Wednesday, February 07, 2007

The Long History of the Shortest Month















Forgotten February
(A brief peek at America's unrestrained brutality)


Mickey Z
Tuesday, 06 February 2007


Just in case anyone needs reminding that "USA" has always stood for "United States of Aggression," here are a forgotten few from February's Files:


February 1898

In 1897, Teddy Roosevelt stated bluntly, "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." His wait lasted less than a year.

February 15, 1898 was a muggy Tuesday night in Havana Harbor. Some 350 crew and officers settled in on board the Maine. "At 9:40 p.m., the ship's forward end abruptly lifted itself from the water," writes author Tom Miller. "Along the pier, passersby could hear a rumbling explosion. Within seconds, another eruption-this one deafening and massive-splintered the bow, sending anything that wasn't battened down, and most that was, flying more than 200 feet into the air."

The Maine was in Havana Harbor in 1898 on a purportedly friendly mission. "At a certain point in that spring, (President) McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war," writes Howard Zinn, "and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention."

American newspapers, especially those run by Hearst (New York Journal) and Pulitzer (New York World), jumped on the Maine explosion as the ideal justification to drum up public support for a war of imperialism. "Tabloid headlines depicting Spanish atrocities against Cubans became commonplace, and the influential papers of both men were outdoing each other in the sensationalized screaming for war," says historian Kenneth C. Davis. When Hearst sent artist Frederick Remington to Cuba to supply pictures, he reported that he could not find a war. "You furnish the pictures," Hearst famously replied, "and I'll furnish the war."

(In 1976, Admiral Hyman Rickover of the U.S. Navy mounted an investigation of the Maine disaster. Rickover and his team of experts concluded that the explosion was probably caused by "spontaneous combustion inside the ship's coal bins," a problem common to ships of that era.)

February 1901

In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the U.S. fought a brutal war of conquest in the Pacific. By 1900, more than 75,000 American troops‹three-quarters of the entire U.S. Army‹were sent to the Philippines. In the face of this overwhelming show of force, the Filipinos turned to guerrilla warfare. The February 5, 1901 edition of the New York World shed some light on the U.S. response to guerilla tactics: "Our soldiers here and there resort to terrible measures with the natives. Captains and lieutenants are sometimes judges, sheriffs and executioners. 'I don't want any more prisoners sent into Manila' was the verbal order from the Governor-General three months ago. It is now the custom to avenge the death of an American soldier by burning to the ground all the houses, and killing right and left the natives who are only suspects."


February 1939

Imagine a rally that involved plenty of marching and arms raised in a Nazi salute to their leader. Somewhere near Nuremberg, perhaps? Guess again. The venue was Madison Square Garden where frenzied members of the German-American Bund cheered Fritz Kuhn as he stood before a 30-foot high portrait of George Washington flanked by black swastikas, leading them in a chant of "Free Amerika!" (a rallying cry which had just recently replaced "Sieg Heil!"), while thirteen hundred New York City policemen stood guard outside the building.

A U.S. citizen who served in the German Army during the First World War, Kuhn's loyalty to Adolf Hitler was surpassed only by his hatred of Jews (like Henry Ford, he went as far as blaming the Jews for Benedict Arnold's treason). When asked if there were any good Jews, Kuhn replied, "If a mosquito is on your arm, you don't ask is it a good or a bad mosquito. You just brush it off." Before you dismiss Kuhn as a fringe character, consider this: The February 20, 1939 rally described above drew 22,000 avid followers.

February 1942

Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 giving the army the unrestricted power to arrest‹without warrants or indictments or hearings‹every Japanese-American on a 150-mile strip along the West Coast (roughly 110,000 men, women, and children) and transport them to internment camps in Colorado, Utah, Arkansas, and other interior states to be kept under prison conditions. The Supreme Court upheld this order and the Japanese-Americans remained in custody for over three years. A Los Angeles Times writer defended the forced relocations by explaining to his readers that "a viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched‹so a Japanese-American, born of Japanese parents, grows up to be a Japanese, not an American."

Life in the internment camps entailed cramped living spaces with communal meals and bathrooms. The one-room apartments measured twenty by twenty feet and none had running water. The internees were allowed to take along "essential personal effects" from home but were prohibited from bringing razors, scissors, or radios. Outside the shared wards were barbed wire, guard towers with machine guns, and searchlights.

The dislocated Japanese-Americans incurred an estimated loss of $400 million in forced property sales during the internment years, and therein may lie a more Machiavellian motivation than sheer race hatred. "A large engine for the Japanese-American incarcerations was agri-business," says Michio Kaku, a noted nuclear physicist and political activist whose parents were interned from 1942 to 1946. "Agri-businesses in California coveted much of the land owned by Japanese-Americans."

A formal apology came to the 60,000 survivors of internment camps in 1990. The U.S. government paid them each $20,000. While Yale Law Professor Eugene V. Rostow later called the internment camps "our worst wartime mistake," Zinn pointedly asks: "Was it a 'mistake'‹or was it an action to be expected from a nation with a long history of racism and which was fighting a war, not to end racism, but to retain the fundamentals of the American system?"

February 1945

With the Russians advancing rapidly towards Berlin, tens of thousands of German civilians fled into Dresden, believing it to be safe from attack. As a result, the city's population swelled from its usual 600,000 to at least one million. Beside the stream of refugees, Dresden was also known for its china and its Baroque and Rococo architecture. Its galleries housed works by Vermeer, Rembrandt, Rubens, and Botticelli. On the evening of February 13, none of this would matter.

Using the Dresden soccer stadium as a reference point, over 2000 British Lancasters and American Flying Fortresses dropped loads of gasoline bombs every 50 square yards out from this marker. The enormous flame that resulted was eight square miles wide, shooting smoke three miles high. For the next eighteen hours, regular bombs were dropped on top of this strange brew. Twenty-five minutes after the bombing, winds reaching 150 miles-per-hour sucked everything into the heart of the storm. Because the air became superheated and rushed upward, the fire lost most of its oxygen, creating tornadoes of flame that can suck the air right out of human lungs.

Seventy percent of the Dresden dead either suffocated or died from poison gases that turned their bodies green and red. The intense heat melted some bodies into the pavement like bubblegum, or shrunk them into three-foot long charred carcasses. Clean-up crews wore rubber boots to wade through the "human soup" found in nearby caves. In other cases, the superheated air propelled victims skyward only to come down in tiny pieces as far as fifteen miles outside Dresden. "The flames ate everything organic, everything that would burn," wrote journalist Phillip Knightley. "People died by the thousands, cooked, incinerated, or suffocated. Then American planes came the next day to machine-gun survivors as they struggled to the banks of the Elbe."

The Allied firebombing did more than shock and awe. The bombing campaign murdered more than 100,000 people-mostly civilians...but the exact number may never be known due to the high number of refugees in the area.

February 1946

Edgar L. Jones, a former war correspondent in the Pacific, wrote in the Atlantic Monthly: "What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers."

February 1966

David Lawrence, editor of US News & World Report, wrote: "What the United States is doing in Vietnam is the most significant example of philanthropy extended by one people to another that we have witnessed in our times." When challenged with stories of American atrocities in Vietnam, Lawrence explained, "Primitive peoples with savagery in their hearts have to be helped to understand the true basis of a civilized existence."

February 1968

An unnamed U.S. major, quoted by Associated Press on February 8, 1968, was asked about the American assault on the Vietnamese town of Bentre. The major explained: "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it."

February 1991

High above a swamp, over 60 miles of coastal Highway 8 from Kuwait to Iraq, a division of the Iraq's Republican Guard withdrew on February 26-27,1991. Baghdad radio had just announced Iraq's acceptance of a cease-fire proposal and, in compliance with UN Resolution 660, Iraqi troops were ordered to withdraw to positions held before August 2, 1990. President George H.W. Bush derisively called the announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."

"U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours," says Joyce Chediac, a Lebanese-American journalist. "It was like shooting fish in a barrel," one U.S. pilot said. "Many of those massacred fleeing Kuwait were not Iraqi soldiers at all," says Ramsey Clark, "but Palestinians, Sudanese, Egyptians, and other foreign workers."

Randall Richard of the Providence Journal filed this dispatch from the deck of the U.S.S. Ranger: "Air strikes against Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait were being launched so feverishly from this carrier today that pilots said they took whatever bombs happened to be closest to the flight deck. The crews, working to the strains of the Lone Ranger theme, often passed up the projectile of choice...because it took too long to load."

"Every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments," Chediac reported after visiting the scene. "No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it's impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel."

"At one spot," Bob Drogin reported in the Los Angeles Times, "snarling wild dogs (had) reduced two corpses to bare ribs. Giant carrion birds pick(ed) at another; only a bootclad foot and eyeless skull are recognizable."

Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer, said: "Even in Vietnam I didn't see anything like this. It's pathetic."

Correction: When you're talking about America, it's not pathetic...it's policy.




Mickey Z.
can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net

OCCUPATION PROJECT ROLLS



























OCCUPATION PROJECT ROLLS
INTO McCAIN’S WORLD


By Bill Rau
for www.consumersforpeace.org

Washington, D.C.
February 5, 2007


The arrests started just five minutes after people entered Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) office in the senate Office Building. The first of a planned three-month series of occupations of U.S. legislators’ offices was designed to demand specific action to quickly end the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq.

About 50 people, representing nearly twenty participating organizations, took part in the
nonviolent civil disobedience. Both TV and print media covered the event. The nonviolent actions will re-occur over the next two to three months, both at the U.S. Congress offices and
the state offices of Senators and Representatives.

Also, on February 5th, events were held at McCain’s office in Phoenix and the state offices of the two senators from Illinois— Barack Obama and Richard Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip.
The occupation called upon Senator McCain—as it will in all subsequent actions—to:

· Publicly declare that he will vote against further funding for the war and occupation;

· Introduce legislation to provide full benefits and quality health care to returning service men and women;

· Introduce a companion Senate Resolution to forthcoming HR Resolution 508;

· Introduce legislation to provide funds for reconstruction in Iraq by neutral humanitarian
organizations. According to Zanne Joi, a member of Code Pink: Women for Peace, the occupation of Senator McCain’s office was designed to appeal to his conscience, as he had been subject to violence as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam.

Joi said that arrest was a risk necessary to demonstrate people’s commitment to ending the U.S.
military actions in Iraq. Speaking outside McCain’s office, Gael Murphy, also of Code Pink, said that arrest was less a risk than was taking no action against the war.

Following a briefing and making plans to deal with potential arrests, the demonstrators gathered in the hallway outside of Senator McCain’s office. Photos of Iraqis affected by the war and occupation were displayed. The names and ages of both Iraqis and U.S. military personnel killed during the occupation were read out. The naming continued as they entered McCain’s office. After each name, others chanted, “We remember you.” Another song included the line: “Cut
the funding for the war, or we’re going to block your door.”

Nine people were arrested by the U.S. Capitol Police who knew of the planned action beforehand. The policewoman who met the group when it first arrived was very accommodating, clear but flexible in her directions about noise and keeping a path clear in the hallway.

Another officer dismissed the complaints of a McCain staffer to stop the photography in the office. “She has a right to take photographs,” the officer was overhead to say to the staffer. At the same time, the ten or so police who broke up the occupation were very specific and official when they ordered people to leave the office or face arrest.

Those arrested were led away in hand constraints. Among them were Kathy Kelly and Jeff Leys of Voices for Creative Nonviolence which has organized the campaign.

During the occupation of McCain’s office, one member of the group kneeled on the floor with a
black hood over his head. His T-shirt read, “Shut down Guantanamo.” He, too, was arrested.
It was hard watching people being led away, hands cuffed behind their backs. But I admired their continued vocal statements against the war as they were taken down the hallway and eventually to jail for processing.

For me, observing the occupation (a word that neatly parallels, but in contra-distinction to the Iraq occupation) was a rare event. I tend to avoid much interaction with “law makers,” except for an occasional letter to my senators and representative.

On one level, I admire the determination and courage of people who regularly voice their opposition to so many harmful U.S. policies and actions. At the same time, I wonder: Does it change congressional direction? Aren’t most members of Congress so embedded with corporate views of well-being and U.S. “rights” in the world that they don’t see alternatives to narrow visions of “national security”? While I tend to dwell on those “big” issues, it is good to see and
hear small and large groups clearly express viable alternatives through nonviolent actions.

February 5th was chosen as the date to kick off the campaign as it was the fourth anniversary of Colin Powell’s speech at the U.N. during which he made false and distorted arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It also was the day that the U.S. administration asked Congress for another $100 billion to continue the war.

A number of local actions are being organized for February, March and April as a part of the campaign. More information is available at the website of the Center for Creative Nonviolence
(http://www.vcnv.org/), Occupation Project.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 at 7:54 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.

soiurce:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/traprock_blog/index.php/2007/02/06/
occupation-project-rolls-into-mccains-world-2/

Frenzy in France Over "Iranian Threat"

Pre-Emptive Strike Against Chirac

By Diana Johnstone
07 February 2007


Frenzy in France Over "Iranian Threat"

For a long time, there has been an unwritten law that only Jews (at risk of being called "self-hating") may criticize Zionism. But things have gone too far. This aggressive paranoia of Israel is not just a "Jewish question", it is dragging the whole world into disaster.

02/07/06 "Counterpunch" --- - Four years ago, French President Jacques Chirac saw the Iraq disaster looming and openly warned against it. It was by far the best thing he ever did in his political life, and he is not to be allowed to do it again.

Today another, potentially even greater disaster is looming as Israel and the United States ostentatiously prepare to bomb Iran on the pretext of preventing "a second holocaust". But this time around there is a curious absence of the public opposition and mass protest demonstrations that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It is as though the enormity of events and the comforts of daily life have caused the Western world to give up thinking about grave matters and to take refuge in officially inspected and approved platitudes. Debate is replaced by an alarm system that sends up cries of scandal at any deviation from the accepted discourse.

In France, where people pay a lot of attention to words, the denunciation of verbal heresy even goes so far as enacting laws punishing politically incorrect speech.

But the more commonplace type of censorship was illustrated this week by an essentially trivial incident. During a presidential press briefing at the Elysée palace devoted to the Paris conference on climate change, a New York Times journalist changed the subject to ask the French President about the Iranian nuclear threat. Chirac began with the standard official "International Community" line, namely that Tehran's refusal to give up its uranium enrichment program was "very dangerous". But then, Chirac (thinking, he explained later, that he was speaking off the record) gave in to the temptation to speak honestly. For Iran to have a nuclear weapon was not really so dangerous, he said. To make his point, he asked rhetorically what good it would do Iran to have a nuclear bomb, or even two. "Where would it fire that bomb? At Israel? It wouldn't have traveled 200 meters through the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

The real danger was nuclear proliferation, he added.

Chirac even went so far as to suggest that Iran had a motive for its nuclear research, including its fear of being "challenged or threatened by the international community. And the international community, who is that? It's the United States."

The alarm bells went off. The "scandal" of Chirac's politically incorrect remarks was the top front page news story in both U.S. and French newspapers.

In themselves, Chirac's remarks hardly merited such a fuss. But the reaction was significant.

First of all, it showed that the French President, a lame duck in the midst of an election campaign to replace him, is too isolated to be able to oppose war against Iran as he opposed war against Iraq. The media are there to shoot him down before he gets off the ground, first of all the newspapers that continue to enjoy the label "leftist", "left-leaning" or "center-left" -- mainly Libération and Le Monde -- but which in reality have become the guardians of Atlanticist orthodoxy (devotion to a "European unity" closely tied to the United States). Chirac's own political party was snatched away from him by his ambitious enemy Nicolas Sarkozy, who has publicly criticized Chirac's departure from the American fold over the war against Iraq. Sarkozy's demonstrations of devotion to Washington and Tel Aviv have won him the enthusiastic support of the organized Jewish community, increasingly inspired by the U.S. pro-Israel lobby.

Deeply distrustful of Gaullism, the French Jewish community has traditionally been close to the Socialists. It was indeed a Socialist government whose secret cooperation with Israel's nuclear program was discovered, and terminated, by de Gaulle when he took office in 1958. But Ségolene Royal was not the Socialist Party candidate favored by major Jewish organizations (they preferred the very pro-Israel Dominique Strauss-Kahn) and will have a hard time competing with Sarkozy for their favors on the Middle East issue, even though she has declared that Iran has "no right" not only to a nuclear bomb, but even to civilian nuclear power plants.

The Socialists can find nothing better to do than to crow over Chirac's "blunder". The French left in general has never seen the point of supporting Chirac's action in keeping France out of the Iraq quagmire. From the viewpoint of the sectarian left (and the French left, in its countless splinters, is incurably sectarian), what matters is not to do the right thing but to do whatever one does for the right motives -- and a conservative politician like Chirac is by definition incapable of doing anything for the right motives.

Four years ago, there were huge demonstrations against the impending war against Iraq. Today, as Israel and the United States gear up to attack Iran, nothing.

Four years ago, the German Chancellor was Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder who did the right thing, for whatever motives, so that the core of "old Europe" (Germany, France and Belgium) was able to take a united stand against the U.S. war plans. Today, the German Chancellor is Angela Merkel, who is as devoted to Washington as she was to Moscow when she began her political career in East Germany before the wall came down.


No debate on Iran

Not only is there no audible or visible movement of opposition to war against Iran, there is no real debate or discussion that does not rest on the officially approved assumption that Iran's nuclear program is a "threat". If there were such a discussion, it could include reference to the following elements:

1. Possible Iranian motives for nuclear development other than unleashing a holocaust. These would be similar to those of the late Shah of Iran, an ally of Israel, who was eager to develop nuclear power. Iran might well wish to use its oil revenues to prepare for power needs once the oil boom is over. This is all the more plausible amid recent reports of declining output in the Iranian oil industry. And today, faced with global warming, nuclear power, like it or not, can be defended as ecological.

2. The role of nuclear deterrence. Chirac's remarks were merely a reminder of France's own nuclear defense doctrine: deterrence. The old Cold War doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) was never a popular favorite, but it nevertheless worked. Since Israel possesses a considerable nuclear arsenal, if Iran had nuclear weapons too, Israel would lose its advantage, but the result would reasonably be merely another case of mutual deterrence. That is what Chirac was driving at. But this cannot be discussed.

3. The significance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "threats to Israel". This has two sides, the actual meaning of Ahmadinejad's words, and the way they are exploited by Israel and its champions.

(1) The first part has been thoroughly analyzed by the Iranian artist Arash Norouzi, a political opponent of Ahmadinejad, on his web site The Mossadegh Project. The statement and its word for word English translation are as follows:

"Imam (Khomeiny) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."

So, Ahmadinejad was quoting a statement made by his mentor Imam Khomeiny, who died in 1989 without ever lifting a finger to destroy Israel. It should be obvious that the statement is an opinion, not a threat, and addresses not the people who live in Israel but the Zionist "regime" which occupies Jerusalem. Coming from a Muslim religious leader, this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms.

Ahmadinejad seems to enjoy verbal provocation, but words, however offensive, are only words. The fact is that Iran has not attacked another country in over 250 years and shows no interest in doing so. As for the United States and Israel...

(2) Now to the second part: the receiving end of these "threats". Ahmadinejad is portrayed as the latest "Hitler" determined to wipe poor little Israel off the map in order to kill all the Jews and then, who knows, conquer the world. A little bit more uranium enrichment, and we'll all be dead.

It is difficult to believe that anyone takes this seriously, but just about everyone in public life in the West feels obliged to act as if this were real.

Why?

A cynical answer could be that U.S. and Israeli leaders are looking for another pretext to start another war aimed at renovating the Middle East in ways that ensure eternal control of petroleum resources as well as the regional supremacy of Israel as the only country in the neighborhood still left intact.


A dangerous persecution complex

This may be a factor, but there is another factor, less material and more psychological, that increasingly invades political life in Europe and the United States: a certain spreading pathology of persecution in what is called "the Jewish community", meaning a part of the Jewish population, and in particular the organizations that claim to represent it. The Jewish population of France, which has played an important role in the country's intellectual, economic and political life for centuries, has been shifting politically from the left to the right, mainly because of its attachment to Israel. Given the community's vitality and influence, this has an impact on the political life of the country as a wholeThis mutation is noticeable at all levels of society. It is a cause for concern among many who do not dare to mention it, for fear of being stigmatized as anti-Semitic. But is it "anti-Semitism" to try to tell Jewish people that they are not hated, that they are appreciated and even loved, and that the notion that non-Jews are just waiting for the next opportunity to exterminate them is both unjust to others and harmful to themselves?

The hysteria over Iran, which may lead to a disastrous war that will be lost by everyone, reminiscent of the First World War of 1914-1918, is visibly fed by the dominance within the Jewish community, and indeed beyond it in the West as a whole, of the "duty of memory", meaning, to be precise, a constant, repetitive recollection of the holocaust as the defining moment of the twentieth century, and perhaps even of human history.

It is enough to attend a meeting of moderate, middle class Parisian Jews to perceive this transformation. The same sort of educated, well-to-do people who not so long ago were at the forefront of universal social concern, are now centering their political preferences on the question: what is best for Israel? The terrible irony is that the more brutal Israel's policies become, provoking growing hostility to Israel, the more these good people feel not only that they must defend Israel tooth and nail, but that every criticism of Israel is a threat against themselves.

This is dividing French society itself. The vast majority of the non-immigrant French population, especially on the left, feel close to Jewish friends, admire the many outstanding Jewish people in all fields, consider Jewish people so much a part of France that they usually neither know nor care who is Jewish and who is not -- and if ever they retain an atavistic trace of ancestral anti-Semitism, this is extinguished by reminders of guilt for the holocaust.

Reminders of guilt abound. As a recent example, although the majority of French Jewish children were saved from Nazi deportation, plaques are being placed on schools as a reminder of the number of Jewish children who were deported. In these same schools, the commemorations of the annual holocaust day become increasingly elaborate.

What is the effect on the children? This sets Jewish children apart in a way that is likely to give them a sense of insecurity and distrust. As for the children of immigrants from African and Arab countries, this stimulates an unhealthy competition in victimism. The reflection is almost inevitable: so Jews suffered over sixty years ago, but today, Arabs are suffering in Palestine and in Iraq, and who cares? Why are some people eternal victims while others don't count?

As the official Jewish community has moved to the right, the right has moved toward the community. On the far right, the "vieille France" candidate Philippe de Villiers attempts to outdo Jean-Marie Le Pen by denouncing "the Islamization of France" and ardently courting the Jewish community, whose right wing also benefits from the flattering attentions of Le Pen's daughter and possible successor Marine. Such positioning stimulates anti-Jewish resentment among immigrant youth in the disinherited banlieues. One form of paranoia leads to another.


What is the danger?

To get back to the supposed threat to Israel from Iran, a most interesting comment from Israeli Deputy Defense minister Ephraim Sneh was cited by Seymour Hersh in his November 21, 2006 piece in The New Yorker on the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran. Expressing skepticism about the possibility of influencing Iran by diplomatic means, Sneh said:

"The danger isn't as much Ahmadinejad's deciding to launch an attack but Israel's living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction... Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who live can live abroad will... I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button."

This is truly an amazing statement that deserves careful attention. The Israeli official is suggesting that a war should be launched against a country, not because of what it may do, but because the fear of what it may do risks "killing the Zionist dream". This suggests that the fear of another holocaust, which has been the main argument for Zionism for half a century, is turning around to destroy Zionism itself.

But are we to plunge the world into war to "save the Zionist dream"? Isn't there some other way for Jews to live in the world without fear of genocide? Indeed, hasn't Zionist Israel become the greatest threat to Jews, by attaching them to the fate of a brutal state which is arousing the growing indignation of the world by its treatment of the Palestinians?

For a long time, there has been an unwritten law that only Jews (at risk of being called "self-hating") may criticize Zionism. But things have gone too far. This aggressive paranoia of Israel is not just a "Jewish question", it is dragging the whole world into disaster. Those of us who are not Jewish also have to speak up and say to our Jewish friends:

"We don't want to kill you, but we don't want to die for your Jewish State either. We are all human beings, and we refuse to plunge the world into war to preserve distinctions of identity that may mean a lot to you, but don't mean much of anything to us."



Diana Johnstone
lives in Paris. She can be reached at dianajohnstone@compuserve.com
Link to this page: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/424/2/

Saving Victoria's Farm Land and Ecosystem

Strategy Meeting:
PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS AND FARM LAND IN THE CRD

Thursday, February 15th @ 7pm
Juan de Fuca Public Library
1759 Island Highway
Colwood


Ideas to consider:

-->explore how First Nations and non-First Nations can work together around these issues

-->lobby to protect the Florence Lake and Langford Lake watersheds

-->support local farmers by establishing an all-weather Public Market
(in Western Communities, Saanich Peninsula, and/or Downtown)

-->start a website to keep informed of what's happening in all 13 municipalities

-->explore other media to raise public awareness and challenge corporate media bias

-->monitor "creeping urbanization" of infrastructure in Central Saanich, Highlands and other rural areas

-->Share "Best Practices" of how municipalities like Metchosin have protected farm land

-->monitor and attend council meetings in all 13 municipalities

-->integrate awareness of ecosystems and food security into the school system

-->investigate a boycott of companies to halt environmentally harmful practices


-->gather information such as the carrying capacity of the CRD, "true cost accounting" of food supply, and local ecosystem mapping

-->lobby all levels of government to strengthen legislation and regulations protecting ecosystems and farm land

-->determine how to accomodate population growth in already-developed areas (i.e. densification, smart growth)

-->change land-use procedures to allow for First Nations and public participation BEFORE developments are approved
-->encourage the use of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands for food production

-->explore implications of Malahat Corridor expansion, Regional Growth Strategy, and Port Renfrew-Cowichan development


A more detailed report will be prepared prior to the Feb 15 meeting.
For more information, call 388-3847. Sponsored by the Social Environmental Alliance and Sea-to-Sea Greenbelt Society.

The Juan de Fuca Library is located next to the BC Transit Western Exchange, on Bus routes 25, 39, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 61.


"Strength in numbers"

"Working together to protect ecosystems and farm land in the CRD."

The Naked Island: Campbell Government Giving Away What's Left


















http://www.wcwcvictoria.org/
vipetition/images/map1_sm.jpg




BC Government Deregulates Forests on Vancouver Island

Western Canada Wilderness Committee Victoria
Thursday, February 01, 2007


Feb.1, 2007

Another Corporate Giveaway: Wilderness Committee condemns BC government's Deregulation of Western Forest Product's Private Lands by Removing them from their Tree Farm Licenses


Yesterday, the Minister of Forests and Range Rich Coleman approved the removal of 28 283 hectares (about 4 times bigger than the 7000 hectare Carmanah Valley) from Western Forest
Product's Tree Farm Licenses (TFL's) #6 west of Port McNeill, #19 near Gold River, and #25 near Sooke and Jordan River, all on Vancouver Island.


http://www.wcwcvictoria.org/
vipetition/images/map2_sm.jpg


The decision essentially deregulates the private lands of Western Forest Products so that environmental laws (the Forest and Range Practices Act), raw log export restrictions, regulations on the rate of cut, and prohibitions against real estate subdivisions no longer apply. These lands also include some of Vancouver Island's most significant stands of ancient Douglas firs in the south in TFL 25, and western red cedars and hemlocks in the north in TFL's 6 and 19. According to a recent satellite image analysis, 73% of Vancouver Island's ancient forests have already been logged, including 90% of the valley bottoms. The WCWC is currently campaigning to end the logging of Vancouver Island's remaining old-growth forests. Visit www.viforest.org for maps and more info.



"This is really bad news. Without any more regulations on the rate of cut and no real forest practices regulations on private lands, it'll just allow the company to liquidate those old-growth
and second-growth forests more quickly, closer to streams, and on steeper slopes. In the Sooke and Jordan River areas just west of Victoria, I can especially see the company looking to mow down the trees and sell off the real estate for suburban developments," states Ken Wu, Campaign Director of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee in Victoria.




"In short, it means more big stumps instead of old-growth trees, overcutting of our forests, dirty water, destroyed salmon streams, raw log exports, fewer milling jobs, and suburban subdivisions sprawling over where the forest once was."

Previously, in 2004, the BC Liberals also allowed Weyerhaeuser, now Island Timberlands, to remove 90 000 hectares of their private lands from their TFL's, primarily on Vancouver Island. In total, then, the BC government has eliminated the regulations on almost 120 000 hectares (more than 15 times the size of the Carmanah Valley) by removing them from their TFL's.


















Government and company officials will likely argue that because the lands are privately owned, they shouldn't be regulated within TFL's. However, it's important to note that when the TFL's were first granted in the 1940's and '50's for FREE on Crown lands, it was on condition that the companies would provide local employment by running sawmills - a provision scrapped by Campbell under the Forestry Revitalization Act in 2004 - and that their private lands were to be included within TFL's so that the lands could be regulated for the public good (ie. jobs and the
environment). That is, the original contracts stipulated that the logging rights on Crown lands were tied to the companies having to run sawmills and include their private lands within the TFL's.

"Despite these companies not having to uphold their end of the deal anymore, they are still being allowed to keep their logging rights on Crown lands, without providing the BC public with any
compensation!" states Wu.

The WCWC is calling on the BC government to return these lands within the TFL's, and to strengthen the laws on Crown lands and private forestlands within TFL's to protect the remaining old-growth forests, ensure a slower, more sustainable rate of cut, enact more stringent forest practices regulations to protect streams and wildlife habitat, and to ban raw log exports.

For Immediate Release

For more info contact:

Ken Wu, Campaign Director,
Western Canada Wilderness Committee - Victoria chapter

250-514-9910 (cell)

Slaughter and Spin in the Battle for Najaf


Ersatz Apocalypto:
Slaughter and Spin in the Battle for Najaf

by Chris Floyd


Wednesday, 07 February 2007


*This is my latest piece for Truthout.org.*

I. Rashomon in Babylon

It has been cast as a ferocious battle against a mighty opponent: a fanatical "apocalyptic cult" storming the holy city of Najaf with hundreds of warriors led by a self-proclaimed Islamic Messiah, their frenzy quelled only at the last moment by a massive intervention of American firepower. But as with so much else in the blood-soaked annals of the Bush Administration's disastrous Babylonian Conquest, it appears this neat story masks a far grimmer, grubbier truth: a mass slaughter of civilians, caught in the toxic fog of hair-trigger tension, sectarian hatred and violent political ambition unleashed by the U.S. invasion.

The January 28 clash in Najaf was, the New York Times proclaimed, the greatest one-day battle in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad in 2003. Some 200-400 "cultists" were killed by Iraqi troops and the American air and ground forces that came to their rescue when the apocalyptics – whose ranks included Baathists and al Qaeda terrorists – nearly overran the Iraqi government troops, according to the NYT and other Western media.

The "bizarre" and "extraordinary" attack by the obscure but massively armed "Soldiers of Heaven" Shiite splinter group was an attempt to kill the leading clerics in the sacred city, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of millions of Iraqi Shiites, we were told. This massacre would supposedly usher in the reign of the Mahdi, the Islamic Messiah-figure which many Shiites believe is coming to redeem – and judge – the world. For hours on end, the outgunned and ill-trained Iraqi government soldiers held off the swarming zealots until American planes began bombing raids on the cult's entrenched positions in the groves outside Najaf and U.S. troops marched in to bolster the flagging locals.

It was indeed a rousing tale of carnage, courage and fearsome zeal, fit for one of Mel Gibson's cinematic bloodbaths. Yet in the days following the attack, it has became increasingly apparent that the story being presented in the Western media – based largely on accounts from Iraqi government officials and the Pentagon – has about as much historical accuracy as Gibson's ersatz epics.

So what happened in Najaf? It is of course hard to see anything clearly through the natural confusions of a nation in chaos and the deliberate manipulations of the powerful and their sycophants, but there are independent Iraqi sources – non-sectarian, non-aligned, democratic – who have been providing eyewitness accounts and analyses of stories in the wide-ranging Iraqi press, which is almost entirely ignored by the Western media. One of these, the blog "Healing Iraq" – written by "Zayed," an Iraqi professional who spent his childhood in Britain – has led the way in unpacking the Najaf firestorm. (Patrick Cockburn, one of the most knowledgeable and insightful reporters covering Iraq, drew heavily on Zayed's work in a brief report for The Independent which came out as this story was going to press.)

To be fair, it's no wonder that Western accounts of the fighting were confused, as they relied on the "bizarre" and "extraordinary" – and wildly varying – accounts from officials of the Bush-backed Iraqi government. For example, one of the primary sources for the New York Times' story of the battle – which no Western reporters were allowed to witness – was Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf province, and a member of one of the Iranian-backed, armed sectarian factions that George W. Bush has empowered in Baghdad, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). During a press conference aired on Al-Iraqiya television, Abted first claimed that the "foreign-funded" cult was led by a Lebanese, then later said its leader was an Iraqi. As Zayed notes, none of the journalists present questioned the contradiction.

In his latest report, Zayed details the bewildering array of versions offered up by factions connected with the Iraqi government. It was followers of controversial cleric Motqada al-Sadr who first identified the Najaf "attackers" as members of the cult. The Sadrists, buttressed by spokesmen in the Iraqi Health Ministry, which they control, also asserted that the group was planning to kidnap, not kill, Sistani, Sadr and other top Shiite clerics. It was also the Sadrists who claimed that the attackers were working with al Qaeda and Saddam loyalists, "and that they received logistical and monetary backing from Saudi Arabia." They said the sect's leader was an Iraqi named Dhiaa' Abdul Zahra Kadhim.

Meanwhile, SCIRI members, buttressed by the Najaf provincial government, which they control, said that more than 1,000 terrorists were killed in the battle, and that some 200 "brainwashed women and children" were detained and "removed to another place," presumably for deprogramming. SCIRI officials differed on the number of terrorists captured in the battle; one said 50, another said 16, yet another said "hundreds" were detained. It was SCIRI that advanced the notion that the attack aimed to kill the clerics, not capture them. Various SCIRI officials said the cult's leader was a) the aforesaid unnamed Lebanese national; b) Dhiaa’ Abdul Zahra Kadhim, as in the Sadrist account; c) a renegade Sadrist named Ahmed Kadhim Al-Gar’awi Al-Basri ; d) another renegade Sadrist named Ahmed Hassan al-Yamani; e) a self-proclaimed messiah named Ali bin Ali bin Abi Talib.

A SCIRI member of the Najaf governing council also claimed that "the leader of this group had links with the former regime elements since 1993. Some of the gunmen brought their families with them in order to make it easier to enter the city," Associated Press reports. An Iraqi army officer, sectarian affiliation unknown, added that Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese were taken prisoner in the battle – though none of these foreign fighters have yet been produced. And just for good measure, Najaf's SCIRI governor, As’ad Abu Gilel, said the attackers were Sunni insurgents, planning to attack Shiite pilgrims on their way to mark the festival of Ashura in Najaf.

U.S. military officials originally picked various items from this dizzying smorgasbord of spin in cobbling together their own version of the battle, although in general they hewed more closely to the SCIRI line. But that's not surprising, given the fact that this violent, extremist Shiite faction, whose death-dealing militia is deeply embedded in the Iraqi security forces, is currently in high favor with the Bush White House.

However, by mid-week, the Pentagon suddenly reversed course and came out with a whole new account, one cited by Bush himself, as the Washington Post reported. Now the battle was depicted as an exemplary pre-emptive strike by an "aggressive" and "impressive" Iraqi military, acting on good intelligence that the cult intended to storm Najaf and kill the leading clerics because they refused to recognize the claim of the cult's leader (now known as Samer Abu Kamar, by the way) to be the Mahdi.

Far from having to rescue the hapless Iraqis, American forces were simply there in a supporting role, providing "backup ground troops along with helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft support" in an attack on the cult's positions in the palm groves and farms of rural Zarqa, not far from Najaf, the Post said. Bush – that seasoned veteran of combat – had this reaction to the battle: "The Iraqis are beginning to show me something." And indeed, a spokesman for Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki – who has been publicly warned by Bush officials that he will be removed from the sovereign government of Iraq by the Americans if he doesn't help Bush's "surge" plan by cracking down on the Shiite militias that back him – pointed to the battle as proof that Maliki can deliver the goods.

Thus, in just three days time, the battle for Najaf morphed from an eruption of yet another level of sectarian strife threatening to overwhelm the tottering Iraqi government into a bravura display of the wonder-working power of Bush's "New Way Forward." Yet the only certainty that could really be gleaned from the official accounts ricocheting around the Western media was that when the smoke finally cleared from the palms and the fields, the ground was littered with scores of burnt and mangled corpses.

II. Under the Crazy Quilt

But the independent Iraqi sources paint an entirely different picture. Although here too there is much uncertainty – and thickets of impenetrable Shiite factionalism and secular political maneuvering – these accounts converge in a basic narrative that is far more coherent, and more grounded on actual reporting from the area, than the crazy quilt that Iraqi and American government officials, and the U.S. media, have thrown over the battle.

Based on accounts from Healing Iraq, the respected daily Azzaman (also here), on-scene reporting from Inter Press Service, and stories from other Iraqi papers and other media outlets translated by various websites, here is an outline of what seems to have happened on January 28.

In the early morning hours, a convoy of some 200 members of the al-Hatami tribe were making their way to Najaf for Ashura, the highly emotional commemoration of the martyrdom of Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Mohammed, at the hands of Caliph Yazid I in 680. This was the instigation of the centuries-long split between Shiites – minority adherents of Hussein and his father, Ali (Mohammad's cousin and son-in-law), whom Shiites believe were the Prophet's rightful heirs as leaders of the Muslim community – and Sunnis, the majority who believe that the early line of non-hereditary caliphs forged the true path of orthodox Islam.

The al-Hatamis are Shiites, but have dissented from the Shiite factions now running the Iraqi government: SCIRI, Maliki's Dawa Party, Motqada al-Sadr's party and others. Together with an allied tribe, the al-Khazalis, based near Najaf, the al-Hatamis have opposed the American occupation and the Iraqi government from the beginning, albeit peacefully so far. They also reject the spiritual leadership of both Ayatollah Sistani and his younger rival, Sadr, and any ties with Iran. They would not necessarily be the most welcome guests in the SCIRI-controlled province or in Sistani's hometown of Najaf, where tensions were already high as authorities braced for expected terrorist attacks on the multitude of pilgrims descending on the city.

Most of the men in the al-Hatami procession were armed – as most men are in Iraq, especially when traveling by night. At an Iraqi army checkpoint on the road between Diwaniya and Najaf, there was some kind of altercation. Whether by design or perhaps more likely through a misunderstanding of the sort that has left countless Iraqis dead at government and Coalition checkpoints, the Iraqi troops opened fire on the car carrying the tribe's elderly chief, Haj al-Hatemi and his wife, who were riding because they were too frail to join the others in the march. Seeing their chief cut down, the al-Hatamis retaliated with gunfire. They were driven back into the palm groves near Zarqa as Iraqi forces gave pursuit.

At this point, the al-Khazalis intervened, coming to support their tribal allies while reportedly trying to negotiate with the Iraqi forces to end the shooting. But the government forces had already called for heavy reinforcements. Within minutes, Iraqi ministers in Baghdad were claiming that Najaf was under attack by al Qaeda terrorists. Muaffaq al-Rubaii, the Iraqi National Security Adviser who is, curiously enough, paid by the Americans and not the Iraqis, said that hundreds of "foreign fighters" had been killed and that the Shiite splinter group Jund As-Sama was behind the attack, aiming to kill the clerics of Najaf.

There was indeed a cult group living in the palm groves of Zarqa. They were apparently part of the Mahdawiya, "a very small fringe Shia movement with scattered followers in major urban centres in the south," led by Sayyid Ahmed al-Hassan, who once followed Motqada al-Sadr's father (a revered Shiite cleric murdered by Saddam) but now claims to be the Al-Yemanni, a forerunner of the coming Shiite messiah, as Healing Iraq notes. This cult too opposes the occupation – as well as the Iraqi and Iranian governments, which al-Hassan considers apostates.

The movement has only a few hundred followers. And indeed, the Washington Post's latest report – relaying the Pentagon's admiration for the Iraqi Army's derring-do – now says that only some 700 cultist were encamped at Zarqa, instead of the 5,000 or more cited in earlier reports. Oddly enough, the cult's offices in Najaf had been raided by the Scorpion Brigade of the SCIRI-controlled Interior Ministry only days before the battle. As Zayed reports, "the same happened to [the cult's] offices in Basra, Amara and Karbala, days ago. Al-Hassan himself was placed under house arrest in Tannumah, Basra, by the Iraqi government some months ago."

Despite repeated attempts by the tribesmen, or at least some of them, to halt the fighting, the Iraqis quickly called in American air support and troops. American planes dropped leaflets on the grove, calling on all "terrorists" to surrender. Then the bombing began. According to tribal leaders, at least 120 Hatamis and more than 30 Khazalis were killed in the attack. They provided lists with the names and occupations of the dead. Local Iraqi hospitals reported women and children among the dead and wounded.

Meanwhile, from eyewitness accounts of reporters from Western papers who were at last allowed into the area, it is apparent that U.S. and Iraqi forces also devastated the cult's compound. One reporter for the Post saw at least 10 ambulances carting away the dead from the area. He was also shown a video of what Iraqi officials said were the cult's entrenchments and its large arsenal, including anti-aircraft guns, mortars, and rocket-propelled guns.

But although the outline of the incident is beginning to arise from the murk, much is still unclear. Did the cult launch an attack on the Iraqi forces that had driven the tribespeople into the grove, sparking a vicious firefight that required U.S. bombs and troops to put down? Or, as the Pentagon now claims, was the assault on the cult compound a carefully planned, already scheduled strike by crack Iraqi troops? Did the tribes blunder into the middle of this operation? Is that why the guards at the checkpoint were so quick on the trigger?

Many such questions still remain. However, it is now obvious that the original stories fed to the media about the attack were untrue – and that almost all of them were deliberate untruths, not just the usual "fog of war" uncertainties. Indeed, there was no uncertainty at all in the ever-shifting official claims; each variant was offered up as an undeniable assertion of fact.

It is also now apparent that the battle – however it originated, either through the escalation of a shooting incident or by the deliberate design of Iraqi and American forces – is being used by both Baghdad and Washington as a vindication of their disastrous policies. Bush gets to tout a "victory" by Iraqi forces (not against the real insurgents, true, but any port in a PR storm will do); while Maliki gets to pretend that he is even-handedly cracking down on Shiite militias – not by touching the death squads of his political supporters, which operate with impunity outside and inside the government, but with blunderbuss assaults on tiny fringe groups and recalcitrant tribes that, conveniently enough, oppose his collaboration with both the Americans and the Iranians.

The incident in Najaf will soon be forgotten, drowned out by the Administration's beating of war drums against Iran. But in its cynical deceptions and its murderous chaos, it is yet another microcosm of the overarching hell that Bush has made of Iraq.

source:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com
_content&task=view&id=1024&Itemid=135

Mass Bee Die-Off Threatens Penn. Crops















http://www.bees.co.nz/h00993.jpg



Mystery killer silencing honeybees

If the die-off continues, it would be disastrous for U.S. crop yields.
By Sandy Bauers
Inquirer Staff Writer


Dave Hackenberg of central Pennsylvania had 3,000 hives and figures he has lost all but about 800 of them.

In labs at Pennsylvania State University, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and elsewhere in the nation, researchers have been stunned by the number of calls about the mysterious losses.

"Every day, you hear of another operator," said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, acting state apiarist with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. "It's just causing so much death so quickly that it's startling."

At stake is the work the honeybees do, pollinating more than $15 billion worth of U.S. crops, including Pennsylvania's apple harvest, the fourth-largest in the nation, worth $45 million, and New Jersey's cranberries and blueberries.

While a few crops, such as corn and wheat, are pollinated by the wind, most need bees. Without these insects, crop yields would fall dramatically. Agronomists estimate Americans owe one in three bites of food to bees.

The problem caps 20 years of honeybee woes, including two mites that killed the valuable insect and a predatory beetle that attacked the honeycombs of weak or dead colonies.

"This is by far the most alarming," said Maryann Frazier, an apiculture - or beekeeping - expert at Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences.

One of the first to notice the latest die-off was Hackenberg, who lives in Lewisburg, north of Harrisburg in Union County.

He and his son truck about 3,000 hives up and down the East Coast every year as part of a large but little-known cross-continental migratory bee industry.

Hackenberg's bees pollinate oranges in Florida, apples, cherries and pumpkins in Pennsylvania, and blueberries in Maine. Come summer, they are buzzing along the Canadian border, making honey.

This season, Hackenberg hauled his hives to Florida by Oct. 10, just as he has done for 40 years. By November, some hives were empty; others had just sickly remains.

He made some calls and found out a beekeeper in Georgia had seen the same thing.

Since then, with concern mounting, experts have been investigating. A few months ago, they were referring to the die-off as "fall dwindle disease." Now, they have ratcheted up to "colony collapse disorder."

Last weekend, apiarist vanEngelsdorp and other researchers headed to central California, where hundreds of acres of almond trees - the source of 80 percent of the world's almond harvest - are about to blossom.

Last fall, workers transported managed hives - about 450 per tractor-trailer - to California from colder areas such as the Great Lakes and the Dakotas. Now, hives are coming from Texas, Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania. In all, about half the country's managed hives are needed for the mass pollination.

As workers openthe hives to check them, "the picture's not so good," said Jeffrey S. Pettis, a leader in bee research at a U.S. Department of Agriculture lab in Beltsville, Md.

Pettis said bees often had some winter loss, but this level of death was unprecedented.

As dead or dying insects are collected, dissected and tested, several possibilities are emerging.

The most recent mite problem - the varroa mite - compromises a bee's immune system, so a virus might be the new culprit, Frazier said. Or it could be a new fungal pathogen.

Frazier said researchers also were looking at a new group of pesticides that might impair the bees' ability to orient to their hives. So maybe they are dying only because they cannot find their way back home.

Honeybees are not natives. The country already had about 3,500 species of pollinating bees before Europeans brought honeybees in the 1600s. But because honeybees produce honey and can be managed so easily, they have become a mainstay of U.S. agriculture.

"Part of the problem is that today we develop these big monocultures of corn or peas or cabbage," Frazier said. "They wipe out the diversity of nectar sources and reduce nesting sites for wild bees. And we use, unfortunately, a lot of pesticides to keep the insects we don't want from eating these crops, which also works to eliminate the pollinators."

So a Pennsylvania orchard manager, say, will bring in bees for the two weeks the apple trees bloom, then take them out so he can apply substances to control other insects.

Neither entomologists nor growers can say what will happen when the 2007 growing season for most of the country's crops starts. "We're coming up onto the season where people are really going to be worried," Frazier said.

Although research suggests the stress of moving bees long distances might be a factor in the die-offs, smaller beekeepers with stationary hives worry the problem will extend to their colonies as well.

Already, Janet Katz, a beekeeper in Chester, N.J., thinks three of her 21 hives are failing.

And the bees are stressed already, she said. "The weather last season was not cooperative," she said. "Over the course of the season it was too wet, too dry, too hot and too cold, all at the wrong times."

Bees store honey every autumn - a hive needs 60 pounds to survive the winter - but with this year's warm weather, they ate a lot, and beekeepers had to supplement with sugar syrup.

Now, the bees have sealed themselves inside the hives to stay warm, and the keepers can't open the structures until spring.

"Are we going to see this same thing, this collapsing disorder, in these bees? We don't know," Frazier said. "It's very possible this may extend to our nonmigratory population. We just won't know until spring."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Sandy Bauers at 215-854-5147 or sbauers@phillynews.com



source:
http://www.philly.com:80/mld/inquirer/16623837.htm

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

America's Secret Air War in Iraq
























http://www.timripley.co.uk/images/
home_page/air_war_iraq.jpg



Tomgram: Nick Turse
America's Secret Air War in Iraq


Just last week, in a typical air strike of the Iraq War, two missiles were fired at targets somewhere in the city of Ramadi, capital of al-Anbar province in the heartland of the Sunni insurgency, in the course of a battle with American forces stationed there. According to newspaper accounts, "18 insurgents" were killed.

Air power has, since World War II, been the American way of war. The invasion of Iraq began, after all, with a dominating show of air power that was meant to "shock and awe" -– that is, cow -- not just Saddam Hussein's regime, but the whole "axis of evil" and other countries the Bush administration had in its mental gun sights. Among the largest of America's "permanent" megabases in Iraq is Balad Air Base with the sorts of daily air-traffic pile-ups that you would normally see over Chicago's O'Hare Airport. And yet, as Tomdispatch.com has written numerous times over these last years, reporters in Iraq almost determinedly refuse to look up or report on the regular, if intermittent, application of American air power especially to heavily populated neighborhoods in Iraq's cities.

Now, the Bush "surge" is officially beginning. Little about it is strikingly new or untried -- except possibly the unspoken urge to ratchet up the use of air power in Iraq, the only thing a Pentagon with desperately overstretched ground forces really has to throw into the escalation breach (as in recent months it has drastically escalated the use of air power in Afghanistan). Pepe Escobar, the superb globe-trotting correspondent for Asia Times, has recently warned that the new Bush administration "plan" signals "the dire prospect... of a devastating air war over Baghdad" in which "Iraqification-cum-surge" will prove "a disaster mostly for every Baghdadi caught in the crossfire."

Just last week, Julian E. Barnes of the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. Air Force has the Iraqi itch and is getting ready to scratch it. Air Force commanders are preparing for a "heightened role in the volatile region." They are, he reported, already "gearing up for just such a role in Iraq as part of Bush's planned troop increase" -- an expansion of air power that "could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants… [and] more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran."

Until now, U.S. air power in Iraq has been a non-story -- if you weren't an Iraqi. In the coming months, however, it may force its way onto the front pages of our papers and onto the nightly TV news -- but not if the Pentagon has anything to say about it. Doing some journalistic sleuthing, Nick Turse has discovered just how secretive the Pentagon has been about offering any significant information on the size, scope, and damage involved in its air operations over Iraq. The story of this secret American air war is now told for the first time -- and at this website. Tom


Bombs over Baghdad
The Pentagon's Secret Air War in Iraq
By Nick Turse

A secret air war is being waged in Iraq -- often in and around that country's population centers -- about which we can find out little. The U.S. military keeps information on the munitions expended in its air efforts under tight wraps, refusing to offer details on the scale of use and so minimizing the importance of air power in Iraq. But expert opinion holds that the forms of aerial assault being employed in that country, though hardly covered in our media, may account for most of the U.S. and coalition-attributed Iraqi civilian deaths there since the 2003 invasion.

While some aspects of the air war remain a total mystery, Air Force officials do acknowledge that U.S. military and coalition aircraft dropped at least 111,000 pounds of bombs on targets in Iraq in 2006. This figure, 177 bombs in all, does not include guided missiles and unguided rockets fired, or cannon rounds expended; nor, according to a U.S. Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) spokesman, does it take into account the munitions used by some Marine Corps and other coalition aircraft or any of the Army's helicopter gunships. Moreover, it does not include munitions used by the armed helicopters of the many private security contractors flying their own missions in Iraq.

Air War, Iraq: 2006

In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles." These air strikes presumably included numerous highly publicized missions ranging from the January air strike outside the town of Baiji that reportedly "killed a family of 12," including at least three women and three young children, to the December attack on an insurgent safehouse in the Garma area, near Fallujah, that reportedly killed "two women and a child" in addition to five guerillas. Then there were the even less well remembered events, such as those on July 28th when, according to official reports, an Air Force Predator unmanned aerial vehicle destroyed an "anti-Iraqi forces" vehicle with Hellfire missiles, while Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons "expended a GBU-12, destroying an anti-Iraqi forces location," both in the vicinity of the city of Ramadi.

The latter weapon, Guided Bomb Unit-12, a laser-guided bomb with a 500-pound general purpose warhead, was the most frequently used bomb in Iraq in 2006, according CENTAF statistics provided to Tomdispatch. In addition to the ninety-five GBU-12s "expended," sixty-seven satellite-guided, 500-pound GBU-38s and fifteen 2,000-pound GBU-31/32 munitions were also dropped on Iraqi targets last year, according to official Air Force figures.

One weapon conspicuously left out of this total is rockets -- such as the 2.75-inch Hydra-70 rocket which can be outfitted with various warheads and is fired from fixed-wing aircraft and most helicopters. The number of rockets fired is withheld from the press so as, according to a CENTAF spokesman, not to "skew the tally and present an inaccurate picture of the air campaign." The number of rockets fired may be quite significant as, according to a 2005 press release issued by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who helped secure a $900 million Hydra contract from the Army for General Dynamics, "the widely used Hydra-70 rocket… has seen extensive use in Afghanistan and Iraq… [and] has become the world's most widely used helicopter-launched weapon system." Early last year, Sandra I. Erwin of National Defense Magazine noted that the U.S. military was looking to the Hydra to serve as a low-cost weapon for Iraq's urban areas. "The Army already buys and stockpiles thousands of the 2.75-inch Hydra rockets, and is seeking to equip as many as 73,000 with the laser kits, under a program called 'advanced precision kill weapon system,' or APKWS. The Navy would purchase 8,000 for Marine Corps helicopters," she wrote.

The number of cannon rounds fired -- some models of the AC-130 gunship, for instance, have a Gatling gun that can fire up to 1,800 rounds in a single minute-- is also a closely guarded secret. The official reason given is that "special forces often use aircraft such as the AC-130" and since "their missions and operations are classified, so therefore these figures are not released."

Repeated inquiries concerning another reporter's statistics on cannon rounds fired by CENTAF aircraft prompted the same official to emphatically state in an email: "WE DO NOT REPORT CANNON ROUNDS." His superior officer, Lt. Col. Johnn Kennedy, the Deputy Director of CENTAF Public Affairs, followed up, noting:


Glad to see you appreciate the tremendous efforts [my subordinate] has already expended on you. Trust me, it's probably much more significant than the relentless pursuit of the number of cannon rounds.

But the number of cannon rounds and rockets fired by U.S. aircraft is not an insignificant matter, according to Les Roberts, formerly an epidemiologist for the World Health Organization in Rwanda during that country's civil war and an expert on the human costs of the war in Iraq. According to Roberts, who was last in Iraq in 2004 (where, he says, he personally witnessed "the shredding of entire blocks" in Baghdad's Sadr City by aerial cannon fire), "rocket and cannon fire could account for most coalition-attributed civilian deaths." He adds, "I find it disturbing that they will not release this [figure], but even more disturbing that they have not released such information to Congressmen who have requested it."

Non-CENTAF military officials were equally tight-lipped about such munitions -- at least with me. A Public Affairs officer from U.S. Central Command told me that the Command didn't track such information. When I questioned a coalition spokesman in Baghdad about the number of rockets and cannon rounds fired by Army and Marine Corps helicopters in Iraq in 2006, I was told, "We cannot comment on your inquiry due to operational security."

I then pointed out that just last month, in National Defense Magazine, Col. Robert A. Fitzgerald, the Marine Corps' head of aviation plans and policy, was quoted as saying that, in 2006, "Marine rotary-wing aircraft flew more than 60,000 combat flight hours, and fixed-wing platforms completed 31,000. They dropped 80 tons of bombs and fired 80 missiles, 3,532 rockets and more than 2 million rounds of smaller ammunition."

When asked if this admission had endangered operational security, the spokesman responded, "I cannot comment on the policies or release authority of a Marine colonel."

While the Marine Corps' statistics presumably include totals of munitions used in Afghanistan, where American air power has played a large role in the fighting, they do remind us that the minimal figures given out by CENTAF don't give an accurate picture of the air war in Iraq. These particular totals are, according CENTAF, "separate from the data provided" to Tomdispatch on Iraqi bomb and missile expenditure in 2006.

"Relentless Pursuit"

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the American air war in Iraq, often targeting urban areas, has been given remarkably short shrift in the media. In 2004, Tom Engelhardt, writing at Tomdispatch, called attention to this glaring absence. Seymour Hersh's seminal piece of reportage, "Up in the Air," published in the New Yorker in late 2005, ushered in some mainstream attention to the subject. Articles by Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist who covered the American occupation and war in Iraq, before and after the Hersh piece, are among the smattering of pieces that have offered glimpses of the air campaign and its impact. To date, however, the mainstream media has not, to use the words of Lt. Col. Kennedy, engaged in a "relentless pursuit of the number of cannon rounds" fired or any other aspect of the air war or its consequences for the people of Iraq.

While we will undoubtedly never know the full extent of the human costs of the U.S. air campaign, just a few dogged reporters assigned to the air-power beat might, at the very least, have offered some sense of this one-sided air war. Since this has not been the case, we must rely on the best available evidence. One valuable source is a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Carried out by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health and Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, it estimated 655,000 "excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war." The study, published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, in October 2006, found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13% of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate -- and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636 -- this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003 when the invasion of Iraq began and last June when the study concluded.

There are indications that the U.S. air war has taken an especially grievous toll on Iraqi children. According to statistics provided to Tomdispatch by The Lancet study's authors, 50% of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.

The Lancet study used well-established survey methods, which have been proven in conflict zones from Kosovo to the Congo, and interviewers actually inspected death certificates from 92% of the households surveyed where they were requested (which they did 87% of the time). The Iraq Body Count Project, a group of researchers based in the United Kingdom who maintain a public database of Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the war, carefully restricts itself to the sparser media reports of civilian fatalities that come out of Iraq. While a much lower number (currently the range of media-reported deaths stands at: 55,441-61,133) than the The Lancet's findings, an analysis of their carefully limited data also offers a glimpse of the human costs of the air war.

Statistics provided to Tomdispatch by the Iraq Body Count Project show that since the U.S. invasion in 2003, coalition air strikes have, according to media sources alone -- which as we know have covered the air war poorly -- caused between 15,593-17,067 Iraqi civilian casualties, including 3,625-4,093 deaths. Last year, media reports listed between 169-200 Iraqis killed and 111-112 injured in twenty-eight separate coalition air strikes, according to the IBC project.

These numbers also appear to be on the rise. In an email message to Tomdispatch last month, John Sloboda, the co-founder and spokesperson for the IBC Project, notes that the "vast majority [of lethal air strikes] have been in the last half of the year."

When asked about the modest air power casualty figures provided by the Iraq Body Count Project and whether CENTAF accepts them, Lt. Col. Kennedy dodged the question, telling Tomdispatch, "We do not track such numbers and so cannot comment on the Project's efforts or validity." He had a similar answer when it came to The Lancet study's findings.

Asked about the assertion that the second half of 2006 was much deadlier for Iraqis due to U.S. air strikes and the possible reasons for this, Kennedy waxed eloquent, "War, by its very nature has ebbs and flows, and we constantly review the application of airpower to best support the forces on the ground in theater. We view this as simply part of our contract to the warfighters. As we do not discuss operational aspects of missions, I'll decline further comment."

Kennedy went on to say that the U.S. makes "every effort" to "minimize collateral damage regardless of whether the enemy is on open ground or within the confines of a city." Just days ago, in the Los Angeles Times, Lt. Gen. Carrol H. "Howie" Chandler, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, expanded on this line of thought, noting, "I wouldn't automatically write off air power in an urban environment for fear of collateral damage… We have the capability with precision targeting and the new weapons to operate in an urban environment."

Sarah Sewall, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1993 to 1996 and is now Director for the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, agrees that air power has a role to play in urban operations, and may even mitigate civilian harm in certain instances. She warns, however, "I have a lot of skepticism about the applicability of air power for all types of problems and particularly for the types of problems that we see commonly, on a day to day basis, in Iraq today." As she told Tomdispatch, "The problem comes when you think it is the functional equivalent of ground forces."

The Pace Quickens

In 2005, CENTAF reported using 404 bombs and missiles in Iraq. In 2006, an apparent lull (whether in lethal attacks or just in their reporting) in the first half of the year seems to have given way to a rise in deadly attacks during the second half. Only days into 2007, the U.S. military had already conducted air strikes in three nations -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. And in Iraq, the air war may be increasing in pace and ferocity. For example, on January 9th, the U.S. unleashed its air power on Baghdad's Haifa Street, a "mostly Sunni Arab enclave of residential buildings and shops." According to the Washington Post, "F-15 fighter jets strafed rooftops with cannons, while the Apache[ helicopter]s fired Hellfire missiles." Elsewhere in Iraq that day, according to Air Force reports, F-16s strafed targets near Bayji with cannon fire, while others dropped GBU-38s on targets near Turki Village; and F-15Es provided "close-air support" to troops near Basrah.

That same evening, back in the U.S., a broadcast of Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume" offered a brief glimpse of the air war in a story by reporter David Macdougall who was, said Hume, "embedded with the Air Force in a location we cannot identify, where not only fighter jets, but bombers roared into the air headed for other targets in Iraq." Macdougall reported that the B-1B Lancer, the long-range bomber that carries the largest payload of weapons in the Air Force was, for the first time in over a year, again being employed in combat in Iraq.

"These B-1 bombers were central to the raid. We're told they flew a ten-hour mission, and by the looks of their empty bomb bays, these planes dropped thousands of pounds of munitions. They bombed 25 targets deep inside Iraq," he said. At one of these sites, he reported, Army troops sent in after the air strike reportedly found a "command and control center, insurgent hospital, and a closet-sized room covered in blood." We may never know if that "room covered in blood" was a torture center, part of the hospital, or if it became "covered" in the same manner that caused the 280 Iraqi civilian casualties from air strikes reported in the media, and the many more that undoubtedly went unreported and ignored, last year. This is yet another facet of the air war that will remain a mystery.

The Secret Air War

While reporting on the air war has often been barely evident, except as the odd paragraph in daily round-up battle pieces from Iraq (which rely mainly on military handouts or press briefings), the gaps in our knowledge about the air war have been facilitated by the U.S. military's failure to be honest and forthcoming with both data and doctrine. In this respect, the military has been the media's enabler.

Given CENTAF's knowledge that, no matter how "smart" their munitions or how precise their targeting, noncombatants, especially in urban neighborhoods, are sure to die in air strikes, I had a question for Lt. Col. Kennedy: Could he explain how CENTAF decided what was an acceptable level of civilian caualties it was willing to sacrifice for military aims? His answer: "Not in a sufficient manner that you would be happy with."

Kennedy's response echoed a running theme in his replies to my questions. At one point in our exchanges, he actually suggested that an article on the air war in Iraq was not "a viable story" and told me not to contact him again until I was under contract to produce an article that met his standards. He later claimed that his viability comment was due to my "apparent freelance status" and the fact I had not provided "a copy of any contract, nor contacts with a publisher."

"When you provide such information I'll be happy to entertain your questions," he wrote. After providing proof that I was, indeed, a journalist, he deigned to answer me again, concluding, "This is the last email I will respond to from you."

Kennedy was just one of a number of U.S. military officials who thwarted attempts to uncover the barest outline of the real extent and nature of the American air war and its toll on Iraqis. Aside from the Air Force's daily release of airpower summaries of dubious worth, the military's efforts have kept almost all substantive aspects of the air war essentially a secret from Americans at home.

During the Vietnam War, the United States conducted a clandestine air war in Cambodia, lied about it to the press, and hid it from the American public. In Iraq, the military has, these last years, engaged in a different kind of secretive air campaign, but their methods of keeping it a mystery appear to have certain similarities. A few years ago, at a meeting at a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event, Les Roberts, a co-author of The Lancet study and now on faculty at Columbia University's Program on Forced Migration and Health, recalls a Pentagon spokesman's declaration that, aside from some sites in Najaf and al-Anbar province, the military had refrained from any attacks on mosques in Iraq. Roberts said that the spokesman's rhetoric differed markedly from the facts on the ground, recalling that "just weeks before I had seen helicopter gunships destroy a beautiful Mosque about an hour south of Baghdad."

When I asked Lt. Col. Kennedy why CENTAF did not track figures on civilian casualties of the air war, he laid the blame on higher headquarters, namely the Office of the Secretary of Defense: "Go ask OSD as we do not set policy here," he wrote.

"I think that it's a red herring," Sewall, the former Pentagon official, told Tomdispatch. "They spend a tremendous amount of energy using computer models to predict where the glass shards are going to go, and then they don't actually care about whether or not that effort to control the direction of the glass shards results in killing fewer people, because they've never bothered to find out whether it, in fact, succeeded in killing fewer people." As she pointed out in a telephone interview, it is "a rather absurd position."

"If they wanted to, they could certainly, as a matter of their own internal procedures, do it," Sewall said of tracking civilian casualties. "I think it's inexcusable that they don't do a better job."

Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, the Village Voice, and regularly for Tomdispatch.


Copyright 2007 Nick Turse


source:
http://www.tomdispatch.com:80/index.mhtml?pid=163152

MEDIA ALERT: IN THE SPIRIT OF NERO














http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/
vcs/greenberg/archives/BushNero621.gif


MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

February 6, 2007


MEDIA ALERT: IN THE SPIRIT OF NERO

"There ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! We're all gonna die."

('Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die' Rag, Country Joe and The Fish, 1967)


The science is now clear: humanity +is+ bringing disaster to our planet. On February 3, the Independent noted that the latest scientific assessment by the prestigious UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides "humanity's loudest warning yet of the catastrophe that is threatening to overtake us". "No more excuses," the Guardian's editorial intoned on the same day.

The irony is bitter indeed. While the Guardian's front page was packed with doom-laden warnings, the centre spread consisted of a two-page, full-colour advert for Renault cars: "Everything is sport." For good measure, the cover story of the Travel supplement promoted holidays to New York.

A classic double-page was also to be found at the heart of the Independent: graphs of perilously rising temperatures, text explaining the catastrophic impacts, photographs of climate-related disasters around the world. And also, bottom left on the same page, a large advert for Halfords "car essentials" and, bottom right, an American Airlines advert for reduced-fare flights (just £199!) to New York (You can see pages 4-5 here: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/screenshots/independent_070203_page_4_5.jpg).

The rest of the Independent - like all other newspapers - was crammed with the usual inducements to indulge in unrestrained consumerism: Renault, Audi and Hyundai cars, a multitude of hotel breaks, hi-tech electronic gadgets, credit card loans, furniture and yet more 'cheap' flights.

The message? We're rapidly heading for disaster and must take decisive action now. Meanwhile, we must continue accelerating along the same path that is the cause of this disaster. Never has the structural conflict of interest at the very heart of the corporate media been more painfully exposed.

The Beauty Of The Flames

The cover story of the Independent on Sunday's Review supplement the following day (February 4) was almost beyond belief. The words on the cover ran:

"Time is running out... Ski resorts are melting... Paradise islands are vanishing... So what are you waiting for?
"30 places you need to visit while you still can - A 64-page Travel Special..." (You can see the cover here: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/screenshots/independent_070203_review.jpg)

It is worth quoting at length from the article. Its author, Marcus Fairs, wrote:

"I am changing my travel plans this year. Alarmed by global warming, shocked by the imminent mass extinction of species and distraught at the environmental damage wreaked by mass tourism, I have decided to act before it is too late. Yes, carbon-neutral travel can wait. I'm off to see polar bears, tigers and low-lying Pacific atolls while they're still there... In the spirit of Nero - the Roman emperor who sang to the beauty of the flames while Rome burned to the ground - we are determined to enjoy the final days of our beautiful Earth. We are aware that mass tourism damages the very things we are going to see, but this only increases our urgency. We are aware that we will soon have to act more sustainably, which gives us all the more reason to be irresponsible while we still can.

"Not for us the angsty despair of the eco-worriers, nor the stay-home moralising of the greenhouse gasbags. For we are the travel Neroists, and we have spotted a window of opportunity." (Marcus Fairs, 'Travel special: Roman holidays,' Independent on Sunday, February 4, 2007)

In his new book, Affluenza, psychologist Oliver James notes "an addiction to irony" in modern society: "saying one thing when another is meant in order to establish a disconnection between the speaker and his listener, or between the speaker and that which is being spoken. Or even between the speaker and himself." (James, Affluenza, Vermillion, 2007, p.284)

How ironic, postmodern, unsentimental and courageous to describe mass death as "a window of opportunity". The World Health Organization has estimated that global warming already contributes to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year - a toll that could double by 2030. But in reality, beneath the sham of postmodern bravura, Fairs is a humble conformist serving his paper's advertisers in the usual way. We wrote to Fairs's editor at the Independent, Tim Lewis:

"Given this extraordinary and rising level of suffering, what is the moral justification for today's front cover? Are you not in fact subordinating human welfare to short-term profit by publishing this piece? Fairs links to many travel companies in his article - did the Independent on Sunday receive payment for these mentions?"

We have received no reply.

In his article, Fairs presented the holiday industry perspective:

"Travel is often unfairly demonised by the eco-lobby: flying accounts for around 3 per cent of global C02 [carbon dioxide] emissions (compared to 20 per cent for domestic heating and a similar amount for road transport). According to the Carbon Trust, of the 11 tonnes of CO2 emitted each year by the average person in the UK, just 0.68 tonnes comes from flying - whereas a full tonne derives from the manufacture and transport of our clothing. 'Demanding that people stop flying is not the solution to all our problems,' says Responsibletravel.com's [Justin] Francis, 'especially when many developing countries rely on responsible tourism as a significant source of income to protect and conserve their environment.'"

It is natural for a corporate journalist to report the corporate view. But Fairs neglected to cite any of the development experts and climate scientists who dismiss these arguments as toxic, cynical nonsense - as just one more unsubtle attempt to justify inaction in defence of profits.


"We Know What Needs To Be Done"

On the Independent's leader pages, somewhat removed from the money-grubbing cynicism of the travel sections, there is at least the illusion of sensible analysis. "We", proclaimed its editors, "know what needs to be done." Was this to be a call to rein in corporate power? To dismantle 'free trade' treaties and institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation? To replace them with democratic institutions that might serve all of humanity and the planet we share?

Of course not. The paper, owned by billionaire Sir Anthony O'Reilly, instead told readers that solutions to the impending nightmare must accord with prevailing elite wisdom: that 'greener' economic growth will do the trick, that the market can save the planet. All "we" need do is look on while clever economists fix the price of carbon and factor it into the cost of products and services, and while politicians police the framework:

"There must be a global treaty on reducing emissions that will put a high price on carbon emissions and it must be enforced through taxation and fines." (Leader, 'Now it is up to the world's political leaders to deliver more than hot air,' The Independent, February 3, 2007)

Not a word here about the need to base any global treaty on equal per capita emission rights for all people, rich or poor (the Global Commons Institute's proposal of 'contraction and convergence': see www.gci.org.uk).

Meanwhile, the Financial Times, the house paper of the business community, had a similar evangelical message of tweaking the capitalist model:

"The way forward is a framework that compensates developing countries for the costs they bear, but also encourages the most efficient possible use of energy resources. The buying of rights to emit by high-income countries from developing countries is one way to achieve this result. A common tax regime, with accompanying cross-border transfers, would be another.

"The crucial requirements, however, are three: a clear and predictable price for carbon emissions across the world; much increased investment in research and development in renewables, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage; and arrangements for transfer of best technology across the globe." (Leader, 'Urgent need for action on climate change. We need a clear and predictable worldwide price for carbon,' Financial Times, February 3, 2007)

Again, this is all pretty much business-as-usual with a few technofixes and superficial green sheen thrown in.

As for those other stalwarts of the British 'quality press', neither The Times nor the Daily Telegraph deemed the IPCC report worth mentioning in their leader columns.

Back at the Independent, its leader writer had one final killer observation:

"The problem is not one of information, but action."

Yes, this corporate newspaper really would have us believe that all relevant information about the climate disaster is freely available in the public domain.

This is easily put to the test. Where are the discussions about the corporate stranglehold on economics, politics, culture and society? About the fanatical, age-old Western determination to control global resources and markets? About the West's repeated crushing of regional self-development in Latin America, southeast Asia and elsewhere? About the psychopathic corporate imperative to yield, at any cost, shareholder dividends for rich investors? And about the patently unsustainable business model of endless economic 'growth'?

That none of this is up for serious discussion - even as the planet teeters on the brink of the greatest mass extinction since the end of the Permian era, 251 million years ago - is actually no surprise at all.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Tim Lewis, editor of the Independent on Sunday's Review supplement
Email: t.lewis@independent.co.uk

Write to Tristan Davies, editor of the Independent on Sunday
Email: t.davies@independent.co.uk

Ask them how they can justify Marcus Fairs's article describing mass death from climate change as "a window of opportunity" for long-distance travellers.

Please send a copy of your emails to:
editor@medialens.org

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at:
editor@medialens.org

This media alert will be archived shortly here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070206_in_the_spirit.php

The Media Lens book 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

PROTEST THE ARMED FORCES RECRUITMENT


























From: out of afghanistan


!!! SEND THE ARMY HOME!!!


PROTEST THE ARMED FORCES RECRUITMENT KIOSQUE
AT UVIC CAREER FAIR!


On February 7 and 8, the Canadian Armed Forces will hold a recruitment kiosque at UVIC career day. Students against War UVIC will be there to protest!


WHEN: February 8, 11:30 am ? 12:30 pm
WHERE: UVIC Sub Building (meet outside front doors before moving to Armed Forces kiosque)


The Conservative Government is currently pursuing an aggressive military operation in Afghanistan and supporting a host of other military occupations across the globe. Likewise, Harper is pursuing an aggressive military recruitment campaign across Canada. Equipped with a $15.5-million promotional budget, a new advertising series and a recruitment target of 5,800 new regular forces members each year, the Conservatives' recruitment campaign is in motion. And who are among the campaign 'targets'? Not surprisingly, students.


STUDENTS: THE RECRUITMENT OFFICERS' 'TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITIES'
National Defence targets Canadians aged 16 to 34 for military recruitment and has recognized that a paid education as an entry bonus is a prime incentive for joining the armed forces. The government knows that students face escalating tuition fees and immense debts. It knows that joining the armed forces may be seen as one way to ease the financial burden for students. While the Conservatives continue to make post-secondary education inaccessible, billions are invested into military ventures which cause misery and devastation in countries like Afghanistan and Haiti.


SEND THE ARMED FORCES HOME!!! COME PROTEST RECRUITERS ON CAREER DAY!


Sources for statistics:
CTV news:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060913/CF_ads_060913/20060913?hub=TopStories


National Defence Report to the Auditor General 2006:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20060502ce.html