government radio station, occupied the station and broadcast their position themselves.

Throughout this period, police raids, beatings, and shooting continued. On October 28, four people were killed, including indymedia journalist and U.S. citizen Brad Will and a Mexican teacher, Emilio Alonso Fabian.

The Mexican government sent in the Federal Preventive Police. On November 25, they appeared in full riot gear and encircled the entire area, firing tear gas. As people fled, many were arrested and beaten. Among the prisoners were some simply on their way to work or to the market place that morning. One hundred seventy people were arrested that day, and most were taken to the far away prison of Nayarit. Thirty four were women, and five were minors.

At various times during the seven month period, nearly 1,500,000 teachers, workers, professors and artists, many of them Indigenous people, occupied Oaxaca’s main plaza. Although the movement crystallized to support the striking teachers, the frustration of the people resulted from deep economic and social problems the government has aggravated and allowed to fester. These problems that have harmed workers were exacerbated by NAFTA and the Bush administration’s neoliberal policies. The majority of the population of Oaxaca is Indigenous, most of whom live in extreme poverty.

Last week, I participated in a human rights delegation of lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and the National Association of Democratic Lawyers in Mexico to investigate alleged violations of international law by police against the people of Oaxaca during the past year. We met with lawyers, workers and prisoners.

Coache Verano related how he and three other activists had been arrested in Mexico City, on their way to meet with government officials to negotiate an end to the strife. They were stripped naked, beaten, and guards walked on their backs. Coache Verano’s finger was broken. One of the other men was released with Coache Verano. The other two, including APPO leader Flavio Sosa Villavicencio, remain in custody. Coache Verano’s wife and young children told us how they were terrorized for months with death threats and shots fired at their home.

The relationships between governments and investors – especially transnational corporations -are changing rapidly, and this is especially true in Latin America today. Last month, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua surprised many international observers by announcing that they would withdraw from the World Bank’s international arbitration body, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID is a place where – under prior arrangement – foreign investors who have a dispute with a host government can submit their case to binding arbitration.

Bolivia’s position is that ICSID is not an impartial arbitrator, and cannot be expected to act as one, so long as it is part of the World Bank. As was highlighted by the recent controversy that led to the resignation of World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz, the Bank may have 185 member countries, but it is really dominated by Washington. The saga continues as the Bush Administration once again has chosen a close neo-conservative associate of President Bush – former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick – to run the institution. The World Bank has long used its power – not only from its own lending of $23 billion annually, but also as part of a “creditor’s cartel” led by the International Monetary Fund – to pressure governments to adopt policies favored by transnational corporations. These include privatizations and removing restrictions on foreign ownership, trade, and investment flows.

The Bolivian government also argues that there are other conflicts of interest involved in having the World Bank’s arbitration panel rule on disputes between governments and foreign investors. Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s Special Ambassador for Trade and Integration, cited the case of Aguas de Illimani, a subsidiary of the French international water giant Suez. It turned out that the International Finance Corporation, a part of the World Bank Group, was a shareholder in Aguas de Illimani. It is clear that the same institution should not be both arbitrator and a party to the dispute.

The ICSID process, like other such international arbitration panels, does not have the transparency, checks and balances, or openness of a real judicial system – like ours in the U.S., for example. It is shrouded in secrecy. And the World Bank’s influence in selecting arbitrators makes it anything but neutral.

Bolivia maintains that their government, which was elected with a majority that was tired of seeing the country’s natural resources drained to make foreign companies rich while their country remained the poorest in South America, needs to change the rules so that they are at less of a disadvantage relative to giant corporations. They have a good case. Since the government raised its royalty rates on hydrocarbons – with the government’s share of the biggest gas fields going from 18 to 82 percent – it has increased its revenue by nearly 7 percent of GDP. This is a huge increase in revenue.

The IMF wrote in their country papers on Bolivia that the country would be hurting itself by raising the royalty rates. They were wrong, as were most of the experts in Washington and the US business press. In these circles it is taken as given that anything which pleases foreign investors is good for the host country, as it will attract foreign investment. Likewise, anything that foreign investors don’t like is generally portrayed as a potential disaster.

In recent years it has not worked out that way, especially in Latin America. At the end of 2001 Argentina engaged in the largest sovereign debt default in history, and most economists and journalists predicted they would suffer terrible consequences for many years to come. But in fact the economy declined for only three months, and then went on to average nearly Chinese levels of growth for the last five years: 8.6 percent annually. Venezuela raised the royalties on foreign investors in the Orinoco basin from 1 percent to 30 percent, and on May first claimed a majority stake in all joint ventures with foreign companies. The big oil companies – Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, and others accepted these changes and are still there, making plenty of money.

In fact, what is happening now in Latin America and other developing countries is an attempt to correct for the extremism that characterized economic policy changes in the 1980s and 90s. Aside from the macroeconomic failures that resulted from these changes, one result was to seriously shift the balance of power to favor foreign investors over governments. The advent and increasing use of “investor-to-state dispute resolution,” with investors able to sue governments directly for actions that infringe upon their profits, is a recent development. About two-thirds of these lawsuits have come about in just the last five years. Similarly, there has been a proliferation of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITS), now more than 2500, many of them containing provisions for ICSID to arbitrate disputes.

But there does not appear to be any relation between adopting these “investor-friendly” reforms and even the amount of foreign direct investment that a country receives, as even the World Bank’s own research has concluded. For many years China has led all developing countries as a recipient of foreign direct investment. But the main option for foreign companies that have a dispute with the government has been local arbitration through the country’s own China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).

The new assertiveness of Latin American governments toward foreign investors has proven remarkably successful so far, winning them billions of dollars of new revenues and allowing some of the new democratic governments to deliver on their promises to help alleviate poverty. The conventional wisdom is that these changes are just a temporary result of high prices for oil and other minerals and commodities, and unusually low interest rates – all of which have given developing countries more alternatives and bargaining power. But it is much more likely that these changes are institutional and permanent.

Have your hopes dashed enough and you start to question if there is ever a way out

Imagine that this is your world: a 6 ft by 8 ft cell where everything is steel – the walls, the floor, the ceiling, the toilet, the sink, the bed. Walk two steps in any direction and you hit a wall. There are no windows. The lights are on 24 hours a day. You are allowed out of your cell two hours a day, sometimes at 6am, sometimes at midnight. For those two hours, you are placed in a 6.5 ft by 16.5 ft outdoor cage with a deflated football. You can go weeks without seeing the sun.

Imagine five and a half years away from your family, your wife, your children. You can’t call them. They can’t visit. Mail takes months to get through. When it does, it is heavily censored. Imagine being beaten, stripped naked, humiliated, again and again and again. This is the life of my clients in Guantanamo Bay.

Since 2005, my colleagues and I at Reprieve, a legal charity based in London, have been representing 37 prisoners in Guantanamo. Two of us have passed through the United States military’s screening process and have been to the base. We are the only people in Britain who can actually go and talk to these men.

Every time I visit them, the prisoners ask for just one thing: a fair trial. “I know mistakes are made,” Jamil El Banna, a British refugee from Jordan, told me when we met last month. “I’m not upset about that. But why has it taken this long to correct them? I’ve been here for years and I’ve never seen a judge. Put me on trial. Just give me a chance. Doesn’t anyone care that I’m an innocent man?”

No prisoner in Guantanamo will see a judge any time soon. On Monday, military judges threw out the charges against the only two prisoners actually charged with crimes. As a result, their trials are on hold and no one else’s will start.

Sadly, there is no question that trials in Guantanamo will be unfair. The judges can hear evidence gained from torture. They can sentence someone to death based on hearsay evidence – second, third or even fourth-hand information. The prisoner is not allowed to see the evidence against him. It’s like shadow-boxing for your life.

But despite the patent illegality of the trials, in the bizarre universe of Guantanamo, many of the men actually want to appear before a military commission. The prisoners look at David Hicks, an Australian citizen who pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism and was sent home to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence. They see this result, and they see hope. Maybe they too could cut a deal, whether they are guilty or not. They too could go home. The hell of Guantanamo would end. Then they learn of a ruling like the one on Monday. They are happy, because the process masquerading as justice has been exposed. But at the same time, it means yet another door has slammed shut. And as it does, it crushes that kernel of hope.

Have your hopes dashed enough and you start to question if there is ever a way out. Three men apparently took their own lives last year. Days ago, another man was found dead in his cell; the cause of death is unknown, though he had been on hunger strike for an extended period. Virtually all my clients have told me they have thought about killing themselves.

Despite the fact that they desperately want to be home with their families, despite the fact that Islam prohibits suicide, many have tried. I am a lawyer, but far too often, my role when I visit Guantanamo is social worker and psychologist. I am a poor tool in this regard, but I am all the men have.

Ahmed Belbacha seems to shrink a bit every time I see him. We meet alone in a claustrophobic, windowless room, monitored constantly by a video camera. You can hear the camera shift to track us if we change position. As he sits across from me, shackled to the floor, Ahmed is despondent. “My cell is like a grave,” he said to me four weeks ago. He tells me how everything echoes off those steel cell walls. Doors slam constantly as guards come and go. Large fans drone and screech. Even footsteps seem cacophonous. There is no such thing as quiet in Camp 6. There is no peace. “If I could just sleep…”

Ahmed has never been charged with a crime. He has never been before one of those military judges. Yet, finally, after five and a half years, Ahmed has been cleared to be released. He should be celebrating. But his nightmare may just be beginning. Ahmed is originally from Algeria. He fled there to the UK, seeking asylum after he was threatened repeatedly by Islamic extremists because he worked for a government-owned oil company. But now, the UK is washing their hands of him, refusing to help because Ahmed was a resident, not a citizen. As a result, the United States wants to send him back to Algeria.

(CBS) BERKELEY, Calif. A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS station KPIX-TV in San Francisco that military leaders had considered, and then subsequently rejected, building the so-called gay bomb.

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley’s Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force’s Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, “One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.”

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

“The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another,” Hammond said after reviewing the documents.

“The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soldiers would become gay,” explained Hammond.

06/12/07 “ICH” — — We are truly in a war. It is not the war we imagine we are in, which is the way our true adversaries want it. It is not a foreign war against a foreign enemy. It is a war on consciousness, a war on our own minds. The global war on terror that is being fought around the world is an embodied reflection in the material world of a deeper, more fundamental war that is going on in the realm of consciousness itself.

We have the most criminal regime in all of our history wreaking unspeakable horror on the entire planet, while simultaneously waging war on the consciousness of its own citizens – US. If we aren’t aware of this, we are unwittingly playing into, supporting and complicit in the evil that is being perpetrated in our name.

A government’s war on the consciousness of its own citizens is by no means unique to the Bush administration. Abusing power over others so as to limit their freedom is an archetypal process that has been endlessly re-enacted by governments throughout history in various forms. With the Bush administration, however, the pathological aspect of this process has become so exaggerated and amped up to such a degree that it is just about impossible not to notice its staggering malignancy. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that has played out in our government over many years is becoming overwhelmingly obvious for all to see. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that informs systems of government that are based on “power over” instead of “liberty for” is coming out from hiding in the shadows. Instead of being acted out underground, our government is acting out this evil above ground, in plain sight for all who are courageous enough to look.

Impeaching Bush and Co. ultimately won’t change anything unless we deal with the corrupt powers which control and direct them. George Bush is just a finger-puppet of the hidden hand which animates him. Bush only has apparent power, as he himself is a minion of far more powerful predator-like forces whose nefarious interests he serves. Whether we call it the illuminati, the global elite, a shadow government, or a secret cabal, there is no doubt that there are darker, self-serving forces that have insinuated themselves into and taken over our government. The terrorists that we should be worried about are domestic terrorists who are actually implementing their agendas from deep within our very system of government itself.

The United States Government itself has become a “front” for the underlying military-industrial-financial crime syndicate that animates it. This is not to say that there aren’t many good, well-meaning people in our government – they are simply prohibited by the very nature of the corrupt system they are in from reforming it. Our system of government is rigged in such a way so that there is no way to transform the system within the system itself.

The underlying core of our government has become rotten such that the entire operation simply feeds into and is an expression of the same underlying corruption. All of the scandals continually coming out are like the superficial skin rash of a much deeper systemic disease, like a cancer that is infecting the greater body politic. Citizens who are not aware of our government’s insidious intrusions into our lives are unwittingly feeding the corruption they are looking away from in their very act of looking away.

The “powers” that have taken over our government have become concentrated and centralized in just a few elite hands, proving how easy it is for the few to control the many. They almost control all the levers of power: financial, political and judicial. In this war on consciousness, these powers-that-be are using the most advanced mind-control technology that our world has ever known to make its takeover complete. The essence of mind-control is information control, which is one thing our overly secretive current administration is very good at.

Mind-Control

The private interests that control our government have an incredible mind-control/propaganda machine at their disposal in the form of the mainstream media, which if not quite fully owned and controlled, is certainly under their “influence” enough to serve their underlying self-serving agenda. George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie – this perfectly describes the corporate owned media of today which is nothing other than the propaganda organ of the state. The corporate world and our government are becoming indistinguishable, which is one of the hallmarks of fascism, or more accurately – corporatism.

In addition to information, our government is adept at putting out dis-information, whose intention is to create distractions and confusion so as to cover its tracks and hide its true intentions. It will purposely leak stories that are not true simply to cover-up what it is really doing. By putting out misleading information, the government hides behind its self-generated smokescreen like an octopus squirting ink.

Quite often, right at the moment when people’s focus is moving towards some area of criminality in the White House, the administration will even create a diversionary event for the public to put their attention on. Memories of those color-coded terror alerts that always seemed to happen right when something bad was starting to happen for the Bush administration come to mind. In creating distractions, our government is able to steer our collective attention in directions that allow it to successfully accomplish its malevolent goal of grabbing all the power it can get.

In a diabolical ploy, the administration will even feed stories to a compliant press, and then reference these stories as justification for enacting its pre-planned agenda. One glaring example is when the administration fed Judith Miller of the New York Times stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Once this propaganda appeared on the front page of the Times, the administration was only too happy to use it as evidence for why we should go to war.

WMD could easily stand for “Weapons of Mind Deception”, as our own government is continually trying to “Deceive” our “Minds”, which is the battlefield in which the war on consciousness is being fought. We are all on the front lines in the war on consciousness, whether we know it or not. Instead of shooting us, our government is using cutting-edge mind-control technology to psychically emasculate us. In order to be able to deal with the evil that the Bush regime is perpetrating, we first have to become acquainted with that very same potential evil in ourselves so as to be able to recognize it in the outside world. The way to vanquish our adversary is to be found hidden within the very nature of our own awareness, which contains the key to its own freedom.

The corporate-mainstream media “captivates” our attention, capturing a part of our self-reflective, discriminative awareness, thereby restricting the range of our conscious awareness, which is what hypnotism is all about. Once the attention of the masses becomes entranced, the corporate/government media can then “play with” our mind. This unholy trinity of corporate/government/media can create an obsessive fixation on certain superficial events that “seize” the collective psyche. For example, it feeds the masses sensationalized stories such as Anna Nicole Smith ad nauseam so as to divert our attention from the evil that is being done behind the scenes in our name.

Ex-CIA director Allen Dulles used to say that the most effective way to disguise a secret is to pretend to openly share information. The Bush administration isn’t interested in solving problems as much as creating good PR (Public Relations) for itself. With one hand the Bush administration will try to appear like it is openly sharing information and being transparent, while with its other hand it will be actively obstructing the very process it is seemingly supporting. A vivid example is the government’s 9/11 commission, whose aim was allegedly to shed light on what happened on 9/11, while covertly – behind the scenes – the Bush administration was doing everything it could to hinder the commission’s inquiries (see, for example, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin). All one has to do is investigate the numerous ties to the core cabal of the neocon Bush administration that the members of the 9/11 commission have and the degree to which it was a deliberate operation to obscure the truth becomes apparent. It was as if the White House was investigating itself; the foxes truly guarding the henhouse. The 9/11 commission and its report, just like the Warren Commission and its report on the Kennedy assassination, was a façade, a show, a display in which it appeared like our government was giving us what we wanted, while actually being part of a deceptive game of smoke-and-mirrors. It is like a magician has hypnotized us, and is stealing what’s in our pockets while they have us under their trance in which we believe they are serving us.

As if by a perverse Jedi mind-trick, the Bush administration has bewitched us into believing that it controls the national dialogue, when in a democracy the opposite is actually true. One of many examples – when confronted with overwhelming evidence that we have been torturing our adversaries, Bush responds by saying he “rejects” that claim, and the conversation stops right there and moves on to other, more superficial topics. Our government is supposed to represent us, which is to say that they are our employees. Bush has turned this around and put himself in the role of the dictator with us as his subjects. And somehow we have allowed him to get away with this. There is no escaping our individual and collective complicity in this sad state of affairs.

One difference between what is happening in our country and the state-controlled media of the old Soviet Union, is that in the Soviet Union, most people were quite aware that what was being presented to them by their corrupt government as news was nothing but mind-warping propaganda. Many Americans have fallen so under the spell of the Bush regime’s criminal lies that they don’t even know they are being lied to. It is like we are living in a land of state-controlled zombies who think they are free citizens of a free country.

It is as if millions of our fellow citizens have fallen asleep, as if they have become hypnotized and brainwashed by the powers-that-be‘s incessant “managing” and “massaging” of reality. These powers simply manipulate an already gullible and highly suggestible public into a game of “divide and conquer.” They get rich off of other’s blood – they incite conflict, and covertly support both sides, as they themselves reap the benefit of the conflict.

The corporate war machine, which is co-dependently entangled with our government, profits wildly from our invading other sovereign countries. The government-military-industrial complex’s solution to the very problem that they created by instigating wars – more war! It’s completely sick and totally insane. And we, in our dulled denial – like hypnotized sheep – simply go along and allow the whole parasitic enterprise to be fed by offering our sons and daughters as fodder. To the extent that we are not shedding light on the utter criminality and insanity of what the Bush administration is doing and saying “No,” we are all complicit in feeding our own genocide.

Bush and our Congressional leaders are mouthpieces for the advertising campaign of distortion and falsehood that is being “bomb-arded” into our psyches on a daily basis. Our “leaders” repetitive slogans and incantations brand and imprint themselves deep into our unconscious, where many who do not have enough psychic resistance fall under the spell. (please see Chapter 8 – “Breaking Bush’s Spell”, in my book The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of our Collective Psychosis). People’s ability to discern truth from fiction has been rendered inoperative by our own government’s pattern of routinely taking liberty with the truth. Government propaganda has inverted the perception of what is actually happening, as lies are presented as truths, and up is portrayed as down in a truly Orwellian universe of confounding doublespeak. Through the “Big Lie” – which is based on that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for people to see the truth – the government has transformed myth into seeming fact, and has achieved its goal of muddling our minds so as to dis-empower us.

Many of us haven’t developed the psychic immunity to be able to fully ward off the toxic effects of our government’s covert, fear-based psychological warfare. An expression of the success of our government’s psy-ops against US is the fact that there’s so little awareness about the government’s assault on our minds that it’s hardly even a part of our national dialogue. The insidiousness of the government’s covert manipulation of our minds is even found in the very term “Global War on Terror”. “The Global War on Terror” is a crazy-making, self-contradictory statement, as we can never stop terror with a war – on the contrary, wars induce terror! This term carries with it a false and self-negating premise that if we accept we’ve already given away our power. If we leave this underlying assumption unquestioned, we unwittingly allow them to frame the agenda on their terms. We have then already fallen under their spell without knowing it, as our capacity to think and respond creatively is undermined. Our inability to creatively respond to the war on our consciousness is an expression of being immobilized in fear as if frozen in trauma. The war on terror is really a war on our psyche. The war on terror is ultimately about control – control of our minds.

What Bush and our Congressional leaders are doing is so morally outrageous that it is literally off the charts of accepted, “normal”, ethical, sane human behavior. In the words of French poet Andre Chenier, Bush and Co. are committing “crimes that make the laws tremble,” as they are covertly undermining our very legal and political system itself. The corruption that has infected our body politic is like a virus that is exploiting weaknesses in our political immune system so as to feed and spread its pathology.

Those of us who are somewhat sane can easily lack the imagination for the depth of depravity that the Bush administration regularly acts out in the world. Our lack of imagination works to the government’s advantage, as it allows them to continue to act out the darkness in a manner which is incomprehensible to us. This is why the great doctor of the soul C. G. Jung counseled us to develop an “imagination for evil,” as being able to imagine the scope of evil that human beings can fall prey to and act out empowers us to see it clearly and thereby deal with it more effectively.

The Bush/Cheney White House, which told the American people in 2003 that the Iraqi invasion would be a three-to-six-week affair, now tells us that the U.S. occupation is permanent. Forever.

Attentive Americans, of which, alas, there are so few, had already concluded that the occupation was permanent. Permanence is the obvious message from the massive and fortified U.S. embassy under construction in Iraq and from the large permanent military bases that the Bush regime is building in Iraq.

Bush regime propagandists have created a false analogy with “the Korean model” in their effort to sell the permanent occupation of Iraq as necessary for Iraq’s security. More than one half century after the close of the Korean war, U.S. troops continue to be based in Korea, as they are in Germany more than six decades after the end of World War II.

The rationale for the U.S. troops in South Korea is to remind North Korea that an attack on South Korea is an attack on the U.S. itself. The rationale for U.S. troops in Germany disappeared when Reagan and Gorbachev brought the Cold War to an end.

There is, of course, no similarity between Iraq and Korea. There was no insurgency in Korea and no attacks on U.S. troops based in South Korea once the fighting stopped. The presence of U.S. troops in South Korea has produced many protest demonstrations by South Koreans, but the U.S. troops in South Korea have had no exposure to combat since the war ended in 1953.

In contrast, the insurgency in Iraq continues to rage and could expand dramatically if Shi’ites were to join the Sunnis in attacks on U.S. forces. Most American military leaders no longer believe the insurgency can be defeated. Permanent occupation means permanent insurgency. Indeed, an attempt at permanent occupation could possibly unify the Arabs in a joint effort to expel the Americans.

The absurd analogy with Korea is so far-fetched that it raises the question whether the Bush/Cheney regime has entered a new, higher level of delusion. Bush cannot keep troops in Iraq permanently unless he intends to remain permanently in the White House. Even some Republicans in Congress are talking about beginning withdrawals of U.S. troops in September. Republicans believe that if withdrawals do not begin, their party will be wiped out in the 2008 election.

The wild card is the neoconservatives’ long-standing alliance with Israeli Zionists. The neoconservatives still have a death grip on the discredited Bush regime. Jim Lobe describes the extensive international organization that the neoconservatives have put into place for the purpose of orchestrating an attack on Iran.

A sane reader might wonder why neoconservatives would want to expand a conflict in which the U.S. has failed. Surely, even delusional “cakewalk” neoconservatives must realize that attacking Iran would greatly increase the threat to U.S. troops in Iraq and perhaps bring missile attacks on oil facilities and U.S. bases throughout the Middle East. An attack on Iran would further radicalize Muslims and further undermine U.S. puppets in the Middle East. It could bring war to the entire region.

The point is that the neoconservatives do realize this. Their defeat in Iraq and Israel’s defeat in Lebanon have taught the neoconservatives that the U.S. cannot prevail in the Middle East by conventional military means. As I have previously explained, the neoconservatives’ plan is to escape the failure of their Iraq plan by orchestrating a war with Iran in which the U.S. can prevail only by using nuclear weapons. As previously reported, the neoconservatives believe that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran will convince Muslims that they must accept U.S. hegemony.

The neoconservatives have put the elements of their plan in place. They have powerful naval forces on station off Iran’s coast. They have convinced President Bush that only by attacking Iran can he prevail in Iraq.

The neoconservatives have rewritten U.S. war doctrine to permit preemptive U.S. nuclear attacks on non-nuclear countries. They have demonized Iran as the greatest threat since Hitler. Neoconservatives have invented “Islamofascism,” something that exists only in the neoconservative propaganda used to instill in Americans hatred of Muslims. The neoconservatives have dehumanized Muslims as monsters who must be destroyed at all costs. Recent statements by neoconservative leaders such as Norman Podhoretz read like the ravings of ignorant lunatics. Podhoretz has written Muslims out of the human race. He demands that their culture be deracinated.

Neoconservatives, convinced that a nuclear attack will bring Muslims to heel, are ignoring the likely blowback and unintended consequences of an attack on Iran, just as they ignored the likely consequences of their attack on Iraq. If the neoconservatives are mistaken in their assumption that nuclear weapons will cause Muslims to submit to the U.S., the consequences will be unmanageable.

The neoconservative Bush regime has got away with more than I thought possible, perhaps because most of Congress and the American public cannot imagine the degree of insanity that lies behind the Bush administration. Most Americans who have turned against the regime think that the administration is incompetent, that it jumped to wrong conclusions about Iraq, and that it mismanaged the war and will not admit its mistakes. As every reason Bush gave for the war has proven to be false, people see no point in continuing the struggle.

If Americans understood the enormity of the deception behind the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the pending attack on Iran, Bush and Cheney would be impeached and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, and AIPAC would be forced to register as a foreign agent.

Just as Goebbels said, some lies are too big to be disbelieved. It is this disbelief that is so dangerous. The inability of Americans to see through the Big Lie to the secret agenda allows the neoconservatives to escape accountability and continue with their plot.

It may sound like urban legend but it’s not. A frightening trend of bee colony collapses could lead to everything from a radically transformed diet to an overall wipeout of the world’s food supply.

The joke may have fallen flat, but this time no one could blame Bill Maher. Sure, it happened on the May 4, 2007 installment of his show Real Time With Bill Maher, but CNN personality and senior medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta was the one delivering the punch line, and it seems he was the only one in the room who believed the issue of Earth’s mysteriously vanishing honeybees was a joke. And while some may argue that he stayed on message, promoting his May 19 documentary called Danger: Poison Food, he nevertheless fumbled for answers when Maher asked him about what could be killing a major component of the nation’s food supply.

“Gosh, I don’t know,” Gupta answered, searching for context. “The — you know, with regards to bees in particular, I’m not sure what’s killing the bees. I’m not sure what’s killing the birds or the bees.”

Cue the laugh track.

In Gupta’s defense, a few weeks or months ago, the increasing disappearance of the honeybees, known now by the technical term Colony Collapse Disorder, had that feel of an urban legend, a phenomenon so esoteric and strange that it sounded like something out of science fiction. Except it’s not: It’s a frightening trend that, according to those hard at work at solving the problem at universities and organizations worldwide, could lead to everything from a radically transformed diet to an overall wipeout of the world’s food supply.

“It is real,” argued Dewey M. Caron, professor of entomology at the University of Delaware and one of several authorities investigating the issue with the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium’s Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group (MAAREC). “We surveyed a few states and figured out that half to three-fourths of a million bee colonies have died. This is no urban legend. It is serious.”

What is so serious is not only that the bees themselves are dying off without a smoking gun present, but that most people have no idea of the role they play in the food supply at large. Commercial beehives pollinate over a third of America’s crops, and that web of nourishment encompasses everything from fruits like peaches, apples, cherries, strawberries and more, to nuts like California almonds, 90 percent of which are helped along by the honeybees. Without this annual pollination, you could conceivably kiss those crops goodbye, to say nothing of the honey bees produce or the flowers they also fertilize.

But as the world has grown, so has its hunger and crowds, which has paved the way for the death of wild pollinators as well as the importation of honeybees from different climates in order to have massive crop pollination.

In the case of California’s aforementioned almonds, the largest managed pollination event in the world, the growing season occurs in February, well before local hives have suitably increased their populations to handle the pollination load. As a result, the region is increasingly dependent on the importation of hives from warmer climates.

The same goes for apple crops in New York, Washington and Michigan, as well as blueberries in Maine. Almonds alone require more than one-third of all the managed honeybees in the United States, so it’s entirely possible that the honeybees may have already been stretched to the breaking point, as far as environmental and chemical stressors are concerned. In fact, it’s safe to say that the nation’s honeybees, already a tireless lot, are totally exhausted from work.

“The honeybee is so important for pollination of hundreds of agricultural crops, because humans have made it so,” Caron explained. “We destroyed the natural pollinators, plowed up the area they needed to live and continued to replace their habitats with strip malls and housing developments. So, farmers have come to rely on honeybees because of mushrooming human populations and our own destructive habits to the natural ecology.”

And not just here, either: The disappearance is under way across the world. Regions of Iran are experiencing the same phenomenon, as are countries like Poland, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Germany and more every day, including Latin American and Asia. The breadth of the problem suggests that a major environmental balance could be to blame — what else is new? — yet no authority will sign off on the possibility and the specific causes still remain unknown.

“Other countries are also experiencing serious declines of honeybee colonies,” said Maryann Frazier, senior extension associate at MAAREC and the department of entomology at Penn State University. “But we are not certain that the cause behind the losses here in the United States are the same as those causing [losses] in other parts of the world.”

Throw in the fact that this type of thing has been recorded as a regular occurrence since the 19th century, and you have an apiary mystery of mammoth proportions.

“Bee colonies die all the time,” Caron added. “They die over winter, lose queens, are destroyed by pests or diseases. But this is different, as the bees are simply gone and do not develop normally.”

Tony Blair hinted today at new restrictions on internet journalism, saying online news coverage had become “more pernicious and less balanced” than traditional political reporting.

In a farewell lecture on public life, he said that much of the British media behaved like a “feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits”.

But he had particularly harsh words for non-traditional media outlets, particularly the internet.

“It used to be thought – and I include myself in this – that help was on the horizon,” he said.

“New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media.

“In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five.”

The emergence of internet-based news and 24-hour television news channels meant reports were “driven by impact”. He said that there was a need for the distinction between news and comment to be reasserted.

With newspapers increasingly moving online, he said the regulatory systems for papers and TV needed to be revised. Currently they are monitored by separate watchdogs.

“As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way,” Mr Blair said.

The outgoing Prime Minister said senior figures in public life had now become “totally demoralised” by the completely unbalanced nature of reporting.

He conceded that relations had always been fraught, but said the situation now threatened politicians’ “capacity to take the right decisions for the country”.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that he had “contributed” to the deteriorating situation with the media by “spinning” too much in the early days of New Labour.

”We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media,” Mr Blair said in a speech to Reuters.

”In our own defence, after 18 years of opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of parts of the media, it was hard to see any alternative.

”But such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question.”

I would like to take the opportunity to personally thank you for bringing this very important issue to my attention.

I share your concerns about the large stockpile of nuclear weapons in the United States . I have been a long time advocate of reducing the amount of nuclear warheads while still protecting our national interest.

The United States has maintained nuclear warheads for many years so our friends, allies, and adversaries will be confident about the safety and effectiveness of U.S. nuclear forces. Most of the current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1970s and 1980s and have been retained much longer than originally expected. These warheads however deteriorate with age. To correct the problem, the aging warhead components have been replaced in the Life Extension Program (LEP), a part of the larger Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). Some of the replaced components, however, required a nuclear test but the United States has observed a test moratorium since 1992.

The new approach that has been recommended to address the nuclear warhead issue is called the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. This program trades key Cold War features such as “high yield and low weight” to gain more valuable features, such as low cost, greater ease of manufacture, and a further increase in use control. This is completed by replacing large stockpiles of non-deployed nuclear warheads with fewer warheads. This program plans to make these improvements by designing replacement warheads that would not add military capability. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) views RRW as part of a comprehensive plan that would also modernize the nuclear weapons “Complex 2030″ (the ” strategy ” to modernize the cold-war nuclear weapons complex), avoid nuclear testing, and reduce non-deployed weapons.

Congress, upon the onset of the program, spelled out specific goals to be accomplished before continuing to fund the RRW program. These goals included increasing the confidence, without nuclear testing and developing warheads that will perform as intended over the long term. Other goals included increasing the ease of the manufacture and certification, reducing the life cycle cost, increasing weapon safety and use control, and reducing the environmental burden.

Last week, I along with the House Appropriations Sub-committee on Energy and Water voted no to provide funding to the RRW initiative. The Committee noted that it is premature to continue to design activities for a nuclear warhead until a revised U.S. nuclear weapon strategy (Complex 2030) is developed that describes the long term nuclear stockpile requirements and demonstrates how a new nuclear warhead is necessary to address specific U.S. national security requirements and nuclear nonproliferation commitments.

Again thank you for your concern in this matter.

I feel sorry for Paris Hilton. She’s the Barbie doll I never had.

In 1959 when the first Barbie came into our lives, that is, the lives of little girls, I begged my mother to get me a Barbie. “You’re too old for dolls,” she told me. “But I’m only eleven,” I answered. “You’ll just outgrow it and then we’ll have something around the house we don’t need,” she replied. She had that look on her face that meant there was no more discussion. So the words that Paris recently cried aloud I could only scream in tortured silence. “Mom, this isn’t right!”

I consoled myself with the thought that I’d soon be visiting Lynn Schuler, my ten year girlfriend who lived over in Jersey. She had a Barbie. The whole deal would go down with Barbie over at Lynn’s house.

Barbie was perfect. Thin with slender legs, long straight blond hair, endless outfits for her endless adventures and no pubic hair. It was heaven over there. The wonderful thing about Barbie was that she didn’t have to do anything. She was free. Sure, she had an outfit for her job as an airline stewardess and she took lots of time getting dressed to look professional and more importantly very beautiful. But I don’t remember that she actually worked. Mostly she went to the beach, or wherever she roamed, with the wind in her hair which would have to be re-combed and put back up into that famous long blond pony tail. She drove around in her convertible, she had lots of friends and she had a pink Princess telephone.

One early evening as Lynn and I were deep into Barbie-Land, Mrs. Schuler called to Lynn from downstairs. “Lynn Marie, she hollered up, “come clean the dinner dishes.” Lynn groaned. I picked up Barbie and pointed her to the door where Mrs. Schuler’s voice had emanated. “I don’t do no stinkin’ dishes,” I, or rather Barbie said. “What did you say Eva?” Mrs. Schuler said. “Oh, I said, chirpily, “I said I’d help Lynn with the dishes.” I pulled a fast Eddie Haskell on that one.

“Don’t forget, Lynn,” Mrs. Schuler said, “you still have to practice the piano. And remember, your tutor is coming tomorrow so get your books together for your remedial reading hour.” “Poor Lynn,” I thought. “She has so much to do. Poor me, when I get home it’ll be the same thing, only different.”

Many years later during the summer of 1967 before video porn but they didn’t call it the Summer of Love for nothing, I was hanging out in Thompson Square Park in the East Village sitting on a bench. Some guy sat down next to me and we got to talking. I remember him telling me that he appreciated that I applied my eye makeup expertly and asked me if I wanted to go over to Allen Ginsberg’s pad on Seventh. We got there and Ginsberg’s little living room was filled with hippies and some old Beats and one dissolute poet who kept bragging he was second best to Ginsberg. The guy who brought me over started playing the violin. Someone else tapped on a congo drum or something. Ginsberg wasn’t there yet. Then he came in. Everyone looked up. He wasn’t in a great mood.

“Hey,” he growled. “Why don’t one of you chicks get in the kitchen and start doing some of these dishes?”

That was my cue to leave. Only I had to walk through the kitchen to exit through the door. He thought I was one of the “chicks” volunteering to wash the mountain of dirty plates and motioned to me where to begin. “I don’t do no stinkin’ dishes,” I said and walked out.

I bet Paris has never done any dishes. All she did was drive around in her convertible and got popped for 0.08 percent alcohol. What’s that, one beer? Give me a break. Then the State goes after her for driving with a suspended license and she gets forty five days? It isn’t like she got a DUI and then invaded two countries and killed millions of people. She’s just a Barbie not a Bushie.

Speaking of bushies, I didn’t know that Paris elects not to have one. I probably wouldn’t have known this if the professor from Tufts hadn’t been so on top of his game and provided us with this vital piece of information in his CounterPunch article along with the name of her boyfriend which I forgot as soon as I read it. But I should have known, because of Barbie.

What kind of scapegoat is Paris Hilton? What need does she fill? I wouldn’t know. She only reminds me of something harmless from long ago before I entered our meritoriously-oriented society and went to work.