Friday, February 03, 2012

Khmer Rouge Jailer Duch's Sentence Increased by Cambodia Court

The Guardian (UK)
February 3, 2012.

Kaing Guek Eav given life after both sides appealed against 35-year term for 'killing fields' slaughter of 12,000 people

Khmer Rouge jailer Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, at 
the hearing at which his sentence was increased 
from 35 years to life. (Photograph: Reuters)

The Khmer Rouge tribunal's supreme court has ordered the regime's chief jailer to serve out the rest of his life in prison because of his "shocking and heinous" crimes against the Cambodian people.

The surprise ruling increased a lower court's 19-year sentence against which prosecutors had appealed as too lenient and by the convicted man as too harsh. Survivors had feared the man who oversaw the killings of thousands could one day walk free.

Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, was commander of the top-secret Tuol Sleng prison codenamed S-21. He has admitted to overseeing the torture of prisoners before sending them for execution at the "killing fields".

In July 2010 the tribunal's lower court convicted Duch of war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and murder.

He was sentenced to 35 years in prison but had his sentence reduced by 11 years for time served and other technicalities.

The sentence was appealed against by both prosecutors who called for life imprisonment and by Duch who argued it was too harsh because he was merely following orders.

The appeal judge said the upper court felt the penalty should be more severe because the former jailer was responsible for the brutal deaths of so many. The tribunal says Duch oversaw the killing of at least 12,272 victims but some estimates have placed the number as high as 16,000.

"The crimes of Kaing Guek Eav were of a particularly shocking and heinous character based on the number of people who were proven to have been killed," the judge said.

The 69-year-old Duch stood calmly without emotion as the sentence was read.

He then pressed his palms together and pulled them to his chest in a show of respect to the judge, before being led away by court guards. The ruling was final with no other chance for appeal.

The tribunal is seeking justice for an estimated 1.7 million people who died from torture, starvation, exhaustion or lack of medical care during the Khmer Rouge's rule in the 1970s.

Three senior Khmer Rouge figures are on trial in what is known as Case 002. Unlike Duch, who admitted his role and asked for forgiveness, the others claim no wrongdoing.

They are 85-year-old Nuon Chea, the Khmer Rouge's chief ideologist and second in charge; 80-year-old Khieu Samphan, an ex-head of state; and 86-year-old Ieng Sary, the former foreign minister. They are accused of crimes against humanity, genocide, religious persecution, homicide and torture.

Comment: The past is never solved but to make sense of an ugly past a confrontation is necessary.  Obscuring an ugly past, playing down its relevance, or flatly denying its burden is simply destructive.

This week I completed an invited chapter entitled "Making Sense of an Ugly Past" in which I tried to conceptualize an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for confronting chronic traumas like mass extermination, genocide, slavery, racism, casteism, etc.

This emphasis/interest is something I have been working on since the late 90s when we were watching the work of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) closely.

More than a decade has passed since the TRC concluded its work and we are no closer to knowing if any confrontation can 'solve' the past.

The truth is - if there must be a truth - that confronting the past is not about solving what happened.  It is, rather, about making sense of what happened.

Any trauma, whether leveled at the individual or a group (the nation), must be processed in a manner that integrates the ugliness it represents into the socio-political and psychological make-up of victims.

We confront the past as a project of re-imagining or re-inventing ourselves.  This project is as much about reaffirming our humanity and its frailty as it is about setting moral and ethical boundaries about what is acceptable and what is not.

In effect, we learn from the past by being critical about what it means.  And that learning never stops.

Future generations in Cambodia, just like in South Africa, will have to make sense of the ugliness of the past.  It is the predicament of being human in a world of constructed and contested realities.

For this reason, I like the notion and option of unlimited second chances in life.

Onward!

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Diet Soft Drink a Day Increases Heart Attack, Stroke Risk: According to a Study

TimesLive
February 1, 2012.

If you imbibe diet soda daily, a new study warns that you could be at increased risk of a stroke or heart attack.

 
Data were analysed from 2 564 participants in the NIH-funded Northern Manhattan Study, with researchers examining how often individuals drank soft drinks -- diet and regular -- and the number of strokes and heart attacks that occurred over a 10-year period.

They found that those who drank diet soft drinks daily were 43 percent more likely to have suffered heart attacks or strokes than those who drank none. Light diet soft drink users, meaning "those who drank between one a month and six a week," and those who chose regular soft drinks were not more likely to suffer vascular health problems, according to a press release.

Findings were published on January 26 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

In other recent research, a 10-year study from the University of Texas in the United States revealed that people who drank two or more diet sodas a day gained 70 percent more abdominal fat than those in the study who didn't drink diet soda.

Abdominal fat is a major risk factor for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, as well as other chronic conditions, the researchers said.

Another study from the same university found that the artificial sweetener aspartame raised blood sugar levels in mice prone to diabetes.

More thoughts on diet soda and your health here.

Comment:  I have been addicted to diet sodas, particularly Diet Coke/Diet Pepsi, for more years than I can remember; well about 3 decades at least.

Over the years I have spent thousands of dollars on keeping my addiction to at least 2 liters of diet soda a day safe and secure.

In the years of my addiction, and the ones previous to that where I was sucking down regular Coke, I barely drank water at all.

I knew sh*t had to change but kicking the habit was hard.  At one point I made it past six months without a single diet soda but the draw was too hard and I relapsed.

If this confession reads like one of a drug addict you better believe I consider my diet soda habit a drug addiction.

Have you ever read the names of the chemicals they throw together into Diet Coke?

Oh yeah, I believe there is a correlation between diet soda and diabetes.  Can't prove it but there is a need for a study. 

Nonetheless, good news for me is that four months ago I gave the witches brew up, again.  I started drinking water and put the thought of fish f*cking and crapping in water out of my mind ;0)

And so now I sleep through the night and can even claim to be doing my part to cut my carbon footprint since there are no plastic diet soda bottles in my fridge.

I think this time around my addiction to diet soda is solved.  Now I need to deal with my addiction to coffee, blogging, motorcycles, and unattainable women.

Onward!

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

No Third Term for Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade

Making yourself heard: A demonstrator throws rocks at the police 
during a protest against Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade in Dakar. 
Protesters have clashed with Senegalese security forces who fired tear 
gas during demonstrations against Wade's decision to seek a
third term. (Reuters) Read more

Monday, January 30, 2012

Demanding Justice For Yousef, A Quiet Boy Killed By Israeli Settlers

The Electronic Intifada
Bekah Wolf
January 27, 2012.

Yousef Ikhlayl, top left-hand corner, attending a demonstration in 
Beit Ommar less than six months before he was killed 
by Israeli settlers (Palestine Solidarity Project)

On 28 January 2011 at 6:30am, Yousef Ikhlayl, 17, went with his father Fakhri to their farmland on the outskirts of the West Bank village Beit Ommar, where they prepared the land around their grapevines. At approximately 7am, two groups of Israelis from the illegal settlements Bat Ayn and Kiryat Arba were taking a “hike” in the privately-owned Palestinian agricultural land belonging to the residents of Beit Ommar (“Palestinian killed in clashes with settlers near Hebron,” The Jerusalem Post, 29 January 2011).

There was no indication that the settlers were planning on shooting. Yousef’s father reported that the first shot fired by the settlers hit his son in the head. The settlers then began shooting in the air and the surrounding areas to prevent others from approaching, as his father screamed desperately for help.

Yousef was carried to a car that drove him out of the agricultural valley and to the main road, where an ambulance “rushed” him to the hospital in Hebron, passing two Israeli military checkpoints on the way. At the hospital, Yousef was put on a respirator, though he had no brain activity. He passed away soon after.

At his funeral the following day, as is common practice with the Israeli military involving martyr funerals, soldiers numbering in the hundreds invaded Beit Ommar and attacked the funeral with tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and even live ammunition, as the Palestine Solidarity Project reported (“Funeral of Yousef Ikhlayl attacked by Israeli military, dozens injured,” 29 January 2011).

The murder of Yousef Ikhlayl, the impunity with which the settlers acted and the military’s behavior at the funeral are common occurrences in the occupied West Bank. The death of a Palestinian, even a child, is rarely noted and quickly forgotten in much of the world. The killing of Yousef was, however, a profound event for myself, the Palestine Solidarity Project (PSP, the organization I co-founded) and popular resistance in the Hebron district as a whole.

Read the rest here.

More information here

Onward!

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Stop The War Protests Against Iran And Syria Intervention

Huffington Post (UK)
January 28, 2012.


Hundreds of anti-war protesters gathered in central London today at a demonstration against Western intervention in Iran and Syria.

The rally, organised by the Stop the War Coalition, took place outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square with a number of speakers addressing the 200-strong crowd.

Protesters waved banners bearing the words "Don't attack Iran" and "Hands off Iran and Syria", while the crowd joined together in chanting: "One, two, three, four, we don't want another war. Five, six, seven, eight, stop the killing, stop the hate."

The coalition opposes all military intervention from the West in Iran as concern that the Middle Eastern country is developing nuclear weapons grows.

The group says there is "absolutely no justification" for Western countries to become involved.

Stop the War Coalition activist John Rees said the uprising that ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak a year ago proved that oppressed people in the Middle East could fight for themselves.

He said: "Here is a people who without the bombers and the bullets, the tanks and the soldiers, or the United States, or Britain, or any of the Western powers, pulled down a dictatorship on their own.

"Even after a year's still further struggle, there is not one single Egyptian revolutionary who will ask for support from the United States or military assistance from the United States, and it is because of this: they are still being shot down in the streets by Egyptian soldiers who are using American weapons and American bullets, so why would they ask for help from their killers?"

Rees said that history showed that foreign intervention led to the future of these countries not being controlled by their own people.

He told protesters: "After they are finished, the resources of these countries will not be in the hands of the country's people, they will not be democratically controlled by the people of these countries, they will be controlled by the masters of the people who will be working in this building (the US embassy)."

He added: "Ordinary people have the capacity to deal with the dictatorships.

"They have the capacity to go on fighting week after week, month after month, to get democracy, to control their societies, to abolish poverty, and they will not stop fighting until they get it.

"Our business, the business of people who live in this country, is to make sure that they have the space and the freedom to do it.

"Our business is the business of keeping our Government off the back of people in the Middle East and giving them their chance to achieve freedom and democracy for themselves."

Iranian activist Shirin Shafaie said the West had shown "double standards" in previous conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She said: "Double standards are the worst enemy of justice and injustice is the worst enemy of peace.

"We must make sure history doesn't repeat itself.

"We are here to make sure there is not another war anywhere in the world, which is led by America or European countries."

Comment: Onward!

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Somebody Else’s Money

Dissident Voice
Herbert Dyer, Jr.
January 27, 2012.
Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.
— (Susan Sontag) Partisan Review, 1967.
After coming under heavy criticism for this statement, Sontag eagerly recanted and revised it, saying that “it slandered cancer patients.”

As representatives and protectors of America’s white supremacist ethos, the current roster of Republican Party presidential office seekers demonstrates daily its steadfast determination to keep Black people at the absolute bottom of this republic’s racial, political, economic and social hierarchies.  Rick Santorum’s declaration and warning against giving “somebody else’s money” to Black people sums up the entire Republican Party’s “platform.”  He echoes Newt Gingrich, who has described the First Black President as “the food stamps president” and whose solution to Black youth joblessness is to turn them into janitors in their own deteriorating public schools.  Notice that he does not suggest putting Black students to work as student-clerks, teachers’ or principals’ aides, library attendants, shop or home economics helpers, or even hall monitors, but as menial laborers.  His default position for all problems black is a return to a kind of forced labor, a neo-slavery.  Willard (“Mitt”) Romney consistently decries “entitlements” for everybody except his fellow fat cats and their transnational companies while Ron Paul’s white supremacist past is rapidly catching up with him via his opposition to long settled civil rights legislation and blatantly racist tracts, pamphlets and newsletters.

But Santorum’s admonition is the clearest and most direct statement of just exactly where so-called “conservative” whites stand:   Who are the “somebody else’s” in his nostrum?  They are readily identified as the consistent opponents of all policies or programs which might even remotely help Black people, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, educational grants and loans, jobs and job training, housing assistance, and, God forbid, welfare.  (In the recent past – post-World War II – Santorum’s predecessor-“somebody else’s” even opposed giving Black military veterans benefits offered in the G.I. Bill of Rights).  In short, Santorum’s “somebody else’s” view all of these as “stealth”  forms of “reparations” to Blacks for centuries of slavery and subsequent racial segregation and discrimination. This the “somebody else’s” cannot – and will not — abide.

Why can’t Santorum’s“somebody else’s” and most so-called “conservative” (and many not so conservative) white folks come to grips with the fact that they owe Black people?  Here’s a short list of the most common arguments against reparations:

1)  Nobody in my family ever owned slaves; the corollary to this is that no Black person living today was ever a slave;
2)  My European ancestors didn’t even get to America until long after slavery ended;
3) Reparations have already been paid in the form of welfare, Supreme Court decisions, Presidential Executive Orders, civil rights laws,  affirmative action policies and programs, etc.;
4) Any white debt owed to Blacks was paid in blood by the 600,000 white men who died on both sides during the Civil War;
5) There is no consensus – even among Blacks – as to how reparations would be paid and to whom;
6) It was the Africans themselves who eagerly participated in, if not actually originated, the Atlantic Slave Trade.  The corollary to this is that there were actually many Black slaveholders – not to mention a significant number of Native Americans who likewise held Black slaves; and,
7) Finally….a completely new “rationale” against reparations has surfaced: the election of America’s First Black President “proves” that “white racism” is over and done with.  President Obama’s election canceled any debt owed by whites to Blacks, and thus obviated the need to pay Black people anything at all.
On the surface, these arguments appear reasonable, even compelling.  But as we dig just beneath the surface, each one of them fails both the “reasonable” and “compelling” tests.

Nobody in my family owned slaves…..”  This argument renders slavery and the ongoing horrendous treatment of Blacks as a matter of individual acts and choices by long dead misguided white ancestors (and a rapidly diminishing number of live throwbacks to a bygone era).  It ignores the supportive and enabling role that kings, princes, elected and appointed legislatures, courts, and executives played in institutionalizing and maintaining a brutal slavocracy which benefitted all whites whether they did or did not own Black slaves.

This and the ”no living black people were slaves”, and the post-slavery European immigration arguments center around a general conservative and white America political myth that this nation-state was organized by,  and comprised of, only  “rugged individuals” who united for their own personal and “private” self-interest.  America, they argue, is not, never has been, and never will be a “society”  composed of disparate peoples who came together as a result of a “social contract”, a la’ John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689) or Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du Contract Social (1762).

The late arrival of European immigrants.    The late comedian Richard Prior and author Toni Morrison point out that a European immigrant’s entrance into American whiteness was expedited,  facilitated, and gauged by just how quickly and thoroughly he or she could learn, embrace, and express the most important word in the American socio-political lexicon:  “Nigger.”  

This was only the first step in embracing an American ethic and ethos of whiteness.  One’s Irish-ness, Italian-ness, German-ness, French-ness, Hungarian-ness, or…..were not shed completely, but firmly relegated into and served as a backdrop for a brand spanking new identity – American.

Next came the actual acceptance and use of one’s whiteness as not just a matter of privilege, but of right  — a God-given, if not Constitutional right.

Reparations have already been paid.  It was not until half way through the Civil War, when it looked as though the south might actually win, that Lincoln and the north decided that this really might be a war to end slavery rather than simply to “save the union.”  Yes, 600,000 white men died in that orgy of blood and bluster.  But the number of direct Black casualties has never been calculated, and is probably impossible to know.  How many of the almost 200,000 Black men who fought for the north were killed outright rather than taken as prisoners of war?  It is known that thousands of Black people (civilians and soldiers) died at the hands of civilian whites who objected to being drafted into the war and took their frustrations out on basically defenseless Blacks especially in the so-called more enlightened north.

General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Order No. 15, issued on January 16, 1865, granted 40 acres and a mule to those slaves who had been freed as the north neared its ever increasingly assured victory.   More than 10,000 people settled on 400,000 acres of their former slave owners’  lands as a result of this order.   After Lincoln’s assassination in April, however, the new president, Andrew Johnson, immediately rescinded Sherman’s order, expelled the new “freedmen”, and returned the land back to the self same former slave owners.

The “reparations have already been paid” argument also ignores the fact that immediately following the Civil War Blacks brought constant, numerous, well-argued claims to the courts and state legislatures, through the national congress, against the federal government, the states individually, corporations, and specific former slaveholders for payment of “services” rendered.  All such entreaties were denied.

Likewise, all efforts to compensate Blacks in the decades and now centuries following the war were also turned back.  Black people were specifically excluded from most provisions of President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”  Harry Truman’s Executive Order  9981 on July 26, 1948 (desegregation of the military)  was the first such effort by any president since Lincoln to directly address the plight of Black people.  The landmark legislation of the 1960’s (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968) came into being not because of a change of heart on the part of Santorum’s “other people.”  Rather, it was the Civil Rights Movement beginning in the 1940’s and 50’s, the raised fist of the Black Power Movement of the late ‘60s and the concurrent  “Long Hot Summers” of revolution and riots in the major (and not so major) cities — all forced President Johnson’s hand to sign those bills into law.   So let’s be clear:  Each and every proposed bill, law, program, policy, ordinance, suggestion that Black people might need even a little extra help in order to “even the playing field” has been met with not just denial but scorn, ridicule, feigned disbelief, and, in many cases, violence.

The “some Black people owned slaves” argument.  Yes, a significant number of free Black people and Native Americans owned slaves.  In the case of free Blacks, it was more often than not a former slave husband who after years of moonlighting bought his still enslaved wife and children.  Yet, as with any other group, there were those who today would be described as “race traitors.”  These people were generally of “mixed” lineage and identified more with the white “majority” than with the enslaved Black laboring class/caste.

Africans enslaved Africans.  Slavery has existed in all societies in one form or another throughout recorded history – Africa included.  Whether in Africa, Europe, the Americas or Asia, capture as a prisoner of war usually led to enslavement by the victors.  Nell Irvin Painter’s 2010 book, The History of White People, is a fascinating and detailed look at the history of “white slavery”, beginning with the ancient Greeks. African kings and merchants participated in that slavery from the beginning; but at no point, in her chronicle does the scope, brutality and sheer evil manifested during the Atlantic Slave Trade come through.  For the most part, in Africa slaves were viewed as extended, if subservient, members of the slave owner’s family.  They were never considered as commodities or chattel in the European sense of those words.  They could marry, own property, and some even rose to positions of power as slaves within the system.  Thus, most African sellers of Africans thought that they were selling their war captives to be used in the African sense of term.   This is an essential difference and distinction.

As for Indians, by 1860 the Cherokees held 4,600 Black slaves; the Choctaws, 2,344, the Creeks, 1,532; the Chickasaws, 975; and the Seminoles, 500.  Some Indian slave owners were just as harsh and cruel as any white slave master and were often hired to catch runaway slaves.  Indeed, slave-catching was a lucrative business for some Indians, especially the Chickasaws.  Interestingly, the very last Confederate General to surrender at the end of the Civil War was Brigadier General Stand Watie, a Chief of the Cherokee Nation.  Now, Santorum’s “other people” will take this fact and determine that if they must pay Blacks for slavery, why also should Indians not be required to do so?  The answer, of course, is that compared to the not quite 4 million Black people held in bondage by white people, the less than 10,000 owned by Indians is but a drop in the proverbial bucket; and that, for the most part, slavery as practiced by Indians was never as institutionalized, wide-spread and deeply engrained into the Indian psyche as it was among whites in both the North and South.

The First Black President.    The majority of white folks in this country did not vote for Barack Obama.  And that has always been the problem.  Despite the John Browns, the Henry Lloyd Garrisons,  the Quakers, the Viola Liozzos, there has never been a majority of white Americans who supported anything “black.”   Yet, Obama represents a chance, perhaps a last chance, for many white folks to reclaim their humanity; to join the human race.  At once, his presence has allowed them to face and yet hide their sordid race history.  They know they are guilty.   Obama has allowed them to assuage some of that guilt.  He has allowed them to deflect some of that guilt onto his own persona.  The fact of his own “whiteness” has helped them immensely.  It is unlikely that he would have been elected had he not had a white parent.  So for him, and him alone, the “one-drop rule” has been suspended.

But this does not mean that white supremacy has ended, or even been suspended.  This First Black President’s policies and practices are virtually identical to every other “white” president who has preceded him save LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln.  That is, he not only supports white supremacy but has deepened and enhanced it to the point that Black people today are in a worse socio-economic position than at any time since the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Finally, there is really only one argument necessary to refute those who oppose reparations for Black people:  White people today still benefit from slavery while Black people still suffer from its devastating, lingering, ongoing, effects.

Herbert Dyer Jr. is an African American writer in Chicago with a masters degree from Governors State University in Political & Justice Studies. He can be reached at: accra0306@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Herb.

Comment: Brilliant analysis that tackles a very complex set of arguments and counter-arguments.

Why is it so hard for most white people to see racism as a structure and not merely a prejudicial attitude?

That aside, the strength of Dyer's article is summed up by his reference to Obama's whiteness.  It is an important point that can be reduced to Tom's biracial background but there is much more.

The agents of whiteness are white people in the main; that is a given.  But people of color like Obama are complicit in advancing the interests of whiteness.

Whiteness is dependent on those people of color who will do its bidding.  And, as whiteness evolves it is becoming clearer that it does not even need white overseers to secure its bidding.

Most black/brown leaders on the African continent, particularly the pot-bellied ANC in South Africa, are complicit agents of whiteness.   

If you want to know just how deep that complicity runs just poll white South Africans and ask them to name the leader they admire the most.

Nelson Mandela is a saint among the vast majority of white people not because he showed them the error of their ways.  On the contrary, he and his movement allowed them to escape the consequences of their actions; Mandela affirmed whiteness.

But there is even more to consider.  Particularly for those who are engaged in radical struggle at whatever level. 

When does black/brown radical politics become untangled from its engagement/confrontation with whiteness? 

Are we doomed to see the struggle toward freedom as one that pushes white people to 'own' their brutal histories?  Are we free when whites change their ways or is it a pipe dream that sets us up for failure?

Is the call for slavery reparations (including affirmative action) then not mostly about asking whites to affirm blacks?  How is this a radical re-ordering?

I like what Biko offered on these questions.  He argued that racism is a white problem and white people should deal with its fallout.

For Biko the real revolution lies in overcoming the confines of racialized struggle.  Seeking white affirmation for black suffering was, therefore, a futile strategy.

But there must be more.   And if he lived longer he would have offered more.

I think that white people should work to disentangle whiteness from their consciousness by becoming race traitors.  That is, turning their backs on the privilege of being white and its relationship to power.

To do so whites will need a radical program toward reorienting their humanity.  Such a reorientation needs the kind of awareness that recognizes how being white is a historical position balanced on racism.

So, you can't be a non-racist or non-racial white person.  Affirming a white identity is a racist act.

Being black is not similarly described but it nonetheless requires a radical move, as described by Biko, beyond the racial confines of the identity.

There is no organic blackness and black struggle does not improve the condition of black folk unless it seeks to disinherit its racialization (the construction of being made to be black).

Biko understood this course of struggle and even commented that when black folks struggled toward regaining their identities it would simultaneously free whites; an unintended outcome nonetheless.

His argument assumed that blackness could not survive black struggle.  In other words, black struggle is about becoming human and not about becoming free blacks.

A world where free blacks and whites motion toward freedom is a world of false consciousness.

The ANC of Mandela has missed this all important point.  Inside of their contrived freedom the identity of being a free black is assumed to be characterized by white markers.

In other words, blacks are free when they become like whites.  Freedom in this context is about affirming whiteness and its superiority.  In this racial revision, affirmed blacks and affirmed whites are 'natural' allies.
 
In a very distinct sense, Mandela and Obama are the outcomes of this racial revision - a revised oppression at most.

But it is a delusional compact because it asks blacks to become even more committed to servicing the interests of white privilege and power.  And for this reason, racism is ever present.  Its structure persists even where it is not named.

There cannot be an end to racism unless their is an end to the constructed world that assumes being human is a racial reality.

The real struggle toward freedom must seek to subvert and destroy race. 

So if any of my students from Black Studies are still reading here, I think my answer to how we end racism is still the same.

We end racism by making whiteness irrelevant.  When whiteness is irrelevant white people in effect do not exist and they are therefore forced to re-invent their humanity.

Onward!

Marine Gets Three Months in Jail for Massacring Two Dozen Civilians

Russia Today (RT)
January 24, 2012.

United States Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich arrives for his 
arraignment at Camp Pendleton, California, 
January 9, 2008 (Reuters / Mike Blake)

More than six years after Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich led a squad of Marines into two Haditha, Iraq homes and massacred two dozen civilians, the American serviceman in charge has reached a plea deal.

For nine counts of manslaughter, Wuterich will get three months of confinement.

Wuterich is the last of eight men tied to the November 2005 killing that left 24 Iraqis dead, including women, children and the elderly. It was announced on Monday this week that he had reached a plea with prosecutors during his military tribunal and is now expected to be sentenced as early as Tuesday. According to the Associated Press, Wuterich will face a maximum of three months of confinement, the forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay and a rank demotion.

Of the other seven Marines charged with the now-notorious massacre, one was acquitted and six had their charges dismissed. Wuterich’s attorneys have been confident throughout the ordeal that he would see a similar outcome. “He’s going to be glad to have it over because he knows that he’ll be exonerated,” lawyer Neal Puckett told National Public Radio earlier this month.

On November 19, 2005, Wuterich led a squad of men into two separate homes in the town of Haditha and opened fire on everyone in sight. Prosecutors say that a roadside bomb exploded moments before the Marines stormed the home, and were brought into hysterics by seeing a fellow soldier die in the attack. In response, they went on a rampage and for 45 minutes raided the two homes and were never faced with gunfire. Wuterich later said he instructed his team to “shoot first and ask questions later.”

“My Marines responded to the threats they faced in the manner that we all had been trained,” he explained to CBS’ 60 Minutes in 2007. After the roadside bomb was detonated, Wuterich said that, “My responsibility as a squad leader is to make sure that none of the rest of my guys died. And at that point, we were still on the assault.”

Lt. Col. Joseph Kloppel, spokesman of the Camp Pendleton marine Corps base near San Diego, California, told the media on Monday that “By pleading guilty to this charge, Staff Sergeant Wuterich has accepted responsibility for his actions.”

Comment: There are no adequate words to express my deep disgust with the outcome of this case.

May the murdered victims rest in peace until that final balance. 

Onward!

Friday, January 27, 2012

Protest and Rally Saturday 28 January 2pm-4pm US Embassy Grosvenor Square London W1 Hands Off Iran and Syria: No Western Intervention

Stop the War on Iran before it starts


Called by Stop the War Coalition, supported by Unite union, War on Want, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention on Iran (CASMII), Friends of Al-Aqsa, Goldsmiths Student Union and SOAS Student Union.

Speakers include: Tony Benn, Salma Yaqoob, Roger Lloyd Pack, Jeremy Corbyn MP, John McDonnell MP, Abbas Edalat, Lindsey German, Sabah Jawad, Andrew Murray

The growing threats against Iran in recent weeks have been backed up with increased sanctions. As we know from Iraq, these are a prelude to war, not an alternative to it. There are signs of covert intervention already in Iran, as there are in Syria. Stop the War opposes all military intervention from the west in the region, for which there is absolutely no justification.

We will be gathering outside the US embassy, Grosvenor Square, London W1 on Saturday 28 January from 2-4pm. Please support the protest and rally if you can.

 Sign up for the Facebook event...


Contact Stop the War
Address: 231 Vauxhall Bridge Road London SW1V 1EH United Kingdom
E-Mail: office@stopwar.org.uk    
Telephone: 020 7801 2768

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Brutally Elegant

 Nadal beat Federer 6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-4 to reach the Australian Open Final today

It was a brilliant match by one of sport's greatest rivalries.  I  played hooky from work commitments and watched from the edge of my seat.

I felt a little sorry for Federer.  He played amazing tennis but the street fighter of old had his number today.

I can still remember being pissed at Federer for crying and stealing Nadal's moment of championship glory at the Australian Open Final of 2009.

Nadal had just demolished Federer but instead of being annoyed he offered consolation and praise to the defending champion.

In today's encounter, a semi-final, Federer made no fuss after losing and walked off court but without signing any autographs.  The man is mostly a classy champion and undoubtedly the greatest tennis player of all time.

If he had won I would not have been too sad since I think his game is better suited to beating Djokovic.

I can't wait till Sunday for the final where I fully expect Djokovic to be present barring a huge upset in his semi-final match with Murray.  My opinion is that Murray does not have the what it takes to beat Djokovic.

But does Nadal have what it takes to beat the seemingly unbeatable Djokovic?

I think he does even though he lost 6 straight matches to Djokovic in 2011.  Nadal seems hungry again and that brawler look is back on his grill and in his demeanor.

In fact, if the Nadal that just beat Federer was a motorcycle he would be a lime green Triumph Speed Triple, a street fighter unlike any other.

2007 Triumph Speed Triple

Brutally elegant indeed!

Nadal Picture Credit
Triumph Picture Credit

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

"These Days I Live the Way I Wanna"



"Every now and then I must confess
I'm not quite up to all this happiness
Sometimes I wonder if the place I'm at is where I do belong
But don't get me wrong

I'm livin' it up
Havin myself a time
Livin' it up"

Al Jazeera Uses a Former CIA Station Chief to tell us About Muslim life in the US

I have just about given up reading Al Jazeera for my daily dose of news and analysis.

In recent months Al Jazeera has moved to consolidate its place alongside the corporate news agencies.

That feel of a counter source for news is about gone.  Al Jazeera is now mainstream enough not to offend American sensibilities of the ruling kind.

And I guess it was inevitable.  The Emir who funds Al Jazeera is hardly a radical lover of truth.  See his position on Bahrain and of course, Libya, and it is hardly surprising that Al Jazeera is contaminated by politicized interests.

Being bought and paid for is a problem in all walks of life.  I cannot pretend that I will call every spade a spade even here on the blog.

But I am not pretending to be a reliable news source that is critical of mainstream media for essentially stereotyping and ignoring so called 'middle east' issues.

That is what Al Jazeera aimed at when it started.

It was the Arab Spring that raised Al Jazeera's credibility among the American and British rulers and eased their way into being another CNN or BBC.

Obama made a comment that he was watching Al Jazeera to keep informed on the protests in Tunisia and then Egypt's Tahir Square.

Mainstream American media, like their ruling class, was mostly caught sleeping while Al Jazeera was reporting live.

The endorsement from Tom boosted the appeal of Al Jazeera but it hardly moved any cable carriers to stream the channel into American households; there are few US cities, about two or three at most, where Al Jazeera is carried by cable operators.

This did not stop the drift to blatant ass-kissing.  Al Jazeera began cozying up to the empire and the drift is hardly hidden.

Take for example having one Robert Grenier, a former CIA Station Chief, writing an opinion column entitled "The Two Faces of Muslim Life in the US".

A header description of the column reads:
"While assimilation of Muslim communities in US society is laudable, a creeping Islamophobia is undermining it."
Really?

And so we need a former CIA operative to confirm that it is "laudable" to seek assimilation into America (like Al Jazeera) but those pesky and unnamed Islamophobes are making the going rough. 

What utter nonsense.  This is pandering journalism.  The kind that postures, sycophantically even, to get inside the establishment.

This kind of news analysis sits well with what CNN or the New York Times would serve up for its middle or the middle readers.

The entire piece is based on the assumption that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims out there - the good ones are trying real hard to get ahead in the supposed venerable meritocracy but some not so nice scaremongers are not playing along.

What crap!

This thinking is at odds with opinion polls that find Islamophobic sentiments well seated throughout the American nation and its leadership.

Islamophobia and the more accurate racist hatred of anything that looks Islamic/Muslim is hardly an accident caused by scaremongers/Islamophobes (read right-wingers).

And even if it was (which it is definitely not) who the hell needs a former CIA operative who worked in various guises over 27 years (including being the director of a CIA counter terrorism center) to lay it on thick for us.  Is this man a reliable source?

This sh*t is more than irresponsible it is downright patronizing.

The only thing worthwhile about the opinion piece were some of the comments.  A couple even lightly questioned the credibility of the author.

But one in particular was in response to the usual American drivel about the US's greatness and the hard work ethic to advance.  The response by Ari Lee called the greatness into question by telling of the loneliness of American life and its emptiness:
"I am an immigrant and after spending my 20+ years in US I have to state that what you are saying is a common delusion of a well to do American. Most people who work hard get just enough to survive till next payday. Most of them rent or live in dilapidated trailers all their life, because they simply can’t afford to buy a house. Many of them don’t have any medical coverage and can’t afford to go to see a doctor or a dentist. Practically all of them die alone, abandoned by their relatives and their grown up children. Of 5 countries where I have lived America is the loneliest place. The real drama here is not the discrimination against your religion (in fact Americans are remarkably tolerant this way) or some obvious threats to your life but the fact that this lonely, self-centered, heart-deprived life is not worth living. Muslims who contemplate coming to this country should not fear being beaten or killed – America is generally safe place – but they should fear for passions of their heart, for flame of their spirit for bonds and unity between their people, their children, their wives and brothers, for the music of the Sky and Earth. Because in this regard America is Death itself."
Having lived in the US for three decades myself this comment struck a chord for me.  I used to wonder about all that fun that is portrayed on television and in movies and the friendships and associations that tell of an informed people engaged and living life to the fullest.

Truth is it is a fabricated myth - a downright lie.

The US is a lonely place made up of individuals at odds with their humanity.  I am not saying that there are not good people there who will stand up for what is right.

I am saying that the aura of a people who have better and more engaged lives than the rest of us elsewhere is a purposeful fabrication meant to obscure the meaninglessness of existing inside a vacuous capitalized life.

It is hardly surprising then that a former CIA operative would skirt the larger disease to point at mere symptoms while still applauding the supposed meritocratic character of American life and its contrived democracy.

For him it would be unthinkable to trace the genocide of Indians and the holocaust of slavery to explain the system of racism that values everything in American life.  He would not be thinking that his white ass cannot see why Muslims are primarily the victims of racism.

Muslims do not belong in the US not because of Islamophobia but because of racism.  Islamophobia is an unwieldy term that soon runs out of usefulness when we try to explain why brown/black skin people who are not Muslims are targeted nonetheless.

Does anyone really think that those Marines pissed on dead Afghan bodies because they were Muslim?

The average American knows nothing about Muslims or Islam.  Their reaction to a Muslim threat is merely a refashioning of the same kind of racist impulse that led to the near-extermination of Indians and centuries of slavery and Jim Crow.

How many schools in Arizona do you think teach Islamic Studies to the general population?  If there was such a thing the legislators would extend the ban on Chicano/Mexican American Studies to incorporate a banning of the Qur'an in public schools too.

The US is a racist state and its problems are about racism - the rest is just symptomatic.

If Al Jazeera is even serious about offering an alternative to the corporatized news system it would not posture the pandering drivel of Robert Grenier as news analysis?

I am, however, afraid that Al Jazeera could care less as it machines itself into a greater media foothold in the US.

Onward!

Monday, January 23, 2012

The Palestinian Children – Alone and Bewildered – in Israel's Al Jalame Jail

The Guardian (UK)
Harriet Sherwood
January 22, 2012
Between 500 and 700 Palestinian children are arrested by Israeli soldiers each year, mostly accused of throwing stones. Since 2008, Defence for Children International (DCI) has collected sworn testimonies from 426 minors detained in Israel's military justice system.

Their statements show a pattern of night-time arrests, hands bound with plastic ties, blindfolding, physical and verbal abuse, and threats. About 9% of all those giving affidavits say they were kept in solitary confinement, although there has been a marked increase to 22% in the past six months.
Few parents are told where their children have been taken. Minors are rarely questioned in the presence of a parent, and rarely see a lawyer before or during initial interrogation. Most are detained inside Israel, making family visits very difficult.

Human rights organisations say these patterns of treatment – which are corroborated by a separate study, No Minor Matter, conducted by an Israeli group, B'Tselem – violate the international convention on the rights of the child, which Israel has ratified, and the fourth Geneva convention.
Most children maintain they are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, despite confessions and guilty pleas, said Gerard Horton of DCI. But, he added, guilt or innocence was not an issue with regard to their treatment.

"We're not saying offences aren't committed – we're saying children have legal rights. Regardless of what they're accused of, they should not be arrested in the middle of the night in terrifying raids, they should not be painfully tied up and blindfolded sometimes for hours on end, they should be informed of the right to silence and they should be entitled to have a parent present during questioning."
Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: The Deputy Prime Minister of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, and four others have just been charged by the ICC for crimes against humanity.

Is it just me or do others wonder why Israel escapes the same kind of international scrutiny?

Of course I know that Israel and its partner in human rights crimes, the US, have not signed the Rome Statute that would give the ICC jurisdiction over its inhumane treatment of Palestinians.

Still, it just seems so whack that most of what the ICC does is focused on African states - kinda like crimes against humanity are a black thing when the US and Israel are worse by any measure.

And, I am not even making a judgment about the culpability of Kenyatta and his cronies during the civil war that left 1200 Kenyans dead in 2007.

I guess in Orwellian terms some are more equal, or rather capable/culpable of human rights violations, than others.

Onward!

Friday, January 20, 2012

John Pilger: The World War on Democracy

JohnPilger.com
January 19, 2012.

Lisette Talate died the other day. I remember a wiry, fiercely intelligent woman who masked her grief with a determination that was a presence. She was the embodiment of people’s resistance to the war on democracy. I first glimpsed her in a 1950s Colonial Office film about the Chagos islanders, a tiny creole nation living midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean. The camera panned across thriving villages, a church, a school, a hospital, set in a phenomenon of natural beauty and peace. Lisette remembers the producer saying to her and her teenage friends, “Keep smiling girls!”

Sitting in her kitchen in Mauritius many years later, she said, “I didn’t have to be told to smile. I was a happy child, because my roots were deep in the islands, my paradise. My great-grandmother was born there; I made six children there. That’s why they couldn’t legally throw us out of our own homes; they had to terrify us into leaving or force us out. At first, they tried to starve us. The food ships stopped arriving [then] they spread rumours we would be bombed, then they turned on our dogs.”

In the early 1960s, the Labour government of Harold Wilson secretly agreed to a demand from Washington that the Chagos archipelago, a British colony, be “swept” and “sanitised” of its 2,500 inhabitants so that a military base could be built on the principal island, Diego Garcia. “They knew we were inseparable from our pets,” said Lizette, “When the American soldiers arrived to build the base, they backed their big trucks against the brick shed where we prepared the coconuts; hundreds of our dogs had been rounded up and imprisoned there. Then they gassed them through tubes from the trucks’ exhausts. You could hear them crying.”

Lisette and her family and hundreds of islanders were forced on to a rusting steamer bound for Mauritius, a distance of 2,500 miles. They were made to sleep in the hold on a cargo of fertiliser: bird shit. The weather was rough; everyone was ill; two women miscarried. Dumped on the docks at Port Louis, Lizette’s youngest children, Jollice, and Regis, died within a week of each other. “They died of sadness,” she said. “They had heard all the talk and seen the horror of what had happened to the dogs. They knew they were leaving their home forever. The doctor in Mauritius said he could not treat sadness.”

This act of mass kidnapping was carried out in high secrecy. In one official file, under the heading, “Maintaining the fiction”, the Foreign Office legal adviser exhorts his colleagues to cover their actions by “re-classifying” the population as “floating” and to “make up the rules as we go along”. Article 7 of the statute of the International Criminal Court says the “deportation or forcible transfer of population” is a crime against humanity. That Britain had committed such a crime -- in exchange for a $14million discount off an American Polaris nuclear submarine -- was not on the agenda of a group of British “defence” correspondents flown to the Chagos by the Ministry of Defence when the US base was completed. “There is nothing in our files,” said a ministry official, “about inhabitants or an evacuation.”

Today, Diego Garcia is crucial to America’s and Britain’s war on democracy. The heaviest bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan was launched from its vast airstrips, beyond which the islanders’ abandoned cemetery and church stand like archaeological ruins. The terraced garden where Lisette laughed for the camera is now a fortress housing the “bunker-busting” bombs carried by bat-shaped B-2 aircraft to targets in two continents; an attack on Iran will start here. As if to complete the emblem of rampant, criminal power, the CIA added a Guantanamo-style prison for its “rendition” victims and called it Camp Justice.

What was done to Lisette’s paradise has an urgent and universal meaning, for it represents the violent, ruthless nature of a whole system behind its democratic façade, and the scale of our own indoctrination to its messianic assumptions, described by Harold Pinter as a “brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.” Longer and bloodier than any war since 1945, waged with demonic weapons and a gangsterism dressed as economic policy and sometimes known as globalisation, the war on democracy is unmentionable in western elite circles. As Pinter wrote, “it never happened even while it was happening”. Last July, American historian William Blum published his “updated summary of the record of US foreign policy”. Since the Second World War, the US has:

*Attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of them democratically-elected.
*Attempted to suppress a populist or national movement in 20 countries.
*Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
*Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
*Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

In total, the United States has carried out one or more of these actions in 69 countries. In almost all cases, Britain has been a collaborator. The “enemy” changes in name – from communism to Islamism -- but mostly it is the rise of democracy independent of western power or a society occupying strategically useful territory, deemed expendable, like the Chagos Islands.

The sheer scale of suffering, let alone criminality, is little known in the west, despite the presence of the world’s most advanced communications, nominally freest journalism and most admired academy. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – western terrorism – are Muslims is unsayable, if it is known. That half a million Iraqi infants died in the 1990s as a result of the embargo imposed by Britain and America is of no interest. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of western policy (“Operation Cyclone”) is known to specialists but otherwise suppressed.

While popular culture in Britain and America immerses the Second World War in an ethical bath for the victors, the holocausts arising from Anglo-American dominance of resource-rich regions are consigned to oblivion. Under the Indonesian tyrant Suharto, anointed “our man” by Thatcher, more than a million people were slaughtered. Described by the CIA as “the worst mass murder of the second half of the 20th century”, the estimate does not include a third of the population of East Timor who were starved or murdered with western connivance, British fighter-bombers and machine guns.

These true stories are told in declassified files in the Public Record Office, yet represent an entire dimension of politics and the exercise of power excluded from public consideration. This has been achieved by a regime of un-coercive information control, from the evangelical mantra of consumer advertising to sound-bites on BBC news and now the ephemera of social media.

It is as if writers as watchdogs are extinct, or in thrall to a sociopathic zeitgeist, convinced they are too clever to be duped. Witness the stampede of sycophants eager to deify Christopher Hitchens, a war lover who longed to be allowed to justify the crimes of rapacious power. “For almost the first time in two centuries”, wrote Terry Eagleton, “there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life”. No Orwell warns that we do not need to live in a totalitarian society to be corrupted by totalitarianism. No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake proffers a vision, no Wilde reminds us that “disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue”. And grievously no Pinter rages at the war machine, as in American Football:

Hallelujah.
Praise the Lord for all good things ...
We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust …

Into shards of fucking dust go all the lives blown there by Barack Obama, the Hopey Changey of western violence. Whenever one of Obama’s drones wipes out an entire family in a faraway tribal region of Pakistan, or Somalia, or Yemen, the American controllers in front of their computer-game screens type in “Bugsplat”. Obama likes drones and has joked about them with journalists. One of his first actions as president was to order a wave of Predator drone attacks on Pakistan that killed 74 people. He has since killed thousands, mostly civilians; drones fire Hellfire missiles that suck the air out of the lungs of children and leave body parts festooned across scrubland.

Remember the tear-stained headlines when Brand Obama was elected: “momentous, spine-tingling”: the Guardian. “The American future,” wrote Simon Schama, “is all vision, numinous, unformed, light-headed ...” The San Francisco Chronicle’s columnist saw a spiritual “lightworker [who can] usher in a new way of being on the planet”. Beyond the drivel, as the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg had predicted, a military coup was taking place in Washington, and Obama was their man. Having seduced the anti-war movement into virtual silence, he has given America’s corrupt military officer class unprecedented powers of state and engagement. These include the prospect of wars in Africa and opportunities for provocations against China, America’s largest creditor and new “enemy” in Asia. Under Obama, the old source of official paranoia Russia, has been encircled with ballistic missiles and the Russian opposition infiltrated. Military and CIA assassination teams have been assigned to 120 countries; long planned attacks on Syria and Iran beckon a world war. Israel, the exemplar of US violence and lawlessness by proxy, has just received its annual pocket money of $3bn together with Obama’s permission to steal more Palestinian land.

Obama’s most “historic” achievement is to bring the war on democracy home to America. On New Year’s Eve, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the Pentagon the legal right to kidnap both foreigners and US citizens and indefinitely detain, interrogate and torture, or even kill them. They need only “associate” with those “belligerent” to the United States. There will be no protection of law, no trial, no legal representation. This is the first explicit legislation to abolish habeus corpus (the right to due process of law) and effectively repeal the Bill of Rights of 1789.

On 5 January, in an extraordinary speech at the Pentagon, Obama said the military would not only be ready to “secure territory and populations” overseas but to fight in the “homeland” and provide “support to the civil authorities”. In other words, US troops will be deployed on the streets of American cities when the inevitable civil unrest takes hold.

America is now a land of epidemic poverty and barbaric prisons: the consequence of a “market” extremism which, under Obama, has prompted the transfer of $14 trillion in public money to criminal enterprises in Wall Street. The victims are mostly young jobless, homeless, incarcerated African-Americans, betrayed by the first black president. The historic corollary of a perpetual war state, this is not fascism, not yet, but neither is it democracy in any recognisable form, regardless of the placebo politics that will consume the news until November. The presidential campaign, says the Washington Post, will “feature a clash of philosophies rooted in distinctly different views of the economy”. This is patently false. The circumscribed task of journalism on both sides of the Atlantic is to create the pretence of political choice where there is none.

The same shadow is across Britain and much of Europe where social democracy, an article of faith two generations ago, has fallen to the central bank dictators. In David Cameron’s “big society”, the theft of 84bn pounds in jobs and services even exceeds the amount of tax “legally” avoid by piratical corporations. Blame rests not with the far right, but a cowardly liberal political culture that has allowed this to happen, which, wrote Hywel Williams in the wake of the attacks on 9/11, “can itself be a form of self righteous fanaticism”. Tony Blair is one such fanatic. In its managerial indifference to the freedoms that it claims to hold dear, bourgeois Blairite Britain has created a surveillance state with 3,000 new criminal offences and laws: more than for the whole of the previous century. The police clearly believe they have an impunity to kill. At the demand of the CIA, cases like that of Binyam Mohamed, an innocent British resident tortured and then held for five years in Guantanamo Bay, will be dealt with in secret courts in Britain “in order to protect the intelligence agencies” – the torturers.

This invisible state allowed the Blair government to fight the Chagos islanders as they rose from their despair in exile and demanded justice in the streets of Port Louis and London. “Only when you take direct action, face to face, even break laws, are you ever noticed,” said Lisette. “And the smaller you are, the greater your example to others.” Such an eloquent answer to those who still ask, “What can I do?”

I last saw Lisette’s tiny figure standing in driving rain alongside her comrades outside the Houses of Parliament. What struck me was the enduring courage of their resistance. It is this refusal to give up that rotten power fears, above all, knowing it is the seed beneath the snow.

*****
Comment:  John Pilger keeps it real once again; simply a brilliant sweeping analysis that is detailed and nuanced.  There should be more Pilgers everywhere contesting the disease of empire and its attachments.

The irony of Obama was that he was feted and elected because his supporters believed he would defend democracy from the threat of neo-cons only to beat them at their own disastrous game.

The problem is Obama and the elite establishment that owns him (even created him). But the bigger problem is the inability of liberalism to envision a world beyond its dysfunctional marriage to undemocratic capitalism.

Obama is merely a symptom of a larger disease and it matters little that he is black or white, liberal or conservative - the rot lies inside the idea of elite managerial liberalism and its inherent contradictions (greed to be exact).

Pilger's article fills in the details of the brutality of liberal machining; it's selective emphasis on freedom and liberty on the one hand and the genocidal erasure of a people like the Chagos islanders, among others, on the other hand.

It is a story as old as European colonialism itself, if not older.  While elite Europeans struggled to make sense of man's nature and the problems associated with free will and justice they had millions of black and brown bodies shackled to the business of developing capitalism.  

How many million African slaves died in the processes of developing the ideas of western liberty and freedom?  UNESCO puts the number of enslaved Africans into the Americas at 12 million?

It is not even clear whether that number accounts for the millions who died in the 'middle passage'.

How many indigenous peoples were slaughtered to make way for the blatant thievery of liberal capitalism?

It is mind-boggling to think that so many many millions of people died to construct this world system that has 'refined' itself to kill even more black and brown bodies as it works out its ideological kinks.

And at its ideological base, the impetus and momentum is still about greed and made worse by the inability to envision a balanced world.

How much different is the world we live in now from the times when millions of slaves and indigenous peoples were being massacred by developers?  Is the wars in the so called 'middle east' and now east Africa (again) not about the same pathological need to mine for development? 

Does anyone really believe that Gadaffi was murdered to free impoverished Libyans?  Or that the looming war with Iran is about liberty and freedom?

Here in rainbow delusion the potbellied ruling class are paying close attention, and in keeping with their comprador politics they are working hard to emulate their liberal masters.

And we are not free.

Onward!

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Welcome to the World’s First Bunker State: Room for Jews only in Israel’s "villa in the jungle"

Dissident Voice
Jonathan Cook
January 18, 2012.

The wheel is turning full circle. Last week the Israeli parliament updated a 59-year-old law originally intended to prevent hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from returning to the homes and lands from which they had been expelled as Israel was established.

The purpose of the draconian 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Law was to lock up any Palestinian who managed to slip past the snipers guarding the new state’s borders. Israel believed only savage punishment and deterrence could ensure it maintained the overwhelming Jewish majority it had recently created through a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Fast-forward six decades and Israel is relying on the infiltration law again, this time to prevent a supposedly new threat to its existence: the arrival each year of several thousand desperate African asylum seekers.

As it did with the Palestinians many years ago, Israel has criminalised these new refugees — in their case, for fleeing persecution, war or economic collapse. Whole families can now be locked up, without a trial, for three years while a deportation order is sought and enforced, and Israelis who offer them assistance risk jail sentences of up to 15 years.

Israel’s intention is apparently to put as many of these refugees behind bars as possible, and dissuade others from following in their footsteps.

To cope, officials have approved the building of an enormous detention camp, operated by Israel’s prison service, to contain 10,000 of these unwelcome arrivals. That will make it the largest holding facility of its kind in the world — according to Amnesty International, it will be three times bigger than the next largest, in the much more populous, and divine retribution-loving, US state of Texas.

Israeli critics of the law fear their country is failing in its moral duty to help those fleeing persecution, thereby betraying the Jewish people’s own experiences of suffering and oppression. But the Israeli government and the large majority of legislators who backed the law — like their predecessors in the 1950s — have drawn a very different conclusion from history.

The new infiltration law is the latest in a set of policies fortifying Israel’s status as the world’s first “bunker state” — and one designed to be as ethnically pure as possible. The concept was expressed most famously by an earlier prime minister, Ehud Barak, now the defence minister, who called Israel “a villa in the jungle”, relegating the country’s neighbours to the status of wild animals.

Barak and his successors have been turning this metaphor into a physical reality, slowly sealing off their state from the rest of the region at astronomical cost, much of it subsidised by US taxpayers. Their ultimate goal is to make Israel so impervious to outside influence that no concessions for peace, such as agreeing to a Palestinian state, need ever be made with the “beasts” around them.

The most tangible expression of this mentality has been a frenzy of wall-building. The best-known are those erected around the Palestinian territories: first Gaza, then the areas of the West Bank Israel is not intending to annex – or, at least, not yet.

The northern border is already one of the most heavily militarised in the world — as Lebanese and Syrian protesters found to great cost last summer when dozens were shot dead and wounded as they approached or stormed the fences there. And Israel has a proposal in the drawer for another wall along the border with Jordan, much of which is already mined.

The only remaining border, the 260km one with Egypt, is currently being closed with another gargantuan wall. The plans were agreed before last year’s Arab revolutions but have gained fresh impetus with the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Israel is not only well advanced on the walls of the bunker; it is also working round the clock on the roof. It has three missile-defence systems in various stages of development, including the revealingly named “Iron Dome”, as well as US Patriot batteries stationed on its soil. The interception systems are supposed to neutralise any combination of short and long-range missile attacks Israel’s neighbours might launch.

But there is a flaw in the design of this shelter, one that is apparent even to its architects. Israel is sealing itself in with some of the very “animals” the villa is supposed to exclude: not only the African refugees, but also 1.5 million “Israeli Arabs”, descendants of the small number of Palestinians who avoided expulsion in 1948.

This has been the chief motive for the steady stream of anti-democratic measures by the government and parliament that is rapidly turning into a torrent. It is also the reason for the Israeli leadership’s new-found demand that the Palestinians recognise Israel’s Jewishness; its obsessions with loyalty; and the growing appeal of population exchange schemes.

In the face of the legislative assault, Israel’s Supreme Court has grown ever more complicit. Last week, it sullied its reputation by upholding a law that tears apart families by denying tens of thousands of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship the right to live with their Palestinian spouse in Israel — “ethnic cleansing” by other means, as leading Israeli commentator Gideon Levy noted.

Back in the early 1950s, the Israeli army shot dead thousands of unarmed Palestinians as they tried to reclaim property that had been stolen from them. These many years later, Israel appears no less determined to keep non-Jews out of its precious villa.

The bunker state is almost finished, and with it the dream of Israel’s founders is about to be realised.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He won this year’s Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.

*****
Comment: The imagery of a bunker in this article reminds me of the 'circling of the wagons' by Boer insurgents in the era before apartheid.

The circle was at first a defense strategy.  It worked to some extent but the extension of the wagon circle as political metaphor into the ideology and practice of apartheid was fatally flawed.

The lesson that Israel will learn over time is that a bunker just like a circle of wagons cannot forever preserve illegitimate regimes.

To re-imagine Israel there will need to be radical leadership that will dismantle its preoccupation with surviving at all costs.  To do this the ideology of Zionism must be abandoned.  There cannot be peace in Israel until all its peoples, Jews and Palestinians alike, are accorded equal legitimacy to co-exist peacefully.

That progressive vision is, however, severely lacking.  In the last couple of days Israeli forces have again struck out at Gaza killing more innocent civilians.

No bunker and no ideology can save Israel from the inevitable crumbling that comes with this kind of fascist abuse.  Zionism, as distinct from Judaism, is akin to fascism in much the same way that apartheid was.

In the end, the white regime had no-where to run.  Apartheid could have been so much less if in the 1950s the ideology of apartheid was just abandoned in favor of democratic inequality.

It took decades more to force the apartheid regime to its senses.  The same is unfolding in Israel.

What strikes me is that Israel today feels/looks a lot like South Africa in the declining years of white supremacy.  By the mid-1980s the writing was on the wall, so to speak, even though the apartheid regime was still a fierce military force in the region.

But military force cannot withstand the onslaught of the struggle toward freedom; Israel should be paying close attention to the manner that apartheid unraveled in South Africa.

No bunker can save Israel from the inevitable.  Freedom for Palestinians is inevitable.  Israel must embrace this inevitability for its own sake. 

Onward!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Johan Kotzé not a monster - Tutu

News24
January 18, 2012.

Cape Town - Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu has called on the media and public to stop calling Limpopo rape and murder accused Johan Kotzé the "Modimolle monster", saying that despite his alleged crimes, he is still a child of God.

Kotzé is accused of hiring three men to gang-rape and mutilate his estranged wife, and of killing her 19-year-old son.

Tutu wrote a letter to The Star, in which he condemned what had happened, but also expressed his concern that the widespread outrage over Kotzé's alleged actions had led to him being dubbed a monster.

'Capacity to become a saint'

"He may indeed be guilty of inhuman, ghastly and monstrous deeds, but he is not a monster. We are actually letting him off lightly by calling him a monster because monsters have no moral sense of right and wrong - and therefore cannot be held morally culpable, cannot be regarded as morally blameworthy," Tutu wrote.

He added that Kotzé "remains a child of God with the capacity to become a saint. This may shock some of us".

"We should condemn ghastly acts of awful cruelty but we must, as they say, hate the sin and love the sinner, or hope that he may change for the better."

He said this was in many ways the basis of the Truth and Reconciliation process.

"We heard bloodcurdling stories of how people had been murdered brutally and yet we saw some extraordinary scenes of magnanimity when perpetrator and victim or relative of victim embraced publicly.

"If it were true that once a murderer always a murderer, then we should have had to shut up shop straightaway. But we believed then, and I hope we still do, that it was possible for people to change for the better, that the worst criminal could become a good and virtuous person."

Appalled

Tutu was not defending Kotzé's alleged acts, saying decent people are rightly appalled at what had happened, and that it was quite right to condemn the "dastardly, barbaric and monstrous" deeds.

He expressed his deep sympathy and condolences to Kotzé's estranged wife and pleaded that people stop calling him a monster.

However, The Star quoted criminologist Dr Jackie de Wet, from the University of Fort Hare, as saying that the chances of someone like Kotzé being rehabilitated and becoming a good and virtuous person - if he did indeed commit the crimes he is charged with - are "very, very slim, almost minuscule".

ANC Women's League protesters outside the Modimolle Magistrate's Court during his appearance last Friday dubbed him a monster. "No human being can do such a thing," said ANCWL Waterberg treasurer Joy Matshoge.

***** 
Comment: On the right side of your screen I have a quote by Tutu that says "we live in a moral universe".  I must admit that over the years that the quote has appeared here I have come to appreciate some what the Arch intends but not nearly enough. 

I think to understand the point of view that Tutu is developing in his letter about Johan Kotzé one must understand the notion of forgiveness through testimony as found in Christian theology.

To a large extent this notion of forgiveness is somewhat re-fashioned in Islam with a sterner view of how forgiveness is approached.  The Qur'an says "God is most gracious and most merciful" indicating repeatedly that the final judgment of forgiveness is the sole province of God.  But Muslims are also commanded to forgive if someone sincerely apologizes and does so in keeping with Qur'anic injunctions.

Despite the approach, the notion of forgiveness is consistent in the three Abrahamic faiths; God judges and forgiveness is dependent on repentance.

This injunction in my thinking is not about morals because God is above morality.  What then is the substance of morality?  How do we become moral?  And, what are moral acts as opposed to immoral acts where sin is expressly not mentioned or motioned.

In the latter question I wonder mostly if someone who thinks that Johan Kotzé should be hung for his alleged crimes would be expressly immoral.  Or, if someone is just indifferent about the human condition does it make that person amoral?

What would Tutu's moral universe mean for people outside of the Abrahamic faiths?  Are Buddhists and Taoists similarly concerned with living in accordance to morals?

I ask these questions even as I begin fashioning an argument for a chapter I am working on that in part focuses on the notion of the nation as a moral community.

I have glossed over the logical sequences of how we arrive at a nation and what it means to be a moral nation but my point is about imbuing the nation with a moral character.

Some might argue Machiavelli would be laughing his ass off at me for even thinking that politics can be fashioned to be anything but raw interests and more so, interest that coalesce around power. 

But such a reading is a thin understanding of Machiavelli and it probably owes its distortion to latter day realists who want to use his thinking to remove ideals and ethics from political interests.

My reading of Machiavelli is that he privileged the notion of interests where it could be determined as positive - in other words the Prince is supposed to secure known interests that are good/beneficial.

So, what if morality and ethics and forgiveness are indeed known/good interests that secure the power of the state?  Would it then not be logical for the Prince to guard and expand these interests?

If the state is fashioned to be a moral arbiter then the interest of the Prince would be concerned with morals, no?

Still, the question of what is meant by moral versus immoral remains a matter of speculation unless you enter into the framed thinking of Tutu.  It is clear to see what he means by morals in the case of Johan Kotzé.

It is not for the press and the many many folks who sit around to judge this man as a "monster" devoid of good and the ability to repent because Tutu's moral universe is defined by the morality of redemption.

Step outside of that construct and the issue of morality becomes unclear again.  How would Zoroastrianism - another monotheistic religion - view the dastardly acts of  Johan Kotzé, for example?

As I read Tutu's letter it dawned on me that he has made a classical mistake in reasoning.  It is impossible to know whether a "monster" is moral or amoral since there is no such thing as a "monster".

We cannot just assume, as I expect most do, that animals are closest to what we mean when we point to a monster.

Are we sure that animals do not have a sense of morality or at the very least they act in terms of what Machiavelli would consider right action?

I have never come across a dog or cat, for example, that gets up in the morning with the express intention of just f*cking up other dogs and cats for no other reason other than being an immoral bad ass or "monster".

Even animals reason beyond such stupidity it would seem.  So why would they even need to be moral or immoral?

My point is that the issue of morality is a construction that must be interpreted and contextualized by interests.

If you remove the relationship to God or organized religion at the very least then the dog/cat who just goes about its business may in fact be described as moral.  What about the female dog who will allow other puppies from another female to suckle?  Is that a moral act?

But even where morals are connected to God or organized religion the judgment of what is moral or immoral is hardly a given.

Very few Americans will call Geroge W. Bush and Barack Obama murderous immoral monsters and they are responsible for the death of many many more people than Johan Kotzé will ever be able to kill with his bare hands.

Yet some of the very same people who extol the virtues of forgiveness and redemption in religion see the wars "over there" as moral crusades.  In fact this coming election in the US will be dramatized by those who think Jesus has endowed them with the right to make this judgment.

Are these people monsters or moral Christians or amoral animals?

It depends on where you are standing I suppose - I know the relativist position is usually a cop-out but what else is there when you make a detached judgment on morality.

For me, morals are constructions and they must be understood within the context they are framed.  Tutu is moralizing from the point of view of a Christian and his reasoning is relative to that.

In the end the courts may declare a mistrial in this case because Johan Kotzé is found to be legally insane and incapable of knowing what he was doing and its consequences.

The issue of his morality won't fade away even if this is the case.  But we should not confuse its persistence with the insistence that morality in any framed context tells us what is universally right and what is wrong.

It really depends on where you stand - and how you frame the notion of morals and morality.

Onward!