Global Slavery Could Be Eradicated With 10% of US Stimulus Checks

So why don't we do it? It's a lose-lose, but nobody hears about slavery, or these facts:

• 27 million slaves world-wide



• 50,000 slaves in the US are forced to work as prostitutes, farm workers and domestic servants



• There are roughly the same number of people trafficked into the United States every year as there are murders committed



• 17,500 slaves are brought into the United States every year (acc. to State Dept.)



• The United Nations reports that human trafficking is now the third largest moneymaker for criminals, after drugs and weapons



• Definition of slavery: Slaves are under the complete, violent control of another person; they are economically exploited, and get only enough food and shelter to keep them alive (see this article



• Since about 1950, the average price for a human life has collapsed to a historic low of less than $200



• Research in the US shows that about one-third of those liberated owed their freedom to the actions of ordinary citizens
  

According to truthout's" Matt Renner:

There are more people enslaved today - controlled by violence and forced to
work without pay - than at any time in human history. Free The Slaves, an organization founded by acclaimed human
rights activist and scholar Kevin Bales, works on the
front lines of slavery to find, rescue and rehabilitate slaves.

Bales, a professor of sociology at Roehampton University in London, is recognized as the leading expert on modern slavery. Bales estimates that ending global slavery would cost between $10 billion and $15 billion, roughly ten percent of the amount the US government is sending out in tax rebates. "It would be interesting if we held a national referendum and asked people if they'd be willing to take ten percent of their stimulus check and use it to eradicate slavery across the globe," he said to Truthout, adding "I'd be willing to take $540 instead of $600." In his latest book,"Ending Slavery: How We Free Today's Slaves," Bales describes the horrifying reality of modern slavery and proposes solutions. The book is a comprehensiveexamination of the current state of modern slavery, its causes and effects, itsties to global industry and business, and the activists who risk their lives to bring people out of slavery.

According to Bales,

Since 1950, factors as diverse as war, environmental destruction, kleptocratic governments and ethnic cleansing have made populations especiallyvulnerable to enslavement. When the end of the cold war eliminated barriersbetween states, the trade in people accelerated. ...
The good news about modern slavery is that, possibly for the first time in human history, it can be eradicated. With laws against it in every country, and the lack of any large vested economic interest supporting it, slavery can be ended when the public and governments make it a priority. Based on analysis of anti-slavery projects in south Asia and west Africa, the current estimated cost of the enforcement and rehabilitation programmes needed to eradicate slavery around the world is about $15bn over a 25-year period. This is approximately what Saudi Arabia is intending to spend in the UK buying military aircraft.

Which brings me to Saudi Arabia, whose royal family notoriously overspend on personal luxuries and care little for others' lives. Slavery is strongly deplored in Islam, contrary to popular opinion, and even contrary to the ideas held by many Muslims. As an Islamic Nation, Saudi Arabia both practices and condones slavery in action, and does nothing to stop it, making it an obvious showplace of hypocrisy and corruption. Freeing of slaves itself is featured in the Qur'an as a path to redemption, a path many Muslim leaders apparently reject.

An example of slavery in the US taken from his book

-------------------
So why don't we do it? It's a lose-lose, but nobody hears about slavery, which is:

• 27 million slaves world-wide



• 50,000 slaves in the US are forced to work as prostitutes, farm workers and domestic servants



• There are roughly the same number of people trafficked into the United States every year as there are murders committed



• 17,500 slaves are brought into the United States every year (acc. to State Dept.)



• The United Nations reports that human trafficking is now the third largest moneymaker for criminals, after drugs and weapons



• Definition of slavery: Slaves are under the complete, violent control of another person; they are economically exploited, and get only enough food and shelter to keep them alive (see this article)



• Since about 1950, the average price for a human life has collapsed to a historic low of less than $200



• Research in the US shows that about one-third of those liberated owed their freedom to the actions of ordinary citizens

According to truthout's Matt Renner:

There are more people enslaved today - controlled by violence and forced to work without pay - than at any time in human history. Free The Slaves, an organization founded by acclaimed human rights activist and scholar Kevin Bales, works on the front lines of slavery to find, rescue and rehabilitate slaves.

Bales, a professor of sociology at Roehampton University in London, is recognized as the leading expert on modern slavery.
Bales estimates that ending global slavery would cost between $10 billion and $15 billion, roughly ten percent of the amount the US government is sending out in tax rebates. "It would be interesting if we held a national referendum and asked people if they'd be willing to take ten percent of their stimulus check and use it to eradicate slavery across the globe," he said to Truthout, adding "I'd be willing to take $540 instead of $600."
In his latest book,
"Ending Slavery: How We Free Today's Slaves," Bales describes the horrifying reality of modern slavery and proposes solutions. The book is a comprehensive
examination of the current state of modern slavery, its causes and effects, its
ties to global industry and business, and the activists who risk their lives to
bring people out of slavery.

According to Bales,

Since 1950, factors as diverse as war, environmental destruction, kleptocratic governments and ethnic cleansing have made populations especially
vulnerable to enslavement. When the end of the cold war eliminated barriers
between states, the trade in people accelerated. ...
The good news about modern slavery is that, possibly for the first time in human history, it can be eradicated. With laws against it in every country, and the lack of any large vested economic interest supporting it, slavery can be ended when the public and governments make it a priority. Based on analysis of anti-slavery projects in south Asia and west Africa, the current estimated cost of the enforcement and rehabilitation programmes needed to eradicate slavery around the world is about $15bn over a 25-year period. This is approximately what Saudi Arabia is intending to spend in the UK buying military aircraft.

Which brings me to Saudi Arabia, whose royal family notoriously overspend on personal luxuries and care little for others' lives. Slavery is strongly deplored in Islam, contrary to popular opinion, and even contrary to the ideas held by many Muslims. As an Islamic Nation, Saudi Arabia both practices and condones slavery in action, and does nothing to stop it, making it an obvious showplace of hypocrisy and corruption. Freeing of slaves itself is featured in the Qur'an as a path to redemption, a path many Muslim leaders apparently reject.

If only more people had a conscience, slavery could be almost eradicated.

Wow! Rumsfeld on Tape Says Americans Need "Another 9-11" To Get Them On the "Right" Track

Conspiracy Theorists, rejoice! Harry Reid and Joe Biden, here's vindication! After the Republican Revolution fizzled in 2006, Secy of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is caught on tape saying:

This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in
five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not
surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same
thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I
suppose, is an attack.

Which means, of course, another 9/11... Jason Linkins reports here on Huffpost:

An ongoing exploration of the documents related to the Pentagon's "message
force multipliers" program has unearthed a clip of former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld suggesting that America, having voted the Democrats back into
Congressional power, could benefit from suffering another terrorist attack, and
doing so in the presence of the very same military analysts who went on to
provide commentary and analysis of the Iraq War.
As documented by Newsvine, it all went down at a valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld
hosted for those analysts on December 12, 2006.

The comments from Newsvine also reveal:

...while the USA is involved in asymmetric warfare, we can't lose
militarily--but we can't win militarily, either.

and this gem, where an analyst says to Rumsfeld:

Iraq needs a Syngman Rhee. Rhee, if you are unaware, was the ruthless authoritarian dictator of South Korea from after World War II through the Korean War to 1960. Yeah, he was a son of @!$%#, but he was our son of a @!$%#, to borrow a phrase Franklin Roosevelt said of Somoza. Well, well, well. So much for "democracy," huh? But the special treat in this little clip--before Rumsfeld wistfully closes by bemoaning the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is "no Syngman Rhee"--is the way Rumsfeld utterly trashes Maliki's predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari,
calling him a "wind sock."

And it goes on:

The kicker in this clip is at the very end where he insults the American people
for "weakened will" as he praises the Iraqi insurgents for being a "hellava lot
more skillful" at influencing the American public than is the Bush
Administration.

This is the perfect description of the Republican concept of "influence" and "argument": it's all about the military solution.

Now will someone ever proclaim loudly that it takes a helluva lot more taxes and spends a helluva lot more government money and makes a helluva Bigger Government to solve everything by war and by promoting "security" via more guns, less education, less health care, less social investment, less diplomacy??? So who's about lying, taxing, spending ... and killing? It feeds into the conspiracy theory that 9-11 was a plot to get people to follow the Republican line.

That may be absurd, but everything's possible when there's no conscience evident. And where is it? Where's the conscience?

Revenge Against Children for Parents' "Crime": Being Arab

Israelis are very defensive. No argument on that point. So they must hate "Save the Children" when that organization described the situation in Gaza as a "man-made, completely avoidable" "humanitarian implosion", laying the blame for the suffering of Gaza's children, who make up almost half of the population, on Israel's morally abhorrent policy of communal punishment on Gazans.

The number of people living in absolute poverty in Gaza has increased
sharply. Today, 80% of families in Gaza currently rely on humanitarian aid
compared to 63% in 2006. This decline exposes unprecedented levels of poverty
and the inability of a large majority of the population to afford basic
food. ...
In June 2005, there were 3,900 factories in Gaza employing 35,000 people. One and a half years later, in December 2007, there were just 195 left employing
only 1,700. The construction industry is paralysed with tens of thousands of labourers out of work. The agriculture sector has also been badly hit and
nearly 40,000 workers who depend on cash crops now have no income....
In September 2007, an UNRWA survey in the Gaza Strip revealed that there was a nearly 80% failure rate in schools grades four to nine, with up to 90% failure rates in Mathematics. In January 2008, UNICEF reported that schools in Gaza had been cancelling classes that were high on energy consumption, such as IT, science labs and extra curricular activities.

This is not the result of some unforeseen tragedy. This is deliberate, calculated "punishment" against children first - for they suffer the most - because of rockets launched by Hamas militants. Did this policy succeed to stop the rockets? No. Did it bring the region closer to peace? Quite the opposite. Did it succeed to kill and sicken innocent children, bringing them to the brink of starvation in front of their desperate, heartbroken, trapped and walled-in parents? Yes!

As the head of UNRWA has pointed out, ‘Hungry, unhealthy, angry communities do not make good partners for peace.’

Someone - wonder who? - said "You shall know them by their fruits." Here are the fruits of the Israeli occupation: Suffering and pain, near-starvation, deprivation of freedom - against children first! They are the most vulnerable, and the ones who bear the brunt of Israel's retribution and thirst for revenge. Is that the nation who celebrates their 60th anniversary? Do I hear a party?
Partying at the expense of whom? Do they feel no shame, dancing on the graves and pain of innocent children? What just God could possibly sympathize with them?

DN!: US Targeted Baghdad Hotel Before 2 Journalists Killed

Just in from Democracy Now!: "Fmr. Military Intelligence Officer Reveals US Listed Palestine Hotel in Baghdad as Target Prior to Killing of Two Journalists in 2003"

Last month marked the fifth anniversary of the US military shelling of the
Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The attack killed two journalists: Reuters cameraman
Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network
Telecinco. The Pentagon has called the killings accidental, but in this
broadcast exclusive Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne (Ret.) reveals she saw secret US
military documents that listed the hotel as a possible target. Kinne also
discloses that she was personally ordered to eavesdrop on Americans working for
news organizations and NGOs in Iraq.

Here's the link to the video. One quote:

One of the instances was the fact that we were listening to journalists who
were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because
during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really
disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in
Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I
remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there
were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a
potential target, I went to my officer in charge, and I told him that there are
journalists staying at this hotel who think they’re safe, and yet we have this
hotel listed as a potential target, and somehow the dots are not being connected
here, and shouldn’t we make an effort to make sure that the right people know
the situation?
And unfortunately, my officer in charge, similarly to any
time I raised concerns about things that we were collecting or intelligence that
we were reporting, basically told me that it was not my job to analyze. It was
my job to collect and pass on information and that someone somewhere higher up
the chain knew what they were doing.

Now the question is: why?

McCain's Preacher Says America's Mission is to "Destroy" Islam

Here's a Warning - Non-Armageddonists Beware the McCain Thing:

During a 2005 sermon, a fundamentalist pastor whom Senator John McCain has
praised and campaigned with called Islam "the greatest religious enemy of our
civilization and the world," claiming that the historic mission of America is to
see "this false religion destroyed." In this taped sermon, currently sold by his
megachurch, the Reverend Rod Parsley reiterates and amplifies harsh and
derogatory comments about Islam he made in his book, Silent No More, published
the same year he delivered these remarks. Meanwhile, McCain has stuck to his
stance of not criticizing Parsley, an important political ally in a crucial
swing state.

If this is not right in line with the Armageddonists' Principles of shaking up the mideast with war and then "fighting the good fight" against the "false religion" of Islam, and all those sick religious self-proclaimed Doomsday Generators ... then what is? McCain himself is probably more about political expedience. He coddles religious extremists because that's what he needs, as he sees it, to win the nomination and later, the election. That "later" clause may prove to be his undoing, though.

Public Opinion Polls show:

"...evangelicals remain just 7% of the adult population. That number has
not changed since the Barna Group began measuring the size of the evangelical
public in 1994....less than one out of five born again adults (18%) meet the
evangelical criteria."

"...the number of Protestants soon will slip below 50 percent of the
nation's population." National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey,
2004.

Of those who claim to be Protestant, most presumably are not Armageddonists.
Actually, he might do well to give a nod to less traditional religion.

The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.

OK, so you need millions. Ok, so Muslims in America number about 1,558,068, as "estimated" in 2004. But in the world, their numbers get a bit larger: 1.61 Billion, as estimated for 2007. Does that give them the right to protest in the world court? Well, there's no Muslim nation that can veto the United States in the U.N. But even so, isn't it extremely irresponsible for a nominee for President of the United States to endorse and praise a guy who calls on America itself to destroy Islam? Say, why didn't we hear about this, but Wright/Obama was bleeding all over the media?

In March 2008—two weeks after McCain appeared with Parsley at a Cincinnati
campaign rally, hailing him as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a
moral compass, a spiritual guide"—Mother Jones reported that Parsley had urged Christians to wage a "war" to
eradicate Islam in his 2005 book. McCain's campaign refused to respond to
questions about Parsley, and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee
declined to denounce Parsley's anti-Islam remarks or renounce his
endorsement.

At a time when Barack Obama was mired in a searing controversy involving
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, McCain escaped any trouble for his political alliance
with Parsley, who leads the World Harvest Church, a supersized Pentecostal
institution in Columbus, Ohio. Parsley, whose sermons are broadcast around the
world, has been credited with helping George W. Bush win Ohio in 2004 by
registering social conservatives and encouraging them to vote. McCain certainly
would like to see Parsley do the same for him—which could explain his reluctance
to do any harm to his relationship with this anti-Islam extremist.

It may also have something to do with this:

If Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright were white, he'd probably have his own church
show on television.
Maybe even his own network.
...
If he were white, Rev. Wright could stand up before the cameras and make
his nuttiest statements -- that the U.S. government deliberately spread AIDS in
the inner cities, for example -- and most white Americans wouldn't be so
shocked.

So is it all about racism? Not exactly. But after his singing debut in "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", you'd think McCain would be a little more careful. Maybe he thinks Karl Rove's got his back. Ahhh, McCain... For those who love More of the Same.

Thank God Obama is Presumptive Nominee: Hillary's No Feminist

Check out this editorial from Buzzflash with the great title "Except for Her Anatomical Features, Clinton is No Feminist. But George Wallace Would be Proud of Her Today."

Does a true Feminist support "obliterating Iran"? Senator Clinton didn't
even discuss the complexities behind the whole notion of Iran hypothetically
attacking Israel, an ally with enough nuclear capability to "obliterate" the
entire Middle East on its own. In short, wasn't it more Texas macho (think Bush
and the Neo-Cons) for Clinton to offer her "obliterate" comment than reassuring
Feminist diplomacy?

Wouldn't it have been the more Feminist thing to do to answer by saying,
"As leader of the strongest nation on earth I would look at every effort to
prevent such an occurrence and I think that can be done through diplomatic
means. Look, we survived decades of the cold war without a nuclear attack
because we were patient and diplomatic. I believe that we can do the same in the
Middle East."
But, no, Hillary went Texan on us, and that's not Feminist.
In fact, Mary Matalin's uxorious husband, James Carville, boasted
the other day that -- and we are not making this up -- if Hillary gave one of
her three gonads to Barack Obama, they would each have two.
Now would a Feminist keep a high-testosterone male chauvinist clown like that on her staff?
Of course, wouldn't a Feminist have read the NIE before authorizing
Bush to proceed with the Iraq War?
Wouldn't a Feminist have voted for the banning of cluster bombs in civilian areas, instead of for their continued use in populated communities, where they particularly kill children?
Wouldn't a Feminist be supporting MoveOn.org's anti-war work and party activists for peace instead of denouncing them as extemists?
Would a Feminist have stood by and
said nothing during the slaughter in Rwanda?
Would a Feminist have sat back and let the Bush Administration run roughshod through our civil liberties?
Would a Feminist, today, May 8th, channel the ghost of George
Wallace and openly run as the candidate of "white" people "who are hard-working"
(as compared to those "other" non-white ones -- we are to assume -- who are
not).
We can go on and on about Senator Clinton's "male" positions on
domestic and foreign policy. Yes, she once worked for the Children's Defense
Fund, before becoming a corporate lawyer who also defended rapists, before
joining the Wal-Mart board which was crushing unions, before supporting a
"welfare reform" program which was vigorously opposed by the Children's Defense
Fund.
Progressives support positions that embetter our country, champion our
Constitution, and promote the equality of all. It is not a gender issue.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote international
reconciliation and dialogue (the assumed Feminist position). Or you can be a
woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and basically be a war hawk who only came to
claiming to want to end the Iraq War once she declared for president.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote racial healing. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and exacerbate the racial divide by re-opening the wound of racial division.
You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote a politics that doesn't depend upon character assassination and guilt by association. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and run a campaign out of the Karl Rove-Lee Atwater playbook.
...
Certainly, blatantly pouring hot coals in America's festering racial
history is not "Feminist." To be a Feminist is to nurture and to heal, not
to render asunder a nation that is seeking to overcome its differences and
divisive history.
Hillary Clinton has employed the basest of political tactics. She has betrayed the accomplishments and advancements of the Civil Rights movements to become the "Great White Hope" of 2008.
Is it because she wants to wound Obama to the point that he cannot win and then she presumes that she will be able to walk into the Democratic nomination in 2012?
We are not mind readers, so we don't know.
But we do know this. George Wallace would be proud of her.

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks, Buzzflash Editors!

Torture Memo Turned Over to Judge: Let's Hope It Hits the Fan

Just in from NYT: "Judge Orders CIA to Turn Over "Torture" Memo: ACLU"

The American Civil Liberties Union said the memo was written by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and sent to the CIA in August 2002. The ACLU described the memo as "one of the most important torture documents still being withheld by the Bush administration."
In a copy of the order posted on the ACLU's Web site, Judge Alvin Hellerstein told the government to produce the memo so he can determine whether it should be made public as part of a lawsuit the ACLU and other organizations filed in June 2004 requesting records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad.
Hellerstein has scheduled a review of the document for Monday.
"This memo authorized the CIA to use specific torture techniques --
including waterboarding," Jameel Jaffer, ACLU's national security project
director, said in a statement.

"CIA agents waterboarded prisoners because this memo told them that they
could," he said. "The memo is being withheld not for legitimate security
reasons, but in order to protect government officials from accountability for
their decisions."

Let's hope it causes a public outcry. After getting away with a war based on lies and defiance of the Geneva Conventions, it's a shame and a mockery of justice that Cheney-Bush were never impeached. Are these not "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Marketing Ethnic Cleansing: Israel Parties Like It's 1948 on its 60th Birthday

This article is too good to be true - alternet sees through the smoke and mirrors. The title here is your link to one great article on the con job that is Israel, American-style - sans Palestine. The latter is effectively hidden behind a wall of silence, written in the word "terrorism" - a term originally invented by Israelis to obfuscate the issues of Palestinian nationality and counter with a term that criminalizes any resistance to the occupation.

Imagine, this 60th Anniversary "Celebration", on the twin anniversary of the Nakba, the expelling of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to make room for the Zionist dream, and the beginning of a war without end, that has destabilized the middle east and the Muslim world for generations. About the Jews having the right to a homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust, there's a powerful public sentiment in their behalf. About taking that homeland by force from people living already on the land in question - well, not so easy to accept. About what to do now.... requires mind, discipline, and a sense of fairness. Who has that?

Meanwhile,In economic terms, you could say that Israel Independence Day has
"market dominance." When most people think of Israel Independence Day -if they
contemplate it at all- they think of it in terms of Israel's national narrative.
But in spite of all the festivities, Israel Independence Day may
be losing some of its market share. Unable to market the brand to at least two
demographics (Muslim and Arab Americans) and losing market share to a generation transformed by a deeper understanding of military occupation (whether in
Palestine, Iraq or Tibet), a quality of desperation seems to underlie the latest
efforts to sell the holiday.
While advocates of Israel Independence Day still market the holiday to the country as a whole, they're increasingly turning to niche markets like health & wellness and adventure travel to achieve their main objective: market saturation.
But is it working?
...
But the edifice of legend is cracking. M.J. Rosenberg, director of the
Israel Policy Forum, recently wrote about the reluctance of young Jewish
Americans to embrace the Israel of lore, saying in a newsletter that "The
Internet generation is not into tired organizational talking points which mix
facts and myths in equal measure." Rosenberg argues that, "you can't defend the
occupation and sell Israel at the same time."
For those trying to sell Israel
to the public, opinion polls show that, while Americans tend to sympathize more
with Israelis, most people believe that Israelis and Palestinians share the
blame for their conflict -along with the United States. A BBC World Service Poll
released in early April describes the American public as "nearly evenly divided"
in their opinions on Israel. This doesn't jibe with a narrative that casts
Israelis as innocent transplants who got stuck in a bad neighborhood, but are
thriving just the same.
...
There is a new ethos now: If you feel for one side, you should feel for the
other. Those who subscribe to this view condemn all violence. They put the needs
of the people, Israelis and Palestinians, before everything else. You could call
them the People-First Movement.
The advocates of this movement, many of whom are American Jews and Israelis, believe that the official Israeli story has to be outsold by a new narrative. This means, first, acknowledging all that happened in 1948, including al nakba: the organized killings of Palestinians, the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages, and the expulsion of over seven hundred thousand Palestinians from their land. And it means looking at the US-backed occupation, and the fact that all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank live under the reach of Israeli military power.
The most striking thing about this movement is how grassroots it is.
...
In the IPF newsletter cited earlier, Rosenberg describes this trend within
the Jewish community: "They are losing the campus battle big time....I'm talking
about young opinion leaders who are turned off by the occupation and identify
Israel with settlers there and neoconservatives like Feith, Perle, and
Krauthammer here. They hate the paranoid style in which all dissent from the
status quo is deemed anti-Israel or anti-Semitic and, generally, have no use for
the mindless emotionalism and ethnic sentimentality that characterize so much of
the organized pro-Israel community. As third or fourth generation Americans,
they cannot be won over with scare tactics about the Holocaust or Ahmedinejad."
...
Omar Baddar, who works with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation,
explains that "Activism had died down in the 1990s due to the misconception that
the 'peace process' was working and could achieve something. Once that fell
through, and it became obvious that Israel was choosing illegal territorial
expansion over peace with the Palestinians, people felt the need to get active
on the issue again." Baddar believes the movement is growing because it engages
supporters "democratically and on many different levels." The anniversary of Al
Nakba on May 15 provides a focal point.
...
On April 24, The Washington Post reported on the Bush Administration's
"secret" agreement with Israel to support settlement expansion in the West Bank.
But it's no secret that, even since the Annapolis talks in November, the Israeli
government has authorized a surge of settlement construction in the West Bank
and East Jerusalem. And it's no secret that the US backs virtually all of
Israel's policies: its settlements and separation wall, its occupation and
siege; policies that have strangled the Palestinian people and resulted in many
lost lives on both sides.
...
But the peace movement is growing, and it's drawing support from people
across the country who think that two safe and viable nations will best serve
the Israeli and Palestinian people. Now that would truly be something to
celebrate.

How likely is this to succeed? It depends on the courage of the grassroots. What'll you have - war with fake peace, or real peace with less hype? The choice is yours.

GOP Warns of Political Climate Change: "November Nosedive" Syndrome

Republicans are jittery, falling apart. Could it be ... Bush-Cheney fallout? And coming on the heels of Obama's for-all-intents-&-purposes nomination-clinching Tuesday wins, does this also bode well for Dems in November? According to this account from CBS News, old neocons are breaking out in a cold sweat:

“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody
else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different
factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan.
We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of
everybody pulling together.”

In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain,
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face
“real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold
course of real reform” for the country.

Someone apparently caught them red-handed turning blue in the face.

“The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to
run an anti-Obama, anti-Rev. Wright or, if Sen. Clinton wins, anti-Clinton
campaign, they are simply going to fail,” Gingrich said. “This model has already
been tested with disastrous results.”

Wow. You mean, the old bulldozer don't work no more?

Gingrich, who was pushed out as speaker following GOP losses in the 1998
midterm elections, advocated “an emergency, members-only” meeting of House
Republicans in order to hash out a new reform agenda before Memorial Day. He
also called for a “complete overhaul” of the NRCC. Gingrich said that if the GOP leadership would not go along with his plan, “then the minority who are
activists should establish a parallel organization dedicated to real change.” He
offered nine policy proposals designed to achieve that goal, including repealing
federal gas taxes, reforming the Census Bureau and declaring English as the
official language of the United States.

Wow. Real change, that. Repeal gas taxes and get us even more carbon-dependent! And I'm sure everyone can get excited about Census Bureau reform, what with the war in Iraq and Climate Change on the back burner. And "declaring" English as the "official" language is even cooler than making "refusal to wear flag pins" a misdemeanor. See how the Republicans could get so much more inspiring by taking on the tough issues like that. Newt, how do you stay in touch like that? By reading Geriatrics Illustrated?

No wonder the Republicans are worried. Their visionaries are blindfolded.

George McGovern backs Obama, Urges Clinto to Quit

From the Washington Post:

Former Sen. George McGovern, an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama. After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern said Wednesday it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. The 1972 Democratic presidential nominee said he had a call in to former President Clinton to tell him of the decision, adding that he remains close friends with the Clintons.

He's not a superdelegate, but the 85-year-old former Presidential
nominee expresses the general consensus that it's time to put the bickering
behind and unite the Democratic Party.

Realism rules.

Russert: Obama Undisputed Dem Nominee

"We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it," said NBC channel's commentator Tim Russert.

Even though Hillary vows to press on, paying millions of her own money to do it, the general consensus is that Barack Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee after his decisive win in North Carolina and a virtual tie in Indiana.

Let's pray she comes to her senses.

Telling Wright from Wrong

It's Official: America is a religion! And criticizing America per se is blasphemy. And blasphemy, although not registered as a crime - yet - is certainly right up there with murder, corruption, outright lying, torture, and pollution. Oh, and it is far worse than eliminating and disrespecting the First Amendment to the Constitution. That is, if one acts as if America is merely a word, a statue, a flag, a uniform, and a set of rhetorical rules. And in this religion-heavy world, Obama consorted with a Blasphemer, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, aka Mr. Wrong. (Click image at right for full size.)

America, according to the Majority Media view of the Majority American, is no longer a set of ideals, principles, such as, say, democracy. Otherwise, why would Bush be a patriot and Rev. Wright be an "America-hater"? Who brought the country to war over a lie and killed its best and most loyal for that lie in a foreign country which is now a spawning ground for the seeds of terror and hate, and has made the U.S. the most hated nation in the world, bar none? Who lied about his so-called "military service" and orchestrated, along with his adoring "patriotic" fans of "America" luvvers, the removal of a seasoned journalist over the mere mention of his possibly even conceivably fudging on that all-important rite-of-passage-to-patriotism, military service? Rev. Wright? McCain hobnobs with Bush and Cheney, torture-mongers, liars, people who gutted the economy and ruined jobs for millions of white-collar working class white Americans in Pennsylvania and Indiana and other hard-core white states, and no one taunts Mr. McCain with his association with those destroyers of America and its values in every respect, those Constitution-flaunters.

No one asks Ms. HRC about her association with Whitewater or Vince Foster, or some papers left on the dining room table in the white house, and why didn't she "quit years earlier" on such matters, as she claims, saintly robes in tow, to have disowned a man she and Bill previously had as an honored guest at the White House. Maybe to enjoy his rights of free speech which she now conveniently disowns.

Ms. HRC is no proponent of the First Amendment, of detente, of talking instead of bombing, of thinking twice before jumping on the avalanche of war, of debate instead of war, of open and free discussion between human beings instead of attacks between opponents and mud-slingers. She is a huge proponent of winning elections, but she can't win on her reputation as a hard-line conservative, which she isn't, or as a woman of integrity, which she isn't, or as an experienced negotiator, which she isn't, or as a person who will stand against the tide of wrong-headedness on behalf of the downtrodden or the unpopular but right side, the moral side. She's all about being expedient. So she looked at Rev. Wright out of the corner of her eye and said "I would have disowned him long ago." And so she would have disowned anyone who speaks his/her mind against the political winds of hard-headed O'Reilly-fueled hatred, war-mongering, bomb-brained protoplasm. Ah, but now saying "damn America", unlike "damn Yankees", means "hate-filled church" and that most sacrilegious thing of all, anti-Americanism, something the late J. Edgar Hoover was, like HRC, firmly against.

Democracy Now! brought this issue in debate where Adolph Reed Jr., Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (author of several books, including Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene and Stirrings in the Jug: Black Politics in the Post-Segregation Era who makes a case against voting for Sen. Obama in the latest issue of The Progressive magazine), argues

Obama opened himself to this by leaning to—on the premise that he can
appeal to Republicans and to conservatives and by parading his personal faith
around.

and

...we’ve seen a number—a significant segment of white voters who sort of like the idea, like to savor the idea in their heads, like the sound of it in their mouths, that they’re prepared to vote for a black candidate, the closer it comes to the election of a black candidate being a reality, the more likely you’re going to find people finding ostensibly nonracial reasons to bail and to find him unlikable. And I think that’s—frankly, I think that’s—from the standpoint of the national political race, I think that’s the most significant aspect of the Wright contrast now.

Plus, regarding Wright, whom Reed believes to be honestly expressing truths,

...Obama couldn’t embrace him, couldn’t do anything except distance himself from that largely astute analysis of American power and other contradictions of the governing regime of both parties, because of the warrants of trying to win
an election in which the discursive center of gravity is much farther to the
right.

So therefore, he concludes Obama couldn't win, and he claims, neither could Hillary ... and so we vote for a "winner", then? McCain? We cave to the perception that Americans are mere protoplasm? Even if they are, even if Americans care about nothing whatsoever except maintaining their own creature comforts today, not tomorrow, it is conceivable that someone, somewhere could inspire us to higher ground.

If Obama is not that person, who on this scorched, pollution-threatened earth is? Why does everybody keep saying "Impossible!"??? What if secretly, in the hearts of most Americans, lies a soul that hopes, dreams, thinks that democracy really does mean "government by the people, for the people" and thinks "the people" is pretty damn inclusive? What if most of them actually fear bleeding democracy to death in useless, pointless, doomed wars overseas? What if they are just hoping to find someone to inspire them out of this video-game mind-numbing business of chasing celebrities while the whole country, its earth, sky, water, and people - not to mention the economy - goes to hell in a flag-draped, patriotic, rhetorically-sterile coffin?

Is it "hate" to condemn America for its racism and war-mongering? Or is it "hate" to refuse to condemn its sins and to whitewash it in red, white and blue meaningless doubletalk, and then condemn those who dare say what they really think? Are Americans really mindless protoplasm? Or do even working people, among whom I count myself, really on a higher plane than most pundits realize? Is Obama electable? Even after Wright?

Only the hopeful, optimistic, democracy-lovers who believe democracy actually could work think that way.

Big Brother Monsanto Watches You, Wants Your Money, Worship

While comfortably ensconsced in your lounger, watching HDTV and snacking on popcorn, you may not be particularly excited about hearing that Monsanto Corporation is after the world's seeds, of which it now controls about 30%. Even if those seeds include popcorn. Even if they nearly control 90% of American seeds, and take the position of God-to-be in their all-powerful, all-knowing takeover of world Agriculture, demanding capitulation, adulation, remuneration from every man, woman and child who works the land.

The question on everyone's mind is simply, "What does that have to do with the economy? Will that raise my taxes?" Or maybe "Will that hurt my candidate's chances?"

Nobody seems to feel that a corporate giant is now standing in their living room, dictating what they will or will not eat, how much they will pay, and how they will feel tomorrow. And you can't see them or talk to them. They don't really need you. They need your acquiescence. Simply by doing nothing in the comfort of your home, being as conventional as humanly possibly, by not asking questions or talking about anything other than celebrinews, you are pleasing them, in their good graces. You are, in short, their kind of people.

First, you should read this article in Vanity Fair, if you haven't already, with a graphic description of how Monsanto plays God, Big Brother-style, as well as the sins of the Old Bad Monsanto, the Chemical Company that brought us the most poisonous chemicals in existence: PCBs and dioxin, and threw them carelessly around the world's environment for future generations of protoplasm to have more "interesting" genes, for those couch potatoes who are no longer entertained by humans with normal limbs and features and find health boring. Then,

Here's an article about a movie Americans will never see - or so we're told - entitled "The World According to Monsanto" by French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin. And why should Americans see it? It could create that anathema of American security Comptrollers: panic! Oooh, don't tell them slugs the truth - they'll panic! Remember Orson Welles and The War of the Worlds radio show? Oh, don't tell me you're under 85? That pre-TV radio show and its impact on the population of the time is trotted out on every "UFOs: Real or Imagined?" show as the Ultimate Reason we, in 2008, should never be allowed to see anything controversial, such as Dan Rather's story on George Bush maybe evading the - gasp! - draft... Fire the guy! Schmirst Amendment, my ***! And so, too, Corporate Giants have to be protected. And especially their all-important omnipotence-giving Patents for which they have paid Untold Millions that Must Not Be Squandered by Peasants and other Lowlifes.

Meanwhile, if you want to know just how bleak our American future with Monsanto REALLY is, just look at India. Better yet, listen to Dr. Vandana Shiva:

"Recently I was visiting Bhatinda in Punjab because of an epidemic of
farmers' suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural region in
India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have
become waterlogged desert. And, as an old farmer pointed out, even the
trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides has killed the pollinators - the bees and butterflies.
And Punjab is not alone in experiencing this ecological and social disaster. Last year I was in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, where farmers have also been committing suicide. Farmers who traditionally grew pulses and millets and paddy have been lured by seed companies to buy hybrid cotton seeds referred to as "white gold", which were
supposed to make them millionaires. Instead they became paupers.

"Their native seeds have been displaced with new hybrids which cannot be
saved and need to be purchased every year at a high cost. Hybrids are also very
vulnerable to pest attacks. Spending on pesticides in Warangal has increased
2,000 per cent from $2.5 million in the 1980s to £50 million in 1997. Now farmers are consuming the same pesticides as a way of killing themselves so that they can escape permanently from unpayable debt. The corporations are now trying to introduce genetically engineered seed, which will further increase costs and ecological risks. "

Does that sound familiar? Not yet? Well, listen to America's beekeepers, who say bees are dying wholesale, and think again. Monsanto cares about nothing except making profits, and finding ways to dupe people into thinking it cares about something other than making profits.

But Monsanto does not operate in a vacuum: pro-corporation, conservative, pro-"market values" capitalist culture provides the breeding ground for companies like Monsanto that value nothing but their own bottom line, and feel morally justified in doing so.

Again, Dr. Vandana Shiva put it best:

It is often said that the roots of environmental destruction lie in
treating natural resources as 'free' and not giving them 'value'. Most
discussions in the dominant paradigm assume that monetary, commercial or market
value is the only way of measuring or valuing the environment. It is falsely
assumed that value can be reduced to price.
However, the market is not the only source of values, and monetary values are not the only ones. Spiritual values treat certain resources and ecosystems as sacred - there are also such social values as those associated with common property resources. In both cases, resources have no price - but a very high value. In fact, it is precisely because their value is high that these resources are not left to the market but are taken beyond the domain of monetary value so as to protect and conserve
them.
...
The proposal to solve the ecological crisis by giving market values to all
resources is like offering the disease as the cure. The reduction of all value
to commercial value, and the removal of all spiritual, ecological, cultural and
social limits to exploitation - the shift that took place at the time of
industrialization - is central to the ecological crisis.
This shift is reflected in the change in the meaning of the term 'resource', which originally implied life.
...
With the advent of industrialism and colonialism, 'natural resources'
became the parts of nature required as inputs for industrial production and
colonial trade.
... Nature, whose real nature it is to rise again, was transformed by this
originally Western world view into dead and manipulatable matter - its capacity
to renew and grow denied.
...
The market economy is only one of the world's economies - in addition,
there is nature's economy of life-support processes and people's economy in
which our sustenance is provided and our needs are met. Nature's economy is the
most basic, both in that it is the base of the people's and market economies,
and because it has the highest priority to, and claim on, natural resources.
However, development and economic growth treat the market economy as the primary one, and either neglect the others or treat them as marginal and secondary.
Capital accumulation does lead to financial growth, but it erodes
the natural resource base of all three economies. The result is a high
level of ecological instability. The anarchy of growth and the ideology of
development based on it are the prime reasons underlying the ecological crises
and destruction of natural resources.
...
The dominant model of environmental economics promoted by the World Bank
and major economic powers attempts further to reduce nature's economy and the
sustenance economy to the market economy. Preoccupation with 'getting the prices
right' can lead to a blindness to the fact that the market usually gets the
values of justice and sustainability wrong.

The marketization of common resources is based on myths. The first is
the equivalence of 'value' and 'price'. Resources - such as sacred
forests and rivers - often have very high value while having no price. The second is that common property resources tend to degrade.
Privatization is frequently prescribed for solving 'problems' caused by
overusing resources under open access and common property. But it is based on
the tradeability of private property, while commons are based on the
inalienability of shared rights derived from use. The assumption that
alienability is more conducive to conservation is derived from the false
association of price with value.

There is much more, and her views are well worth looking at. And if you want to be more than convenient-to-manipulate protoplasm, it would be worth your while to boycott Monsanto products and write to your Congresspeople or other politicians about what values people have and want to protect from giant Corporations who are about to destroy something you'd have a hard time living without: food. Oh, and planet Earth.

Hillary Courted Racists for PA Win?

Check out this piece in Buzzflash which says, among other things,

"Clinton began her focus on the white vote in earnest during the South Carolina primary, when husband Bill famously equated Obama's campaign with that of an earlier black presidential campaigner, Jesse Jackson. The linkage was
immediately spotted as a clever way of labeling Obama as a "black" candidate, since Jackson has always been a lightning rod for white voters because of his active support for touchy issues such as affirmative action and fair housing laws.
She also made much during the Pennsylvania campaign of Obama's membership in a black church in Chicago, and of his relationship with the church's black liberation preacher, Jeremiah Wright (adding that she "would have left" such a church herself).

"...clearly some of her support came from whites -- men and women -- who, as Clinton Pennsylvania mentor Gov. Ed Rendell said, "will not vote for a black candidate."
And there in stark terms is the answer. There are white voters in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania -- a lot of them, in fact -- who are simply racists. They will not vote for a black candidate for president. Period.
That is a far different thing from a black voter who votes for a black candidate, or a Catholic voter who votes for a Catholic candidate. Identity politics is not racism."

Then there are Hillary "backers" who claim that calling those people "racist" is wrong, since a vast majority (90%) of blacks voted for Obama, claiming that to be "more racist." The writer explains as above, but failed to mention that this is a constant neocon rant: the "reverse racism" rant. It's total bull, and indicative of the divisive and Republican-strategied power-at-any-cost strategies of Hillary, whose proven expertise as a consummate liar should give those who dislike Bush and his policies pause indeed.

I find the gap between her higher rhetoric and her lower standards too appalling. I'd rather have the first woman President to be someone I could trust.

Cool It, Ladies, She's Worse Than You Think: Hillary May Out-Macho McCain

They say "older white women" are Hillary's strongest supporters. Well, I'm sure all those Boomer Ladies wouldn't be so hot about her if they actually heard her take on war.

If you're thinking there isn't a hair's-breadth of difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, think again. And think hard. Hillary Clinton represents the same empire, military-solves-all mentality that threatens to put our country on the fast track to total collapse. Is this the "Democratic" candidate you really want?


Hillary wants to play warmonger with Iran at a time when those with greater knowledge say that would be the worst possible mistake:

The book All the Shah's Men (authored by Stephen Kinzer, interviewed for truthout by Maya Schenwar) reminds us that, when it comes to Iran, the backseat is probably where we should be sitting. The US was responsible for the 1953 coup that toppled Iran's democratic government, replacing it with the repressive Shah regime, which hastened the Islamic Revolution of 1970s, inspiring the rise of radical groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Yet the US has not yet taken its Middle East history lessons seriously. Kinzer noted
that our attitude toward Iran and Iraq is symptomatic of the US's overriding
tendency toward using military force to shape economic policy - in this case,
oil management - to its advantage.
Kinzer's most recent book, Overthrow, shows how the "regime change" model has developed over the past 110 years. In our interview, he discussed the motivations behind that empire-driven mentality - and why, ultimately, it's doomed to fail.

Hillary has joined John McCain and the Republican-led warmongers into another dangerous and obviously disastrous adventure in threatening Iran. Her interest, presumably to "look tough", and bodes more of same if she took office.

And then here on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, Hillary extended her "as macho as McCain" new look, or should I say, same old outlook. Check this great diary on that interview. Here's a sample from that interview:

And one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going
to permit them, if we can prevent it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were
they to become so, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a
nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would
prevent it from happening, and that we would try to help the other countries
that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were
a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."

To which author ab2kgi said on Dailykos,

This talks about using our nukes to defend an entire region, arguably the
most unstable in the world. Beyond the lunacy of offering our nuclear
arsenal to an entire region of the world, she misplaced a couple of facts along
the way. The most glaring of which is the last NIE(reported
on here) that stated that Iran suspended it's nuclear weapons program in
2003. She also seems to forget that meeting Putin had with Ahmadinejad(reported on here), where they stopped just short of "we will defend you if you are attacked."
It would seem that Russia is developing ties with Iran that would
certainly play into any nuclear intervention with Iran and would likely be our
demise should Russia attempt to launch nukes at us.

This kind of irresponsible machismo is exactly what women claim to be tired of and why we might like to have a woman president. But it does the exact opposite to exhibit the worst qualities associated traditionally with men in order to get their supposed votes. She promotes macho values in order to supposedly win as a woman. Possibly even worse yet, she doesn't even logically evaluate the absurd proposition that Iran could attack Israel with nuclear weapons. That kind of proposition is exactly the mindless concept held by many who still say "yes" to solving all the world's problems militarily. Are we going to take a giant step backward into neocon more-bang-less-buck land? Say "no" to Hillary and her nukefest-frenzied More of Same campaign.

Omar Khadr Update: Evidence of Innocence

Guantanamo's "child terrorist" may have a strong legal defense, according to recent reports: the U.S. soldier Omar Khadr is accused of killing may have been killed not by Omar Khadr, but by friendly fire. Imagine, after Khadr was tortured and imprisoned at the infamous and cruel Guantanamo prison for alleged terrorists as an "enemy combatant", it may turn out that he was innocent completely of the alleged crime. Bear in mind, he was forcibly detained at age 15 to allegedly protect Americans from "terror".

Lt. Cmdr William Kuebler told CTV Newsnet that during the discovery process
of Khadr's legal proceedings, the U.S. government released interviews from
American soldiers who said they were lobbing grenades into the compound where
army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer was killed in July 2002. ...

"As the process unfolds, we are learning the government's case against
Khadr gets weaker and weaker," Kuebler said. "It departs from the mythical
account that was originally sold to the Canadian government and public that Omar
Khadr must have been guilty of throwing a hand grenade because he was found
alive in the compound . . . (as) today we learned that U.S. soldiers were
throwing hand grenades into that compound."
"Given the fact there were no
eyewitnesses to Khadr throwing a hand grenade (friendly-fire) is yet another
possibility."

Of course, the government will do everything in its power to railroad Khadr into a conviction, but we hope an international outcry, and perhaps a domestic outcry as well, could make those whose hands are bloody in this quagmire think twice and give this defendant the same rights accorded to other human beings: the presumption of innocence.

Or are all principles to be trashed in the interest of fear?

New Book on Omar Khadr Gets Reviewed

Check out this review of Guantanamo's Child, by Michelle Shephard (John Wiley & Sons Canada), a great read on Omar Khadr's life.

Reese: Aging, "Manure-Spreading" McCain Not Presidential Material

Charley Reese has 2 words for John McCain: 1) too old; and 2) spreads too much manure. I think it's a fair assessment. Reese thought 2000 would have been the right time for McCain instead of Bush. Having missed that train, he's too far over the hill to handle the incredible mind-boggling complexities of the world we are now in, including the crumbling empire, absurd military oversell, and of course, the "Superbadboy-power" who doesn't even have the pocket change to clean toilets in New Orleans, but borrows their way to the X-games of invasion/occupation and beyond. As Reese put it:

Forty years ago, McCain was a hero. It was a noble thing he did when he
refused a Vietnamese offer to be set free and chose to remain with the other
POWs. He's a patriot. He's brave. He also finished near the bottom of his Naval
Academy class. He's never pretended to be a scholar. Now he's nearly 72 years
old, and if he ever did understand the Middle East, he obviously doesn't now.
...
The old warrior no longer knows who the enemy is or where he is located.

As to McCain's ideas on "security", I liked what Reese said so much I'm printing the whole thing:

Sen. John McCain is already spreading the old "strategic interests" fertilizer along the presidential campaign trail while pretending to be an expert.

Let's hope he really can explain what interests require us to maintain troops in Germany and Japan 63 years after the end of the war. What exactly is the purpose of those troops? Are we expecting the Mongols to descend on Japan? Does he expect the Cossacks will ride across the plains to attack Europe? Does he think that two of the greatest economic powers on Earth – Japan and Europe – are too poor to defend themselves? The old boy is living in the past.

When American politicians talk about strategic interests, they are talking about just what I