Our Ride to Hell Arrived

Lies, Injustice and the Capitalist Way:
We’re on the Highway to Hell—Don’t Stop Us!
by Jason Miller
We “Free World” capitalistic Westerners are a loathsome lot—or to put it more crudely, we suck. When one considers how degenerate we are from a collective standpoint, it is difficult to suppress intense feelings of disgust and contempt.

There are many layers to our repugnant, depraved, and “beloved” capitalism, a socioeconomic system which ultimately furnishes the members of its upper echelon with de facto licenses to exploit, plunder, anjavascript:void(0)
Publish Postd murder with impunity.

Problem is that as one peels back each successive layer hoping to find some purity, one finds a more profound rot.



“We are riding alongside Angus and Malcolm Young
on the ‘Highway to Hell.’”

We have fouled our own environment to the point that recovery and renewal may be impossible; we eradicate non-human animals at an estimated rate of 100 species per day; we slaughter millions upon millions of human beings in wars of imperial aggression driven by capitalism’s insatiable demand for resources and market expansion; we torture and slaughter billions of non-human animals to please our palates; and we insist upon imposing a system of infinite demand upon an all too finite planet.

Yet despite our multi-century “bender” and its obvious consequences, and despite the rational, egalitarian, just, and sustainable alternative which sprung from the minds of Marx and Engels (along with countless others who have contributed to the evolution of their brainchild), we cling to an abomination whose chief benefactors (the ruling class and their sycophantic propagandists in the mainstream media) deserve to be publicly flogged and then imprisoned in the gulag they devised to control the lower classes and black population.

Our collective selfishness, self-absorption, narcissism, greed, and mean-spiritedness are psychic malformations wrought by the wretched systemic exploitation we hold so dear to our withered, Grinch-like hearts. Smug and self-satisfied in our deeply rooted belief in the idiocy that despicable character traits like greed and selfishness can be harnessed in such a way that they provide virtuous means to benevolent ends, we revel in the delusion that the tremendous effort necessary to nurture the human spirit is a waste of time. The uglier and coarser we become on the inside, the greater our likelihood of achieving “success” by the standards of our soul-murdering society. Our worship of a man like Donald Trump as a cultural icon demonstrates how spiritually perverse we have become.

Apologists argue that “true capitalism” doesn’t exist because we have a “mixed economy.” It isn’t enough that one of the most affluent societies in history has 3.5 million homeless human beings, 46 million people without a viable means to attain proper healthcare, deteriorating public infrastructures, a wealth gap that would prick the consciences of the Robber Barons, larcenous CEO compensation, economic apartheid, and trillions of dollars of public money devoted to funding a murderous military machine that serves to ensure that our bourgeois parasites have uninterrupted access to the resources and markets they crave. According to wild-eyed libertarians and our blood-sucking plutocracy, we still need to root out the “socialist” elements that are contaminating our “sacred” free market. You know, that “free market” that inflicted abject misery upon the masses in the United States during the Gilded Age, throughout South America under the tutelage of the human pile of feces known as Milton Friedman (may Satan torment his soul), and in present day China. The excesses, irrationalities, and corrupt nature of capitalism are destroying the world. So let’s implement a more extreme form. What a brilliant notion!

As transparently ridiculous as it is, many amongst the poor and working class in the United States (a group which comprises about 80% of the population) continue to pledge their undying allegiance to a system in which they are merely cogs and cannon fodder serving at the pleasure of their opulent masters.

How have the cynical and ruthless ruling elite of the United States and the “Axis of Good” accomplished this seemingly impossible feat?


In breathtakingly simple fashion. Battering their “inferiors” with a dizzying array of cleverly crafted psychological assaults from cradle to grave, the plutocracy maintains the mass delusion that a system that exploits and impoverishes a majority of the population, rapes the Earth, and necessitates endless resource wars represents the pinnacle of our socioeconomic development.

Many of us suffer from such a deeply fractured (or perhaps butchered) consciousness that even when presented with a humane and sane alternative to the malevolent insanity of capitalism, we still rally to the cause of our bourgeois oppressors. What “patriotic American” isn’t on board with vilifying, blockading, crippling, “regime-changing,” and even invading nearly any nation that dares to implement a system that even remotely resembles socialism, Marxism, or worst of all, Communism? Uh-oh! Hugo Chavez’s social uplift programs are threatening the interests of the millionaires and billionaires of Venezuela (wretched people who have been fucking the poor of their nation for many years). Hurry! Everybody in the United States who is poor or working class! Let’s rush to side with the wealthy elite and support US-sponsored efforts to undermine and depose Chavez!

Deftly applying the superb agitprop techniques developed by Bernays, armies of advertisers, public relations “experts,” government-funded researchers, pundits, talk show hosts, “journalists,” and academics whore for the system to ensure that the masses remain in a perpetual state of moral delusion. How else could they hope to sustain a system that contradicts nearly every decent and humane instinct a human being possesses?

Consider that in the upside-down world the “keepers of the capitalist faith” have contrived, many vices and despicable human traits have been elevated to the status of virtue. Selfishness, avarice, ego, self-absorption, narcissism, careerism, winning at all costs, crushing the competition, the ruthless pursuit of profit, and gluttonous consumption are “all in a day’s work” for the good little capitalists of America. Even those who have broken free of their indoctrination and recognize the depravity of enshrining infantile, mean-spirited, and cruel behavior have little choice but to practice it in some instances simply to survive in our reprehensible “dog eat dog” environment.

Given that the Ministry of Truth can convert vice into virtue, it doesn’t take a tremendous mental leap to conclude they can also do the opposite. In adhering to the insidious indoctrination they provide, we are robbed of experiencing the full spectrum of our humanity because we have been trained to trivialize the aspects of ourselves that would pose a significant threat to the filthy status quo. Imagine the problems a large contingent of people of conscience would present to the sociopaths who routinely wield their immense economic power to engage in wholesale terrorism (i.e. the Iraqi genocide that began with the Gulf War, perpetuated with Clinton’s merciless economic sanctions, and continues to this very moment via the Bush Regime’s Nuremberg class war crimes). Thankfully for these soulless shells posing as human beings, most of the us in the United States have been bribed and brain-washed into complacency and complicity to the extent that with respect to the illegal occupation, we are flag wavers, indifferent by-standers, or protesters essentially rendered impotent by the overwhelming resources and might of the ruling class. Tragically, Bush and his ilk will probably never receive the trials and hangings they so richly deserve.

As we busy ourselves compulsively pursuing the acquisition of material possessions, looking out for number one, vying for promotions, building and preserving our egos, and gorging on the latest brain candy the mainstream media is peddling, who wants to “endure the agony” of engaging in introspection, thinking critically, educating oneself, acting on one’s conscience, empathizing, or pursuing a principled existence? Giving a damn isn’t worth the trouble when we can simply swallow the lies, take the bribes, and let the rest of the human and non-human animals of the world pay our outrageous bills (using their pain and blood as currency).

But we do need to realize that our path to hell isn’t paved with good intentions; we are racing along a road to perdition comprised of suffering, subjugation, oppression, theft, destruction, and wholesale murder.

We are riding alongside Angus and Malcolm Young on the “Highway to Hell.”




Jason Miller is a recovering US American middle class suburbanite who strives to remain intellectually free. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor (http://www.bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s at http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/.
You can reach him at JMiller@bestcyrano.com

source

Cheney Office Fire

[For your consideration. The first paragraph seems over the top, but that won't deter me from passing this on.

We seem to live in an era of over the tops events nowadays. Remember the
jet liner that recently carried nuclear missiles across the U.S. accompanied
by mysterious deaths reported of U.S. personnel involved with that incident?
And I believe there is still one nuke missing. And then of course there's
9/11 which a sizable minority still think was carried out by bin Laden.
And what's happened to Ed and Elaine Brown who were arrested for refusing to
pay a non-existent law requiring that U.S. citizens pay income tax (to pay
off the interest on the debt to the bankers)? How soon we forget those two
martyrs.

Anyway, the White House and mainstream media wouldn't lie to us or cover up
would they? And all military personnel are staunch followers of George
Bush, right? Dissent within the ranks is totally out of the question.
Oh yes of course. I believe,I believe.]


December 20, 2007

White House Attack Leaves Cheney Offices In Flames
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers



Russian Security Analyst reports circulating in the Kremlin today are
stating that the offices of one of the United States top War Leaders, Vice
President Richard Cheney, came under assault by ‘unknown’ US Military
assailants who in retreating before what has been described as ‘withering
fire’ from Secret Service Agents assigned to protect Cheney literally ‘blew
up’ the Vice Presidents office complex.

Propaganda reports from US media organs, however, are reporting on this
reported attack as being a ‘fire’ only, and as we can read as reported by
the Associated Press News Service in their article titled, "Two-Alarm Fire
Hits Cheney's Office in White House Compound", and which says:

"Thick black smoke billowed from a fire Wednesday in Vice President Dick
Cheney's suite of offices in the historic Eisenhower Executive Office
Building next to the White House.

Cheney's office was damaged by smoke and water from fire hoses, White House
spokesman Scott Stanzel said. The vice president was not in the building at
the time; he was in the West Wing of the White House with President Bush.

More than 1,000 people who work in the building were evacuated. The fire
broke out on the second floor of the building around about 9:15 a.m. and was
under control within a half hour, District of Columbia fire department
spokesman Alan Etter said."

Russian Military Analysts are further reporting that the ongoing, and
deadly, power struggle occurring in the United States is eerily reminiscent
of the Nazi German power struggles of last century which led to the outbreak
of World War II, and which, also, were not reported to the citizens of the
German Empire like they are not being reported to the Americans today.

The reasons behind these latest attacks between the US Military and the US
War Leaders, these reports state, is the growing crisis in the Western
Banking system as it nears total collapse, and which in the past 24 hours
has seen the European Central Bank inject an unprecedented $500 billion into
its banking system while the US Federal Reserve System has injected a
further $20 billion into the American banking system.

These staggering amounts are in addition to the $54 billion injected into
the Western banking system by the United Kingdom and the United States last
week, but which has failed to stem the tide of imminent bank failures in
Europe and North America.

And, as if the imminent failure of the Western banking system wasn’t enough
to shock the World this past week, the United Nations has issued a dire
report that brings into sharp focus the prospect of mass death due to
starvation, and as we can read as reported by the International Herald
Tribune News Service in their report titled, "World food stocks dwindling
rapidly, UN warns", and which says:

"In an "unforeseen and unprecedented" shift, the world food supply is
dwindling rapidly and food prices are soaring to historic levels, the top
food and agriculture official of the United Nations warned Monday.

The changes created "a very serious risk that fewer people will be able to
get food," particularly in the developing world, said Jacques Diouf, head of
the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

The agency's food price index rose by more than 40 percent this year,
compared with 9 percent the year before - a rate that was already
unacceptable, he said. New figures show that the total cost of foodstuffs
imported by the neediest countries rose 25 percent, to $107 million, in the
last year.

At the same time, reserves of cereals are severely depleted, FAO records
show. World wheat stores declined 11 percent this year, to the lowest level
since 1980. That corresponds to 12 weeks of the world's total consumption -
much less than the average of 18 weeks consumption in storage during the
period 2000-2005. There are only 8 weeks of corn left, down from 11 weeks in
the earlier period.

Prices of wheat and oilseeds are at record highs, Diouf said Monday. Wheat
prices have risen by $130 per ton, or 52 percent, since a year ago. U.S.
wheat futures broke $10 a bushel for the first time Monday, the agricultural
equivalent of $100 a barrel oil."

Russian economists are quick to point out, that with the prospect of the
Western banking system collapsing, coupled with the shocking rise of oil
prices, and now the prospect of Global food shortages, the United States is
left with little leverage to protect itself other than its vast military
might, and, which many believe is leading the US towards an inevitable
conflict with the East in its quest for survival.

To the American people, however, the imminent dangers they are facing are
being kept from them as they are consumed by the trivial populist media
trash that is being fed to them on an hourly basis, but which does nothing
to help them in preparing for the catastrophic events that are soon to
overtake them.

And, as the US War Leaders accelerate their battles between their various
factions, the World today stands closer to the abyss than in any other time
since the outbreak of World War II.

© December 20, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved.

source

Military Losing Friends in Italy

Italians Block Construction of U.S. Base
By David Swanson

[for complete article links, please see source here.]

The people of the northern Italian city of Vicenza, with help from activists around Italy, the rest of Europe, and even in the United States, are continuing to block the proposed construction of a new U.S. military base on their soil. When a company laid underground fiber-optic cables at the site of the proposed base, activists filled a junction box with cement. When another company tried to begin the work of removing World War II era U.S. bombs from the site, activists camped out in the cold for three days and nights while allies in Florence and a small town near Naples conducted simultaneous protests in front of the company's offices. The company backed off and has suspended the work. And a small town outside Vicenza has now refused to allow the United States to construct a residential village for troops.

Recently, Italy's foreign minister assured Condoleezza Rice, and Italy's president assured George W. Bush - not for the first time - that the base will be built. And the U.S. Congress, unbeknownst to the American people, has approved the funding. But there is a reason for these repeated public assertions that everything is on track. It isn't.

Saturday, December 15th, 2007, was predicted to be the coldest day Vicenza had seen. It snowed lightly in the morning. And even without the weather factor, organizers had hopes of only about 20,000 people turning out for a long march through the city and yet another rally against the construction of a base at a location called Dal Molin. But as the march proceeded for hours through the streets of Vicenza, the sun melted the snow, and word came that the back end of the march had not yet left the starting place, it became clear that, without any advertising, and with negative or nonexistent media coverage, over 80,000 people had turned out in this conservative city with no university and no protest tradition. And there was no counter-protest whatsoever.

Photos.

At the end of the march, the crowd poured into a piazza to hear speeches from playwright Dario Fo, Catholic priest Don Gallo, event organizer Cinzia Bottene, American Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz (famous around the globe for holding blood-colored hands up to Condoleezza Rice) and others. Desiree was wonderful despite being moved to tears by the thought of whose fault it was that Italians and others around the world must hold these protests.

When it was my turn to speak, I described the situation in the United States, expressed solidarity with the Vicentini, and encouraged the American soldiers already stationed in and near Vicenza to refuse illegal orders to go to Iraq. I also noted that some clown named Edward Luttwak does not speak for the American people, despite appearing as an American military expert (and cheerleader) in every Italian television news story about the U.S. military.

Naturally, I also mentioned the movement for impeachment, and it was nice to hear a crowd of Italians join in with a chant of "Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!" Someone later told me "You know, there are a lot more than 80,000 people who want Bush impeached." At a conference the next day in the "Presidio Permanente" (a major activist camp on property adjoining the base site) I asked the audience if they knew that the continuation of funding for the occupation of Iraq and the failure to begin impeachment were the work of a woman of Italian descent. Several people shouted "Nancy Pelosi!" I asked everyone to send her Emails.

Twenty years ago in Vicenza, if you said you were American it was a bit like saying you were a rock star. Now it's like saying you're Dick Cheney. "Yankee Go Home" and "Americani A Casa" are popular chants and graffiti, although usually said only in reference to Americans in the military. The Vicentini call us their brothers, but don't want us occupying their city. They sometimes shout "Fratelli Americani... A Casa." In fact Italian peace activists, just like American peace activists, are accused of being anti-American, and they reply that they want to be friends with Americans, but not slaves to Americans.

They have a point. Before anyone in Italy was asked, the U.S. military, and congressional committee staff, had laid out the plans for a major new base in the middle of a residential area on the edge of an historic city full of renaissance architecture. Agreeing to build the new base in a "palladian style" has appeased no one.

Instead, citizens maintain a 24-7 presence on the edge of the site in their "permanent" fort, consisting of large white tents and trailers. The tents have heat, electricity, light, a sound system, a kitchen, and a store selling every possible article with the anti-base label "No Dal Molin." A trailer has a radio station. There are not, however, places for large numbers of activists from out of town to sleep. So, in addition to hosting guests in homes, the No Dal Molin movement, in preparation for Saturday's march seized an abandoned Italian military barracks. Activists then contacted the police offering to pay the utility bills for three days and give the place a major cleaning. The police left them alone. Even during the march, the police stayed out of sight, having apparently decided that a visible police presence boosts the movement. When European activists - used to the freedoms of speech and assembly - hear about Americans being arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience, they sometimes assume we must have committed actual, you know, crimes.

But there are also civil disobedience actions in Europe that can lead to arrest. Some of them involve blocking the construction of bases or rail lines, or blocking the passage along rail lines of trains carrying military materials.

For three days, including the Saturday of the march, anti-bases activists from around the continent gathered in Vicenza to share their experiences and plan future joint efforts. There are anti-bases gatherings planned for Germany, Belgium, and the United States in the spring.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq might have been possible without the U.S. bases that dot the face of Europe, but it would have been and would continue to be a very different operation, since so many soldiers are sent to Iraq from these bases and then return to them. These bases were also used to move prisoners to Guantanamo four years ago. And, as in 80 percent of the nations on earth, the presence of U.S. military bases forms a large part of Europeans' perceptions of the United States. Meanwhile, many citizens of the United States have only the vaguest notion of the approximately 1,000 bases and 300,000 soldiers they pay taxes to maintain in other people's countries.

How many Americans have heard this story? Citizens of the Czech Republic learned that a base was being planned in their area. The absurd U.S. line is that this base is needed to protect against attacks from North Korea and Iran. But, in a public vote, 99 percent of residents of the area opposed the construction of a base. A group of town mayors in the area formed an alliance to speak out against the base. It has not been built.

Since the U.S. military is constantly building new bases, when and if it decides to use a location other than one that is being protested, that victory may not be immediately apparent, the way it was in Vieques. And the organizers of the Vicenza protest will not consider that a complete victory. When I asked Cinzia what she would do if they chose to build the base in Romania, she replied "We'll go train the Romanians." But as long as the struggle against the base continues in Vicenza, victories will continue to pile up in the form of a growing Italian and European peace movement, and possibly in changes in Italy's government.

In America we sometimes like to imagine that a third political party would solve our problems, but Italy has some 15 significant political parties, and essentially the same problems we do. They're told that if they don't settle for the current government they'll end up with a worse one. They're told that if they aren't happy with Prodi they can have Berlusconi back. They're told that if they can't be happy with a government that says it is for peace and progress while doing the exact same things the previous government did, well then they can have the previous government back again, or something even worse. And so, as change becomes possible, the activism that could force it is drained away by partisanship and the sensation of being in power for power's sake. Italy even has a new party that goes by the name Partito Democratico.

While our Democratic Party pretends it has to pass a bill in order to end the funding of an occupation that can be ended by refusing to pass any bills, Italy's leftists propose a doomed vote for a moratorium on bases rather than adding the measure to a larger bill and risking the collapse of the current coalitions. And the media, much of it owned by Berlusconi or controlled by Prodi's government, and most of the rest owned by other business interests, is on the side of U.S. empire. Italy's constitution prevents it from going to war, so the occupation of Iraq, and that of Afghanistan which Italy still supports, are called humanitarian missions. The most prominent coverage of Saturday's march was of graffiti that one or more people had written on a wall near a new theater, even though No Dal Molin activists had cleaned it off by the next afternoon.

But the Italian people are not fooled or silenced. They have some newspapers on their side. They have internet organizing. They have an active and aggressive labor movement. And their peace movement, unlike ours, does not directly confront their country's nationalism. In fact, there are right-wing nationalists who oppose the construction of U.S. bases. But, above all, there are many who oppose nationalism and militarism, proudly call themselves leftists, and have dedicated themselves to doing what is needed to achieve peace in the world.

A lot more information on the anti-base struggle in Vicenza can be found at http://afterdowningstreet.org/vicenza

A video that Howard Zinn recorded as a message to the people of Vicenza for the events of this past weekend is at
http://492cafe.org/video/zincenza/

A video of Cinzia confronting the prime minister of Italy last June is on the indispensable site of Stephanie Westbrook's group in Rome, US Citizens for Peace and Justice:
http://www.peaceandjustice.it/vicenza

Websites central to the anti-base movement in Vicenza are:
http://www.altravicenza.it
http://www.nodalmolin.it

Anti-base events are planned for

March 2008 in Belgium:
http://www.bombspotting.be

April 11-13 in Omaha, Nebraska:
http://www.space4peace.org

April and August in Germany:
http://www.gaaa.org

The anti-base movement will also be prominent at the European Social Forum in Sweden in the fall.

ONE THING YOU CAN DO:
One of the biggest local backers and profiteers of the proposed base at Dal Molin also profits when anyone buys a bottle of wine with the name Zonin on it. Don't buy any! You can find a list of brands not to buy at http://www.nodalmolin.it

Putin's Hidden Cache: Guardian Cites President's Billions

Putin, the Kremlin power struggle and the $40bn fortune

Russian president Vladimir Putin, whose alleged accumulated wealth of $40bn would make him Europe's richest man. Photograph: Maxim Marmur/AP


Luke Harding in Moscow
Friday December 21, 2007
The Guardian

An unprecedented battle is taking place inside the Kremlin in advance of Vladimir Putin's departure from office, the Guardian has learned, with claims that the president presides over a secret multibillion-dollar fortune.
Rival clans inside the Kremlin are embroiled in a struggle for the control of assets as Putin prepares to transfer power to his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, in May, well-placed political observers and other sources have revealed.

At stake are billions of dollars in assets belonging to Russian state-run corporations. Additionally, details of Putin's own personal fortune, reportedly hidden in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, are being discussed for the first time.

The claims over the president's assets surfaced last month when the Russian political expert Stanislav Belkovsky gave an interview to the German newspaper Die Welt. They have since been repeated in the Washington Post and the Moscow Times, with speculation over the fortune appearing on the internet.

Citing sources inside the president's administration, Belkovsky claims that after eight years in power Putin has secretly accumulated more than $40bn (£20bn). The sum would make him Russia's - and Europe's - richest man.

In an interview with the Guardian, Belkovsky repeated his claims that Putin owns vast holdings in three Russian oil and gas companies, concealed behind a "non-transparent network of offshore trusts".

Putin "effectively" controls 37% of the shares of Surgutneftegaz, an oil exploration company and Russia's third biggest oil producer, worth $20bn, he says. He also owns 4.5% of Gazprom, and "at least 75%" of Gunvor, a mysterious Swiss-based oil trader, founded by Gennady Timchenko, a friend of the president's, Belkovsky alleges.

Asked how much Putin was worth, Belkovsky said: "At least $40bn. Maximum we cannot know. I suspect there are some businesses I know nothing about." He added: "It may be more. It may be much more.

"Putin's name doesn't appear on any shareholders' register, of course. There is a non-transparent scheme of successive ownership of offshore companies and funds. The final point is in Zug [in Switzerland] and Liechtenstein. Vladimir Putin should be the beneficiary owner."

Putin has not commented on Belkovsky's claims. The Guardian put the allegations to the Kremlin but was told Putin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, was not available.

Discussion of Putin's wealth has previously been taboo. But the claims have leaked out against the backdrop of a fight inside the Kremlin between a group led by Igor Sechin, Putin's influential deputy chief of staff, and a "liberal" clan that includes Medvedev.

The Sechin group is made up of siloviki - Kremlin officials with security/military backgrounds. It is said to include Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia's KGB successor agency, his deputy Alexander Bortnikov, and Putin's aide Viktor Ivanov.

Those associated with the liberal camp include Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch and owner of Chelsea football club who is close to Putin and the Yeltsin family. Other members are Viktor Cherkesov, the head of the federal drug control service, and Alisher Usmanov, an Uzbek-born billionaire.

Insiders say the struggle has little to do with ideology. They characterise it as a war between business competitors. Putin's decision to endorse as president Medvedev - who has no links with the secret services - dealt a severe blow to the hardline Sechin clan, they add.

Some analysts have said Putin would like to retire but has been forced to carry on to shield Medvedev from siloviki plotting. Others disagree and say Putin wants to stay in power. On Monday Putin confirmed he intends next year to become Russia's prime minister.

"The siloviki are not at all nice," Yulia Latynina, a Russian political commentator said. Latynina, who hosts a political talkshow on the liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy, was one of the first journalists to draw attention last month to Putin's reported links with Gunvor.

The company is based in Zug, a picturesque Swiss canton known as a bolthole for publicity-shy international businessmen. Gunvor has neither a website nor a Moscow office - but in 2007 posted profits of $8bn on a turnover of $43bn, an astronomic figure, according to industry experts. Like Putin, its reclusive owner, Timchenko, worked in the KGB's foreign affairs directorate. He is said to have met Russia's president in the late 1980s through KGB circles.

Gunvor, which has its head office in Geneva, failed to comment.

Critics say the wave of renationalisations under Putin has transformed Putin's associates into multimillionaires. The dilemma now facing the Kremlin's elite is how to hang on to its wealth if Putin leaves power, experts say. Most of its money is located in the west, they add. The pressing problem is how to protect these funds from any future administration that may seek to reclaim them.

"There's no point in having all this money if you can't travel to the Maldives or Paris and spend it," Elena Panfilova, the director of Transparency International in Russia said.

The first hints of the intra-clan warfare gripping the Kremlin emerged last month, when the FSB arrested General Alexander Bulbov, the deputy head of the federal drug agency, and part of the liberal group. His arrest saw a surreal standoff, with his bodyguards and FSB agents pointing machine guns at each other.

Earlier this month Russia's deputy finance minister, Sergei Storchak - another "liberal" - was also arrested and charged with embezzling $43.4m. He is currently in prison. His boss, Russia's finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, part of the liberal clan, says he is innocent.

But the liberal group - one of several competing factions inside the Kremlin - has struck back. Earlier this month Oleg Shvartsman, a previously obscure businessman, gave an interview to Kommersant newspaper claiming he secretly managed the finances of a group of FSB officers. Their assets were worth £1.6bn, he revealed.

The officers were involved in "velvet reprivatisations", Shvartsman, a fund manager, said - in effect forcibly acquiring private companies at below-market value and transforming them into state-owned firms. These assets were redistributed via offshore companies, he said.

According to Panfilova, the "randomised" corruption of the 1990s has given way to the "systemic and institutionalised corruption" of the Putin era. Members of Putin's cabinet personally control the most important sectors of the economy - oil, gas and defence. Medvedev is chairman of Gazprom; Sechin runs Rosneft; other ministers are chairmen of Russian railways, Aeroflot, a nuclear fuel giant and an energy transport enterprise.

Putin has created a new, more streamlined oligarchy, his critics say. "The crown jewels of the country's wealth have ended up in the hands of Putin's inner circle," Vladimir Rzyhkov - a former independent MP - wrote in Monday's Moscow Times.

Belkovsky - who published a book about Putin's finances last year, and who is the director of the National Strategic Institute, a Moscow thinktank - claims he is confident of his assessment of Putin's hidden wealth. "It's not a secret among the elites,' he said. "But please pay attention that Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin] has never sued me."

Belkovsky adds that the west has misunderstood Putin and has been distracted by his "neo-Soviet" image. Putin, Belkovsky claims, is ultimately a "classic" businessman who believes money can solve any problem, and whose psychology was shaped by his experiences working in the St Petersburg mayor's office in Russia's crime-ridden early 1990s.

"He is quite sure of this. A problem that can't be resolved with $1bn can be resolved with $10bn, and if not with $10bn then $20bn, and so on," Belkovsky said.

In an interview on Wednesday with Time magazine, which named Putin its person of the year, the president vehemently denied that those inside the Kremlin were corrupt.

Asked whether "some of the people closest to you are getting rich", Putin said: "Then you know who and how. Write to us, to the foreign ministry, if you are so confident. I presume you know the names, you know the systems and the tools.

"I can assure you and everyone who would listen to us, watch us and read us, that the reaction would be swift, immediate, [and] within the prevailing law."

Clarity and Truth Resurrected

The Green Stick: A Voice of Clarity and Truth Resurrected
Written by Chris Floyd


You open the book, you turn the page, and once again you are in that familiar drawing-room, clutching your invitation to the soiree of Anna Pavlovna Scherer and being ushered over to pay your respects to her ancient, beribboned aunt. Then you take your long-accustomed place among the guests: the pert little Princess Bolkonsky with her needlework; the suave and repulsive Prince Vasily; the celebrity exile, Viscount Mortemart; and Princess Helene, whose astonishing yet deadening beauty gleams in the shining flesh of her bare shoulders and diamond-draped bosom...then at last to the fat, bumbling bear, the bastard Pierre Bezukhov, and his sworn friend, Prince Andrei, resplendent in his dry, sharp, angry gloom.

How many times have you been here, going back almost thirty years from your first entrance? A half a dozen, maybe more. Yet here you are again; and again, from the very first you are drawn back into that world that has lived inside you as vividly as your own life. And you know you will be there again through all twelve hundred pages; you have never yet stopped and walked away.

But this time, there is something different about the encounter. This time in the drawing room -- that light, brief curtain-raiser to the oceanic depth and immensity that lies ahead -- the figures look sharper. They speak in somewhat different tones, more distinct and differentiated. They are more creaturely in their gait and movements. And the prose that animates them has more of the rough grain of reality than before.

This is the new edition of Tolstoy's War and Peace, translated by Richard Pevear and his wife, Larissa Volokhonsky. Published this year to general acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic, it is perhaps the closest that any English-speaking reader can come to Tolstoy's Russian. Pevear and Volokhonsky have made a specialty of this kind of thing in recent years, sandblasting away the prettied-up prose and smooth Anglicisms that have encumbered the translations of most great Russian novels. Their efforts have been particularly effective with the works of Dostoevsky, whose strange, polyphonic rhythms were almost completely obscured for a hundred years until Pevear and Volokhonsky's landmark translation of The Brothers Karamazov, which also made their reputation as the premier Russian translators of the age.

Tolstoy's prose is more "simple" and straightforward than that of many Russian writers; I remember my great relief at finally reaching Tolstoy in my Russian-language literature classes after weeks of wrestling with Gogol's hilarious but torturously convoluted language. It's hard to "lose" Tolstoy completely even in the most gussied-up (or, in my college case, badly done) translation; he drives so relentlessly at the truth and reality he is trying to convey that its burning core always comes across, usually with great power. (The Penguin Tolstoy translations by Rosemary Edmonds are particularly fine in this regard, despite making the pugnacious little Russian sound like, well, a typical Penguin author, a purveyor of finely-rendered -- and very English -- fiction.)

Yet even in the early stages of my reading of Pevear and Volokhonsky's rendition, I can see that they have made something new and different -- and much more Tolstoyan. It doesn't flow smoothly and exquisitely; it has, as I said, much more of a grain to it, to catch and snag reality, hold it in front of us for a moment so that we can see it with new clarity. Paradoxically, this greater "awkwardness" makes Tolstoy's artistry -- "periodic structure, emphatic repetitions, epic similes," in Pevear's words -- more clear. In particular, you can see how he employs that repetition of words -- sometimes using the same word as many as five times in a single short passage -- as a hammer to drive his point home, and to serve as a marker of his commitment to truth over questions of mere style. In his short but informative introduction, Pevear quotes Boris Pasternak on Tolstoy's art and insight:


All his life, at every moment, he possessed the faculty of seeing phenomena in the detached finality of each separate instant, in perfect distinct outline, as we only see on rare occasions, in childhood, or on the crest of an all-renewing happiness, or in the triumph of a great spiritual victory. To see things like that, our eye must be directed by passion....

Such passion, the passion of creative contemplation, Tolstoy constantly carried within him. It was precisely in its light that he saw everything in its pristine freshness, in a new way, as if for the first time. The authenticity of what he saw differs so much from what we are used to that it may appear strange to us. But Tolstoy was not seeking that strangeness, was not pursuing it as a goal, still less did he apply it to his works as a literary method.


[Pasternak is another Russian author who has been particularly ill-served by his translators. In fact, the main reason I took up Russian studies in the first place all those years ago was in the secret hope that one day I would be able to do Pasternak justice in new translations of his poetry and his novel, Doctor Zhivago. Unfortunately, my Russian was never good enough for this task; nor, as it turned out, was my English. But perhaps Pevear and Volokhonsky could take on Pasternak as their next project.]

Pevear notes another strange aspect of Tolstoy's art:


I was struck, while working on the translation...by the impression that I was translating two books at the same time. Not two book in alternation...but two books simultaneously. One is a very deliberate and self-conscious work, expressive of the outsize personality of the author, who is everywhere and present, selecting and manipulating events, and making his own absolute pronouncements on them: "On the twelfth of June, the forces of Western Europe crossed the borders of Russia, and war began -- that is, an event took place contrary to human reason and the whole of human nature." It is a work of provocation and irony, with broad and elaborately developed rhetorical devices....The other [book] is an account of all that is most real and ordinary in life, all that is most fragile and therefore most precious, all that eludes formulation, that is not subject to absolutely pronouncements, that is so mercurial that it can hardly be reflected upon, and can be grasped only by a rare quality of attention and self-effacement....It seems to me that the incomparable experience of reading War and Peace comes from the shining of the one work through the other."


II.
I was once fortunate enough to stand in the room where Tolstoy wrote much of War and Peace, in the house on his family estate, Yasnaya Polyana, in the countryside near the city of Tula, about 100 miles south of Moscow. Or rather, I stood in a reconstruction of the room. The Nazis burned down the mansion when they paid their visit to the area in 1941. However, most of contents of the house had been removed before the Germans got there, and was brought back when the house was restored after the war. I also saw the hard, black upholstered couch where Tolstoy -- and all of his children -- had been born.

It was a strange trip -- a package tour, on a long bus ride from Moscow -- with a strange guide, who seemed to be going through some kind of emotional crisis at the time: his eyes red-rimmed from crying, his clothes slightly disheveled. But he told us several interesting stories, in his careful English, on the way to the estate, which was now a museum and park. When we arrived, the parking lot was nearly full, but the two gift shops, which offered books -- translated crime and action thrillers from the West mostly -- were closed. It was late autumn, very chilly, but not yet the full blast of Russian winter. We made our way through a number of wedding parties gathered in the parking lot: giddy youngster still in ornate gowns and stiff new suits. "It is the practice," said our guide, "for Russian newlyweds to visit some local shrine of note on their wedding day. In Moscow, they may go to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where eternal flame honors the dead of the Second World War; in Petersburg, they lay flowers before the famous Bronze Horsemen. And here in Tula region, they come to Yasnaya Polyana." (Yes, I did take notes at the time, and can still -- barely -- make them out, almost 14 years later.)

Long trails through columns of birch led us to Tolstoy's unmarked grave: a small earthen mound on the edge of a shallow ravine. "This," said the guide "is where Tolstoy and his brother tried to find the 'green stick.' Nikolai, the brother, told Lev there was a green stick somewhere in these woods that would guarantee the goodness and happiness of the world, if only they could find it. Lev searched for many days here, many years as a boy, but he did not find it."

As he stood shivering in the wind -- for some reason, he wearing only a thin, wrinkled trench coat over his street clothes, woefully inadequate to the weather -- the guide's eyes filled with tears again, and his language grew halting. "I think...I think we should perhaps honor this man, who made, perhaps, many mistakes, and was perhaps cruel in some ways to those who loved him. But he wanted what was good and just, and tried very hard to find it." And there his search had ended, beneath that unmarked mound, so small it could have been a child's grave -- the child who searched in vain for the green stick.

But the voice he gave to the reality he apprehended with such astonishing clarity is not buried. It is with us still, speaking the word, speaking the world of life, the mercurial moments, dying even as they rise, yet imbued with imperishable meaning.

*Illustration: a portrait of Tolstoy by Leonid Pasternak (the writer's father).*

At 9:30 am Friday, Dec 21, a survey crew arrived at the site of the Bear Mountain Interchange in Langford to begin staking out the route for the new highway. By 11 am, around a dozen campers and supporters moved to peacefully block the crew from working. The campers and supporters are there to protect Spencer's Pond, Langford Lake Cave and rare wildlife from destruction.

Chants of "the people united will never be defeated!" could be heard through the forest.

More supporters and witnesses are needed today, this weekend and next week, including Christmas. It is not likely that people will be arrested today, as they are not breaking any laws. However, we expect that the City of Langford and Bear Mountain Resort will apply for a court ordered injunction to remove the campers.

The survey crew appears to be private contractors hired by the city or the resort.

The tree sit camp includes six forest defenders on platforms high in the trees, along with many more people camping on the ground . The Spaet Mountain Action Coalition has promised to protect the forest by all peaceful means, including risking arrest by committing civil disobedience.

On Thursday, three uniformed RCMP officers accompanied by four plainclothes officers visited the camp and photographed the platforms, the tripod over the cave, and the traverse lines connecting the tree sits high in the forest canopy.

For more info: 885-8219.
--
ZoeBlunt@gmail.com

Corporate World of Glenn Beck

The Mad Corporate World of Glenn Beck
Media Beat (12/19/07)

by Norman Solomon

see the video here.


When I picked up a ringing phone one morning in mid-December, the next thing I knew a producer was inviting me to appear on Glenn Beck’s TV show.

Beck has become a national phenom with his nightly hour of polemics on CNN Headline News -- urging war on Iran, denouncing “political correctness” at home, trashing immigrants who don’t speak English, mocking environmentalists as repressive zealots, and generally trying to denigrate progressive outlooks.

Our segment, the producer said, would focus on a recent NBC news report praising the virtues of energy-efficient LED light bulbs without acknowledging that the network’s parent company, General Electric, sells them. I figured it was a safe bet that Beck’s enthusiasm for full disclosure from media would be selective.

A few hours later, I was staring into a camera lens at the CNN bureau in San Francisco while Beck launched into his opening. What had occurred on the “NBC Nightly News,” he explained, “was at best a major breach of journalistic integrity.” And he pointed out: “The problem isn’t what NBC is promoting. It’s what they’re not disclosing.”

A minute later, Beck asked his first question: “Norman, you agree with me that they should have disclosed this?” The unedited transcript tells what happened next.


Solomon: “It’s a big problem when there’s not disclosure. I’m glad you opened this up. And I wouldn’t want any viewers of this program to be left with the impression that somehow General Electric is an environmentally conscious company.

“On the contrary, they have a 30-year history of refusing and actually fighting against efforts to make them clean up the Hudson River, which GE fouled with terrible quantities of horrific PCBs, other rivers as well. People told they can’t fish in the Hudson River. General Electric still lobbying to not have to clean up.

“General Electric, even today -- and this report is very timely -- General Electric is lobbying to get Congress to pass $18 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for a huge GE product which is General Electric components for nuclear power plants. So we should not be fooled in any way by efforts to greenwash General Electric or any other company.”

Beck: “You know what’s amazing to me? GE has a bigger budget for -- special interest budget than all of the oil companies combined, and yet nobody says anything. Let me reverse this.

“Norman, do you think if I got on as somebody who says I don’t know what we can do about global warming, I’m not sure man causes it, and I certainly don’t want to have laws and regulations on this, if I got on and said that but I was being -- my corporate -- my corporate parent was Exxon Mobil, do you think I’d get away with that for a second without that being on the front page of the New York Times?”

Solomon: “Well, other networks, including General Electric’s NBC, have been very slow on global warming. And in fact, General Electric has major interest in components and products used by the oil and gas industry.

“I think if you look across the board, all the major networks, even so-called public broadcasting, which has Chevron underwriting its ‘Washington Week’ program every Friday, there is a problem, as you say. I think your words are very apt, ‘promoting’ but ‘not disclosing.’

“But let’s be clear about this, Glenn. I have a list here, for instance, that I jotted down.

“ABC, owned by Disney. ABC doesn’t disclose in their relevant news reports about Disney’s stake in sweatshops.

“Fox News -- and now as of the last couple of days now, Wall Street Journal owned by the same entity, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp -- they don’t disclose that the ownership is entangled with the Chinese government to the detriment of human rights but to the advancement of the profit margin of the parent company.”

Beck: “See --”

Solomon: “We would be remiss, Glenn, if we left out CNN, because CNN has a huge multi, multibillion-dollar stake in Internet deregulation and the failure of the Congress to safeguard so far what would be called net neutrality. So every time CNN does a news report on the Internet, on efforts to regulate or deregulate or create a two- or three-tier system of the Internet, CNN News should disclose that Time Warner, the parent company, stands to gain or lose billions of dollars in those terms.

“And one more thing.”

Beck: “Real quick.”

Solomon: “A major -- a major advertiser for CNN is the largest military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin. So when you and others --”

Beck: “I got news for you, Norman. Norman --”

Solomon: “-- promote war -- when you and others promote war on this network --”

Beck: “Norman -- Norman --”

Solomon: “-- we have Lockheed Martin paying millions of dollars undisclosed. So I would quote you --”

Beck: “Norman -- Norman --”

Solomon: “Promoting but not disclosing is a bad way to go.”

Beck: “Norman, let me just tell you this. First of all, Lockheed Martin is not a -- not a corporate overlord of this program.”

Solomon: “It’s a major advertiser on CNN.”

Beck: “That’s fine. That’s fine. Advertisers are different. But let --”

Solomon: “Well, it is fine, but it should be disclosed.”

Beck: “Norman, let me just tell you something. If you think that it’s warmonger central downstairs at CNN, you’re out of your mind. But that’s a different story.”

Solomon: “Well, upstairs, when I watch Glenn Beck, in terms of attacking Iran, it certainly is. It’s lucrative for the oil companies, as well as for the major advertiser on CNN, Lockheed Martin.”

Beck: “But we’re not talking about advertisers. We are talking about --”

Solomon: “Well, you don’t want to talk about it. So let’s talk about the Internet stake.”

Beck: “No, no, no. Norman --”

Solomon: “Let’s talk about the Internet stake that the owners of CNN have. Huge profits to be made or lost by the parent company of CNN depending on what happens in Washington in terms of Internet regulation.”

Beck: “Norman, let me tell you something.”

Solomon: “That should be acknowledged, don’t you think?”

Beck: “Absolutely. And if it was on this program, it would be acknowledged.

“I thank you very much for your time.

“That just goes to show you, you’ve got to beware of everybody who you’re getting your news from. Wouldn’t it be nice if once in a while somebody came on and said, you know, I don’t really have an agenda except the truth? It’s my truth. If you don’t like it, you should go someplace else.”


During the back-and-forth, I’d understated the present-day role of Chevron as a funder of key news programming on PBS. Actually the Chevron Corporation, which signed on as an underwriter of “Washington Week” last year, no longer helps pay the piper there -- but the massive energy firm does currently funnel big bucks to the most influential show on PBS, the nightly “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

The corporate funders of the “NewsHour” now include not only Chevron but also AT&T and Pacific Life. There must be dozens of journalistic reports on the program every week -- whether relevant to the business worlds of energy, communications or insurance -- that warrant, and lack, real-time disclosures while the news accounts are on the air. Meanwhile, over at “Washington Week,” the corporate cash now flows in from the huge military contractor Boeing and the National Mining Association.

And that’s just “public broadcasting.” On avowedly commercial networks, awash in corporate ownership interests and advertising revenues, a thorough policy of disclosure in the course of news coverage would require that most of the airtime be devoted to shedding light on the media outlet conflicts-of-interest of the reporting in progress.

And what about Glenn Beck? The guy is another in a long line of demagogues riding a bull market for pseudo-populism. Brought to you by too many corporate interests to name.

Pakistan Warns Internationals off Nuke Weapons Grab

Pakistan's military vowed a strong response to any international attempt to seize its atomic arsenal as the army successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile on Tuesday.

The security of Pakistan's estimated 50 nuclear warheads has been under global scrutiny since President Pervez Musharraf imposed a state of emergency on November 3 citing Islamist violence and political turmoil.

But the chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff, General Tariq Majid, blasted reports by "vested and hostile elements in the international media" about the security of its nuclear weapons, an army statement said.

"Suggestions have been made that our assets could either be neutralised or taken away towards safer place to prevent them from falling into wrong hands," the statement quoted Majid as saying after witnessing the launch of the locally developed Babur (Hatf 7) cruise missile.

"We remain alert to such threats and are fully capable of handling these."

The statement added: "Though no responsible state in the world can contemplate such an impossible operation, yet if someone did create such a scenario he was confident that Pakistan would meet the challenge strongly.

"Pakistan's nuclear assets are very safe and secure, and the nation need not to worry on that account. There is a very strong security system in place, which can ward off all threats, internal as well as external."

Musharraf and caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro congratulated scientists and engineers involved in Tuesday's test launch "on this very important success", the statement said.

The statement said that the test of the 700-kilometre (440-mile) range Babur missile would "consolidate Pakistan's strategic capability and strengthen national security".

"The Babur, which has near stealth capabilities, is a low-flying, terrain-hugging missile with high manoeuvrability, pinpoint accuracy and radar-avoidance features," it said.

"The missile test is part of a continuous process of validating the design parameters set for this weapon system."

Pakistan previously tested the missile in March and again in July. It was first fired in 2005, when its range was only 500 kilometres.

Pakistan confirmed last month that the United States was helping it ensure the security of its atomic weapons and shrugged off reports of a secret programme with Washington as nothing new.

The foreign ministry said the strategic arms were safe and secure under a tight command-and-control structure run entirely by Pakistan, and angrily dismissed fears that they could fall into the wrong hands.

A New York Times report had earlier said Washington was helping ensure their security in a top-secret programme that has cost the United States almost 100 million dollars since 2001, even though Islamabad refuses to allow US inspectors into its nuclear sites.

Advances by Taliban militants in the country's northwestern regions bordering Afghanistan have fuelled fears abroad that hardliners could either threaten Pakistan's nuclear weapons or even stage a takeover.

Proposed Reform of Canadian Copyright Laws

Copyright reform bill critics eye victory
Last Updated: Monday, December 10, 2007 | 2:47 PM ET
CBC News
A controversial bill that seeks to reform Canadian copyright laws, expected to be introduced early this week, may be quashed after a groundswell of opposition erupted over the past week.

The government last week filed a notice indicating the bill would be introduced this week, leading industry experts to expect it to happen on Tuesday. But a spokesperson for Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who was to introduce the bill, said it would not happen on Tuesday and could not say if it would happen this week.

Minister of Industry Jim Prentice has said his proposed copyright reform bill will bring Canada in line with its international obligations.
The House of Commons will take a break until January after Friday's session.

Cory Doctorow, co-editor of influential technology blog Boing Boing and a former director of the Electronic Freedom Foundation advocacy, on Monday wrote that the government's plan is now in disarray.

"Word is that the minister had no idea that this would be such a big deal for Canadians," he wrote. "Word is that the minister and his advisers are scrambling, rethinking the entire matter because of the public outcry."

At an open house in his Calgary constituency office on Saturday, Prentice defended the bill to an angry crowd of about 50 by saying it would bring Canada up to date with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty it signed in 1997. Canada signed the treaty but has not yet implemented or ratified it, which has provoked criticism from its trading partners, he said.

Continue Article

Critics have said the proposed legislation will mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and take a hard line against the copying of digital materials, making illegal acts such as the television time shifting enabled by digital video recorders, file-sharing of music and video files, and copying files to DVDs or MP3 players.

Michael Geist, the Canada research chair of internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, has led the charge against the bill and has accused Prentice of caving in to lobbying from U.S. entertainment companies, who are seeking to curtail digital copying in all its forms. He has also accused the minister of ignoring the wishes of regular Canadians and for not including the public in his consultations.

Geist started a Facebook group to protest the bill a week ago, which more than 12,000 people have so far joined. On his blog Monday, Geist wrote that the group has resulted in hundreds of letters and phone calls to Prentice and other MPs from every political party.

"Something exceptional happened this past week. Fair copyright in Canada found its voice," Geist wrote. "It will be silent no more."

The previous Liberal government tried to pass its own contentious copyright reform bill, C-60, in 2005 but it was quashed when the opposition brought down the minority government in a no-confidence vote.

Doctorow said the public would continue opposing bills that strengthen the rights of copyright holders at the expense of the people.

"We will do it a third time, a fourth, a fifth, and forever, until Canada's politicians start drafting balanced copyright laws that protect Canadian artists, scholars, critics, schools, libraries and the public interest," he wrote.

Tar Sands to Plug in To Ohio Plant

December 6, 2007
New Venture in Canada’s Oil Sands
By REUTERS
The British oil company BP and Husky Energy said yesterday they would form a joint venture linking a BP Ohio refinery with Husky’s Sunrise oil sands project in Alberta in what is the latest in a series of deals integrating Canadian oil production and United States processing.

The British oil major and Husky, a Canadian producer controlled by Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing, plan to spend at least $5.5 billion initially on the venture, which furthers efforts to secure markets for Canada’s huge oil sands resource.

The transaction is similar to an oil sands-refining venture hammered out by EnCana and ConocoPhillips last year and follows various arrangements by Suncor Energy, Marathon Oil and others.

BP was the only oil major without holdings in the oil sands, which are second in size only to Saudi Arabia’s conventional oil reserves.

For BP and its new chief executive, Tony Hayward, the deal is a turnaround from the strategy of the former chief, John Browne, who shunned the oil sands as being too costly.

Husky and BP will have 50 percent each of BP’s 155,000-barrel-a-day refinery in Toledo, the companies said.

The plant will be retooled to process 120,000 barrels a day of extra-heavy bitumen from the Alberta oil sands and total capacity will be increased to 170,000 barrels a day. The work is expected to cost $2.5 billion.

The companies will also share ownership of Sunrise, located near Fort McMurray, Alberta. It is expected to produce 200,000 barrels a day of heavy crude by 2015-2020, starting with a 60,000 barrel-a-day phase in 2012, they said.

Canada: Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

Nuclear agency review may trigger privatization
TheStar.com - Business - Nuclear agency review may trigger privatization

November 30, 2007
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter

The federal government is launching a strategy review of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to determine whether the maker of the Candu nuclear reactor needs to be restructured, a move industry observers say will likely lead to a partial privatization of the heavily subsidized Crown corporation.

"It is time to consider whether the existing structure of AECL is appropriate in a changing marketplace," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said yesterday.

"This review will give us the information we need to make the right decisions for AECL and the right decisions for Canadians."

Lunn's ministry will lead the review with help from the Department of Finance and "with assistance of outside expertise."

The Toronto Star, citing industry sources, reported in July that the federal government has been in talks to sell the commercial business of AECL and has already held informal meetings with U.S.-based General Electric Co. and France's Areva SA – both of which have expressed an interest in AECL.

This was followed in October by an internal reorganization at AECL, which saw five business groups broken into two distinct divisions – one devoted to commercial reactor sales and the other focused on research and development, and nuclear waste management.


Sources tell the Star that senior federal bureaucrats have already unofficially approached the banking community about plans to restructure AECL and that one scenario being floated is to sell a minority stake in the company's commercial reactor businesses to General Electric and engineering firm SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.

Lunn was asked at a parliamentary committee last week whether the government has had internal discussions about the privatization of AECL, but he wouldn't answer the question directly.

"We have made absolutely no decision with respect to that," he said. In the past he has maintained there have been no official talks.

Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of nuclear operator Bruce Power, wasn't surprised at the decision for a strategic review, which could result in one of many outcomes for AECL. "It was the worst kept secret in the world, was it not?"

One wild card that could affect AECL's future is whether it lands a new reactor sale in Ontario. The company recently established an Ontario sales team and launched an aggressive "Choose Candu" email lobby campaign.

Failure to snag a sale in Canada could derail efforts to sell abroad, where giants GE, Areva and Westinghouse dominate.

"Frankly, when you look at the international reactor market, AECL doesn't have a lot of potential right now," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, who tracks activity in the nuclear power market for Greenpeace Canada. "The question is how much of this review is going to be public or a dog-and-pony show."

Launch of the AECL review was accompanied yesterday by the announcement that Canada will join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which aims to promote peaceful development of nuclear energy.

Under the partnership, countries such as Canada that export uranium as nuclear fuel would be required to take it back for reprocessing to be used again or for disposal. Creating stewardship over the uranium supply chain would help keep the dangerous material from falling into the hands of countries looking to develop nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, Bruce Power announced yesterday it has signed a letter of intent to purchase certain assets of Energy Alberta Corp., the company that wants to build a nuclear reactor in the oil sands.

Hawthorne said Alberta needs 5,000 megawatts of new power by 2017 and nuclear fits the bill. He said Energy Alberta already has a head-start in the market, helping Bruce Power to accelerate its presence in the province.

source


Canada won't become nuclear waste dumping ground, minister says
Last Updated: Friday, November 30, 2007 | 1:04 PM ET
CBC News

Canada will not be taking radioactive waste from other countries after it joined an international nuclear power partnership, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn says.

Opposition parties had expressed fears Canada's membership in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership — which proposed the idea of returning spent nuclear fuel to the country of origin for disposal — could make Canada a dumping ground for the waste.

Canada is the world's top uranium exporter, meaning adoption of the proposal could have led to it being responsible for disposing of a sizable amount of waste.

But in an interview with CBC News on Friday, Lunn said that a condition of signing up for the partnership was that Canada will not take nuclear waste.

Instead, the minister said, Canada will share research and technology into how other countries can best deal with their own waste.

Opposition parties had lobbed criticism at the government following its announcement Thursday that Canada has joined the partnership.

Continue Article

"The government has tried to slip this one under the wire," New Democratic environment critic Nathan Cullen said following the announcement.

During question period in the Commons on Friday, NDP Leader Jack Layton continued the attack on the decision, saying it should be put to a vote in the House because nuclear energy is not only expensive but dangerous.

"National security should be a key part of this discussion," Layton said.

The nuclear energy partnership proposes the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide through the use of an unproven breed of reactors that burn nuclear waste — a practice effectively banned in Canada and the United States since the 1970s because of security reasons.

The natural resources minister, however, responded that it is "great news" that Canada has joined the group, saying the country must be at the table for international nuclear talks.

"Canada should be a player. Canada can show leadership and we should show other countries," Lunn said.


Seventeen other countries are members, including China, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.

The partnership has many critics, both in the environmental movement and scientific circles.

On Thursday, the federal government also announced a review of Atomic Energy Canada Limited, the Crown corporation that builds and sells nuclear reactors.

"It is time to consider whether the existing structure of AECL is appropriate to the changing marketplace," Lunn said in a news release.

Opposition critics said that was a sign that AECL could be privatized.

source

Seeing the Trees: Review Ordered on Land 'Gifitng' to Big Timber

Rich 'decision has been made' Coleman must face a review after all

Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, November 24, 2007

The Opposition finally witnessed some progress this week in the effort to shed light on the government's controversial release of private land from public tree farm licences.

New Democratic Party members have been complaining about removals since the legislature convened for the fall session in mid-October.

But they didn't get anywhere with Forests Minister Rich Coleman, who has defended his action at every turn.

"The decision has been made, it's not being changed," was a typical Coleman response during the give-and-take which extended through numerous question periods.

Would the minister submit to a review by the office of the independent auditor-general? the New Democrats wanted to know.

He would not. "I have no intention of asking for a review of this decision."

Of course, as he went on to concede, the auditor-general could make his own decisions "on what to audit and what not to audit."

On the very day that Coleman made the foregoing comment -- Oct. 29 -- John Doyle was taking up his duties as B.C.'s new auditor-general.

This week Doyle announced that his first major undertaking would be to look into whether the decision to release the land was "in the public interest."

He was not responding to Opposition concerns alone. "The office has received a number of requests to examine the decision," the press release said.

The key decision was taken in January. Coleman approved the removal of some 28,000 hectares of private land from three tree farm licences on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

The controversy heated up this fall when the owner of the land, Western Forest Products, began putting some of it up for sale as recreational property.

The Opposition exploded with indignation. The government was serving Western's private interest, with no regard for the public interest.

Private forest lands -- like the tracts freed up in this case -- have been managed as part of the public forest for decades.

In exchange for locking in their lands, private companies were given exclusive access to larger tracts of adjacent Crown timber and other considerations.

But with this transaction, the company regained control of its land with no payback to the public for all those years of access to Crown land and timber.

Not so, Coleman insisted. The landowner had already kept up its part of the bargain by investing in plant and equipment and providing jobs. But now, with the forest industry squeezed by a high dollar and slumping U.S. housing markets, the company's back was to the wall.

"They were going to sell off some of this to, quite frankly, pay down some debt and stabilize their company and try to build a strong future on the island," was the way he put it in an interview with me this week on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV.

Apart from the quasi-bailout aspect of the decision, Coleman says there were other reasons for it as well.

He says the land, being mainly along the west coast, was not likely to be subject to harvesting in any event: "This is land that most people tell me they would oppose logging on."

Media Lens: guardians of honest journalism

The cyber guardians of honest journalism

By John Pilger

11/30/07 "ICH" -- -- What has changed in the way we see the world? For as long as I can remember, the relationship of journalists with power has been hidden behind a bogus objectivity and notions of an "apathetic public" that justify a mantra of "giving the public what they want." What has changed is the public's perception and knowledge. No longer trusting what they read and see and hear, people in western democracies are questioning as never before, particularly via the internet. Why, they ask, is the great majority of news sourced to authority and its vested interests? Why are many journalists the agents of power, not people?

Much of this bracing new thinking can be traced to a remarkable UK website, MediaLens. The creators of Media Lens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, assisted by their webmaster, Olly Maw, have had such an extraordinary influence since they set up the site in 2001 that, without their meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism's first draft of bad history. Peter Wilby put it well in his review of Guardians of Power: the Myth of the Liberal Media, a drawing-together of Media Lens essays published by Pluto Press, which he described as "mercifully free of academic or political jargon and awesomely well researched. All journalists should read it, because the Davids make a case that demands to be answered."

That appeared in the New Statesman. Not a single major newspaper reviewed the most important book about journalism I can remember. Take the latest Media Lens essay, "Invasion - a Comparison of Soviet and Western Media Performance." Written with Nikolai Lanine, who served in the Soviet army during its 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, it draws on Soviet-era newspaper archives, comparing the propaganda of that time with current western media performance. They are revealed as almost identical.

Like the reported "success" of the US "surge" in Iraq, the Soviet equivalent allowed "poor peasants [to work] the land peacefully." Like the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan, Soviet troops were liberators who became peacekeepers and always acted in "self-defense." The BBC's Mark Urban's revelation of the "first real evidence that President Bush's grand design of toppling a dictator and forcing a democracy into the heart of the Middle East could work" (Newsnight, 12 April 2005) is almost word for word that of Soviet commentators claiming benign and noble intent behind Moscow's actions in Afghanistan. The BBC's Paul Wood, in thrall to the 101st Airborne, reported that the Americans "must win here if they are to leave Iraq . . . There is much still to do." That precisely was the Soviet line.

The tone of Media Lens's questions to journalists is so respectful that personal honesty is never questioned. Perhaps that explains a reaction that can be both outraged and comic. The BBC presenter Gavin Esler, champion of Princess Diana and Ronald Reagan, ranted at Media Lens emailers as "fascistic" and "beyond redemption." Roger Alton, editor of the London Observer and champion of the invasion of Iraq, replied to one ultra-polite member of the public: "Have you been told to write in by those c*nts at Media Lens?" When questioned about her environmental reporting, Fiona Harvey, of the Financial Times, replied: "You're pathetic . . . Who are you?"

The message is: how dare you challenge us in such a way that might expose us? How dare you do the job of true journalism and keep the record straight? Peter Barron, the editor of the BBC's Newsnight, took a different approach. "I rather like them. David Edwards and David Cromwell are unfailingly polite, their points are well argued and sometimes they're plain right."

David Edwards believes that "reason and honesty are enhanced by compassion and compromised by greed and hatred. A journalist who is sincerely motivated by concern for the suffering of others is more likely to report honestly . . ." Some might call this an exotic view. I don't. Neither does the Gandhi Foundation, which on 2 December will present Media Lens with the prestigious Gandhi International Peace Award. I salute them.

Shameless, Remorseless, Soulless

Karl Rove's Shameless, Remorseless,

Soulless Attempt to Rewrite History

by Arianna Huffington

I went on Countdown last night to talk about what Keith Olbermann called Karl Rove's "attack on history."

During an interview with Charlie Rose, the erstwhile Boy Genius pulled out his bucket of whitewash and audaciously claimed that "one of the untold stories" about the war in Iraq is that the Bush administration had been "opposed' to Congress holding the vote authorizing the president to use military force in Iraq just a few weeks prior to the 2002 elections because "we thought it made it too political."

Too political? For Karl Rove? That's like saying something was too bloody for Count Dracula.

He went on to paint a picture of a White House pushed into war, and laid the blame for much of what has happened since on a Congress that had "made things move too fast." If not for Congress, you see, there would have been more time for weapons inspections, and to build a broader coalition.

It was a satiric tour de force worthy of Jonathan Swift or Stephen Colbert -- but Rove wasn't joking. He actually expected us to buy his load of b.s. Watching Rove, two things were perfectly clear: his disdain for the truth and his contempt for the American people know no bounds.

Rove's appearance was the work of a shameless, remorseless, soulless political animal taking the first steps on what will no doubt be a high profile and lucrative march toward historical revisionism. He knows that he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the fanatics responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster in American history -- not exactly the best thing to put on your post-government resume -- so he is hell-bent on replacing reality with the latest incarnation of The Big Lie.

A student of history, Rove is obviously also up on his Orwell: "Who controls the past, controls the future."

Unfortunately for Rove, this isn't 1984; we now live in the Age of Google, and YouTube, and Lexis-Nexis searches. So the refutation of his lies is just a click away.

The evidence that it was President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- and not Congress -- who were hungry for war is overwhelming. For starters, we have Bush's own words before the vote, when he explicitly told Congress that "it's in our national interest" to get the vote "done as quickly as possible." And the insistence of then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that "delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message." And the words of then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle who says that when he asked Bush in September 2002 why there was such a rush for a vote on Iraq the president "looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: 'We just have to do this now.'"

And there is the insider evidence provided by Richard Clarke, who wrote that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, this administration had its heart set on heading into Iraq. And from Paul O'Neill, who made it clear that invading Iraq had been Bush's goal before he had even learned where the Oval Office supply closet was.

Even now, with his approval ratings scraping the bottom of the historical barrel, Bush still dominates the Congressional agenda on the war. And Rove wants us to buy that back in the heady days of 2002, when the president was still riding a wave of support forged by 9/11, his desire for caution and reasoned action were overridden by a war hungry Congress? "We don't determine when the Congress votes on things," Rove told Rose. "The Congress does." I guess he and Bush landed on the whole "I'm the Decider" thing later (maybe after they orchestrated that triumphal landing on the Abraham Lincoln).

The truth is that the zealots in the White House were not about to allow their desires to invade Iraq -- which had been laid out years earlier by the Project for a New American Century -- be quashed by anything as piddling as the facts or the evidence or reasoned debate or Congress. Especially a Congress populated with Democratic leaders so rattled and timid that to call them spineless would be an insult to invertebrates everywhere.

Indeed, it was the perfect political environment for an administration intent on shoving a war down the throats of Congress and the American people.

Let's remember, this was the time when the administration had pulled together the White House Study Group (which included Rove himself) with the express mission of marketing the war. These people weren't in the mood to wait, they were in the mood to sell, sell, sell. The Downing Street Memo showed that by July of 2002 they were already fixing the intel to sell the war. By August 2002 the White House was already using Judy Miller and the New York Times as prime advertising space. And by September 2002, Condi Rice was already warning of smoking guns turning out to be mushroom clouds, and Cheney was using aluminum tubes to make the case that Saddam was "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."

So the record is irrefutable: the drumbeat of war coming from the White House couldn't have been louder. And no amount of 5-years-down the road spinning by Karl Rove is going to change that truth.

Annapolis Talks

Annapolis talks: A cover for fomenting Palestinian civil war and preparing assault on Iran
Chris Marsden and Jean Shaoul
26 November 2007


The Annapolis summit in Maryland on the Israel Palestine conflict on November 27 has nothing to do with seeking a peace settlement through the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Not even a preliminary statement of goals and/or principles could be agreed between the two parties for this one-day affair. Israel has refused to discuss any of the key issues that must be resolved for any settlement: the borders of any putative state, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.

Israel goes to the talks confident that it is hosted by its key ally. An article in the Washington Post last week quoted senior White House staffers admitting that the US has no intention of pressurising Israel into making concessions it does not wish to make. “The president remains skeptical as to the Palestinians’ ability to make the necessary concession for achieving peace,” said one source. “The Israelis trust Bush...if they’re going to take any chances, they’d rather do it with him, not his successor,” said the officials.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the talks are a crude attempt to stitch up a deal between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas so that he can posture as having moved the “peace process” forward and continue to suppress all resistance to the Israeli occupation.

For Washington, the talks have a broader political purpose. By enabling President George Bush to be seen attempting some kind of resolution of the conflict, they will aid the Arab regimes in justifying their acquiescence in Washington’s occupation of Iraq and its planned assault on Iran.

On Friday, the Arab League agreed to go along with the charade, including Saudi Arabia, which does not recognise Syria and is a financial backer of Hamas in Gaza. Syria will attend after the US indicated that the future of the Golan Heights would be on the agenda. The US is also reported to have given its tacit approval to separate talks between Syria and Israel on the Golan Heights immediately following Annapolis.

This is by no means the main reason for the participation of Damascus. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem went so far as to state that the return of the Golan Heights was not a precondition to peace talks. Attendance at Annapolis is a desperate effort by the regime of Bashir Assad to reach an accommodation with Washington and prevent the US from targeting it alongside Iran.

Lebanon will also attend, despite the strenuous opposition of Hezbollah.

Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer of the Labour Party noted the political significance of the Arab regime’s decision to participate, telling Army Radio, “The meeting is taking place at a time when radicals and moderates in the Arab-Muslim world are on a collision course. There is no doubt that this meeting is also aimed at contributing to reinforcing the moderate Arab camp.”

In the Occupied Territories, Annapolis has been preceded by frantic efforts by Abbas to get a minimal state that Olmert would agree to. To this end, he dropped his previous demands for a freeze on the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a definite time when a Palestinian state would come into being.

Secondly, he has stepped up efforts to depose the Islamist group Hamas and retake control of the Gaza strip, which is the precondition placed on him by both Washington and Israel for recognising Fatah as a “negotiating partner.”

Hamas came to power in January 2006, as a result of widespread disaffection with Fatah because of its readiness to agree a rotten deal with Bush and its endemic corruption. The Western powers and Israel responded by imposing an economic blockade, closing Gaza off to the outside world. When the possibility of a National Unity government of Fatah and Hamas emerged in the summer of 2006, Israel mounted a savage war on Gaza.

After fomenting a civil war between the rival factions in Gaza that ended with Fatah’s military defeat, Israel, the US and the European powers encouraged Abbas to dissolve the Hamas government and form a new government, splitting Palestine into two. Bush gave US$190 million to support Abbas’s regime and with Israel has provided arms and training for Abbas to root out Hamas.

Olmert has publicly insisted that any future deal depends upon the Palestinian Authority retaking control of Gaza. “There will be no implementation of the treaty before the Road Map commitments are all implemented,” he told journalists after talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh.

“The commitments also apply to the Gaza Strip, [for the Palestinians] Gaza must be part of the Palestinian state and then naturally, the Palestinians must fight terrorism, and that includes the Gaza Strip,” he continued. Last week, the Israeli Defence Ministry’s plan to begin reducing the flow of electricity to the Gaza Strip as of December 2 was approved by Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz.

Abbas has responded to the demands placed on him by mobilising his forces in a direct conflict with Hamas. When 100,000 Fatah supporters gathered at a November 12 rally in Gaza to mark the third anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, Hamas security forces opened fire, killing 7 demonstrators and injuring more than 90. More than 400 Fatah supporters were arrested and dozens held for questioning.

Two days later, Abbas publicly called for the overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza. “We have to bring down this gang that forcibly took over the Gaza Strip and is abusing the sufferings and pains of our people,” he said on television.

Hamas does not represent a progressive alternative to Fatah and articulates the interests of sections of the Arab bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Beholden to Saudi Arabia as well as Iran and Hezbollah in Syria for its finances and armaments, it was clearly shaken by their decision to endorse Annapolis. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the announcement “a great shock for Palestinians because it opened the door for direct normalisation with the occupation amid continued escalation and aggression.”

“We were expecting an Arab consensus to break the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip and to save the lives of many Palestinians who are stranded on the borders,” he said. “We didn’t expect to see agreement among the Arabs on meeting with Israel.”

Deposed Palestinian President Ismael Haniyeh said that “Israel is seeking normalisation, especially with key countries like Saudi Arabia. We must avoid giving legitimacy to free normalisation with the Israeli occupation.”

Such expressions of surprise ignore the bitter experience of decades during which the Arab regimes, most infamously Egypt, Jordan and Syria, have carried out monstrous betrayals of the Palestinians that have left them in their present dire straits. Now the Arab states are participating in a yet greater crime—preparations for war against Iran

Hamas has been left with little option other than to rally opposition to Abbas internally, uniting with Islamic Jihad and smaller militant groups in convening an “Anti-Annapolis” conference in the Gaza Strip.

Khaled Abu Hilal, of the breakaway Fatah al-Yasser, will be in attendance, and it is supported by various Palestinian political and civic groups. Abu Mujahed, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, warned that any concessions made by Abbas would trigger a third intifada that would be “fiercer than the previous ones.”

Abbas also faces a challenge on the right, from Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, who has his own small party called Third Way and is said to be working with PA negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo to establish a new party to contest the next Palestinian elections. The infighting has left the Palestinian negotiating team divided into two camps.

Fayyad epitomises the wealthy social layer that is now collaborating with Washington even more clearly than Abbas. He has no connection whatsoever with Fatah’s earlier struggle against Israel.

Described by Haaretz as “Everyone’s favorite Palestinian” and “the ideal partner,” he was seated next to Ariel Sharon at a wedding ceremony and has lectured “Israel’s economic and political elite” about his own political and economic philosophy.

He received a doctorate in economics at the University of Texas in 1987, then worked at the World Bank and the Federal Reserve in Washington. When the PA was established, he served as a representative of the International Monetary Fund and then the West Bank’s manager of the Arab Bank, the largest bank in the Middle East. He was adopted as a favourite by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who en sured that he became PA finance minister. Following the split between Gaza and the West Bank, he was unconstitutionally made prime minister, as well as retaining his position as finance minister.

See Also:
Israel’s power cuts to Gaza: Collective punishment with tacit US approval
[29 October 2007]
US secretary of state seeks to impose Israeli diktats on Palestinians
[22 October 2007]


WSWS source