'President' Tony Blair?

Push for Blair as new EU president
George Parker in Brussels, John Thornhill
in Paris and James Blitz in London

Financial Times
June 15 2007

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, could end up swapping Downing Street for a job as the first full-time European Union president, under a plan being actively touted by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.

Mr Sarkozy is understood to have discussed the idea with other EU leaders ahead of next week’s European summit, Mr Blair’s last major international event as prime minister.

His support for Mr Blair taking on a big European job is a remarkable sign of Anglo-French rapprochement since Mr Sarkozy replaced Jacques Chirac as president last month.

German diplomats say Mr Sarkozy put his plan to Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, while EU officials say the French president has also touted his idea around other capitals, including Madrid. But the British prime minister remains unpopular with governments in countries such as Italy and Spain, which opposed the Iraq war. Mr Blair’s failure to take Britain into the euro will also count against him.

Mr Blair’s aides admit that Mr Sarkozy and other EU leaders have suggested the idea, but Downing Street insisted that Mr Blair was standing down from frontline politics on June 27. He has denied interest in the job.

Number 10 said talks on “theoretical” jobs formed no part of sensitive negotiations on a new treaty, which aims to establish an EU president and foreign minister in 2009. The new role of president of the European Council – representing the bloc’s 27 member states – would be a permanent replacement for the six-monthly rotating presidency of the EU.

One of Mr Sarkozy’s allies said they could not confirm the president was backing Mr Blair, but expressed support for the idea: “Why not? He is qualified for it. We want a politically strong Europe. We want a president who is credible.”

The president would have few formal powers, but would give the EU strategic leadership and represent the bloc on the world stage on issues such as climate change, bilateral relations and development in conjunction with the new foreign minister.

An FT/Harris opinion poll, out on Monday, suggests Mr Blair remains a divisive figure, with 64 per cent of Germans, 60 per cent of Britons and 53 per cent of French respondents saying he would not be good for the job.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Believe It or Not: Middle East Edition

Believe It or Not in the Middle East

by ROBERT FISK

When I was a schoolboy, I loved a column which regularly appeared in British papers called "Ripley's Believe It or Not!". In a single rectangular box filled with naively drawn illustrations, Ripley - Bob Ripley - would try to astonish his readers with amazing facts:

"Believe It or Not, in California, an entire museum is dedicated to candy dispensers ... Believe It or Not, a County Kerry man possesses an orange that is 25 years old ... Believe It or Not, a weather researcher had his ashes scattered on the eve of Huricane Danielle 400 miles off the coast of Miama, Florida." Etc, etc, etc.

Incredibly, Ripley's column lives on, and there is even a collection of "Ripley Believe It or Not" museums in the United States.

The problem, of course, is that these are all extraordinary facts which will not offend anyone. There are no suicide bombers in Ripley, no Israeli air strikes ("Believe It or Not, 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon"), no major casualty tolls ("Believe It or Not, up to 650,000 Iraqis died in the four years following the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq"). See what I mean? Just a bit too close to the bone (or bones).

But I was reminded of dear old Ripley when I was prowling through the articles marking the anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Memoirs there have been aplenty, but I think only the French press - in the shape of Le Monde Diplomatique - was prepared to confront a bit of "Believe It or Not".

It recalled vividly - and shamefully - how the world's newspapers covered the story of Egypt's "aggression" against Israel. In reality - Believe It or Not - it was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and ordered UN troops out of Sinai and Gaza following his vituperative threats to destroy Israel. "The Egyptians attack Israel," France-Soir told its readers on 5 June 1967, a whopper so big that it later amended its headline to "It's Middle East War!".

Quite so. Next day, the socialist Le Populaire headlined its story "Attacked on all sides, Israel resists victoriously". On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time". Believe It or Not, the Second World War - which might be counted one of the greatest of all time, had ended only 22 years earlier.

Johnny Hallyday, France's undie-able pop star, sang for 50,000 French supporters of Israel - for whom solidarity was expressed in the French press by Serge Gainsbourg, Juliette GrÈco, Yves Montand, Simone Signoret, ValÈry Giscard d'Estaing and FranÁois Mitterand. Believe It or Not - and you can believe it - Mitterand once received the coveted Francisque medal from PÈtain's Vichy collaborationists.

Only the president of France, General de Gaulle, moved into political isolation by telling a press conference several months later that Israel "is organising, on the territories which it has taken, an occupation which cannot work without oppression, repression and expulsions - and if there appears resistance to this, it will in turn be called 'terrorism'". This accurate prophecy earned reproof from the Nouvel Observateur - to the effect that "Gaullist France has no friends; it has only interests". And Believe It or Not, with the exception of one small Christian paper, there was in the entire French press one missing word: Palestinians.

I owe it to the academic Anicet MobÈ Fansiama to remind me this week that - Believe It or Not - Congolese troops from Belgium's immensely wealthy African colony scored enormous victories over Italian troops in Africa during the Second World War, capturing 15,000 prisoners, including nine generals. Called "the Public Force" - a name which happily excluded the fact that these heroes were black Congolese - the army mobilised 13,000 soldiers and civilians to fight Vichy French colonies in Africa and deployed in the Middle East - where they were positioned to defend Palestine - as well as in Somalia, Madagascar, India and Burma.

Vast numbers of British and American troops passed through the Congo as its wealth was transferred to the war chests of the United States and Britain.

A US base was built at Kinshasa to move oil to Allied troops fighting in the Middle East.

But - Believe It or Not - when Congolese trade unions, whose members were requisitioned to perform hard labour inside Belgium's colony by carrying agricultural and industrial goods and military equipment, often on their backs, demanded higher salaries, the Belgian authorities confronted their demonstrations with rifle fire, shooting down 50 of their men.

At least 3,000 political prisoners were deported for hard labour to a remote district of Congo. Thus were those who gave their blood for Allied victory repaid. Or rather not repaid. The four billion Belgian francs which was owed back to the Congo - about £500m in today's money - was never handed over. Believe It or Not.

So let's relax and return to Ripley reality. "Believe It or Not, Russell Parsons of Hurricane, West Virginia, has his funeral and cremation instructions tattooed on his arm! ... Believe It or Not, in April 2007 (yes, these are new Ripleys) a group of animal lovers paid nearly $3,400 to buy 300 lobsters from a Maine fish market - then set them free back into the ocean! ... Believe It or Not, in a hospital waiting room, 70 per cent of people suffer from broken bones, 75 per cent are fatigued, 80 per cent have fevers. What percentage of people must have all four ailments?" Believe It or Not, I don't know. And oh yes, "Geta, Emperor of Rome AD189-212, insisted upon alternative meals. A typical menu: partridge (perdix), peacock (pavo), leek (porrum), beans (phaseoli), peach (persica), plum (pruna) and melon (pepone)."

I guess after that, you just have to throw up.

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Fisk's new book is The Conquest of the Middle East.

A Death in Colombia: Dying to be Green

Biofuel gangs kill for green profits


Tony Allen-Mills, New York


HE survived decades of Colombia's murderous guerrilla uprisings. He lived through paramilitary purges and steered well clear of the cocaine overlords who swarmed across his rural region. It was something completely different that killed Innocence Dias. He died because the world is turning green.


The global quest for alternative sources of environmentally friendly energy has attracted high-profile support from American politicians, including President George W Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California. Celebrities such as Daryl Hannah, the actress, and Willie Nelson, the country singer, are leading a campaign to promote green fuels.


Yet the trend has already had disastrous consequences for tens of thousands of peasants in rural Colombia. A surge in demand for biofuels derived from agricultural products has unleashed a chaotic land grab by a new breed of gangster entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on the world's thirst for palm oil and related bioproducts.


Vast areas of Colombia's tropical forest are being cleared for palm tree plantations. Charities working with local peasants claim that paramilitary forces in league with biofuel conglomerates - some of them financed by US government subsidies - are forcing families off their land with death threats and bogus purchase offers.


"The paramilitaries are not subtle when it comes to taking land," said Dominic Nutt, a British specialist with Christian Aid who recently visited Colombia. "They simply visit a community and tell landowners, 'If you don't sell to us, we will negotiate with your widow'."


Dias was one of several landowners around the remote settlement of Llano Rico who decided not to abandon his property when the paramilitaries first moved into the area. "My father felt protected because he had a local government position," said his daughter, Milvia Dias, 29.


Even when paramilitaries warned the villagers that if they stayed they would be considered left-wing guerrilla sympathisers, Dias refused to be bullied. "He had cattle and land and one day, after all this happened, he went out to fix a hole in one of the farm's fences," his daughter said. He never came back. A search party found him with his throat cut and seven stab wounds in his torso.


"We held the funeral at 5pm the same day and we ran away the next morning," said Dias. The land is now covered in palm trees owned by Urapalma, a Colombian enterprise that has repeatedly been accused in court proceedings of improperly invading private property.


Nutt said last week that he had heard stories of paramilitaries cutting off the arms of illiterate peasants and applying their fingerprints to land sale documents. In many cases, Nutt added, the land is collectively owned by indigenous people or Afro-Colombians and protected by federal laws that courts seem unable or unwilling to enforce.


There is no reliable estimate of how many thousand acres have been appropriated, or how many of the 3m Colombians who have lost their homes since 1985 were forced out by the palm oil business.


Washington has been struggling for years to persuade Colombian farmers to turn their backs on coca leaf production in favour of other crops. Desperate to find energy alternatives to expensive and politically volatile sources of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, Bush is also advocating a global increase in biofuel production.


Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, has urged local palm oil producers to more than double the land they have under cultivation within four years. Uribe's critics complain that he has effectively given a green light to paramilitaries.


At a congressional hearing on Colombia last week, Luis Gilberto Murillo-Urrutia, the former governor of Choco province, told a House foreign affairs subcommittee that US trade policy was likely to "generate an expansion of palm oil cultivation in Afro-Colombian territories . . . there is evidence that palm oil companies, taking advantage of the vulnerability of Afro- Colombian people, have been taking over lands illegally".


For Don Enrique Petro, 67, formerly a wealthy landowner from Curvarado, growing international awareness of the human cost of a green conscience has come several years too late.


"I arrived in Curvarado 39 years ago with my wife and five sons," he said last week. He bought a patch of jungle and slowly transformed it into a 30-acre spread with 110 cows, 20 bulls and 10 horses.


He lost two sons and a brother to the guerrilla wars and in the early 1990s fled his land for five years. When he returned, he found a right-wing paramilitary group in control. "They said they wanted my land to fight the guerrillas," Petro said. "They were lying. It was so they could grow palm on it and make money." Petro refused to sell up. He claims he was eventually taken prisoner by the paramilitaries and, when released, found his land had been planted with palm trees belonging to Urapalma. The company has denied that it is cooperating with paramilitaries or acquiring land illegally.


The world's demand for alternative fuels is unlikely to diminish, but Nutt argued that biofuel consumers should put pressure on Colombia to return stolen land.


Celebrities such as Hannah are beginning to distinguish between palm oil and less controversial biofuels such as ethanol, which is derived mainly from corn.


"I want biofuels that are grown and produced in a sustainable manner," said Hannah, who leads a pressure group which is lobbying for US government standards on green fuel production. "I would not buy biodiesel made from palm oil."


Have your say


As much as all of the concerns expressed are valid, another sustainability factor we should endeavor to respect is the "food miles" content of the finished product. Raw materials transported thousands of miles, however sustainably produced, are far less desirable than using a home grown oil bearing crop that doesn't feature in the human food chain. Better yet, recycled waste vegetable oil, as is accomplished here in my corner of California.


Michael, Santa Cruz, California


As an American, I have to wonder if Hannah has ever heard of the Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) or the Palm Oil Truth Foundation? Surely if palm oil is produced in a sustainable manner and yields higher output with less land it makes sense to use biofuels from palm oil?


"I would not buy biodiesel made from palm oil." Hannah says - hmm, probably more to do with protectionism than real concern for the environment!






© Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd


This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy .To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here .This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

Silence Attends Canada Trade Deal Signing

Canada in first free trade deal in six years
TheStar.com - Business - Canada in first free trade deal in six years

June 07, 2007
Canadian Press

GATINEAU, Que. — Canada has negotiated its first free trade agreement in six years, concluding a deal with four small European countries that potentially opens doors to the larger European community.


Trade Minister David Emerson trumpeted the comprehensive agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, members of the European Free Trade Association, as a signal to the world that Canada is prepared to aggressively pursue trade liberalization.

“This agreement is a major directional statement,” he told a business luncheon today. “It’s a statement that Canada is back in the game.”

As an example, Emerson announced that the government is also launching free trade negotiations with Colombia, Peru and the Dominican Republic, and that officials will begin talks within a few weeks.

Canada’s current bilateral trade with the four European nations is about $11 billion, about the same level of as with South Korea, which Emerson is also actively pursuing. But in terms of Canada’s overall trade, it is a small piece of the pie.

By way of comparison, two way trade with the United States was $626 billion in 2006, with oil and gas, auto parts and vehicles, wood products, chemicals and manufactured products the main goods that cross the border. This represents about 82 per cent of Canada’s international trade.

The European Union was Canada’s second largest partner at $76 billion in two way trade.

But Claude Wild, deputy head of mission at the Swiss embassy in Ottawa, said the importance of the agreement to Canada should not be underestimated because it gives Canada a new gateway into the broader European market.

The agreement remains to be drafted in legal language and a signing ceremony is expected later this year. And it must be ratified by Parliament.

The most likely source of opposition to the deal could come from Canada’s fledgling shipbuilding sector, which fears direct competition from maritime powerhouse Norway could undermine the industry.

“We’re absolutely concerned, but we haven’t seen the deal,” said Peter Cairns, president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. “If the phase-ins are long enough, then maybe this is the way to go, but the devil is in the details and we haven’t seen the details.”

Emerson said the agreement provides a 15-year phase out period on the 25 per cent Canadian duty, with a three-year grace period before any tariff cuts begin.

“This will give the industry a significant period of time to adjust to the new market conditions,” he said.

In his speech to the business luncheon, Emerson made clear he has little patience for individuals or businesses who oppose opening up the Canadian market to liberalized trade.

“Globalization is here,” he said. “It is not going away. It’s time to build Canada’s future by harnessing the powerful and positive potential inherent in international trade and commerce.”

In that vein, he said he is “cautiously optimistic” that the Doha Round of negotiations at the 150-nation World Trade Organization will conclude with a broad-based agreement, suggesting that the U.S. and Europe have moved further in dismantling agricultural subsidies than has been made public.

Reporting on Canada’s trade record and future plans, Emerson said his only worry is that Canada is not moving fast enough to keep up with its competitors on the trade front.

Despite a good year for exports, Canada is losing market share around the world, he said, and the main reason is that the country has fallen behind in signing agreements to help businesses secure market access.

In the six years since Canada last signed its last free trade deal with Costa Rica, the U.S. has signed 16 such deals, Chile 11, Mexico four and Australia three, he said.

“Even in North American, China is poised to overtake Canada as the top source of imports in the U.S.,” he said.

In conjunction with the minister’s speech, the government released its annual State of Trade document Thursday.

Emerson said Canada enjoyed a record year for exports in 2006, shipping out goods valued at $524 billion, while Canadian direct investment abroad increased to $523.3 billion, 14 per cent higher than in 2005.

As well, the trend toward expanding trade beyond the United States continued, with exports to other countries rising 14.6 per cent, also a record high.

But the good news ended there, said Emerson. Much of the export activity was due to the high demand and high prices for natural resources, not manufactured goods. In fact, exports of goods to the U.S. actually declined 1.9 per cent last year due to weakness in auto and forest products.

False Profits

False gods Chris Hedges

Published 04 June 2007

31 comments Print version Listen RSS Religion, claims Christopher Hitchens, is bigoted, irrational and evil. But his moral certitude makes him no better than the fundamentalists he opposes.


God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion

Christopher Hitchens Atlantic Books, 230pp, £17.99

ISBN 1843545861

Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, has conflated religion with tribalism. He lists his four "irreducible objections to religious faith". Faith, he writes, "wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos". It "manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism". It is the "result and cause of dangerous sexual repression" and it is grounded on "wish-thinking". The book goes on to elaborate with some tedium these points with chapters such as "Religion Kills" or "Is Religion Child Abuse?"

Hitchens sees only one form of religion, the chauvinistic, bigoted and intolerant brand that was embodied in the idiotic pronouncements of evangelist figures such as the late Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. He assures us that religion "spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago". "It may speak about the bliss of the next world," he writes, "but it wants power in this one." Religion is a product of "the bawling and fearful infancy of our species", and all attempts, he assures us, "to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule".

It is easy, increasingly popular, and apparently profitable, to attack this childish brand of religious belief. This book refuses to deal with the nuances of religious thought. It ignores the great moral and ethical struggle by theologians and religious leaders such as Paul Tillich or Karl Barth to root religion in contemporary society. It never confronts the anguish faced by those who recognise the impulses we carry within us for evil as well as good. Hitchens, unequipped to deal with other expressions of religious belief, tries vainly to argue against their authenticity. He writes of Dr Martin Luther King that "in no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian". He disparages the faith of Abraham Lincoln and assures us that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor put to death by the Nazis for resistance, was the product of a religious belief that had "mutated into an admir able but nebulous humanism".

This is a cheap way to avoid the harder task of exploring the varieties of religious experience, of examining the motivations and beliefs of those who strive to live what even Hitchens would have to concede is the moral life. Hitchens is so determined to demonise religion that he would have us believe that self-professed religious leaders such as King or Bonhoeffer were not really religious. The sophistry of this attempt mirrors the sophistry of those he does attack, those who misuse the Bible to persecute homosexuals, Muslims, women, artists, intellectuals and those they brand with the curse "secular humanist".

The problem is not religion but religious orthodoxy and the form it takes in human institutions. Throughout history, most moral thinkers - from Socrates to Christ to Francis of Assisi - eschewed the written word. Once moral teachings are written down they become, in the wrong hands, codified and used to enforce conformity, subservience and repression. Writing, as George Steiner has recognised, freezes speech. The moment the writers of the gospels recorded Jesus's teachings, they began to kill their message. There is no room for prophets within religious institutions - indeed within any human institution. Tribal societies persecute prophets; open societies tolerate them at their fringes. Today, our prophets are usually found not within the church but among artists, poets and writers who follow, as Socrates or Jesus did, their inner authority, an authentic religious impulse.

Those who transform faith into a creed transplant religion into a profane rather than a sacred context. Like all idol-worshippers, they seek to give the world a unity and coherence it does not possess. And with this false coherence imposed, faith withers. There are many theologians, including Reinhold Niebuhr, who themselves brand as false and dangerous the version of religion that Hitchens attacks as idolatry. Hitchens is right in going after this form of belief. He is wrong in assuming that it stands for religious thought.

Hitchens, in common with a group of anti- religious writers including Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation, confuses the irrational with the non-rational. There is a reality that is not a product of rational deduction and not accounted for by strict rational discourse. Science and reason can do much to explain sex and sexual urges, for instance, but they are helpless, as Freud knew, before the mysterious force of love. The spiritual dimension to human existence is, likewise, non-rational rather than irrational.


Religious faith has no quarrel with science. It seeks a spiritual truth, not a scientific or historical fact. It allows us to cope with ambiguity and uncertainty, with the ultimate mystery of human existence in this morally neutral universe.

The danger, which Hitchens fails to see, is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart - the capacity we all have for evil. All human institutions with a lust for power give to their utopian visions divine sanction, whether this comes through the worship of God, destiny, historical inevitability, the master race, a worker's paradise, liberté-fraternité- égalité, or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Religion is often a convenient vehicle for this blood lust. Religious institutions often sanctify genocide, but this says more about us, about the nature of human institutions and the darkest human yearnings, than it does about religion.

This is the greatest failing of Hitchens's book. He, like Harris, externalises evil. And when such writers externalise evil, all tools, including violence and torture, become legitimate in order to eradicate an evil outside of them. This world-view - one also adopted by the Christian right - is dangerous. It fails to acknowledge the impulses within us, both dark and seductive, that permit us to carry out evil, often in the name of good.

This externalisation of evil is what allows Hitchens to continue as an ardent supporter of the occupation of Iraq. He, of course, deludes himself into believing that it is reason that requires us to waterboard Muslim detainees in the physical and moral black holes that we have set up to make them disappear. It is reason that gives us the moral right to wage a war that under international law is illegal, indeed a "crime of aggression".

His assault on what he defines as the irrational force of religion permits Hitchens to sanction the abuse and subjugation of others. This is done in the name of his particular version of goodness, which he calls, repeatedly, "reason". But this, too, is a false god: more particularly, the god of death. For once you wage unprovoked wars and embrace torture, for whatever reason, you unleash sadists and killers. You become no better than those you oppose. And as an apologist for the war in Iraq, Hitchens not only has the blood of American and British soldiers on his hands, but the blood of a few hundred thousand Iraqis, too. He is no better than the apologists for radical Islam he so ardently seeks to discredit. His moral certitude is no different and the consequences are as dangerous.

Hitchens's arguments are the mirror image of those used by the fundamentalists he despises. He embraces a self-serving and simplistic view of the world. This allows him to create the illusion of a dualistic world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality. And once this vision has been adopted, as the events of the past six years prove, it is possible to view military intervention, occupation and even torture - anything that will subdue the "irrational" or "dangerous" - as necessary. "Necessity," William Pitt wrote, "is the plea for every infringement of human freedom." This is done in the name of his substitute for God, "reason" - which looks, like all personal idols, an awful lot like Christopher Hitchens.

Chris Hedges's "American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America" is published by Jonathan Cape

Bear Mountain Tree-Sit Under Threat

Cheryl Bryce landsmanager@shawbiz.ca

May 31, 2007

URGENT: Langford Lake Cave

I have made several calls around including Golder, the archaeology group that is doing the AIA's for the area - recently heard they are doing a Traditional Use Study on the cave in early June with a few Songhees and Esquimalt Elders. They are doing this on behalf of the City of Langford. Anyways, I was told by a representative from Golder that they weren't aware of this but would follow up on it. He just called back to let me know they are suppose to be putting a gate on the second entrance of the cave. Also the City of Langford will be contacting the Songhees Chief to discuss this more.


Sigh! The way I see it there has been no discussion with all the nations involved including nations that didn't sign on to the AIP and working group. There is no signs of various levels of government looking to protect indigenous sites or indigenous rights; no true intent. Sound familiar? On the issue of the gate, what would they need all the equipment, generator and crew to put a gate on the site? They could do more damage to the cave. Even if it was agreed to by political leaders they don't have indigenous people or archaeologists on site. Typing fast and out loud here, I am just hearing the news and passing it along. I will keep you informed the best I can. I have to go.

Cheryl

Climate change myths debunked

Climate change myths debunked

Naysayers come armed with obscure references to things like solar flares and hockey-stick graphs.

Dateline: Monday, May 28, 2007

by David Suzuki

In spite of explosive news coverage about global warming over the past year, most people still have only a very rudimentary knowledge of this complex issue. Unfortunately, this lack of knowledge has led to persistent myths, which are slowing down real action that could prevent the worst damage from occurring to our economy and to our environment.

Most of us are just too busy to get to the bottom of climate science. It's undeniably complicated and it's more than most people want to deal with in their daily lives. We all have to worry about our jobs, our families, and just getting through hectic days. Global warming is scary and we hope someone does something about it, or tells us what to do.

The New Scientist Climate change website debunks 26 common global warming myths.



For some, however, doubting the science of global warming has taken on an almost religious zeal. Those blessed with "knowledge" shake their heads sadly at people who are concerned about a warming planet and are trying to do something about it. They pontificate about how the public has been misled by a few (usually European) academics who rely on "faulty" computer models, socialist biases or both.

Talking to these people is hard because they come armed with obscure-sounding references about things like the "medieval warm period," "solar flares" and "hockey-stick" graphs. They seem so sure of themselves that the media still routinely feature these so-called global warming skeptics in opinion articles, television interviews and especially on talk radio.

Media outlets love these guys (yes, they are mostly men and they tend to be the same, often paid, "experts" over and over again) because it stirs things up. These guys specialize in arguing and confusing people, the same way tobacco industry lobbyists did and still do. Having people argue on talk radio is that medium's bread and butter. And what better way to get people riled up than to have a self-proclaimed "expert" tell everyone that global warming is a myth?

The problem is that some people believe it. Or, more often, it creates just enough doubt for people — including politicians — to ignore the issue. And that's dangerous.

Many environmental organizations' websites correct some of the most common myths perpetuated by climate skeptics, but a new resource is the best I've seen yet. New Scientist magazine, the world's largest general interest science magazine, has a new feature called Climate change: A guide for the perplexed, which debunks 26 of the most common myths about global warming. Available in the latest print edition, and free online (see link below), the guide is an invaluable resource for separating fact from fiction.

New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce does an impressive job of sifting through the most common misconceptions about global warming, exploring everything from computer models and hockey stick graphs to ice core samples and various temperature readings. He looks at what the best evidence indicates, as well at what areas need further research. It's a fascinating piece of work.

And it's badly needed too. Many governments are still stalling on taking substantial steps to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that are causing global warming. As the scientific academies representing 13 nations recently wrote in a joint statement on climate protection: "The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day."

That's why it's so important to debunk these myths and move on. They're slowing us down at a time when delay makes the problem more and more costly, and more and more difficult to fix. If you want to help, read New Scientist and arm yourself with knowledge, then tell a friend or, even better, an elected leader, and take down these myths once and for all.

David T Suzuki, PhD, Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster.

David has received consistently high acclaim for his 30 years of award-winning work in broadcasting, explaining the complexities of science in a compelling, easily understood way. He is well known to millions as the host of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's popular science television series, The Nature of Things. An internationally respected geneticist, David was a full Professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver from 1969 until his retirement in 2001. He is professor emeritus with UBC's Sustainable Development Research Institute. From 1969 to 1972 he was the recipient of the prestigious EWR Steacie Memorial Fellowship Award for the "Outstanding Canadian Research Scientist Under the Age of 35". This article is reprinted with permission.


Related addresses:

URL 1: www.davidsuzuki.org
URL 2: environment.newscientist.com/
channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

Moms vs. Washington

Grieving Moms vs. Washington Pols

by
Robert Parry
May 22, 2007

Every other month, Gold Star mother Teresa Arciola drives from her home in Westchester County, New York, to Arlington Cemetery in Virginia, sits on her son’s grave and reads aloud from “Corduroy,” his favorite baby book. Another mother spent winter afternoons in a sleeping bag stretched across her son’s final resting place.

The unspeakable suffering of these parents of dead soldiers stands in marked contrast to the maneuvering over the Iraq War now underway across the river in Washington. There, George W. Bush appears quietly planning another escalation of the Iraq War – possibly doubling U.S. combat troops by Christmas – and many members of Congress are frightened of the political repercussions if they stand up to him.

A possible compromise could come from a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled House granting Bush only two months of the additional war spending that he wants, rather than the full amount through the end of September.

At least requiring a second vote sometime in the summer might force serious thinking about alternatives to continuing the war indefinitely and creating many more fresh graves at Arlington Cemetery.

But Senate Democrats – faced with a near-solid phalanx of Republicans standing behind the President – appear eager to run up the white flag, give Bush pretty much whatever he wants, and break for the Memorial Day recess.

The Democrats didn’t help themselves when they started their “negotiations” with the White House by announcing that they would eventually give Bush a bill that was acceptable to him. That’s a bit like going into a car dealership, declaring that you intend to pay the full sticker price and then trying to bargain.

Knowing that the Democrats planned to fold – to avoid accusations that they weren't supporting the troops – Bush could confidently veto the first war spending bill, which had timelines for withdrawing U.S. combat forces, and threaten to veto any other bill that sought to limit his options.

Bush also has pleased some Democrats by dangling suggestions that he is taking a second look at the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendations from last December. The ISG, which was headed by Bush family lawyer James Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, urged a drawdown in U.S. troops, a focus on training Iraqis and more regional diplomacy.

Annoyed at the implied criticism of his work as “war president,” Bush shelved the report and declared that U.S. troops would “stay in Iraq to get the job done.” He added, “This business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever.”

Bush chose a different course. On Jan. 10, he announced a “surge” in U.S. forces, raising troop levels to 160,000 from 140,000. Since then, the administration appears to be inching the numbers even higher while hoping that the creeping escalation doesn’t get much attention.

Second Surge?

But the Hearst newspapers disclosed on May 22 that “the Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year,” to 98,000 from 52,500, boosting the total U.S. military presence to 200,000, according to an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders.

“The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there,” the Hearst newspapers wrote.

With this quiet escalation on the one hand and hints about an ISG-like Plan B on the other, the Bush administration appears to be playing a double game with the goal of securing about $100 billion more in war spending before Congress catches on to the expanded combat plans.

Helping to lull Official Washington into a pre-Memorial Day daydream, administration officials briefed pro-war Washington Post columnist David Ignatius on more peaceful plans for the “post-surge” period.

“The post-surge policy would, in many ways, track the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which senior administration officials say the President now supports,” Ignatius wrote. [Washington Post, May 22, 2007]

This notion of Bush finally entertaining the ISG recommendations is music to the ears of hopeful Democrats, such as Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman. They seem content with having sent Bush a message about Iraq rather than forcing him to accept an exit strategy.

In the House, however, other Democrats, such as Rep. John Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have resisted pressure to simply cave in to Bush. They favor, at minimum, putting some strings on the spending bill or keeping its time frame short so Congress would get a second shot at assessing the situation in July or August.

Since the Democrats have set the upcoming Memorial Day recess as the deadline for getting Bush a spending bill that he will sign, the odds favor an impending capitulation rather than an extended impasse. But the Democrats have to worry that they may discover, as they head back home, that Bush is set on escalating the war and that they've been hoodwinked again.

There are some certainties, however, If the Democrats do run up the white flag: Bush and his advisers will enjoy one more high-fiving celebration at the White House; the anti-war Democratic base will be furious; and more mothers can expect to be spending time at Arlington Cemetery.

[For more on the new graves and new grief at Arlington Cemetery, see the Washington Post, May 20, 2007.]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

New Bush Scandal Helping Big Oil Companies Hide Billions

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/213


Developing New Bush Scandal Helping Big Oil Companies Hide Billions from Government at Taxpayer Expense

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 5:25pm. Analysis

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS


Corruption within the Department of Interior may have allowed oil companies to improperly save billions at the expense of the taxpayers. The Department’ s Inspector General has already made at least two criminal referals to the FBI and the Justice Department, and Congressional Democrats have launched several investigations and introduced new legislation to fix the problem.

In a nutshell, oil companies leasing federal land to drill for oil are required to pay the government royalties based on a percentage of their sales. But under the Royalty-in-Kind program, the companies can pay in the form of oil and gas instead of cash. The problem is that oil prices have increased more than the value of the oil and gas royalty revenues being recieved, meaning that the oil companies are managing to withhold a growing amount of their profits from Uncle Sam.

As you might guess, Royalty-in-Kind was proposed and remains supported by the oil industry, and Bush implanted officials with deep ties to the oil industry in charge of the agency responsible for enforcing the program, the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

In light of the growing scandal, MMS Director Johnnie Burton has already announced that she will be retiring by the end of May. Burton started an oil exploration business before becoming a staunch Republican politician in Wyoming, where she developed ties with Dick Cheney. Greg Smith became the new head of MMS, but he just announced his own sudden retirement Tuesday.

"It appears this Administration uses retirement like some perverse witness protection program," said Rep. Nick Rahall. "Get them out of the spotlight and off the list of in-the-know folks who could provide damaging evidence. Instead of Watergate's 'follow the money,' the Bush Administration has "follow the retirements.' "

Rep. Rahall is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which held a hearing Wednesday on the Energy Policy Reform and Revitilization Act aimed at eliminating the oil royalty corruption and loopholes, among other things.

Much of the controversy surrounds a mistake inadvertantly created during the Clinton Administration that went unaddressed and not publically acknowledged until 2006. MMS Director Burton claimed at the time that she had only recently discovered the problem, but midlevel officials spotted the mistake in 2000 and the Interior Department’s Inspector General and even top Republicans say she either knew or should have known about the mistake as
early as 2004.

The delay allowed oil companies to save more money and prevented the chance for easier lease renegotiations since energy prices were much lower at the time.

But wait, there’s more! A former Interior auditor-turned-whistleblower revealed that he was ordered by senior Washington officials to drop a case against the Kerr-McGee Corporation for cheating the government out of at least $12 million in royalties. A jury found the company guilty of underpayment, though the case remains pending in federal court on appeal.

MMS Director Burton "is a person who apparently never saw an oil and gas royalty payment audit she liked," Rep. Rahall said Wednesday. "Under her reign, the average number of annual audits conducted plummeted from 540 to 144. And left on the wayside were billions of dollars in royalty payments owed to the American people." As MMS Director, Burton was responsible for
auditing participating companies.

The Bush Administration (and the oil industry) want the percentage of oil and gas royalties to double by 2009 and continue to insist that the Royalty-in-Kind scheme is simpler and more efficient because it reduces accounting and transaction efforts. But it is this very reduction in
reporting through a de facto "honor system" that has allowed oil companies to keep more money while also preventing the Government Accountability Office from being able to evaluate whether the program is actually profitable to the government.

"The fact that the Interior Department would now take steps to expand this program defies logic," Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said.

Evidence that four top Interior officials were paid as consultants for oil companies hoping for contracts inspired one of the two criminal investigations. With indictments pending and more Congressional hearings planned, there is no telling what else will be revealed in this scandal.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

With Cerberus Group

BCE in talks with Cerberus group
Wed May 23, 2007 4:52 PM EDT

By Lynne Olver and Nicole Mordant

TORONTO/VANCOUVER (Reuters) - BCE Inc. , Canada's biggest telecoms company, said on Wednesday it is in talks with a consortium made up of U.S. private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management L.P. and a group of Canadian investors about taking BCE private.

The Cerberus consortium is one of three groups that may be in the running to buy BCE, which has a market capitalization of C$31.6 billion ($29.2 billion).

BCE's stock closed up 50 Canadian cents, or 1.3 percent, at C$39.26 on Wednesday. Its shares have soared by 22.5 percent since March 29, when rumors of a buyout first surfaced.

BCE did not name the Canadian investors in the Cerberus group, and a BCE spokesman would not provide further details.

A Cerberus spokesman said the firm had no comment.

By law, foreign entities cannot own a majority of a Canadian telecommunications company.

BCE, which owns Canada's biggest phone company, Bell Canada, has said it is reviewing all strategic alternatives, and expects to complete the process in the third quarter.

It reiterated on Wednesday that there is no certainty that a transaction will take place.

In April, BCE said it was in nonexclusive talks about a going-private transaction with a group made up of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, U.S. takeover firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., and the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec.

"Our consortium is still engaged in extensive due diligence with regard to a potential transaction. There is no change to our plan," Ian Dale, spokesman for the CPP Investment Board, told Reuters.

The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, BCE's biggest shareholder, has also expressed interest in mounting a bid with U.S. private equity firm Providence Equity Partners. Ontario Teachers' is still evaluating the opportunity to make a bid, and is not part of the Cerberus group, spokeswoman Deborah Allan said. She declined to say whether Ontario Teachers' was still recruiting investors for a consortium.

The Globe and Mail newspaper has reported that Calgary, Alberta-based Shaw Communications or Winnipeg, Manitoba-based CanWest Global Communications could be tapped as a Canadian partner for a U.S. bidder.

A spokeswoman for Canwest had no comment, and a Shaw representative was not available.

($1=$1.08 Canadian)

Justice Denied

In the ongoing Congressional investigation, the woman who earned her law degree from a school that teaches courses on how lawyers in positions of authority can use their power to identify and punish "sins," confirmed the crisis in the Bush administration's Justice Department.

Justice Politicized

John Nichols

Regent University School of Law graduate Monica Goodling, whose meteoric rise to the highest levels of the Department of Justice put her in a position to aid and abet a program of politicizing prosecutions by US Attorneys, opened her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday by invoking her Fifth Amendment right to refuse to make statements that might incriminate her. Committee Chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, then delivered to Goodling a grant of immunity that allowed her to do something that is rare indeed for Bush administration true believers: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


Goodling was right to be concerned about incriminating herself. Under questioning from Democratic committee members, the former political commissar for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales repeatedly admitted to "crossing the line" that separates legal and illegal activities by federal officials. In so doing she offered another powerful insight into the way in which the Bush administration, to which Goodling says she was unquestioningly loyal, has replaced the rule of law with political calculations.


Whether Goodling met the "truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth" mandate remains open to question. Like her former boss, she suffered from convenient memory loss at times regarding critical questions. But Goodling's "I don't recalls" came far less frequently than those of Gonzales. And she was willing to take a good deal more responsibility for what went awry in the Department of Justice than has the man who remains, tenuously, in charge of the agency.


Goodling opened her testimony with a declaration that she had "no desire" to speak negatively about those she worked with in the Bush administration. She then proceeded to point fingers of blame at members of what she described as her DOJ "family," including those who had revealed details of her role in the scandal over the hiring and firing of US Attorneys for political reasons.


Goodling went on to:


• confirm that former DOJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson had compiled a list of US Attorneys who would be fired -- apparently for being insufficiently partisan in their inquiries and prosecutions -- and that Gonzales had been aware of the list and involved in meetings about it;


• place White House political czar Karl Rove in a room where the firings were discussed;


• acknowledge that, as early as 2OO5, there was talk about forcing US Attorneys out to make way for White House favorites; and,


• explain how US Attorneys were "rewarded" for helping to promote and defend the Patriot Act, at a time when that law was under attack as an assault on basic liberties.


The former White House liaison for the DOJ told the committee she never attended meetings with top White House aides involving the areas for which she was responsible. At several turns, Goodling portrayed herself as a strangely disconnected and powerless underling who was left out of meetings, told to stay in the shadows, sent away from important sessions in taxis and otherwise neglected, dismissed and overlooked. Yes, she may have had the title of Director of Public Affairs, but, "no," Goodling told the committee, she was "not a decision-maker." Rather, she at one point presented herself as a sort of departmental cheerleader who would send out e-mails to political appointees asking "Hey, who wants to go up to the White House...?"


But the woman who earned her law degree from a school that teaches courses on how lawyers in positions of authority can use their power to identify and punish "sins," confirmed the crisis in the Bush administration's Justice Department, and the manner in which she perpetuated it.


"I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions," Goodling told the committee early in her testimony. She said she made "snap judgments" to block qualified applicants because they were Democrats. Only under intense questioning from committee members Linda Sanchez, D-California, and Jerry Nadler, D-New York, did she offer the details and perspective that made it clear her so-called "mistakes" were part of a deliberate and ongoing pattern of politicization of the hiring process at the nation's chief law-enforcement agency.


Goodling, a former opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee, explicitly admitted to applying political and ideological litmus tests when interviewing applicants for key federal positions.


Even when Republican committee members attempted to diminish the significance of her admissions, Goodling repeatedly acknowledged that she had "crossed lines" of right and wrong.


Later, Goodling said that she did not believe she had violated any laws. In fact, the Hatch Act and a host of other civil service laws and federal rules make it clear that the aggressive politicization of federal agencies is illegal. Under questioning from Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott, Goodling admitted as much -- albeit, grudgingly.


Noting that the former Justice Department aide has acknowledged making personnel decisions based on political considerations, Scott asked, "Do you believe that it was legal or illegal for you to take those political considerations into account?"


Goodling stumbled several times before admitting, "The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account."


"Do you believe they were illegal or legal?" asked Scott.


"I don't believe I intended to commit a crime," she answered, confirming that Regent University graduates are indeed trained to speak in a lawyerly manner.


Scott pressed: "Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those considerations into account?"


"I believe I crossed the lines," Goodling replied, "but I didn't mean to."


By "crossed the lines," Scott asked, did she mean that she had violated federal civil service laws?


Goodling responded: "I crossed the line of the civil service rules." Scott clarified that those "rules" are, in fact, "laws." The congressman got to the point of the inquiry into US Attorney hiring and firing issues when he said that it appeared that in Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice "the culture of loyalty to the administration was more important than loyalty to the rule of law."


Nothing in Monica Goodling's testimony contradicted that impression.




John Nichols is the Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine.


Copyright © 2007 The Nation


---------------
Released: 24 May 2007
Word Count: 1,019
----------------


For rights and permissions, contact:


rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757


Agence Global
www.agenceglobal.com
1.212.731.0757 (main)
1.336.286.6606 (billing)
1.336.686.9002 (rights & permissions)


Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation, Le Monde diplomatique, as well as expert commentary by Richard Bulliet, Mark Hertsgaard, Rami G. Khouri, Peter Kwong,Tom Porteous, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.

The Siege of Nahr el-Bared
A Front Row Seat for the Bloodbath in Lebanon
By ROBERT FISK

Beirut.

There is something obscene about watching the siege of Nahr el-Bared. The old Palestinian camp--home to 30,000 lost souls who will never go "home"--basks in the Mediterranean sunlight beyond a cluster of orange orchards. Soldiers of the Lebanese army, having retaken their positions on the main road north, idle their time aboard their old personnel carriers. And we--we representatives of the world's press--sit equally idly atop a half-built apartment block, basking in the little garden or sipping cups of scalding tea beside the satellite dishes where the titans of television stride by in their blue space suits and helmets.

And then comes the crackle-crackle of rifle fire and a shoal of bullets drifts out of the camp. A Lebanese army tank fires a shell in return and we feel the faint shock wave from the camp. How many are dead? We don't know. How many are wounded? The Red Cross cannot yet enter to find out. We are back at another of those tragic Lebanese stage shows: the siege of Palestinians.

Only this time, of course, we have Sunni Muslim fighters in the camp, in many cases shooting at Sunni Muslim soldiers who are standing in a Sunni Muslim village. It was a Lebanese colleague who seemed to put his finger on it all. "Syria is showing that Lebanon doesn't have to be Christians versus Muslims or Shia versus Sunnis," he said. "It can be Sunnis versus Sunnis. And the Lebanese army can't storm into Nahr el-Bared. That would be a step far greater than this government can take."

And there is the rub. To get at the Sunni Fatah al-Islam, the army has to enter the camp. So the group remains, as potent as it was on Sunday when it staged its mini-revolution in Tripoli and ended up with its dead fighters burning in blazing apartment blocks and 23 dead soldiers and policemen on the streets.

And yes, it is difficult not to feel Syria's hands these days. Fouad Siniora's government, surrounded in its little "green zone" in central Beirut, is being drained of power. The army is more and more running Lebanon, ever more tested because it, too, of course, contains Lebanon's Sunnis and Shia and Maronites and Druze. What fractures, what greater strains can be put on this little country as Siniora still pleads for a UN tribunal to try those who murdered ex-prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005?

We read through the list of army dead. Most of the names appear to be Sunni. And we glance up to the fleecy clouds and across the mountain range to where the Syrian border lies scarcely 10 miles away. Not difficult to reach Nahr el-Barad from the frontier. Not difficult to resupply. The geography makes a kind of political sense up here. And just up the road is the Syrian frontier post.

The soldiers are polite, courteous with journalists. This must be one of the few countries in the world where soldiers treat journalists as old friends, where they blithely allow them to broadcast from in front of their positions, borrowing their newspapers, sharing cigarettes, chatting, believing that we have our job to do. But more and more we are wondering if we are not cataloguing the sad disintegration of this country. The Lebanese army is on the streets of Beirut to defend Siniora, on the streets of Sidon to prevent sectarian disturbances, on the roads of southern Lebanon watching the Israeli frontier and now, up here in the far north, besieging the poor and the beaten Palestinians of Nahr el-Bared and the dangerous little groupuscule which may--or may not--be taking its orders from Damascus.

The journey back to Beirut is now littered with checkpoints and even the capital has become dangerous once more. In Ashrafieh in the early hours, a bomb explosion--we could hear it all over the city--killed a Christian woman. No suspects, of course. There never are. Posters still demand the truth of Hariri's murder. Other posters demand the truth of an earlier prime ministerial murder, that of Rashid Karami. Several, just the down the road from our little roof proudly carry the portrait of Saddam Hussein. "Martyr of 'Al-Adha'," they proclaim, marking the date of his execution. So even Iraq's collapse now touches us all here in our Sunni village where the Sunni dictator of Iraq is honoured rather than loathed.

A flurry of rockets rumbled over the camp before dusk. The soldiers scarcely bothered to look. And across the orange orchards and the deserted tenement streets of Nahr el-Bared, the sea froths and sparkles as if we were all on holiday, as this nation trembles beneath our feet.


Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Fisk's new book is The Conquest of the Middle East.

source

Does Evil Have the Right to Exist?

Does Evil Have the Right to Exist?
C. L. Cook
Jun 30, 2006


One of the most bitter condemnations of the duly-elected Hamas government of Palestine coming from Israel, and duly echoed in the press of the world, is that organization's steadfast refusal to recognize Israel's "right to exist." As with their many well-aired grievances with the "prison populations" of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel's outrage is as ingenuous as the Jewish State's averred desire for "peace."


"You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?" - Matthew 7:15


The 'Big Question' of Israel's right to exist is never put in a context broader than the familar iteration. So, what does it mean? "Israel" is unique among entities claiming statehood, being the only "nation" in the world with no defined borders. If Hamas, or anyone else, was to answer "Yes, it has the right to exist" what would they be recognizing, and what would it constitute?

Where does "rightfully extant" Israel begin, and end?

When Hamas answers "No," what they mean is: "Israel does not have the right to exist in my homeland."

It's a sensible response, one I'm sure every other nation in the world would too assert, should they wake to find a foreign occupation in their living room. The much media-maligned president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raised a salient point when asked his views on Israel and its rights. Ahmadinejad said, to the effect: "If America and Europe feel so guilty about the Holocaust and are so concerned for Israel's right to exist, why don't they offer them space in America, or Europe?"

Yes, why not cede Maine, or Vermont, Monte Carlo, or Belgium to the creation of the New Jerusalem?

Of course the press had a field day with Ahmadinejad's comment, contorting it into a denial of the Holocaust, and a call to "wipe Israel off the map." There appears another attack piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, a more respectable paper than it's tabloidesque masthead would imply, though a fact belied by a comment piece printed today and artfully titled: 'Iran's President is Cherishing Fanned Flames,' Its author, Frida Ghitis repeats the so-oft-said-it-must-be-true misquotation of Ahmadinejad's statement, then suggests it is Iran, not Israel responsible for the bombs, missiles, and bullets raining down upon the Palestinians!

But, dodging criticism of Israel's long litany of evil deeds is a hallmark of the western press; as indeed it's so for Israel itself: Israel is unique among entities claiming statehood in other, instructive ways.

Israel holds the record for ignoring U.N. resolutions regarding it's nearly sixty year annexation and occupation of Palestine. Though it was Saddam's well-publicised refusal to heed U.N. resolutions that led to sanctions and invasion, no-one down at the U.N., or in the war cheerleading western press, is calling for 'Shock and Awe' in Tel Aviv because Israel refuses to heed international law.

Israel is unique among Middle-East nations in having the most nuclear weapons, largest military, and an unknown array of WMD; another thing that proved so costly to Hussein's Iraq.
Israel claims it is unique in being the only "democratic" country in the ME, though the laws favour the Jewish majority, being officially and avowedly a "Jewish" nation. Just today, four Israeli-Palestinians from Jerusalem were stripped of their citizenship"right" to live within the walls of the city of their respective births without permits, not likely to be issued any time soon, for the heinous crime of being elected members of the Hamas government.

Ain't democracy grand.

I suppose, if they are released from prison, those representatives of the people will be sent packing to the target range also known as Gaza, to eke out a living on whatever scraps can be smuggled in, and what few crumbs Israel allows to penetrate the walls and watchtowers surrounding it.

The Jewish State government, and its supporters and enablers in the press and within the American Christian fringe say God promised the Jews' antecedents the land known as Israel today (and much more land besides). Jehovah couldn't be reached for confirmation at the time of writing, but it seems a thin case for ownership. I'm no lawyer, but if, "God said I could have it" is the gist of Israel's argument I don't think it would hold up in court.

Equally, "the Devil made me do it" would be a weak defense in the war crimes tribunals trying the many instances of brutality meted upon the heads of the innocent in Palestine. But there's yet to be a case made for the thousands killed, and hundreds of thousands routinely brutalized, incarcerated, and scattered into exile over the decades of Israel's rule in Palestine. The Belgian court had had the temerity to level charges against the now infirm former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon for his culpability in the infamous slaughter of the women, children, and old men at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in southern Lebanon in 1982, but pressure brought to bear shut that challenge down.

With the possible exception of its major benefactor, the United States of America, Israel alone among "nations" commits serial crimes against humanity with impunity. Its lies and "regrettable mistakes" are legion, all carefully transcribed by the major television networks and dutifully repeated in the newspapers. "It isn't Israel's fault," they contend, it was those devilish Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans that made them do it."

A part of being a grown up, whether for an individual or a nation state, is learning to take responsibility for ones actions. We would not say; "children, because they're yet responsible, shan't have the right to exist," but we don't generally give them loaded guns, the keys to the car, or a bank card; not until they can prove they can handle these things and understand there are consequences to be paid for irresponsible behaviour can they be trusted.

Israel has yet to learn that lesson.

Like a petulant, spoiled child, Israel refuses to accept responsibility for its actions, opting instead to lie bald-faced, as a child might deny stealing the cookies, while her face bears the crumbs, and her hand is in the jar. She may blame a sibling, or the dog, or the guy living next door, and should she persist in the lie long enough, she may even convince herself it is "true," but that does not change the facts.

The facts today in Gaza are clear: Innocent women, children, and men are dying for no other reason than they are Palestinians, with the misfortune to have been born upon coveted ground. They are killed with horrible regularity. So often do they die in fact, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's reporter in the field, Adrienne Arsenault, while reporting from the Israeli side of the issue, quite innocently, unconsciously, informed Canadians that Israel's artillery barrages and air raids over Gaza could be bad for its image if the numbers of civilian deaths there proved "significant." No word on where Adrienne's line lies: How many dead, maimed, and traumatized equals "significant," Adrienne?

Though the hated Hamas had called a unilateral cease-fire in it's ongoing resistance to occupation for the last 16 months, Israel continued to assassinate the party's leaders, and a commando kidnapping raid into Gaza snatched two high-ranking Hamas officials just days before the now world famous grabbing of young Corporal Shalit, a provocation apparently made to order for one desiring cover to punish further the Palestinian people.

So the question: "Does Israel have the right to exist?" still stands unanswered. But a better question, given Israel's record of the unrepentant killings of innocent women, children, and men with impunity might be:

"Does Evil have the right to continue?"

Chris Cook is a contributing editor to www.pacificfreepress.com, and hosts Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program, broad/webcast from the University of Victoria, Canada.

Gonzalels Proposes Copyright Thought Crime Bill

Gonzales proposes new crime:
‘Attempted’ copyright infringement

by CNET.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including “attempts” to commit piracy.

“To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated,” Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with pre-release piracy.

Here’s our podcast on the topic.

The IPPA would, for instance:


* Criminalize “attempting” to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. (The Justice Department’s summary of the legislation says: “It is a general tenet of the criminal law that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it are as morally culpable as those who succeed in doing so.”)

* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who “recklessly causes or attempts to cause death” can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are “attempting” to infringe copyrights.

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC “intended to be used in any manner” to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and is problematic and controversial.

* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention regulations. Currently criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties too.

* Add penalties for “intended” copyright crimes. Currently certain copyright crimes require someone to commit the “distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies” valued at over $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were “intended to consist of” distribution.

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when compact discs with “unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance” are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder such as photographers, playwrights, or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

A representative of the Motion Picture Association of America told us: “We appreciate the department’s commitment to intellectual property protection and look forward to working with both the department and Congress as the process moves ahead.”

What’s still unclear is the kind of reception this legislation might encounter on Capitol Hill. Gonzales may not be terribly popular, but Democrats do tend to be more closely aligned with Hollywood and the recording industry than the GOP. (A few years ago, Republicans even savaged fellow conservatives for allying themselves too closely with copyright holders.)

A spokeswoman for Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Judiciary subcommittee that focuses on intellectual property, said the congressman is reviewing proposals from the attorney general and from others. The aide said the Hollywood politician plans to introduce his own intellectual property enforcement bill later this year but said his office is not prepared to discuss any details yet.

One key Republican was less guarded. “We are reviewing (the attorney general’s) proposal. Any plan to stop IP theft will benefit the economy and the American worker,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who’s the top Republican on the House Judiciary committee. “I applaud the attorney general for recognizing the need to protect intellectual property.”

Still, it’s too early to tell what might happen. A similar copyright bill that Smith, the RIAA, and the Software and Information Industry Association announced with fanfare last April never went anywhere.



News.com’s Anne Broache contributed to this report


Media Channel - source

Saving Canada's Forests for the World

Scientists plead for protection of forests
Canada's broad swath of boreal timber, one of Earth's largest carbon storehouses, is said to be at risk
BILL CURRY

From Monday's Globe and Mail

May 14, 2007 at 4:18 AM EDT

OTTAWA — Canada will be urged today by more than 1,500 scientists from more than 50 countries to strengthen protection of the increasingly threatened boreal forest, a key component in the planet's battle with climate change.

Only 10 per cent of the forest is currently protected and the spread of logging, mining and oil and gas operations into Canada's large northern forest is putting at risk the largest carbon storehouse on Earth, the scientists state in the letter obtained by The Globe and Mail. The letter will be released today.

Countries with tropical rain forests such as Brazil have long faced international pressure from conservationists, but Canada's forest is in many ways just as important to the planet, said scientist Terry Root of Stanford University, who signed the letter and has also authored several reports as a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"People think, 'Oh, the tropical forests are so exotic and have all these crazy-looking species that we've never seen,'" she said. But Dr. Root and the other scientists note the boreal forest has millions of birds, wetlands that filter water, and a large ecosystem of predators and prey such as wolves and caribou. "The boreal forest is a very, very important place," she said.


With the possibility that climate change could wipe out the habitat of huge numbers of species, protecting Canada's large boreal forest could provide plants and animals with a sanctuary to withstand the climate-change storm until humans reduce emissions to earlier levels, she said.

The letter comes as key debates are taking place in Canada that will impact the forest. The expansion of Alberta's oil sands is an issue, but so are other measures that are considered to be of environmental benefit, such as the expansion of hydro power.

The push to reduce dependence on coal-fired power plants, particularly in Ontario, has led to a renewed interest in large hydro electricity imports from Manitoba, Quebec and Labrador. Provincial officials have been meeting with industry leaders to discuss the merits of a major new power grid that would share hydro power between provinces. While hydro power produces few greenhouse-gas emissions, the power lines and hydro dams raise concerns about loss of animal habitat.

The scientists' letter points out that forests absorb and store carbon dioxide, playing a key role in the fight against climate change. Global warming concerns are based on predictions that human-made emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

The boreal forest, a green band primarily made up of coniferous trees, stretches from Alaska to Newfoundland and from the northern tundra to a varying southern edge that touches Lake Superior and Lake Huron.

"We are concerned that current conservation planning efforts are insufficient to sustain the ecological integrity of Canada's Boreal region, one of the most intact ecosystems left in the world," the letter states. "Specifically, the amount of land in protected status within the Canadian Boreal, now at under 10 per cent, is inadequate and must be markedly increased."

Tenet Agrees to Cooperate

Tenet Agrees to Cooperate with
Congressional Investigation Into Niger Fraud

ThinkProgress.org
Monday 14 May 2007

Former CIA Director George Tenet has agreed to cooperate with a House investigation into the White House's fraudulent pre-war claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapon. That assertion - the infamous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address - was a critical part of the administration's case for war.

In a new statement, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that Tenet will provide a deposition on the issue and testify before the committee on June 19:

Today Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced that the Oversight Committee will postpone the hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from May 15, 2007, to June 19, 2007. The hearing is being postponed to allow former CIA Director George Tenet to testify with Secretary Rice and to accommodate Secretary Rice's travel schedule.
Mr. Tenet has agreed to cooperate with the Committee's inquiry into whether the White House overstated Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Africa and its nuclear threat in making the case for war. Mr. Tenet has agreed to provide a deposition to the Committee prior to the hearing.

Under Tenet, the CIA had debunked the claims about uranium and Niger months before the '03 State of the Union. The CIA "even demanded it be taken out of two previous presidential speeches." Tenet now says the 16 words made it into the State of the Union because he delegated the review of that speech to his deputies.

Tenet has been far more willing to discuss the Niger claims than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Waxman has been forced to subpoena Rice to appear at the hearing along with Tenet, and thus far Rice maintains she will not comply, claiming she has already answered Waxman's questions "in full." Also, last month, the State Department refused to allow intelligence analyst Simon Dodge to be interviewed by House investigators; weeks before the '03 State of the Union, Simon examined the documents supposedly from Niger and determined they were "probably a hoax" and "clearly a forgery."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the full oversight committee statement below:
Rice Testimony Postponed
Tenet to Cooperate in Committee Investigation
Monday 14 May 2007

Washington, DC - Today Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced that the Oversight Committee will postpone the hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from May 15, 2007, to June 19, 2007. The hearing is being postponed to allow former CIA Director George Tenet to testify with Secretary Rice and to accommodate Secretary Rice's travel schedule.

Mr. Tenet has agreed to cooperate with the Committee's inquiry into whether the White House overstated Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Africa and its nuclear threat in making the case for war. Mr. Tenet has agreed to provide a deposition to the Committee prior to the hearing.

The Committee also sent a letter to Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, requesting his voluntary appearance at a deposition. Mr. Hadley was the Deputy National Security Advisor and Secretary Rice was the National Security Advisor when the President relied on evidence, which turned out to be false, about Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Secretary Rice refused repeated requests by Chairman Waxman to testify voluntarily before the Committee, leading the Committee to issue a subpoena for her appearance. Chairman Waxman continues to expect that she will comply with the congressional subpoena.

Time to Leave

The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq have indicated quite clearly that they want the United States to leave their countries. In Afghanistan, NATO cannot defeat the Taliban, and only makes matters worse by the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

Time to Get Out
of Afghanistan and Iraq

by Patrick Seale

Afghanistan will be high on the agenda when NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer visits President George W. Bush at his Texas ranch on May 20-21. The message de Hoop Scheffer has to convey is sombre: NATO is losing the war against the Taliban. A fundamental policy review is urgently needed.


The most important new development is that the Afghans themselves, sickened by war and mounting civilian casualties, want the United States and other foreign troops to leave. As President Hamid Karzai himself admitted, Afghan patience with foreign troops is "wearing thin" five years after the U.S. invasion. "It is difficult for us to continue to tolerate civilian casualties," he said at a press conference earlier this month.


On May 8, the Senate in Kabul approved a bill that called for negotiations with the Taliban, a ceasefire, and a date for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The proposed legislation demands that foreign forces should not engage the Taliban unless they are themselves attacked or have first consulted with the Afghan army, police and government.


The bill reflects a growing popular rebellion against heavy-handed American army tactics and aerial bombardments, which have brought death and destruction to many parts of Afghanistan. The bill has to be approved by the lower house of Parliament and by President Karzai before becoming law.


At much the same time in Baghdad, 144 members of Parliament -- out of a total of 275 -- signed a petition calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The petition is now being developed into a draft bill by the legal and foreign affairs committees of the Iraqi Parliament.


Following talks with the Pakistan government last week, de Hoop Scheffer himself declared that military force alone would not defeat the Taliban, but that reconstruction was the key to a durable peace in a country shattered by more than 25 years of conflict and civil war.


The problem, however, in both Afghanistan and Iraq is that, without security, no serious reconstruction can take place. The question arises, therefore, whether the violent campaigns against insurgents in both countries by U.S. and other foreign troops contribute to security or are themselves a cause of insecurity.


This past weekend, the Taliban released a French aid worker captured more than a month ago. Eric Damfreville arrived back in Paris on Saturday, exhausted by the harsh living conditions, but saying that he had been well treated. He had been working in southwestern Afghanistan for Terre d’Enfance, an agency that helps children.


No one yet knows what deal the French may have struck with the Taliban behind the scenes to secure his release. A Taliban spokesman said Damfreville had been freed as a gesture to France’s president-elect, Nicolas Sarkozy. Perhaps more relevant was the statement Sarkozy made during his election campaign that there was no compelling reason for French troops to remain in Afghanistan.


Much like Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq, President Karzai’s position in Afghanistan is increasingly uncomfortable. Crowds in the eastern city of Jalalabad have cried "Death to Karzai!" and "Death to Bush!" Violent anti-American demonstrations have taken place in Kabul, apparently sparked by the large-scale killing of civilians by American air strikes.


In the district of Shindand, 100 kilometres south of Herat, the U.S.-led coalition claimed to have killed 136 Taliban fighters at the end of last month. Local villagers said the dead were 51 civilians, among them 18 women and children. UN investigators said 1,600 families had been displaced. Another air strike a week ago on the village of Sarwan Qala destroyed several houses and is said to have killed between 50 and 80 civilians, mainly women and children.


"Still now they are digging out bodies from the rubble," a local shopkeeper was quoted as saying.


What seems clear is that the conflict in Afghanistan is widening and that pitched battles are taking place in many different parts of the country, and not only in the east close to the Pakistan frontier and in the southern province of Helmand where the Taliban are well entrenched and where fierce fighting is continuing.


The correspondent of the Financial Times in Kabul reported on 4 May that last month the Taliban seized control of a highway just 70 kilometres from Kabul in the Tagab district of the central Kapisa province and held it for 24 hours, before being driven out by government forces. It was the heaviest battle in the region of the capital since 2001.


What can Jaap de Hoop Scheffer say to George W. Bush? His task is unenviable. The American president believes he is engaged in a 'global war on terror', but, in fact, the people his troops are fighting and killing are tribesmen seeking to defend their families and ancestral lands against foreigners. In Afghanistan, attachment to Islam and hatred of foreigners are both very great, and have defeated other armies, whether the Soviets in the 1980s or the British a century earlier.




Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.


Copyright © 2007 Patrick Seale


---------------
Released: 14 May 2007
Word Count: 826
----------------



-------------------
Advisory Release: 14 May 2007
Word Count: 826
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, 1.336.686.9002, rights@agenceglobal.com
-------------------
For rights and permissions, contact:


rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757


Agence Global
www.agenceglobal.com
1.212.731.0757 (main)
1.336.286.6606 (billing)
1.336.686.9002 (rights & permissions)


Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation, Le Monde diplomatique, as well as expert commentary by Richard Bulliet, Mark Hertsgaard, Rami G. Khouri, Peter Kwong,Tom Porteous, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.