Republican Endorses Unspeakable Terror: "The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

"The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment should not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by 'an element of the United States government' other than the Defense Department."

In other words, the Wehrmacht is (nominally) forbidden to torture prisoners, thanks be to God they must only be handed over to the Gestapo for that purpose.

"An editorial appearing Wednesday in the Washington Post did not mince words in denouncing Cheney's intervention. His actions, the newspaper declared, demonstrated that "this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.""

"Decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan." While the Post does not say so explicitly, these statements brand the second highest executive official in the country as a war criminal."

After a while, one becomes almost numb to this sort of news. At the time when we thought we would be fighting for ecological survival, sustainable societies and renewable energy, we have to track back and fight old battles over torture, tyranny and 'cruel and unusual punishment.'

It seems, as MEJ says, Cheney "is being allowed to go around and do his Sauron impression by demanding the right to torture, reinforcing his image as the evil dark lord." The Post article is suggestive of how much the tide may have turned in the American establishment due to the failure of the war that Cheney has become the target.

Republican Endorses Unspeakable Terror: "The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

"The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment should not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by 'an element of the United States government' other than the Defense Department."

In other words, the Wehrmacht is (nominally) forbidden to torture prisoners, thanks be to God they must only be handed over to the Gestapo for that purpose.

"An editorial appearing Wednesday in the Washington Post did not mince words in denouncing Cheney's intervention. His actions, the newspaper declared, demonstrated that "this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.""

"Decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan." While the Post does not say so explicitly, these statements brand the second highest executive official in the country as a war criminal."

After a while, one becomes almost numb to this sort of news. At the time when we thought we would be fighting for ecological survival, sustainable societies and renewable energy, we have to track back and fight old battles over torture, tyranny and 'cruel and unusual punishment.'

It seems, as MEJ says, Cheney "is being allowed to go around and do his Sauron impression by demanding the right to torture, reinforcing his image as the evil dark lord." The Post article is suggestive of how much the tide may have turned in the American establishment due to the failure of the war that Cheney has become the target.

Social Change Today, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Steven Durel: "There are many signs of movement towards a more repressive authoritarian State and it happens to be extreme in the Bush Administration. They call themselves conservatives, but that is an insult to conservativism. They are right wing, reactionary statists. They want a very powerful State to control personal life, the economic world and international society, and they use force if necessary. There's nothing conservative about that.

SD: I went down to Washington a few weeks ago for a gathering of 100,000 war protestors. Most of them were demanding an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. Conversely, the majority of politicians are telling us that we can't leave and to do so would be to subject Iraq to some kind of theocracy that might take root. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

NC: Whatever you thought about Saddam Hussein, it was a secular government. Now it's very likely that there will be a large theocracy. What's more, it's likely that the theocracy will be oriented with Iran. There are close connections between the Shiite south and Iran. A lot of Shiite leadership comes from Iran. Ayatollah Sistani, a large majority of the religious leaders and the main militia in the south, the Badr Brigades, are Iranian trained and armed.

The effect of the American invasion has been to devastate the society. By last October, the best estimates we had were that about 100,000 people had been killed. By now it’s got to be much worse. The level of malnutrition doubled. Child malnutrition is now at the level of Burundi.

What does the population want? A couple days ago, the major Shiite party demanded that the British soldiers in the south stay in their barracks. The Sunni population obviously wants the American troops out. This Sadr group has announced that they want the Americans to leave."

Social Change Today, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Steven Durel: "There are many signs of movement towards a more repressive authoritarian State and it happens to be extreme in the Bush Administration. They call themselves conservatives, but that is an insult to conservativism. They are right wing, reactionary statists. They want a very powerful State to control personal life, the economic world and international society, and they use force if necessary. There's nothing conservative about that.

SD: I went down to Washington a few weeks ago for a gathering of 100,000 war protestors. Most of them were demanding an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. Conversely, the majority of politicians are telling us that we can't leave and to do so would be to subject Iraq to some kind of theocracy that might take root. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

NC: Whatever you thought about Saddam Hussein, it was a secular government. Now it's very likely that there will be a large theocracy. What's more, it's likely that the theocracy will be oriented with Iran. There are close connections between the Shiite south and Iran. A lot of Shiite leadership comes from Iran. Ayatollah Sistani, a large majority of the religious leaders and the main militia in the south, the Badr Brigades, are Iranian trained and armed.

The effect of the American invasion has been to devastate the society. By last October, the best estimates we had were that about 100,000 people had been killed. By now it’s got to be much worse. The level of malnutrition doubled. Child malnutrition is now at the level of Burundi.

What does the population want? A couple days ago, the major Shiite party demanded that the British soldiers in the south stay in their barracks. The Sunni population obviously wants the American troops out. This Sadr group has announced that they want the Americans to leave."

Terror laws seek to silence dissent: "Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today told a peace and civil liberties rally in Sydney that the Government's new terror laws seek to silence dissent and opposition to Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq.

"'We will not accept these laws. We will not be intimidated, Senator Nettle said. 'We will not let the threat of seven years jail stop us from opposing the war in Iraq. 'We will not let terrorism laws prevent us from engaging in protest. They can deport us or detain us like they did to Scott Parkin but we will continue to oppose their war and we will continue to oppose their terrorism laws.

"'This government is more concerned about using the fear of terrorism for political ends than addressing the real root causes of terrorism. If the Government was serious about addressing the threat of terrorism they would bring Australia's troops home from Iraq and urge the Americans to leave as well.

"'Mr Howard and Mr Beazley have betrayed Australians by their scaremongering and fear rather than standing up to defend the great principles this country was built on. 'The Greens will continue to lead the campaign to defend our civil liberties, our democracy and the freedoms we enjoy in Australia by opposing the Government's new terror laws,' Senator Nettle said. "

Terror laws seek to silence dissent: "Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today told a peace and civil liberties rally in Sydney that the Government's new terror laws seek to silence dissent and opposition to Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq.

"'We will not accept these laws. We will not be intimidated, Senator Nettle said. 'We will not let the threat of seven years jail stop us from opposing the war in Iraq. 'We will not let terrorism laws prevent us from engaging in protest. They can deport us or detain us like they did to Scott Parkin but we will continue to oppose their war and we will continue to oppose their terrorism laws.

"'This government is more concerned about using the fear of terrorism for political ends than addressing the real root causes of terrorism. If the Government was serious about addressing the threat of terrorism they would bring Australia's troops home from Iraq and urge the Americans to leave as well.

"'Mr Howard and Mr Beazley have betrayed Australians by their scaremongering and fear rather than standing up to defend the great principles this country was built on. 'The Greens will continue to lead the campaign to defend our civil liberties, our democracy and the freedoms we enjoy in Australia by opposing the Government's new terror laws,' Senator Nettle said. "

Terrorist citizenship strip canvassed: "The federal government is considering introducing laws to strip Australian citizenship from convicted terrorists, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says."

This is more populist nonsense, which panders to latent racism. If someone is guilty of a serious crime, such as murder, then they are sent to jail after a fair trial, not 'stripped of citizenship.' Citizenship is a human right, and there ought not be two classes of citizenship, ie citizens who can be 'stripped' of citizenship, and citizens who cannot.

Terrorist citizenship strip canvassed: "The federal government is considering introducing laws to strip Australian citizenship from convicted terrorists, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says."

This is more populist nonsense, which panders to latent racism. If someone is guilty of a serious crime, such as murder, then they are sent to jail after a fair trial, not 'stripped of citizenship.' Citizenship is a human right, and there ought not be two classes of citizenship, ie citizens who can be 'stripped' of citizenship, and citizens who cannot.

Professor David Brown: Majority verdicts: a poor judgement: "THE decision yesterday by the NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, to move to majority verdicts in jury trials constitutes a capitulation to political and media pressure rather than a considered response to the issues.

"There is no clearer demonstration of this than the fact the decision was announced the same day as the tabling of a NSW Law Reform Commission report on majority verdicts, which recommends against this very change. In short, political pressure trumped considered legal argument.

"A curious feature of that debate has been the lack of reference to the High Court decision of Cheatle in 1993. Here the High Court said that on the grounds of "history, principle and authority", the right to jury trial contained in the constitution meant the right to a unanimous verdict; a unanimous High Court bench held that unanimity was "an essential feature" of a jury trial.... This central argument favouring unanimity is traceable to the Magna Carta. Early Australian colonists saw the right to a (unanimous) jury trial as a fundamental political inheritance and an analogue to the right to vote. The absence of jury trial for the first 40 years in NSW became a grievance that filled the more politically serious and astute press of early Sydney."

Perhaps I am imagining things, but in days gone by the views of the Courts, and more so the High Court, and other distinguished legal personages would be treated with the greatest respect. Careful arguments would have to be made and objections countered before proceeding with any such changes.

These days both major parties are progressively abandoning very longstanding traditional values of conservatism and legal practice. Its hard not to conclude it is part of a process of populism and power aggrandisement on the part of the executive.
PS. We need a lawyer-blogger who understands and explains our traditional legal rights and civil liberties, and monitors the assaults on them from State and Party power. Is there anybody out there?

Professor David Brown: Majority verdicts: a poor judgement: "THE decision yesterday by the NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, to move to majority verdicts in jury trials constitutes a capitulation to political and media pressure rather than a considered response to the issues.

"There is no clearer demonstration of this than the fact the decision was announced the same day as the tabling of a NSW Law Reform Commission report on majority verdicts, which recommends against this very change. In short, political pressure trumped considered legal argument.

"A curious feature of that debate has been the lack of reference to the High Court decision of Cheatle in 1993. Here the High Court said that on the grounds of "history, principle and authority", the right to jury trial contained in the constitution meant the right to a unanimous verdict; a unanimous High Court bench held that unanimity was "an essential feature" of a jury trial.... This central argument favouring unanimity is traceable to the Magna Carta. Early Australian colonists saw the right to a (unanimous) jury trial as a fundamental political inheritance and an analogue to the right to vote. The absence of jury trial for the first 40 years in NSW became a grievance that filled the more politically serious and astute press of early Sydney."

Perhaps I am imagining things, but in days gone by the views of the Courts, and more so the High Court, and other distinguished legal personages would be treated with the greatest respect. Careful arguments would have to be made and objections countered before proceeding with any such changes.

These days both major parties are progressively abandoning very longstanding traditional values of conservatism and legal practice. Its hard not to conclude it is part of a process of populism and power aggrandisement on the part of the executive.
PS. We need a lawyer-blogger who understands and explains our traditional legal rights and civil liberties, and monitors the assaults on them from State and Party power. Is there anybody out there?

Iran oil bourse:a threat to the petrodollar?: "From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent. The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker."

"The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner. If the decline continues, more states will increase the percentage of euros vis-à-vis the dollar they hold in reserve."

"It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil.... In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills."

"In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard. Since then, consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and treasury bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year's US current account deficit was $646 billion."

"George Perkovich, of the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has argued that Iran's decision to consider invoicing oil sales in euros is "part of a very intelligent strategy to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilise other actors against the US."

"Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran's threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq."

Iran is more or less saying to the empty flightsuit, bring it on cowboy, you're finished.

Iran oil bourse:a threat to the petrodollar?: "From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent. The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker."

"The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner. If the decline continues, more states will increase the percentage of euros vis-à-vis the dollar they hold in reserve."

"It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil.... In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills."

"In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard. Since then, consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and treasury bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year's US current account deficit was $646 billion."

"George Perkovich, of the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has argued that Iran's decision to consider invoicing oil sales in euros is "part of a very intelligent strategy to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilise other actors against the US."

"Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran's threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq."

Iran is more or less saying to the empty flightsuit, bring it on cowboy, you're finished.

Terror threat in Australia?: Richard Ackland asks the predictable questions about the credibility of the government's terror warning. The credibility of the government and its intelligence agencies has been destroyed by the fixed, false and forged 'intelligence' about the threat from Saddam. We may be subjected to a terrorist attack soon. We do not know. But it is at least as likely that the information is false and politicised.

Terror threat in Australia?: Richard Ackland asks the predictable questions about the credibility of the government's terror warning. The credibility of the government and its intelligence agencies has been destroyed by the fixed, false and forged 'intelligence' about the threat from Saddam. We may be subjected to a terrorist attack soon. We do not know. But it is at least as likely that the information is false and politicised.

Kucinich: It's the War: "Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250 billion in taxpayer funds have already been spent, with no end in sight."

"Democrats should clearly call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, in which they failed to recover seats in the House and Senate. National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn’t work politically."

"Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country."

The same analysis applies to the ALP. Why does Labor have to be so pathetically weak in tackling the biggest issue of the day?

Kucinich: It's the War: "Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250 billion in taxpayer funds have already been spent, with no end in sight."

"Democrats should clearly call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, in which they failed to recover seats in the House and Senate. National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn’t work politically."

"Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country."

The same analysis applies to the ALP. Why does Labor have to be so pathetically weak in tackling the biggest issue of the day?

Unanswered Questions about Bali Nine: Friskodude asks some questions

Unanswered Questions about Bali Nine: Friskodude asks some questions

Unleashing the Id: Digby and his commenters discuss torture, conservatism and repression in the light of reports Australian David Hicks was tortured. Does Prime Minister Howard condone this treatment of an Australian citizen?

Unleashing the Id: Digby and his commenters discuss torture, conservatism and repression in the light of reports Australian David Hicks was tortured. Does Prime Minister Howard condone this treatment of an Australian citizen?

Experts Say US is Losing War on Terror: "U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing. Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States."

""It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council.... "(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially, [Simon said]".

This joins a seemingly endless line of expert opinion which agrees with the obvious, with common sense and with public opinion that the war on Iraq has increased the threat of terror attack against US and allied targets. In fact, as Chomsky argues, the contention we are fighting a 'war on terror' cannot be taken seriously. Terror is simply not a high priority for the Bush Administration; other goals such as hegemony, control of oil and military bases are obviously considered more important than ending terrorism.

Experts Say US is Losing War on Terror: "U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing. Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States."

""It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council.... "(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially, [Simon said]".

This joins a seemingly endless line of expert opinion which agrees with the obvious, with common sense and with public opinion that the war on Iraq has increased the threat of terror attack against US and allied targets. In fact, as Chomsky argues, the contention we are fighting a 'war on terror' cannot be taken seriously. Terror is simply not a high priority for the Bush Administration; other goals such as hegemony, control of oil and military bases are obviously considered more important than ending terrorism.

Billions at risk - the tunnel farce laid bare: " Just days before he was sacked, the chief of the Roads and Traffic Authority, Paul Forward, told the State Government that reversing the traffic plans for the Cross City Tunnel could trigger damages "so great" that it might be better to buy out the contract. In frank advice to the Minister for Roads, Joe Tripodi, two weeks ago, Mr Forward revealed how financially crippling it would be if the Government tried to alter the arrangements that funnel traffic into the $680 million tunnel."

"As well as the tunnel cost, the Government would be liable for the future profits envisaged when the deal was signed in 2003. In the final years of the 30-year tunnel contract, profits are predicted to be more than $130 million a year. It means the total exposure could run close to $2 billion."

But what if oil production peaks and goes into irrreversible decline, triggering rising prices and demand destruction? Is there really going to be large profits 20 or 30 years from now?

Billions at risk - the tunnel farce laid bare: " Just days before he was sacked, the chief of the Roads and Traffic Authority, Paul Forward, told the State Government that reversing the traffic plans for the Cross City Tunnel could trigger damages "so great" that it might be better to buy out the contract. In frank advice to the Minister for Roads, Joe Tripodi, two weeks ago, Mr Forward revealed how financially crippling it would be if the Government tried to alter the arrangements that funnel traffic into the $680 million tunnel."

"As well as the tunnel cost, the Government would be liable for the future profits envisaged when the deal was signed in 2003. In the final years of the 30-year tunnel contract, profits are predicted to be more than $130 million a year. It means the total exposure could run close to $2 billion."

But what if oil production peaks and goes into irrreversible decline, triggering rising prices and demand destruction? Is there really going to be large profits 20 or 30 years from now?

Professor Ian Lowe: Is nuclear power part of Australia’s global warming solutions? An address by Prof Lowe to the National Press Club reiterates the points around which a consensus is emerging:

* the problem of global warming is real and accelerating

* global warming can be tackled by slashing emission of carbon dioxide by 60% by the middle of the century

* coal fired power stations are the main offenders

* nuclear power is not the answer

* uranium itself is a non-renewable resource, with high-grade uranium expected to deplete in 40 or 50 years or sooner.

* renewable energy in the form of solar, wind and geothermal etc is the answer

To this I would add, that a pro-rata carbon tax (with no exemptions) ought be imposed immediately with the twin goals of raising revenue and making renewable energy more competitive by attributing some of the true costs of fossil fuel burning on the industry.

Even if people insist on promoting nuclear energy, one can reply that if corporate welfare for the industry is terminated (with available funds going instead into genuinely clean and renewable sources) it could then be let to sink or swim on its merits, at which point it would almost certainly sink.

Some excerpts from the speech:

"There is no serious doubt that climate change is real, it is happening now and its effects are accelerating.... The science is very clear. We need to reduce global greenhouse pollution by about 60 per cent, ideally by 2050. To achieve that global target, allowing for the legitimate material expectations of poorer countries, Australia's quota will need to be at least as strong as the UK goal of 60 per cent by 2050 and preferably stronger. Our eventual goal will probably be to reduce our greenhouse pollution by 80 or 90 per cent. How can we reach this ambitious target?"

"Coal-fired electricity is by far the worst offender, so the top priority should be to replace it with cleaner forms of electricity. Since there is increasing pressure to consider nuclear power as part of the mix, I want to spell out why I don't agree. The first point is that the economics of nuclear power just don't stack up. The real cost of nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal energy from hot dry rocks - a resource of huge potential in Australia - also promises to be less costly than nuclear."

"We are 50 years into the best funded development of any energy technology, and yet nuclear energy is still beset with problems. Reactors go over budget by billions, decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that power stations are kept operating past their useful life, and there is still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no economic case for nuclear power. As energy markets have liberalised around the world, investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in western Europe and the USA peaked about 15 years ago and has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and solar energy is increasing rapidly. The actual figures for the rate of increase in the level of different forms of electricity supply for the decade up to 2003 are striking: wind nearly 30 per cent, solar more than 20 per cent, gas 2 per cent, oil and coal 1 per cent, nuclear 0.6 per cent. Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of alternatives that are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible. This is true even of countries that already have nuclear power. With billions already invested in this expensive technology, they have more reason to look favourably on it than we do."

"High grade uranium ores are comparatively scarce. The best estimate is that the known high grade ores could supply the present demand for 40 or 50 years. So if we expanded the nuclear contribution to global electricity supply from the present level, about 15 per cent, to replace all the coal-fired power stations, the resources would only last about a decade or so. There are large deposits of lower grade ores, but these require much more conventional energy for extraction and processing, producing much more greenhouse pollution. Let's not forget, uranium, like oil, gas and coal, is a finite resource. Renewables are our only in-finite energy options."

"Nuclear power also inevitably produces radioactive waste that will have to be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years. After nearly fifty years of the nuclear power experiment, nobody has yet demonstrated a solution to this problem."

"China is planning to get about twice as much energy from wind and solar as it is from nuclear. China has become a world leader in solar cell production: Shangde Solar Energy Power Company, the country's largest producer, has recently expanded to boost China's total production capacity from 200 to 320 megawatts by the end of this year. China is also a world leader in solar thermal production and use."

"How can we reduce our carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by the middle of this century, given our dependence on energy for our comfortable lifestyle? There are now seven fully costed studies showing that nations can reduce their greenhouse pollution by 30 to 60 per cent by 2050 without building nuclear power plants and without economic damage. By far the most cost-effective way to reduce our emissions is to improve the efficiency of turning energy into the services that we want.... Reducing waste is by far the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse pollution."

"We should set the sort of positive targets for renewable energy that progressive nations in the northern hemisphere are doing. We should aim at 10 per cent extra electricity from renewables by 2010, 20 per cent by 2015 and 30 per cent by 2020. These are realistic targets based on existing technology.... Be in no doubt: renewable energy works. Renewables now account for a quarter of the installed capacity of California, a third of Sweden's energy, half of Norway's and three-quarters of Iceland's. It is time we joined the clean energy revolution sweeping the progressive parts of the world.

"Renewables can meet Australia's energy demands. Just 15 wind farms could supply enough power for half the homes in NSW. And that would only use less than half a percent of the pasture land in the state - without disrupting grazing.... Fitting solar panels to half the houses in Australia could supply seven per cent of all our electricity needs, including industry's needs, enough for the whole of Tasmania and the Northern Territory."

"We should set a target of at least five per cent for biofuels in the transport sector as well as requiring cars to be more efficient and investing properly in public transport. Governments at all levels should be modelling best practice in buildings, operations and transport. Above all else, we should set a long term target to cut our greenhouse pollution by 2050 to well below half the present level and take it seriously. Our present approach of demanding the world's most generous target and making no serious effort to cut emissions is an embarrassment to all thinking Australians."

"I suspect the real motive of many who have called for a debate about nuclear power is to soften up the Australian people to accept a possible expansion of uranium mining. This is a modern version of an old debating trick. When we were debating the Ranger report nearly 30 years ago, then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser claimed that "an energy-starved world" needed our uranium, conjuring up the picture of small children freezing in the dark if we didn't sell it. This was a transparent attempt to portray a crass commercial operation as a moral virtue, based on the untrue claim that the world needed nuclear power.

"I wonder how much the current debate about nuclear power has to do with BHP Billiton's planned expansion of the Roxby Downs uranium mine in South Australia.... I can't help being suspicious of the motives of those who claim that they want to see uranium being exported to slow down global warming. If we were serious about helping the rest of the world to reduce their greenhouse pollution, we would start by scaling back our coal exports. That would have much more impact that exporting more uranium. Of course, those urging increased uranium exports generally support the continuing export of more than 100 million tonnes a year of coal, making clear that their real concern is the economic return from mineral exports rather than slowing down climate change.

"In similar terms, if we were serious about helping the developing nations to have the energy services we take for granted, we would be promoting Australian solar technology, which is both much more appropriate to their needs and much more likely to provide jobs and economic benefits than expanding uranium exports. Australia could play a leading role in helping China - and other countries - make the transition to a clean energy future. This is not only a chance to offer regional assistance. It's a huge economic opportunity."

"Since every gram of uranium becomes radioactive waste and increases the amount of fissile material that could be diverted to weapons or "dirty bombs", we should be phasing out the industry, not looking to expand it. Legislation to phase out nuclear power has been introduced in Sweden (1980), Italy (1987), Belgium (1999) and Germany (2000), and several other European countries are discussing it. Austria, the Netherlands and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations. The concern about bombs fuelled with radioactive waste is not something being whipped up by fringe-dwelling extremists."

Professor Ian Lowe: Is nuclear power part of Australia’s global warming solutions? An address by Prof Lowe to the National Press Club reiterates the points around which a consensus is emerging:

* the problem of global warming is real and accelerating

* global warming can be tackled by slashing emission of carbon dioxide by 60% by the middle of the century

* coal fired power stations are the main offenders

* nuclear power is not the answer

* uranium itself is a non-renewable resource, with high-grade uranium expected to deplete in 40 or 50 years or sooner.

* renewable energy in the form of solar, wind and geothermal etc is the answer

To this I would add, that a pro-rata carbon tax (with no exemptions) ought be imposed immediately with the twin goals of raising revenue and making renewable energy more competitive by attributing some of the true costs of fossil fuel burning on the industry.

Even if people insist on promoting nuclear energy, one can reply that if corporate welfare for the industry is terminated (with available funds going instead into genuinely clean and renewable sources) it could then be let to sink or swim on its merits, at which point it would almost certainly sink.

Some excerpts from the speech:

"There is no serious doubt that climate change is real, it is happening now and its effects are accelerating.... The science is very clear. We need to reduce global greenhouse pollution by about 60 per cent, ideally by 2050. To achieve that global target, allowing for the legitimate material expectations of poorer countries, Australia's quota will need to be at least as strong as the UK goal of 60 per cent by 2050 and preferably stronger. Our eventual goal will probably be to reduce our greenhouse pollution by 80 or 90 per cent. How can we reach this ambitious target?"

"Coal-fired electricity is by far the worst offender, so the top priority should be to replace it with cleaner forms of electricity. Since there is increasing pressure to consider nuclear power as part of the mix, I want to spell out why I don't agree. The first point is that the economics of nuclear power just don't stack up. The real cost of nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal energy from hot dry rocks - a resource of huge potential in Australia - also promises to be less costly than nuclear."

"We are 50 years into the best funded development of any energy technology, and yet nuclear energy is still beset with problems. Reactors go over budget by billions, decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that power stations are kept operating past their useful life, and there is still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no economic case for nuclear power. As energy markets have liberalised around the world, investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in western Europe and the USA peaked about 15 years ago and has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and solar energy is increasing rapidly. The actual figures for the rate of increase in the level of different forms of electricity supply for the decade up to 2003 are striking: wind nearly 30 per cent, solar more than 20 per cent, gas 2 per cent, oil and coal 1 per cent, nuclear 0.6 per cent. Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of alternatives that are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible. This is true even of countries that already have nuclear power. With billions already invested in this expensive technology, they have more reason to look favourably on it than we do."

"High grade uranium ores are comparatively scarce. The best estimate is that the known high grade ores could supply the present demand for 40 or 50 years. So if we expanded the nuclear contribution to global electricity supply from the present level, about 15 per cent, to replace all the coal-fired power stations, the resources would only last about a decade or so. There are large deposits of lower grade ores, but these require much more conventional energy for extraction and processing, producing much more greenhouse pollution. Let's not forget, uranium, like oil, gas and coal, is a finite resource. Renewables are our only in-finite energy options."

"Nuclear power also inevitably produces radioactive waste that will have to be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years. After nearly fifty years of the nuclear power experiment, nobody has yet demonstrated a solution to this problem."

"China is planning to get about twice as much energy from wind and solar as it is from nuclear. China has become a world leader in solar cell production: Shangde Solar Energy Power Company, the country's largest producer, has recently expanded to boost China's total production capacity from 200 to 320 megawatts by the end of this year. China is also a world leader in solar thermal production and use."

"How can we reduce our carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by the middle of this century, given our dependence on energy for our comfortable lifestyle? There are now seven fully costed studies showing that nations can reduce their greenhouse pollution by 30 to 60 per cent by 2050 without building nuclear power plants and without economic damage. By far the most cost-effective way to reduce our emissions is to improve the efficiency of turning energy into the services that we want.... Reducing waste is by far the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse pollution."

"We should set the sort of positive targets for renewable energy that progressive nations in the northern hemisphere are doing. We should aim at 10 per cent extra electricity from renewables by 2010, 20 per cent by 2015 and 30 per cent by 2020. These are realistic targets based on existing technology.... Be in no doubt: renewable energy works. Renewables now account for a quarter of the installed capacity of California, a third of Sweden's energy, half of Norway's and three-quarters of Iceland's. It is time we joined the clean energy revolution sweeping the progressive parts of the world.

"Renewables can meet Australia's energy demands. Just 15 wind farms could supply enough power for half the homes in NSW. And that would only use less than half a percent of the pasture land in the state - without disrupting grazing.... Fitting solar panels to half the houses in Australia could supply seven per cent of all our electricity needs, including industry's needs, enough for the whole of Tasmania and the Northern Territory."

"We should set a target of at least five per cent for biofuels in the transport sector as well as requiring cars to be more efficient and investing properly in public transport. Governments at all levels should be modelling best practice in buildings, operations and transport. Above all else, we should set a long term target to cut our greenhouse pollution by 2050 to well below half the present level and take it seriously. Our present approach of demanding the world's most generous target and making no serious effort to cut emissions is an embarrassment to all thinking Australians."

"I suspect the real motive of many who have called for a debate about nuclear power is to soften up the Australian people to accept a possible expansion of uranium mining. This is a modern version of an old debating trick. When we were debating the Ranger report nearly 30 years ago, then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser claimed that "an energy-starved world" needed our uranium, conjuring up the picture of small children freezing in the dark if we didn't sell it. This was a transparent attempt to portray a crass commercial operation as a moral virtue, based on the untrue claim that the world needed nuclear power.

"I wonder how much the current debate about nuclear power has to do with BHP Billiton's planned expansion of the Roxby Downs uranium mine in South Australia.... I can't help being suspicious of the motives of those who claim that they want to see uranium being exported to slow down global warming. If we were serious about helping the rest of the world to reduce their greenhouse pollution, we would start by scaling back our coal exports. That would have much more impact that exporting more uranium. Of course, those urging increased uranium exports generally support the continuing export of more than 100 million tonnes a year of coal, making clear that their real concern is the economic return from mineral exports rather than slowing down climate change.

"In similar terms, if we were serious about helping the developing nations to have the energy services we take for granted, we would be promoting Australian solar technology, which is both much more appropriate to their needs and much more likely to provide jobs and economic benefits than expanding uranium exports. Australia could play a leading role in helping China - and other countries - make the transition to a clean energy future. This is not only a chance to offer regional assistance. It's a huge economic opportunity."

"Since every gram of uranium becomes radioactive waste and increases the amount of fissile material that could be diverted to weapons or "dirty bombs", we should be phasing out the industry, not looking to expand it. Legislation to phase out nuclear power has been introduced in Sweden (1980), Italy (1987), Belgium (1999) and Germany (2000), and several other European countries are discussing it. Austria, the Netherlands and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations. The concern about bombs fuelled with radioactive waste is not something being whipped up by fringe-dwelling extremists."

Powell Aide Blasts Rice, Cheney- Rumsfeld 'Cabal': After discussing for most of the article how the cabal took over policy thus creating a dysfunctional and dangerous administration, he concludes with this:

"On Iraq, [Powell's former Chief of Staff, who is believed to speak for both Powell and Armitage] said he was ''guardedly optimistic'' because ''we may have reached the point where we are actually listening to the Iraqis.'' U.S. troops will likely have to remain in Iraq for between five to eight years, however, because ''it is strategic in the sense that Vietnam was not.''

ie, it has a lot of oil while Vietnam did not.

"He predicted that a precipitous withdrawal ''without leav(ing) something behind we can trust, we will mobilize the nation, with five million men and women under arms to go back and take the Middle East within a decade,'' due to the U.S. dependence on the region’s energy sources."

This represents the 'liberal hawk' or 'intelligent imperialist' approach to the problem. Note that it assumes without question that the US has right to the region's energy sources (what is our oil doing under their sand?) and that it is therefore unthinkable that the Middle East could ever be abandoned. If a combination of military, financial, economic, diplomatic and political circumstances force a US withdrawal from the Middle East it seems that the ruling elite is totally unprepared for the consequences. Its Gulf Oil or bust.

"He disclosed that the Department’s policy planning bureau had a discussion about ''actually mounting an operation to take the oil fields in the Middle East, internationalise them under some sort of UN trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly.''"

Sounds like desperation and fantasy to me. As if, after the Iraq disaster, the UN and the rest of the world would be happy to go along with a US plot like this. And if such plans are admitted to exist, the Howard government must be challenged immediately by asking if it would directly rule out the multiple breaches of international peace and law that such a plot necessarily involves.

If the US does not embark, and soon, on a crash program of energy conservation and renewability, heaven help them. The same applies to a (only slightly) lesser extent in Australia.

Powell Aide Blasts Rice, Cheney- Rumsfeld 'Cabal': After discussing for most of the article how the cabal took over policy thus creating a dysfunctional and dangerous administration, he concludes with this:

"On Iraq, [Powell's former Chief of Staff, who is believed to speak for both Powell and Armitage] said he was ''guardedly optimistic'' because ''we may have reached the point where we are actually listening to the Iraqis.'' U.S. troops will likely have to remain in Iraq for between five to eight years, however, because ''it is strategic in the sense that Vietnam was not.''

ie, it has a lot of oil while Vietnam did not.

"He predicted that a precipitous withdrawal ''without leav(ing) something behind we can trust, we will mobilize the nation, with five million men and women under arms to go back and take the Middle East within a decade,'' due to the U.S. dependence on the region’s energy sources."

This represents the 'liberal hawk' or 'intelligent imperialist' approach to the problem. Note that it assumes without question that the US has right to the region's energy sources (what is our oil doing under their sand?) and that it is therefore unthinkable that the Middle East could ever be abandoned. If a combination of military, financial, economic, diplomatic and political circumstances force a US withdrawal from the Middle East it seems that the ruling elite is totally unprepared for the consequences. Its Gulf Oil or bust.

"He disclosed that the Department’s policy planning bureau had a discussion about ''actually mounting an operation to take the oil fields in the Middle East, internationalise them under some sort of UN trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly.''"

Sounds like desperation and fantasy to me. As if, after the Iraq disaster, the UN and the rest of the world would be happy to go along with a US plot like this. And if such plans are admitted to exist, the Howard government must be challenged immediately by asking if it would directly rule out the multiple breaches of international peace and law that such a plot necessarily involves.

If the US does not embark, and soon, on a crash program of energy conservation and renewability, heaven help them. The same applies to a (only slightly) lesser extent in Australia.

Former Chief of Seattle Police Department argues for legalisation, not decriminalisation, of drugs: "Prohibition of alcohol fell flat on its face. The prohibition of other drugs rests on an equally wobbly foundation. Not until we choose to frame responsible drug use — not an oxymoron in my dictionary — as a civil liberty will we be able to recognize the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, for what it is: a medical, not a criminal, matter."

"It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery."

Former Chief of Seattle Police Department argues for legalisation, not decriminalisation, of drugs: "Prohibition of alcohol fell flat on its face. The prohibition of other drugs rests on an equally wobbly foundation. Not until we choose to frame responsible drug use — not an oxymoron in my dictionary — as a civil liberty will we be able to recognize the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, for what it is: a medical, not a criminal, matter."

"It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery."

Nobel Prize winner for Literature Harold Pinter bashes the warmongers: Some choice quotes:

"Here they go again,
The Yanks in their armored parade
Chanting their ballads of joy
As they gallop across the big world
Praising America's God."

"There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll fuck everything in sight.
Watch your back."

"What the U.S. is doing is perfectly simple. It's asserting what it conceives to be its spiritual destiny: 'I am God: get out of my fucking way.' This stink is with us forever."

"I've been taken to task recently by the American ambassador to Britain for calling the U.S. administration a bloodthirsty wild animal. All I can say is: take a look at Donald Rumsfeld's face and the case is made. I believe that not only is this contemplated act criminal, malevolent and barbaric, it also contains within itself a palpable joy in destruction. Power, as has often been remarked, is the great aphrodisiac, and so, it would seem, is the death of others.

"The Americans have the ostensible support of the 'international community' through various sure-fire modes of intimidation: bullying, bribery, blackmail and bullshit. The 'international community' becomes a degraded entity bludgeoned into the service of a brutal military force out of control. The most despicable position is that of course of this country which pretends to stand shoulder to shoulder with its great ally while in fact being more of a whipped dog than anyone else. We are demeaned, undermined and dishonored by our government's contemptible subservience to the United States."

"Iraq is just a symbol of the attitude of Western democracies to the rest of the world."

"Hallelullah! It works.
We blew the shit out of them. We blew the shit right back up their own ass
And out their fucking ears.
It works. We blew the shit out of them. They suffocated in their own shit!
Hallelullah. Praise the Lord for all good things. We blew them into fucking shit.
They are eating it. Praise the Lord for all good things.
We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust. We did it.
Now I want you to come over here and kiss me on the mouth."

Sing it brother. Pinter expresses the enormous disgust, anger and contempt felt by many people around the world for the proven liars and war criminals Bush, Blair and Howard, and their criminally stupid policies.

Nobel Prize winner for Literature Harold Pinter bashes the warmongers: Some choice quotes:

"Here they go again,
The Yanks in their armored parade
Chanting their ballads of joy
As they gallop across the big world
Praising America's God."

"There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll fuck everything in sight.
Watch your back."

"What the U.S. is doing is perfectly simple. It's asserting what it conceives to be its spiritual destiny: 'I am God: get out of my fucking way.' This stink is with us forever."

"I've been taken to task recently by the American ambassador to Britain for calling the U.S. administration a bloodthirsty wild animal. All I can say is: take a look at Donald Rumsfeld's face and the case is made. I believe that not only is this contemplated act criminal, malevolent and barbaric, it also contains within itself a palpable joy in destruction. Power, as has often been remarked, is the great aphrodisiac, and so, it would seem, is the death of others.

"The Americans have the ostensible support of the 'international community' through various sure-fire modes of intimidation: bullying, bribery, blackmail and bullshit. The 'international community' becomes a degraded entity bludgeoned into the service of a brutal military force out of control. The most despicable position is that of course of this country which pretends to stand shoulder to shoulder with its great ally while in fact being more of a whipped dog than anyone else. We are demeaned, undermined and dishonored by our government's contemptible subservience to the United States."

"Iraq is just a symbol of the attitude of Western democracies to the rest of the world."

"Hallelullah! It works.
We blew the shit out of them. We blew the shit right back up their own ass
And out their fucking ears.
It works. We blew the shit out of them. They suffocated in their own shit!
Hallelullah. Praise the Lord for all good things. We blew them into fucking shit.
They are eating it. Praise the Lord for all good things.
We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust. We did it.
Now I want you to come over here and kiss me on the mouth."

Sing it brother. Pinter expresses the enormous disgust, anger and contempt felt by many people around the world for the proven liars and war criminals Bush, Blair and Howard, and their criminally stupid policies.

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come: Jorge Hirsch mounts an argument that war with Iran is on a clear trajectory.

"The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used? And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes."

Dan Plesch considers the evidence and tries to evaluate whether we are going to war with Iran or not. He points out that "The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack"; however the prospect is still real because "A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe.... For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere."

In short it is a high stakes gamble, but for an extremist Administration that is increasingly embattled, a roll of the dice might just be the ticket.

The role played by Britain and Australia, and even by the EU and much of the world, can only be described as appeasement of US aggression. What does it take for countries to signal through all channels a clear, unambiguous NO!

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come: Jorge Hirsch mounts an argument that war with Iran is on a clear trajectory.

"The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used? And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes."

Dan Plesch considers the evidence and tries to evaluate whether we are going to war with Iran or not. He points out that "The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack"; however the prospect is still real because "A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe.... For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere."

In short it is a high stakes gamble, but for an extremist Administration that is increasingly embattled, a roll of the dice might just be the ticket.

The role played by Britain and Australia, and even by the EU and much of the world, can only be described as appeasement of US aggression. What does it take for countries to signal through all channels a clear, unambiguous NO!

'Staggering Mass Slaughter' - the Fortieth Anniversary: In an earlier post, I remembered this forgotten event. Two more articles linked here help the remembering.

John Pilger has another article on the Suharto massacre, which gives more details of the way in which Britain, Australia and the US were complicit. The story is little known in the West. It is remarkable, almost unbelievable. Pilger does not give any notes. He should. One of the great merits of Chomsky is that he gives sources and references for almost everything. This is the only way truth can fight back against the avalanche of lies.

Clinton Fernandes has a somewhat lengthier article, and this one with footnotes.

Another untold part of the story is the use of Islamic groups in Indonesia to help carry out the massacre, and thus the enduring relations between the military and the Islamic groups, up to the more recent terrorist actions.

'Staggering Mass Slaughter' - the Fortieth Anniversary: In an earlier post, I remembered this forgotten event. Two more articles linked here help the remembering.

John Pilger has another article on the Suharto massacre, which gives more details of the way in which Britain, Australia and the US were complicit. The story is little known in the West. It is remarkable, almost unbelievable. Pilger does not give any notes. He should. One of the great merits of Chomsky is that he gives sources and references for almost everything. This is the only way truth can fight back against the avalanche of lies.

Clinton Fernandes has a somewhat lengthier article, and this one with footnotes.

Another untold part of the story is the use of Islamic groups in Indonesia to help carry out the massacre, and thus the enduring relations between the military and the Islamic groups, up to the more recent terrorist actions.

Mark Levine on the farce of the Iraq 'constitution': "Specifically, there are no references [in the Iraqi constitution] to three issues that are of primary concern to most Arab, and especially Sunni Iraqis: a prohibition on the long-term presence of foreign - read American - troops in the country; a firm statement emphasizing Iraqi control of production and distribution of the country's oil resources; and a commitment to rebuilding the social infrastructure that was devastated by the invasion and subsequent wholesale privatization of the country's economy under US auspices.

"For most every Arab Iraqi the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops is the sine qua non for ending the insurgency. That the constitutional negotiators couldn't include any prohibition of foreign troops, or deal straightforwardly with the other two core issues, demonstrates the continuing and largely deleterious power of the US in the country's internal affairs."

But of course, without bases and troops, and control of the resources and economy of the country, the invasion is without purpose. The Bush Administration seems incapable of strategic withdrawal, in spite of the fact that the situation is such a disaster that that may be well advised, and so therefore only military defeat seems likely to resolve the problem.

"And so it appears that the constitutional process being celebrated in Iraq and Washington is setting up Iraq to repeat the mistakes of the Oslo peace process, where negotiations over the hard issues were continually postponed on the assumption the process would move forward with enough momentum to force compromises at the end stage."

This assumes that the process in either Washington or Oslo was ever intended to resolve the real issues. The messed up outcome is just fine by the real powers, provided the danged 'terrorists' just sit back and accept without question the rape and occupation of their country.

As Pepe Escobar points out, the terms of the Iraq constitution which allow regional governments to form practically guarantees the break up of the country, and a likely civil war. But perhaps this is the US plan, the best they can come up with. In the civil war the US will abandon the Sunni centre (they have already basically lost it), back the Kurds and the Shiites (who have all the oil), and in the process try to establish them as dependent client states.

Mark Levine on the farce of the Iraq 'constitution': "Specifically, there are no references [in the Iraqi constitution] to three issues that are of primary concern to most Arab, and especially Sunni Iraqis: a prohibition on the long-term presence of foreign - read American - troops in the country; a firm statement emphasizing Iraqi control of production and distribution of the country's oil resources; and a commitment to rebuilding the social infrastructure that was devastated by the invasion and subsequent wholesale privatization of the country's economy under US auspices.

"For most every Arab Iraqi the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops is the sine qua non for ending the insurgency. That the constitutional negotiators couldn't include any prohibition of foreign troops, or deal straightforwardly with the other two core issues, demonstrates the continuing and largely deleterious power of the US in the country's internal affairs."

But of course, without bases and troops, and control of the resources and economy of the country, the invasion is without purpose. The Bush Administration seems incapable of strategic withdrawal, in spite of the fact that the situation is such a disaster that that may be well advised, and so therefore only military defeat seems likely to resolve the problem.

"And so it appears that the constitutional process being celebrated in Iraq and Washington is setting up Iraq to repeat the mistakes of the Oslo peace process, where negotiations over the hard issues were continually postponed on the assumption the process would move forward with enough momentum to force compromises at the end stage."

This assumes that the process in either Washington or Oslo was ever intended to resolve the real issues. The messed up outcome is just fine by the real powers, provided the danged 'terrorists' just sit back and accept without question the rape and occupation of their country.

As Pepe Escobar points out, the terms of the Iraq constitution which allow regional governments to form practically guarantees the break up of the country, and a likely civil war. But perhaps this is the US plan, the best they can come up with. In the civil war the US will abandon the Sunni centre (they have already basically lost it), back the Kurds and the Shiites (who have all the oil), and in the process try to establish them as dependent client states.

Chris Hedges on Dominionism and the danger of the religious right: "This movement will not stop until we are ruled by Biblical Law, an authoritarian church intrudes in every aspect of our life, women stay at home and rear children, gays agree to be cured, abortion is considered murder, the press and the schools promote 'positive' Christian values, the federal government is gutted, war becomes our primary form of communication with the rest of the world and recalcitrant non-believers see their flesh eviscerated at the sound of the Messiah's voice.

"The spark that could set it ablaze may be lying in the hands of an Islamic terrorist cell, in the hands of the ideological twins of the Christian Right. Another catastrophic terrorist attack could be our Reichstag fire, the excuse used to begin the accelerated dismantling of our open society. The ideology of the Christian Right is not one of love and compassion, the central theme of Christ's message, but of violence and hatred. It has a strong appeal to many in our society, but it is also aided by our complacency. Let us not stand at the open city gates waiting passively and meekly for the barbarians. They are coming. They are slouching rudely towards Bethlehem . Let us, if nothing else, begin to call them by their name."

""So let's be blunt about it [writes Gary North]: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.""

Such talk is of course eerily reminiscent of Hitler's plan to acquire power 'legally', and then use it to demolish the hated parliamentarianism and democracy in order to establish the dictatorship.

Chris Hedges on Dominionism and the danger of the religious right: "This movement will not stop until we are ruled by Biblical Law, an authoritarian church intrudes in every aspect of our life, women stay at home and rear children, gays agree to be cured, abortion is considered murder, the press and the schools promote 'positive' Christian values, the federal government is gutted, war becomes our primary form of communication with the rest of the world and recalcitrant non-believers see their flesh eviscerated at the sound of the Messiah's voice.

"The spark that could set it ablaze may be lying in the hands of an Islamic terrorist cell, in the hands of the ideological twins of the Christian Right. Another catastrophic terrorist attack could be our Reichstag fire, the excuse used to begin the accelerated dismantling of our open society. The ideology of the Christian Right is not one of love and compassion, the central theme of Christ's message, but of violence and hatred. It has a strong appeal to many in our society, but it is also aided by our complacency. Let us not stand at the open city gates waiting passively and meekly for the barbarians. They are coming. They are slouching rudely towards Bethlehem . Let us, if nothing else, begin to call them by their name."

""So let's be blunt about it [writes Gary North]: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.""

Such talk is of course eerily reminiscent of Hitler's plan to acquire power 'legally', and then use it to demolish the hated parliamentarianism and democracy in order to establish the dictatorship.

Cindy Sheehan: Not Supporting Hillary Clinton: "62% of Americans now believe that this war is based on lies and betrayals and want our troops to start coming home. 53% of Americans want our troops to come home immediately.... Americans oppose this war in overwhelming numbers and it crosses party lines. Because America can see that the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism and has made the world and our country less secure. America can see that the murder of innocents is not a 'right and left' issue, it is a 'right and wrong' issue."

"I think [Hillary] is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys. She is intelligent, there's no doubt about that. However, I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq."

Clinton and the Democrats do not represent the American people, they represent the corporate/state/military elite. For them, military bases and control of oil are paramount, and soldiers are cannon fodder. Clearly, figures of 62% or 53% of popular support are not enough. Cindy will have to campaign a lot harder with a lot more popular support in order to force change. It is possible however. A combination of military failure and mass popular discontent could force the policy change.

Cindy Sheehan: Not Supporting Hillary Clinton: "62% of Americans now believe that this war is based on lies and betrayals and want our troops to start coming home. 53% of Americans want our troops to come home immediately.... Americans oppose this war in overwhelming numbers and it crosses party lines. Because America can see that the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism and has made the world and our country less secure. America can see that the murder of innocents is not a 'right and left' issue, it is a 'right and wrong' issue."

"I think [Hillary] is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys. She is intelligent, there's no doubt about that. However, I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq."

Clinton and the Democrats do not represent the American people, they represent the corporate/state/military elite. For them, military bases and control of oil are paramount, and soldiers are cannon fodder. Clearly, figures of 62% or 53% of popular support are not enough. Cindy will have to campaign a lot harder with a lot more popular support in order to force change. It is possible however. A combination of military failure and mass popular discontent could force the policy change.

Lost island home of Odysseus found after 3,000 years: "FOR almost 3,000 years, [Ithaca's] location has been a mystery... Many thought that the island existed only in the imagination of the Greek poet Homer and in his epic, the Odyssey."

As SA wittily remarks, "For many years there were those who doubted that Ithaca actually existed. Not me. If the story had appeared in the NY Times, I would have questioned it. But Homer? Never!"

The story continues, “Some 3,200 years after the events that are described in the Odyssey, ancient Ithaca has at last been discovered — a discovery which will revolutionise our understanding of the ancient world and is of profound importance to our understanding of the origins of western civilisation.”

Lost island home of Odysseus found after 3,000 years: "FOR almost 3,000 years, [Ithaca's] location has been a mystery... Many thought that the island existed only in the imagination of the Greek poet Homer and in his epic, the Odyssey."

As SA wittily remarks, "For many years there were those who doubted that Ithaca actually existed. Not me. If the story had appeared in the NY Times, I would have questioned it. But Homer? Never!"

The story continues, “Some 3,200 years after the events that are described in the Odyssey, ancient Ithaca has at last been discovered — a discovery which will revolutionise our understanding of the ancient world and is of profound importance to our understanding of the origins of western civilisation.”

The Next Hurrah: Anatomy of a White House Smear, Redux: emptywheel reviews the Plame/CIA case. The article admittedly contains speculation but is juicy nonetheless.

Some of the more notable points: In September 2003, a "senior official [probably either Tenet or Powell] said the leaks [of the identity of covert CIA agent Plame] were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility.""

The leaks certainly were a huge miscalculation, if they lead to indictments of Whitehouse officials, or uncovering of the Niger forgeries and other aspects of the neocon plot to make war against Iraq. We'll see.

Also: "There is now a lot of circumstantial evidence that Iran-Contra operative Michael Ledeen and Harold Rhode planted the Niger forgeries with SISMI, Italian intelligence. I think the original plan was just to plant the forgeries so friendly members of SISMI could funnel the intelligence--but never the documents--to the US. But as people within the US Intelligence Community continued to question the Niger claims, the plotters finally had to produce actual documents."

A neocon operative in Washington forged and planted documents in Italy so that they could be funnelled back to Washington to make the case for war against Iraq? If this were true, it is a real beauty, up there with Goering, Himmler and Heydrich's plot to bring down top German army commanders, or Operation Himmler (see also here) , Heydrich's staged attacks by 'Poles' against the Reich, allowing the Nazis to publicly claim the Reich had been attacked by Poland and thus had to 'defend' itself. And all the while, the Ministry of Propaganda or the Corporate Media has the poor public 'supporting' the Fuehrer or the troops in making war.

The Next Hurrah: Anatomy of a White House Smear, Redux: emptywheel reviews the Plame/CIA case. The article admittedly contains speculation but is juicy nonetheless.

Some of the more notable points: In September 2003, a "senior official [probably either Tenet or Powell] said the leaks [of the identity of covert CIA agent Plame] were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility.""

The leaks certainly were a huge miscalculation, if they lead to indictments of Whitehouse officials, or uncovering of the Niger forgeries and other aspects of the neocon plot to make war against Iraq. We'll see.

Also: "There is now a lot of circumstantial evidence that Iran-Contra operative Michael Ledeen and Harold Rhode planted the Niger forgeries with SISMI, Italian intelligence. I think the original plan was just to plant the forgeries so friendly members of SISMI could funnel the intelligence--but never the documents--to the US. But as people within the US Intelligence Community continued to question the Niger claims, the plotters finally had to produce actual documents."

A neocon operative in Washington forged and planted documents in Italy so that they could be funnelled back to Washington to make the case for war against Iraq? If this were true, it is a real beauty, up there with Goering, Himmler and Heydrich's plot to bring down top German army commanders, or Operation Himmler (see also here) , Heydrich's staged attacks by 'Poles' against the Reich, allowing the Nazis to publicly claim the Reich had been attacked by Poland and thus had to 'defend' itself. And all the while, the Ministry of Propaganda or the Corporate Media has the poor public 'supporting' the Fuehrer or the troops in making war.

Michael Klare discusses the concept of 'permanent US military supremacy', and how it leads to tension with China over energy: "This outlook was first expressed in 1992 in the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for fiscal years 1994-99, a master blueprint for US dominance in the post-cold war era."

This is thousand-year-reich stuff, at the very time when the whole world can see US hegemonic ambitions being punctured in Iraq. Nevertheless, the attitudes continue and the dangers are real, simply because the Pentagon system exists. The Pentagon is a corrupting influence on US politics through the mere fact of its existence. If it exists, it becomes a tool of policy, or as the saying goes: "if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail"; or, as then Secretary of State Madelaine Albright remarked to Colin Powell, "What's the point in having this superb military you are always talking about if we can't use it?" Powell's response is equally illuminating, "I thought I would have an aneurysm. American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board." But for imperialists, militarists and warmongers, toy soldiers on a gameboard (or 'cannon fodder' in the more brutal and prosaic term) is exactly what they are, as Bush & Cheney have demonstrated for the umpteenth time in history.

And let's not forget Kissinger's classic formulation "military men [are] "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy."

Pepe Escobar discusses 'the conquest of Southwest Asia' (sorry, that should be the 'war on terror' or the 'fight for democracy') and the practically uniform negativity with which the aggression is regarded in the Middle East, a fact still not properly appreciated in the Anglo countries, no doubt due to the relentless barrage of propaganda from the corporate media.

Michael Klare discusses the concept of 'permanent US military supremacy', and how it leads to tension with China over energy: "This outlook was first expressed in 1992 in the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for fiscal years 1994-99, a master blueprint for US dominance in the post-cold war era."

This is thousand-year-reich stuff, at the very time when the whole world can see US hegemonic ambitions being punctured in Iraq. Nevertheless, the attitudes continue and the dangers are real, simply because the Pentagon system exists. The Pentagon is a corrupting influence on US politics through the mere fact of its existence. If it exists, it becomes a tool of policy, or as the saying goes: "if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail"; or, as then Secretary of State Madelaine Albright remarked to Colin Powell, "What's the point in having this superb military you are always talking about if we can't use it?" Powell's response is equally illuminating, "I thought I would have an aneurysm. American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board." But for imperialists, militarists and warmongers, toy soldiers on a gameboard (or 'cannon fodder' in the more brutal and prosaic term) is exactly what they are, as Bush & Cheney have demonstrated for the umpteenth time in history.

And let's not forget Kissinger's classic formulation "military men [are] "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy."

Pepe Escobar discusses 'the conquest of Southwest Asia' (sorry, that should be the 'war on terror' or the 'fight for democracy') and the practically uniform negativity with which the aggression is regarded in the Middle East, a fact still not properly appreciated in the Anglo countries, no doubt due to the relentless barrage of propaganda from the corporate media.

Solar power industry growth potential - or prepare for war instead?: "The solar thermal power industry could be worth 16.4 billion Euros and create 54,000 jobs worldwide by 2025... Greenpeace and ESTIA are encouraging politicians and policymakers to support this new sustainable industry by taking the necessary steps laid out in the report, which provides a detailed action plan for Governments who want to invest in this new technology."

"In only two decades, the electricity generated from solar thermal power plants could be equivalent to the power generated by 72 coal-fired power stations, supplying enough electricity each year for Israel, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia combined or half the electricity demand of Australia."

Especially noteworthy in this report are the contentions that "Among the solar electric technologies, concentrating solar power (CSP) [also known as solar thermal power] is the cheapest and the largest bulk producer of solar electricity in the world" and that "costs are expected to drop closer to 7-8 US cents [kw/h] in the future."

Meanwhile, "A new report into the Australian Defence Force's budget says Australia's overseas commitments are unsustainable. The report by the partly Defence-funded think-tank, the Kokoda Foundation, calls for an extra $1 billion on top of the current $18 billion allocated by the Federal Government."

So terminate Australia's 'overseas commitments', ie Afghanistan and Iraq, immediately, and invest in solar energy instead. What on earth has Australia ever been doing in those disastrous colonial and imperial wars in the first place? But no, "Australia must prepare for a major conflict in Asia within the next 15 years", says the report. Why in God's name would Australia want to be involved in a major conflict in Asia or anywhere? Is it that, historically, if a major war breaks out anywhere, diggers gotta get into it? Bring the troops home and keep them home, except for a limited role in operations approved by UN and international law.

Solar power industry growth potential - or prepare for war instead?: "The solar thermal power industry could be worth 16.4 billion Euros and create 54,000 jobs worldwide by 2025... Greenpeace and ESTIA are encouraging politicians and policymakers to support this new sustainable industry by taking the necessary steps laid out in the report, which provides a detailed action plan for Governments who want to invest in this new technology."

"In only two decades, the electricity generated from solar thermal power plants could be equivalent to the power generated by 72 coal-fired power stations, supplying enough electricity each year for Israel, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia combined or half the electricity demand of Australia."

Especially noteworthy in this report are the contentions that "Among the solar electric technologies, concentrating solar power (CSP) [also known as solar thermal power] is the cheapest and the largest bulk producer of solar electricity in the world" and that "costs are expected to drop closer to 7-8 US cents [kw/h] in the future."

Meanwhile, "A new report into the Australian Defence Force's budget says Australia's overseas commitments are unsustainable. The report by the partly Defence-funded think-tank, the Kokoda Foundation, calls for an extra $1 billion on top of the current $18 billion allocated by the Federal Government."

So terminate Australia's 'overseas commitments', ie Afghanistan and Iraq, immediately, and invest in solar energy instead. What on earth has Australia ever been doing in those disastrous colonial and imperial wars in the first place? But no, "Australia must prepare for a major conflict in Asia within the next 15 years", says the report. Why in God's name would Australia want to be involved in a major conflict in Asia or anywhere? Is it that, historically, if a major war breaks out anywhere, diggers gotta get into it? Bring the troops home and keep them home, except for a limited role in operations approved by UN and international law.

Sydney's working harbour under threat again: "Plans to remove car imports from Sydney's two remaining cargo wharves four years early have angered unions, lobby groups and the car industry, even though the Government has pledged to keep the wharves free of apartments."

"A community lobby group, the Working Harbour Coalition, said the Government's promise to keep the wharves for maritime functions could not be trusted. A spokesman for the group, Harold Kerr, said: "The closure of these two terminals, as well as the cessation of East Darling Harbour and its sale to private interests, will see the end of the working harbour as we know it. Why are we sending cars to Wollongong, only for them to be driven overland back to Sydney at huge social and environmental cost?""

Shipping is by far the most fuel efficient form of transport. In an atmosphere of energy crisis, it should be prioritised systematically. The government's moves demonstrate once again that it has no concept of the situation.

Sydney's working harbour under threat again: "Plans to remove car imports from Sydney's two remaining cargo wharves four years early have angered unions, lobby groups and the car industry, even though the Government has pledged to keep the wharves free of apartments."

"A community lobby group, the Working Harbour Coalition, said the Government's promise to keep the wharves for maritime functions could not be trusted. A spokesman for the group, Harold Kerr, said: "The closure of these two terminals, as well as the cessation of East Darling Harbour and its sale to private interests, will see the end of the working harbour as we know it. Why are we sending cars to Wollongong, only for them to be driven overland back to Sydney at huge social and environmental cost?""

Shipping is by far the most fuel efficient form of transport. In an atmosphere of energy crisis, it should be prioritised systematically. The government's moves demonstrate once again that it has no concept of the situation.

US army in retreat, destroys Euphrates bridges to deny them to the enemy: "For the first time I believe we have lost. For the first time as a military professional I think we have no way of winning this. We are willing to destroy the basic structures of the country to deny the enemy their use."

US army in retreat, destroys Euphrates bridges to deny them to the enemy: "For the first time I believe we have lost. For the first time as a military professional I think we have no way of winning this. We are willing to destroy the basic structures of the country to deny the enemy their use."

The War to End All Wars That Started Them All: We are still fighting the First World War; still have not disarmed and stopped fighting. WW1 led directly to WW11 which led to the militarisation of the Soviet Union and the US. The Soviet Union collapsed but the US Pentagon system is as strong as ever. How can the Pentagon be dismantled without another war, without the militarisation of other societies?

The War to End All Wars That Started Them All: We are still fighting the First World War; still have not disarmed and stopped fighting. WW1 led directly to WW11 which led to the militarisation of the Soviet Union and the US. The Soviet Union collapsed but the US Pentagon system is as strong as ever. How can the Pentagon be dismantled without another war, without the militarisation of other societies?

Evans Jones comments on the New Zealand election: "Slagging off the Greens is partly a strategy favoured both by the National Party (and its Exclusive Brethren supporters) and by Dunne to try and push the Greens below 5 per cent in the polls. The aim is to stop their ideas from becoming respectable, because if this happened a Labour-Greens coalition would be in power permanently.... The possibility of a Green breakthrough into something more like the political mainstream is the fundamental ‘watch-this-space’ instability of New Zealand politics."

"The secret fear of Dunne, the Nationals and the ACT is that Green ideas will catch on and the Greens will go up to 10%. So they are painted into a corner in which wind, public transport and so on are slagged off at every possible opportunity. This is a potentially self-defeating streagy. But so far it has worked."

"If Labour had any clues they would start slowly putting greater distance between themselves and the National Party on environmental / wind / public transport, etc policies, and equally subtly let the Greens take the credit.... Labour would then have a clear majority with the Greens and other leftish parties, and so it will be even more dependent on them than it is now."

Evans Jones comments on the New Zealand election: "Slagging off the Greens is partly a strategy favoured both by the National Party (and its Exclusive Brethren supporters) and by Dunne to try and push the Greens below 5 per cent in the polls. The aim is to stop their ideas from becoming respectable, because if this happened a Labour-Greens coalition would be in power permanently.... The possibility of a Green breakthrough into something more like the political mainstream is the fundamental ‘watch-this-space’ instability of New Zealand politics."

"The secret fear of Dunne, the Nationals and the ACT is that Green ideas will catch on and the Greens will go up to 10%. So they are painted into a corner in which wind, public transport and so on are slagged off at every possible opportunity. This is a potentially self-defeating streagy. But so far it has worked."

"If Labour had any clues they would start slowly putting greater distance between themselves and the National Party on environmental / wind / public transport, etc policies, and equally subtly let the Greens take the credit.... Labour would then have a clear majority with the Greens and other leftish parties, and so it will be even more dependent on them than it is now."

Peak Oil Debunked: COLIN CAMPBELL criticised over racist remarks in ASPO newsletter: I've previously noticed how the British Nationalists seem to have jumped early onto the peakoil thesis. Perhaps they were there from the beginning. Its already clear that fascism will be a major challenge in the 21stC, perhaps as big a challenge as the energy crisis itself.

This is an example: "Here is our warning to you now. Those criminals, traitors, fools and fantasists that delay our rise to power will be treated as criminals when we [fascist party] take power. This Peak Oil situation will destroy our entire Nation and Western Civilisation unless the BNP are allowed to take power. The left and the liberals, the socialists and the environmentalists and the capitalists are all guilty of the same crime - of opposing the one part that can solve tis crisis , the one party that has the Wil and Vision to fight for our future.... You now have a clear choice - either join us or get out of our way. Our path to power is now clear before us.... You have one cance and one chance only. If you join us now we can forgive yo. Fight us and you will pay the price in the future.... The era of laxity and apathy is over - the Eraof Eco-Nationalism has begun. Repent your past and join with us or suffer punishment when the time comes for yor crimes."

When reading rants like this, one can never be sure that someone is not having a lend of you, but its probably safest to assume it is real.

Peak Oil Debunked: COLIN CAMPBELL criticised over racist remarks in ASPO newsletter: I've previously noticed how the British Nationalists seem to have jumped early onto the peakoil thesis. Perhaps they were there from the beginning. Its already clear that fascism will be a major challenge in the 21stC, perhaps as big a challenge as the energy crisis itself.

This is an example: "Here is our warning to you now. Those criminals, traitors, fools and fantasists that delay our rise to power will be treated as criminals when we [fascist party] take power. This Peak Oil situation will destroy our entire Nation and Western Civilisation unless the BNP are allowed to take power. The left and the liberals, the socialists and the environmentalists and the capitalists are all guilty of the same crime - of opposing the one part that can solve tis crisis , the one party that has the Wil and Vision to fight for our future.... You now have a clear choice - either join us or get out of our way. Our path to power is now clear before us.... You have one cance and one chance only. If you join us now we can forgive yo. Fight us and you will pay the price in the future.... The era of laxity and apathy is over - the Eraof Eco-Nationalism has begun. Repent your past and join with us or suffer punishment when the time comes for yor crimes."

When reading rants like this, one can never be sure that someone is not having a lend of you, but its probably safest to assume it is real.

Tim Flannery on nuclear power: "As with coal, nuclear power stations are very large, about 1700 megawatts, and with a starting price of $US2 billion ($2.6 billion) apiece they are expensive to build. The power they generate, however, is at present competitive with that generated from wind."

No cheaper than wind power, and with the other negatives, such as accidents, waste disposal and weaponization, I dont understand the arguments in favour of nuclear power.

Tim Flannery on nuclear power: "As with coal, nuclear power stations are very large, about 1700 megawatts, and with a starting price of $US2 billion ($2.6 billion) apiece they are expensive to build. The power they generate, however, is at present competitive with that generated from wind."

No cheaper than wind power, and with the other negatives, such as accidents, waste disposal and weaponization, I dont understand the arguments in favour of nuclear power.

Uri Avnery's analysis of the unsuccessful Netanyahu challenge to Sharon within the Likud party: Avnery interprets it as ultimately a win for peace as for the first time the dismanlting of settlements has been accepted by this far-right body. And this at the same time as more Israelis than ever before are prepared to support the ethnic cleansing of both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Uri Avnery's analysis of the unsuccessful Netanyahu challenge to Sharon within the Likud party: Avnery interprets it as ultimately a win for peace as for the first time the dismanlting of settlements has been accepted by this far-right body. And this at the same time as more Israelis than ever before are prepared to support the ethnic cleansing of both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

American Taliban seek to block first successful cancer vaccine: Commenters to this article argue that for the Taliban it is about fear and control. In Australian TV news reporting about this matter, the role played by Australian researchers was (proudly) emphasized, Taliban concerns gained no mention.

American Taliban seek to block first successful cancer vaccine: Commenters to this article argue that for the Taliban it is about fear and control. In Australian TV news reporting about this matter, the role played by Australian researchers was (proudly) emphasized, Taliban concerns gained no mention.

The Disappearance Of The Social Democrats: Interesting analysis of German politics that interprets the left as having split into three parts under pressure from neoliberalism.

The Disappearance Of The Social Democrats: Interesting analysis of German politics that interprets the left as having split into three parts under pressure from neoliberalism.

A Hobbit’s Choice: Saruman or Sam

A Hobbit’s Choice: Saruman or Sam

Remembering one of the 20th century's worst massacres, the unpunished crimes of 1965: "Forty years ago this weekend, Indonesia was plunged into the darkest period in its history when Major-General Suharto unleashed a wave of mass killings regarded among the worst of the 20th century."

Dennis Byrne has some personal perspective on what has been described as a staggering mass slaughter. John Pilger has stated that there exist in Bali mass graves with the remains of 80,000 people. (By comparison, the infamous Babi Yar massacre in the Ukraine, one of the worst of WW11, ended the lives of an estimated 34,000 people). Can Pilger's statement possibly be true? Of the many thousands of Australians who have visited Bali, how many of them have had any suspicion of what lies beneath?

Remembering one of the 20th century's worst massacres, the unpunished crimes of 1965: "Forty years ago this weekend, Indonesia was plunged into the darkest period in its history when Major-General Suharto unleashed a wave of mass killings regarded among the worst of the 20th century."

Dennis Byrne has some personal perspective on what has been described as a staggering mass slaughter. John Pilger has stated that there exist in Bali mass graves with the remains of 80,000 people. (By comparison, the infamous Babi Yar massacre in the Ukraine, one of the worst of WW11, ended the lives of an estimated 34,000 people). Can Pilger's statement possibly be true? Of the many thousands of Australians who have visited Bali, how many of them have had any suspicion of what lies beneath?

Bush's numbers on Iraq drop into the low 30s: See also, Bush helpless and on the slide :-)

Bush's numbers on Iraq drop into the low 30s: See also, Bush helpless and on the slide :-)

Cardinal Schönborn clarifies view on evolution: "A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of intelligent design against Darwin’s explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as “one of the very great works of intellectual history.”"

It seems to me the Galileo fiasco ultimately taught the Catholic Church an important lesson which distinguishes it from the less sophisticated US evangelical protestant churches: it is neither necessary nor wise for religion to be steered into conflict with scientific inquiry. Let religion be religion and science be science.

Cardinal Schönborn clarifies view on evolution: "A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of intelligent design against Darwin’s explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as “one of the very great works of intellectual history.”"

It seems to me the Galileo fiasco ultimately taught the Catholic Church an important lesson which distinguishes it from the less sophisticated US evangelical protestant churches: it is neither necessary nor wise for religion to be steered into conflict with scientific inquiry. Let religion be religion and science be science.

Grieving war mom Cindy Sheehan in Washington: Cindy demonstrates once again she is no slouch when it comes to debate and rhetoric. No wonder Bush ('the moron') is apparently too frightened to meet with her. Also see an interview with Cindy: "The media couldn't believe someone like me could be so articulate and intelligent and have my own message. Number one, I'm a woman; number two, I'm a grieving mother; so they had the urge to marginalize me, to pretend like somebody's pulling my strings. Our President's not even articulate and intelligent." Ouch!

Grieving war mom Cindy Sheehan in Washington: Cindy demonstrates once again she is no slouch when it comes to debate and rhetoric. No wonder Bush ('the moron') is apparently too frightened to meet with her. Also see an interview with Cindy: "The media couldn't believe someone like me could be so articulate and intelligent and have my own message. Number one, I'm a woman; number two, I'm a grieving mother; so they had the urge to marginalize me, to pretend like somebody's pulling my strings. Our President's not even articulate and intelligent." Ouch!

Corporate tactics: the Great Green Scare: "Back in Reagantime the rightwingers smeared environmentalists as watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. In those halcyon days, economist John Baden, major domo of a rightwing think tank called FREE and the Svengali of the Sagebrush Rebels, made a small fortune hawking watermelon ties, woven of the finest petro-polyester, to his retinue of oil execs, federal judges and range lords. Now that cap-C Communism has faded into the oblivion of high school history text books, the corporate world's pr mavens have had to concoct a new spine-tingling metaphor to evoke the threat environmentalism poses to their bottom line: eco-terrorism.

"Apparently, it's just a short step from al Qaeda to PETA. That's right, the money you save from not buying fur may be going to finance terrorist raids to liberate condemned mink from their isolation cages on rodent death row in Corvallis, Oregon."

"Meanwhile, the Reverend Pat Robertson broadcasts assassination proclamations on national television. Praise the lord and pay the hit man. Operation Rescue's Randal Terry publicly threatened federal judges during the national trauma over Terri Schiavo. One of David Horowitz's featured writers on Frontpage, a certain Michael Calderon, called for "Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, and [Justin] Raimondos to be found shot full of holes." Another group of beer-gutted ultra-Patriots in Chicago openly pleads online for the execution of Stan Goff, Alexander Cockburn and your humble scribe.

"None of these would-be terrorists is currently deemed a public menace by the FBI. Rev. Robertson's notoriously corrupt Operation Blessing is even sanctioned to receive FEMA money.

"Over the past quarter of a century, only abortion providers and Muslim clerics have been on the receiving end of more death threats than environmental organizers. It comes with the territory. But these virulent acts of harassment--messages often driven home with dead spotted owls, bullet casings, and rocks through the front window--rarely rouse the interest of the FBI or even local cops. Apparently, the agency doesn't consider the violent suppression of political speech a terrorist act."

Now that the governments in UK/US/Aus have all passed their draconian 'anti-terror' legislation, one might predict that more innocents, environmentalists, dissidents, activists and antiwar campaigners will be harassed and repressed by this legislation than genuine terrorists.

Corporate tactics: the Great Green Scare: "Back in Reagantime the rightwingers smeared environmentalists as watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. In those halcyon days, economist John Baden, major domo of a rightwing think tank called FREE and the Svengali of the Sagebrush Rebels, made a small fortune hawking watermelon ties, woven of the finest petro-polyester, to his retinue of oil execs, federal judges and range lords. Now that cap-C Communism has faded into the oblivion of high school history text books, the corporate world's pr mavens have had to concoct a new spine-tingling metaphor to evoke the threat environmentalism poses to their bottom line: eco-terrorism.

"Apparently, it's just a short step from al Qaeda to PETA. That's right, the money you save from not buying fur may be going to finance terrorist raids to liberate condemned mink from their isolation cages on rodent death row in Corvallis, Oregon."

"Meanwhile, the Reverend Pat Robertson broadcasts assassination proclamations on national television. Praise the lord and pay the hit man. Operation Rescue's Randal Terry publicly threatened federal judges during the national trauma over Terri Schiavo. One of David Horowitz's featured writers on Frontpage, a certain Michael Calderon, called for "Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, and [Justin] Raimondos to be found shot full of holes." Another group of beer-gutted ultra-Patriots in Chicago openly pleads online for the execution of Stan Goff, Alexander Cockburn and your humble scribe.

"None of these would-be terrorists is currently deemed a public menace by the FBI. Rev. Robertson's notoriously corrupt Operation Blessing is even sanctioned to receive FEMA money.

"Over the past quarter of a century, only abortion providers and Muslim clerics have been on the receiving end of more death threats than environmental organizers. It comes with the territory. But these virulent acts of harassment--messages often driven home with dead spotted owls, bullet casings, and rocks through the front window--rarely rouse the interest of the FBI or even local cops. Apparently, the agency doesn't consider the violent suppression of political speech a terrorist act."

Now that the governments in UK/US/Aus have all passed their draconian 'anti-terror' legislation, one might predict that more innocents, environmentalists, dissidents, activists and antiwar campaigners will be harassed and repressed by this legislation than genuine terrorists.

Retired general William Odom: Iraq invasion was 'strategic disaster': "The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

"The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells."

If the US is ultimately expelled from Iraq (if not the whole of the Middle East), with the region falling under the domination of Iran, Russia, China and Europe, this could be seen as correct. But obviously the US will be (is already) desperate to avoid this outcome, prepared to commit their last reserves of finance and military, risking total disaster. On the other hand, if the decision is taken now, forces could be yanked out of the cauldron and power still projected over the region. It might be compared to Hitler's thrust on Stalingrad and the Caucasus. In spite of being badly exposed, strategic withdrawal is unthinkable for this kind of crazed and incompetent leadership.

Retired general William Odom: Iraq invasion was 'strategic disaster': "The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

"The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells."

If the US is ultimately expelled from Iraq (if not the whole of the Middle East), with the region falling under the domination of Iran, Russia, China and Europe, this could be seen as correct. But obviously the US will be (is already) desperate to avoid this outcome, prepared to commit their last reserves of finance and military, risking total disaster. On the other hand, if the decision is taken now, forces could be yanked out of the cauldron and power still projected over the region. It might be compared to Hitler's thrust on Stalingrad and the Caucasus. In spite of being badly exposed, strategic withdrawal is unthinkable for this kind of crazed and incompetent leadership.

'We Are in Real Trouble' - Bird flu pandemic risk: "I understand that the U.S. has ordered about 6 million doses. But the U.S. government has estimated it needs at least 20 million doses.

"At the current rate of production, by the end of 2006, there would be enough Tamiflu for 1.5 percent of the world’s population. If the company revved up production to the maximum, it would hit two percent. So it would take 10 years at maximum production to make enough for one out of five people."

"It’s not as if those at the highest levels of government are unaware of the threat. So why haven’t we done more to prepare?
My response to that depends on my mood in a given moment. There are times when asking that question will get steam pouring out of my ears and I’ll be a raving lunatic. And at times I become more cynical… When [former President Bill] Clinton ordered a multi-agency study on emerging threats, pandemic flu was number one. It is not new that the scientific community has been warning about it. What is new is that we are well past a warning. We have got [figurative] ambulances rolling through the streets with sirens wailing saying: Get out of the way, there’s trouble coming!"

'We Are in Real Trouble' - Bird flu pandemic risk: "I understand that the U.S. has ordered about 6 million doses. But the U.S. government has estimated it needs at least 20 million doses.

"At the current rate of production, by the end of 2006, there would be enough Tamiflu for 1.5 percent of the world’s population. If the company revved up production to the maximum, it would hit two percent. So it would take 10 years at maximum production to make enough for one out of five people."

"It’s not as if those at the highest levels of government are unaware of the threat. So why haven’t we done more to prepare?
My response to that depends on my mood in a given moment. There are times when asking that question will get steam pouring out of my ears and I’ll be a raving lunatic. And at times I become more cynical… When [former President Bill] Clinton ordered a multi-agency study on emerging threats, pandemic flu was number one. It is not new that the scientific community has been warning about it. What is new is that we are well past a warning. We have got [figurative] ambulances rolling through the streets with sirens wailing saying: Get out of the way, there’s trouble coming!"

The wild man in the wings: Biographical essay on Chomsky points out that he supported "cultural zionism", but "opposed “the deeply anti­democratic concept of a Jewish state”, which would inevitably discriminate against non-Jews"; that at the time "Israel “had remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry”, and only two prominent American Jewish intellectuals openly identified with it: Noam Chomsky and Hannah Arendt"; that he "“reacted with virtually uncritical support for Israel” during the June 1967 war." (although his view on that war is different now); that the post-67 "‘supporters of Israel’ should more properly be called “supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel”, which is now the most militarised society in the world, heavily dependent for its survival on the United States and therefore a reliable asset"; that Chomsky is a 'child of the enlightenment' in a time when those values are under attack by radical statists and militarists.

The wild man in the wings: Biographical essay on Chomsky points out that he supported "cultural zionism", but "opposed “the deeply anti­democratic concept of a Jewish state”, which would inevitably discriminate against non-Jews"; that at the time "Israel “had remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry”, and only two prominent American Jewish intellectuals openly identified with it: Noam Chomsky and Hannah Arendt"; that he "“reacted with virtually uncritical support for Israel” during the June 1967 war." (although his view on that war is different now); that the post-67 "‘supporters of Israel’ should more properly be called “supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel”, which is now the most militarised society in the world, heavily dependent for its survival on the United States and therefore a reliable asset"; that Chomsky is a 'child of the enlightenment' in a time when those values are under attack by radical statists and militarists.

Religiosity and social dysfunction: "[Paul] found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

"The Vietnamese Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh wrote,

"Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

"Do not think that the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice non-attachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout our entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."

Religiosity and social dysfunction: "[Paul] found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

"The Vietnamese Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh wrote,

"Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

"Do not think that the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice non-attachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout our entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."

News: Chavez: Venezuela Moves Reserves to Europe: "'We've had to move the international reserves from U.S. banks because of the threats,' from the U.S., Chavez said during televised remarks from a South American summit in Brazil. 'The reserves we had (invested) in U.S. Treasury bonds, we've sold them and we moved them to Europe and other countries,' he said."

Heaven help the US and the dollar if more countries start doing this.

News: Chavez: Venezuela Moves Reserves to Europe: "'We've had to move the international reserves from U.S. banks because of the threats,' from the U.S., Chavez said during televised remarks from a South American summit in Brazil. 'The reserves we had (invested) in U.S. Treasury bonds, we've sold them and we moved them to Europe and other countries,' he said."

Heaven help the US and the dollar if more countries start doing this.

Evan Jones on the latest Bali bombing: "We grieve again and again for the death of innocents. And yet we continue to vote criminals into office."

Evan Jones on the latest Bali bombing: "We grieve again and again for the death of innocents. And yet we continue to vote criminals into office."

More battles in America over Evolution vs Creationism: Meanwhile, Bishop Spong speaks on the matter

More battles in America over Evolution vs Creationism: Meanwhile, Bishop Spong speaks on the matter

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray on the death of Robin Cook: "I was one of a few enthusiasts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who welcomed the arrival of Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary and his declaration of an “Ethical foreign policy”. The majority were hostile and cynical, but not nearly so much as was Tony Blair.

"Within a very few weeks, Blair arranged Robin Cook’s defeat at Cabinet when Cook wanted to stop the export of British Aerospace Hawk jets to the Suharto regime of Indonesia, which has a strong history of vicious repression of its disparate peoples. I was told by a Cabinet Minister who sided with Cook, that Blair managed Cook’s cabinet defeat in as confrontational and humiliating a manner as possible.

"Plainly there would be no ethical foreign policy under Blair, and “New Labour” would be even snugger in bed with the arms industry than the old version. One of Blair’s lead men on Hawks to Indonesia was Jack Straw, who declared in the register of members’ interests that 50% of his election expenses had been paid by Lord Taylor, a Director of British Aerospace."

"Cook was the country’s most influential advocate of proportional representation, the surest safeguard against abuse of power by narrow and unrepresentative government. He also wanted to see executive authority checked by a powerful and fully elected House of Lords. This was the great work of his second ministerial post, as Leader of the House. It should not be forgotten that just as Blair deliberately blocked Cook over ethical foreign policy, so he blocked an elected House of Lords. And Blair blocked it for exactly the reason Cook wanted it, because it would be a brake on the Prime Minister’s authority.

"It amazes me that, when Blair made clear he wanted a largely appointed House of Lords, most people still didn’t tumble to just how power-mad the man is. Now we face proposals to hold people for three months without charge, and to deport people for entering the wrong bookshop or visiting the wrong website. We are to accept “assurances” from murderous regimes that they won’t torture or kill dissidents we hand over to them.

"Blair bangs on as if it wasn’t already illegal to be a terrorist, to kill people, to make or supply bombs or assist those who do. It is noteworthy that the alleged London bomber now charged is facing longstanding laws, like murder and conspiracy to murder, without any need for the raft of new legislation already in place, let alone Blair’s latest proposals."

"These are the most dangerous times for liberty in the UK since the government of Lord Liverpool. Those of us who believe freedom is important, face a huge battle over many years, and against great odds. We have lost our best leader."

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray on the death of Robin Cook: "I was one of a few enthusiasts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who welcomed the arrival of Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary and his declaration of an “Ethical foreign policy”. The majority were hostile and cynical, but not nearly so much as was Tony Blair.

"Within a very few weeks, Blair arranged Robin Cook’s defeat at Cabinet when Cook wanted to stop the export of British Aerospace Hawk jets to the Suharto regime of Indonesia, which has a strong history of vicious repression of its disparate peoples. I was told by a Cabinet Minister who sided with Cook, that Blair managed Cook’s cabinet defeat in as confrontational and humiliating a manner as possible.

"Plainly there would be no ethical foreign policy under Blair, and “New Labour” would be even snugger in bed with the arms industry than the old version. One of Blair’s lead men on Hawks to Indonesia was Jack Straw, who declared in the register of members’ interests that 50% of his election expenses had been paid by Lord Taylor, a Director of British Aerospace."

"Cook was the country’s most influential advocate of proportional representation, the surest safeguard against abuse of power by narrow and unrepresentative government. He also wanted to see executive authority checked by a powerful and fully elected House of Lords. This was the great work of his second ministerial post, as Leader of the House. It should not be forgotten that just as Blair deliberately blocked Cook over ethical foreign policy, so he blocked an elected House of Lords. And Blair blocked it for exactly the reason Cook wanted it, because it would be a brake on the Prime Minister’s authority.

"It amazes me that, when Blair made clear he wanted a largely appointed House of Lords, most people still didn’t tumble to just how power-mad the man is. Now we face proposals to hold people for three months without charge, and to deport people for entering the wrong bookshop or visiting the wrong website. We are to accept “assurances” from murderous regimes that they won’t torture or kill dissidents we hand over to them.

"Blair bangs on as if it wasn’t already illegal to be a terrorist, to kill people, to make or supply bombs or assist those who do. It is noteworthy that the alleged London bomber now charged is facing longstanding laws, like murder and conspiracy to murder, without any need for the raft of new legislation already in place, let alone Blair’s latest proposals."

"These are the most dangerous times for liberty in the UK since the government of Lord Liverpool. Those of us who believe freedom is important, face a huge battle over many years, and against great odds. We have lost our best leader."

Remarkable rape/murder case in India

Remarkable rape/murder case in India

Cost and Surplus value of Saudi oil - Matthew Simmons: "You know one of the problems is coming up with a proper definition of what you are including as your costs. For years they [Saudi Arabia] were undoubtedly the world's lowest cost oil producer because they had already paid for the fields. And the only costs they were counting were the operating costs to pull the oil out and they weren't charging anything for electricity or water, which is most of the cost.

"It was a very artificial cost. Now, today they've announced that they are going to spend something like $50 billion between now and 2009 to try and create a million and half barrels a day of spare capacity. And so, if they properly for charging for their water handling and their electricity they would be not the highest cost, but right up there. There isn't any real cheap, low cost oil left. They will tell you their costs are $.40-.50 a barrel. Basically it's a fictitious number. If you take the costs of things that have been totally written off, they really aren't real costs and figure out how much you want to charge for the water and electricity it could easily be between $10-20 a barrel."

50c a barrel or $20 a barrel, it has always been cheap in Arabia. And with market prices of $50, $100, $500 - there is a staggering quantity of pure economic rent or surplus value to be had from control of this resource. It only gets more valuable as it runs out.

Cost and Surplus value of Saudi oil - Matthew Simmons: "You know one of the problems is coming up with a proper definition of what you are including as your costs. For years they [Saudi Arabia] were undoubtedly the world's lowest cost oil producer because they had already paid for the fields. And the only costs they were counting were the operating costs to pull the oil out and they weren't charging anything for electricity or water, which is most of the cost.

"It was a very artificial cost. Now, today they've announced that they are going to spend something like $50 billion between now and 2009 to try and create a million and half barrels a day of spare capacity. And so, if they properly for charging for their water handling and their electricity they would be not the highest cost, but right up there. There isn't any real cheap, low cost oil left. They will tell you their costs are $.40-.50 a barrel. Basically it's a fictitious number. If you take the costs of things that have been totally written off, they really aren't real costs and figure out how much you want to charge for the water and electricity it could easily be between $10-20 a barrel."

50c a barrel or $20 a barrel, it has always been cheap in Arabia. And with market prices of $50, $100, $500 - there is a staggering quantity of pure economic rent or surplus value to be had from control of this resource. It only gets more valuable as it runs out.

Alan Greenspan admits the froth: "In a series of stunning about-faces, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has just recast his perceptions of the critically important relationship between monetary policy and asset markets. Not only does he finally own up to the perils of America’s housing bubble, but he now concedes that speculative froth in asset markets may well have been a direct outgrowth of the Fed’s policy stance. These revisionist views are in stark contrast to the Chairman’s public stance over the last decade."

Its a heck of a bubble - described as the biggest in history. A collapse of the bubble, the dollar, the US economy and hegemony, combined with unsustainable Chinese growth and the energy crises could lead to a depression that the kapitalist system never recovers from.

Alan Greenspan admits the froth: "In a series of stunning about-faces, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has just recast his perceptions of the critically important relationship between monetary policy and asset markets. Not only does he finally own up to the perils of America’s housing bubble, but he now concedes that speculative froth in asset markets may well have been a direct outgrowth of the Fed’s policy stance. These revisionist views are in stark contrast to the Chairman’s public stance over the last decade."

Its a heck of a bubble - described as the biggest in history. A collapse of the bubble, the dollar, the US economy and hegemony, combined with unsustainable Chinese growth and the energy crises could lead to a depression that the kapitalist system never recovers from.

1999 Chomsky interview on Iraq war and peakoil - same old same old: "The U.S. and Britain have simply announced, very clearly and loudly, that they are violent criminal states that are intent on destroying totally the fabric of international law, a fabric that has been built up laboriously over many years. They have announced that they will do as they please and will use violence as they please, independently of what anyone else thinks. In my view, that is the sole significance of the bombing and is probably the reason for it."

"This action is in fact a call for a lawless world in which the powerful will rule. The powerful happen to be the United States and Britain, which is by now a pathetic puppy dog that has abandoned any pretence of being an independent state."

"There are background issues here that are undoubtedly decisive. It is obvious to everyone that the main concern of external powers in West Asia is oil, or energy production. In the first place, there is now a consensus among geologists that the world may be heading for a serious oil crisis. In spite of new technology and deep-sea drilling, the rate of discovery of oil has been declining from about the 1960s. It is expected that within a decade or two, the magic halfway mark - or the destruction of half the world's known exploitable hydrocarbon energy resources - will be reached, and after that the way is downhill.

"Secondly, the rate of use of oil is accelerating. Close to half of the total use of oil in history has been in the last 20 years, that is, after the oil price rise.

"The third crucial point is that a very substantial part of the world's oil resources is in the Arabian peninsula-Persian Gulf region. The resources that exist elsewhere are nowhere near as abundant or as exploitable. The share of West Asian oil in total world production is getting back to what it was in about 1970, and that share will increase. That means that the importance of the region as a strategic centre and as a lever of control over world affairs is increasing. It is a very volatile region, very heavily armed, with many conflicts and with most of its population brutally suppressed in one way or another. For the last 50 years, the U.S. has been determined to run that region with the assistance of Britain. Nobody else, particularly the people of the region, is supposed to have any significant role there. All this makes for a highly inflammatory situation."

"Every time Tony Blair opens his mouth, he looks more disgusting and ridiculous, and his performance marked a painful and shameful day in the history of Britain."

1999 Chomsky interview on Iraq war and peakoil - same old same old: "The U.S. and Britain have simply announced, very clearly and loudly, that they are violent criminal states that are intent on destroying totally the fabric of international law, a fabric that has been built up laboriously over many years. They have announced that they will do as they please and will use violence as they please, independently of what anyone else thinks. In my view, that is the sole significance of the bombing and is probably the reason for it."

"This action is in fact a call for a lawless world in which the powerful will rule. The powerful happen to be the United States and Britain, which is by now a pathetic puppy dog that has abandoned any pretence of being an independent state."

"There are background issues here that are undoubtedly decisive. It is obvious to everyone that the main concern of external powers in West Asia is oil, or energy production. In the first place, there is now a consensus among geologists that the world may be heading for a serious oil crisis. In spite of new technology and deep-sea drilling, the rate of discovery of oil has been declining from about the 1960s. It is expected that within a decade or two, the magic halfway mark - or the destruction of half the world's known exploitable hydrocarbon energy resources - will be reached, and after that the way is downhill.

"Secondly, the rate of use of oil is accelerating. Close to half of the total use of oil in history has been in the last 20 years, that is, after the oil price rise.

"The third crucial point is that a very substantial part of the world's oil resources is in the Arabian peninsula-Persian Gulf region. The resources that exist elsewhere are nowhere near as abundant or as exploitable. The share of West Asian oil in total world production is getting back to what it was in about 1970, and that share will increase. That means that the importance of the region as a strategic centre and as a lever of control over world affairs is increasing. It is a very volatile region, very heavily armed, with many conflicts and with most of its population brutally suppressed in one way or another. For the last 50 years, the U.S. has been determined to run that region with the assistance of Britain. Nobody else, particularly the people of the region, is supposed to have any significant role there. All this makes for a highly inflammatory situation."

"Every time Tony Blair opens his mouth, he looks more disgusting and ridiculous, and his performance marked a painful and shameful day in the history of Britain."

Government conspiracy to subvert the Australian constituion: "Australia's heads of government joined in a shameless conspiracy to pervert the constitution by depriving us, the people, of our ancient legal protection from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial. Strong words, but that is what has happened. When these new anti-terrorism measures become law, police can arrest whoever they like, people as young as 16, and imprison them for 14 days if they have 'reasonable grounds' for believing they pose a terrorist threat. What those reasonable grounds might be is anyone's guess. The fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is out the window."

"On top of that, "suspects" could be tagged with electronic tracking devices or held under house arrest for up to a year, again without charge. This would be subject to judicial review but - and here's the crunch - a review only to determine that the letter of the law had been obeyed. The judge would not be permitted to establish if there was factual evidence for branding any person a terrorist suspect.

"Nor is there any mechanism to guard against these periods of detention, either 14 days or a year, being rolled over indefinitely. Detainees could be released, then re-arrested within minutes."

Having lost the basic liberty of freedom from detention without charge or trial, how long will it be before it is regained, if ever? It took but moments to lose, and nearly forever to gain or regain.

Government conspiracy to subvert the Australian constituion: "Australia's heads of government joined in a shameless conspiracy to pervert the constitution by depriving us, the people, of our ancient legal protection from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial. Strong words, but that is what has happened. When these new anti-terrorism measures become law, police can arrest whoever they like, people as young as 16, and imprison them for 14 days if they have 'reasonable grounds' for believing they pose a terrorist threat. What those reasonable grounds might be is anyone's guess. The fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is out the window."

"On top of that, "suspects" could be tagged with electronic tracking devices or held under house arrest for up to a year, again without charge. This would be subject to judicial review but - and here's the crunch - a review only to determine that the letter of the law had been obeyed. The judge would not be permitted to establish if there was factual evidence for branding any person a terrorist suspect.

"Nor is there any mechanism to guard against these periods of detention, either 14 days or a year, being rolled over indefinitely. Detainees could be released, then re-arrested within minutes."

Having lost the basic liberty of freedom from detention without charge or trial, how long will it be before it is regained, if ever? It took but moments to lose, and nearly forever to gain or regain.

Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11 | Church of England: "The book of Revelation, far from being a justification of American expansionism, is in fact a fierce critique of the imperial enterprise. It is not about detailed predictions of how history will unfold, but a revealing of what has truly happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although Roman power appeared to remain rampant in fact, according to the visionary writer of Revelation, the Lamb of God has defeated all the forces of evil and death. All imperial systems have been in principle overthrown by God’s rule in Jesus.... “Revelation is in other words a powerfully anti-imperial tract. Its coded and symbolic language pointed the first Christian to the real truth of history, which is that all empires will ultimately fail and be supplanted by the direct rule of God through the communion of the saints.”

According to Wikipedia, as recently as May 2005, scholars looking at the Oxyrhynchus collection (a tremendous discovery of ancient papyri) have added confirmation to the thesis that 'the number of the beast' is none other than a numerical code for Nero Ceasar. If one is allowed to 'interpret' Revelations, then its meaning, far from being God's approval for George W Bush, the American Empire and American Exceptionalism, would rather be something like this:

'The Beast' is the United States empire itself; Dubya Bush is the 'beast from the land'; Cheney is the 'beast from the (oily?) sea', aka Cthulhu; Barbara 'beautiful mind' Bush is the 'whore of Babylon'; the 'mark of the beast' is the US dollar ("... no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name"); Rupert Murdoch is 'the false prophet' (liar for evil); Pat Robertson is 'the antichrist' (Christ's teachings of love and mercy twisted into their polar opposite, hate and killing); the Pale Rider and the Four Horseman are Death and War (of course), avian flu, global warming and nuclear irradiation (depleted uranium, fallout); etc etc. And this too shall pass.

However, bad as Bush and the US empire are, of course, nothing can quite compare with the corruption and depravity of the Julio-Claudian imperial family. Which just might be another way of saying that Jesus' message, although having made some progress, still has a ways to go.

Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11 | Church of England: "The book of Revelation, far from being a justification of American expansionism, is in fact a fierce critique of the imperial enterprise. It is not about detailed predictions of how history will unfold, but a revealing of what has truly happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although Roman power appeared to remain rampant in fact, according to the visionary writer of Revelation, the Lamb of God has defeated all the forces of evil and death. All imperial systems have been in principle overthrown by God’s rule in Jesus.... “Revelation is in other words a powerfully anti-imperial tract. Its coded and symbolic language pointed the first Christian to the real truth of history, which is that all empires will ultimately fail and be supplanted by the direct rule of God through the communion of the saints.”

According to Wikipedia, as recently as May 2005, scholars looking at the Oxyrhynchus collection (a tremendous discovery of ancient papyri) have added confirmation to the thesis that 'the number of the beast' is none other than a numerical code for Nero Ceasar. If one is allowed to 'interpret' Revelations, then its meaning, far from being God's approval for George W Bush, the American Empire and American Exceptionalism, would rather be something like this:

'The Beast' is the United States empire itself; Dubya Bush is the 'beast from the land'; Cheney is the 'beast from the (oily?) sea', aka Cthulhu; Barbara 'beautiful mind' Bush is the 'whore of Babylon'; the 'mark of the beast' is the US dollar ("... no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name"); Rupert Murdoch is 'the false prophet' (liar for evil); Pat Robertson is 'the antichrist' (Christ's teachings of love and mercy twisted into their polar opposite, hate and killing); the Pale Rider and the Four Horseman are Death and War (of course), avian flu, global warming and nuclear irradiation (depleted uranium, fallout); etc etc. And this too shall pass.

However, bad as Bush and the US empire are, of course, nothing can quite compare with the corruption and depravity of the Julio-Claudian imperial family. Which just might be another way of saying that Jesus' message, although having made some progress, still has a ways to go.

Geo-Sequestration Revisited: "The PDF summary report (which is all that's currently available) starts out by describing in detail the currently available processes for carbon capture and storage; the document doesn't address biological sequestration options, as they are largely useful for reduction of existing concentrations, not reduction of new emissions. The three broad families of capture systems -- 'post-combustion,' 'pre-combustion,' and 'oxyfuel' -- are described, and discussions of costs, geographic requirements for storage, and risks (from the environmental to the legal) close out the document.

"The summary report runs a brief 25 pages, and it makes for sobering reading. Under best case scenarios, carbon capture and storage wouldn't make a significant difference in CO2 levels until the mid-point of this century; in addition, the current available sequestration options all pose significant challenges, including the possibility of actually exacerbating the global environmental situation rather than ameliorating it."

Industry demands will probably see interminable talk about geo-sequestration, but (like the nuclear lobby) it is simply a distraction and a diversion. Research, publicity, time and energy spent on these two is not being spent on the real answers - clean, renewable energy.

Geo-Sequestration Revisited: "The PDF summary report (which is all that's currently available) starts out by describing in detail the currently available processes for carbon capture and storage; the document doesn't address biological sequestration options, as they are largely useful for reduction of existing concentrations, not reduction of new emissions. The three broad families of capture systems -- 'post-combustion,' 'pre-combustion,' and 'oxyfuel' -- are described, and discussions of costs, geographic requirements for storage, and risks (from the environmental to the legal) close out the document.

"The summary report runs a brief 25 pages, and it makes for sobering reading. Under best case scenarios, carbon capture and storage wouldn't make a significant difference in CO2 levels until the mid-point of this century; in addition, the current available sequestration options all pose significant challenges, including the possibility of actually exacerbating the global environmental situation rather than ameliorating it."

Industry demands will probably see interminable talk about geo-sequestration, but (like the nuclear lobby) it is simply a distraction and a diversion. Research, publicity, time and energy spent on these two is not being spent on the real answers - clean, renewable energy.

New Danger from Global Warming: Escape of deadly viruses: "Ice sheets are mostly frozen water, but during the freezing process they can also incorporate organisms such as fungi, bacteria and viruses. Some scientists believe that climate change could unleash ancient illnesses as ice sheets drip away and bacteria and viruses defrost. Illnesses we thought we had eradicated, like polio, could reappear, while common viruses like human influenza could have a devastating effect if melting glaciers release a bygone strain to which we have no resistance. What is more, new species unknown to science may re-emerge. And it is not just humans who are at risk: animals, plants and marine creatures could also suffer as ancient microbes thaw out."

New Danger from Global Warming: Escape of deadly viruses: "Ice sheets are mostly frozen water, but during the freezing process they can also incorporate organisms such as fungi, bacteria and viruses. Some scientists believe that climate change could unleash ancient illnesses as ice sheets drip away and bacteria and viruses defrost. Illnesses we thought we had eradicated, like polio, could reappear, while common viruses like human influenza could have a devastating effect if melting glaciers release a bygone strain to which we have no resistance. What is more, new species unknown to science may re-emerge. And it is not just humans who are at risk: animals, plants and marine creatures could also suffer as ancient microbes thaw out."

King of Zembla links to two interviews with Matt Taibbi and Chris Floyd, which manage to cover some interesting material and also express the deep anxiety people feel about the last 30 years of political and cultural development in the US.

King of Zembla links to two interviews with Matt Taibbi and Chris Floyd, which manage to cover some interesting material and also express the deep anxiety people feel about the last 30 years of political and cultural development in the US.

Howard regime makes biofuels go backwards: "Ethanol use in Australia has fallen from 75 megalitres in 2002-03 to a projection of only 23 megalitres in 2005-06, a drop of 70 per cent in two years. It now accounts for only 0.1 per cent of the automotive fuel market.

"Ethanol sales have fallen since 2002 when it was revealed
discount petrol stations in Sydney were selling blends with 20 per
cent ethanol, and some manufacturers warned warranties for new cars were not valid if it was used."

Given the magnitude of the energy crisis, it is simply amazing to see that ethanol use has actually fallen by 70% in the last 2 years. Shouldnt biofuels and other renewables source be achieving steady if not dramatic growth? 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.'

The debate on petrol prices in the media and the politicians has been marked by breathtaking shallowness. No one is even attempting to explain to the public the real crisis and the urgent steps that need to be taken.

Howard regime makes biofuels go backwards: "Ethanol use in Australia has fallen from 75 megalitres in 2002-03 to a projection of only 23 megalitres in 2005-06, a drop of 70 per cent in two years. It now accounts for only 0.1 per cent of the automotive fuel market.

"Ethanol sales have fallen since 2002 when it was revealed
discount petrol stations in Sydney were selling blends with 20 per
cent ethanol, and some manufacturers warned warranties for new cars were not valid if it was used."

Given the magnitude of the energy crisis, it is simply amazing to see that ethanol use has actually fallen by 70% in the last 2 years. Shouldnt biofuels and other renewables source be achieving steady if not dramatic growth? 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.'

The debate on petrol prices in the media and the politicians has been marked by breathtaking shallowness. No one is even attempting to explain to the public the real crisis and the urgent steps that need to be taken.

Policy brilliance: Jet fuel untaxed: "But how can [air] fares be so much cheaper by plane than rail? One reason is the fact train companies pay duty on the fuel used - although the low-grade diesel that powers locomotives has lower taxes than fuels used by motorists.

"Airline fuel, however, is untaxed - thanks to a series of treaties between countries. For airlines which have to buy 200,000 litres to fill a jumbo jet, this is quite a saving and in turn helps keep fares low."

"British Airways has launched a scheme that allows customers to off-set damaging carbon-dioxide emissions by paying a voluntary sum which is then invested in sustainable energy projects."

An observor could be forgiven for suspecting policy is determined by the interests of influential corporations and industries. A carbon tax by tonne, with no exemptions, would tackle the problem head on.

Policy brilliance: Jet fuel untaxed: "But how can [air] fares be so much cheaper by plane than rail? One reason is the fact train companies pay duty on the fuel used - although the low-grade diesel that powers locomotives has lower taxes than fuels used by motorists.

"Airline fuel, however, is untaxed - thanks to a series of treaties between countries. For airlines which have to buy 200,000 litres to fill a jumbo jet, this is quite a saving and in turn helps keep fares low."

"British Airways has launched a scheme that allows customers to off-set damaging carbon-dioxide emissions by paying a voluntary sum which is then invested in sustainable energy projects."

An observor could be forgiven for suspecting policy is determined by the interests of influential corporations and industries. A carbon tax by tonne, with no exemptions, would tackle the problem head on.

New Orleans: Survivor Stories: A collection of fascinating first person accounts of the Hurricane disaster.

New Orleans: Survivor Stories: A collection of fascinating first person accounts of the Hurricane disaster.

Digby on the US abortion debate: Digby predicts that US Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will vote to overturn Roe vs Wade, and argues that "the right of the fetus is not the real issue --- the reasons a woman wants an abortion are the issue."

Digby on the US abortion debate: Digby predicts that US Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will vote to overturn Roe vs Wade, and argues that "the right of the fetus is not the real issue --- the reasons a woman wants an abortion are the issue."

Woolsey Hearing Begins Debate on Iraq Exit Strategy - A Report and Next Steps: Tom Hayden discusses a coherent strategy for exit from Iraq - worthy of publicity and support by the peace movement. No such coherence is coming from any government figure, whether Bush, Blair or Howard, or any of the official government oppositions. Hayden's ideas therefore are correctly targeted conjointly at the anti-war coalition, and at those elements of the ruling elite which will eventually be prepared to begin a shift in the light of political and military reality.

One key point in Hayden's approach - "Declaring No Interest in Permanent Bases or Control of Oil" - will of course be particularly difficult for the corporate-state-military establishment to accept, until forced to do so by a combination of military defeat and political activism. Without permanent bases or control of oil and the economy, the invasion is without purpose, and so therefore it can be anticipated that this will be resisted to the last drop of troops' blood and taxpayers' money.

Woolsey Hearing Begins Debate on Iraq Exit Strategy - A Report and Next Steps: Tom Hayden discusses a coherent strategy for exit from Iraq - worthy of publicity and support by the peace movement. No such coherence is coming from any government figure, whether Bush, Blair or Howard, or any of the official government oppositions. Hayden's ideas therefore are correctly targeted conjointly at the anti-war coalition, and at those elements of the ruling elite which will eventually be prepared to begin a shift in the light of political and military reality.

One key point in Hayden's approach - "Declaring No Interest in Permanent Bases or Control of Oil" - will of course be particularly difficult for the corporate-state-military establishment to accept, until forced to do so by a combination of military defeat and political activism. Without permanent bases or control of oil and the economy, the invasion is without purpose, and so therefore it can be anticipated that this will be resisted to the last drop of troops' blood and taxpayers' money.

Jailbreak in Basra: "British soldiers used 10 armored vehicles to break down the walls of the central jail in this southern city Monday and freed two Britons, allegedly undercover commandos arrested on charges of shooting two Iraqi policemen, witnesses said. But the British government said the two men were released as a result of negotiations.

"The different versions of events came on a chaotic day that raised questions about how much sovereignty Iraqi authorities really were granted when the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority handed over power to an interim Iraqi government in the summer of 2004."

Very droll.

"The arrests of the two Britons on Monday appeared to have been the first real and public test of how far that sovereignty extends. There have been no known incidents of Iraqi authorities arresting U.S. soldiers operating in the Iraqi heartland."

Not bloody likely.

"About 150 Iraqi prisoners fled as British commandos stormed inside and rescued their comrades.... defense officials insisted they had been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was demolished as British forces tried to “collect” the two prisoners."

You couldnt make this stuff up.

UPDATE: John Pilger asks the questions that should be asked, including: what were those 'undercover' SAS guys doing? Setting bombs?

Jailbreak in Basra: "British soldiers used 10 armored vehicles to break down the walls of the central jail in this southern city Monday and freed two Britons, allegedly undercover commandos arrested on charges of shooting two Iraqi policemen, witnesses said. But the British government said the two men were released as a result of negotiations.

"The different versions of events came on a chaotic day that raised questions about how much sovereignty Iraqi authorities really were granted when the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority handed over power to an interim Iraqi government in the summer of 2004."

Very droll.

"The arrests of the two Britons on Monday appeared to have been the first real and public test of how far that sovereignty extends. There have been no known incidents of Iraqi authorities arresting U.S. soldiers operating in the Iraqi heartland."

Not bloody likely.

"About 150 Iraqi prisoners fled as British commandos stormed inside and rescued their comrades.... defense officials insisted they had been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was demolished as British forces tried to “collect” the two prisoners."

You couldnt make this stuff up.

UPDATE: John Pilger asks the questions that should be asked, including: what were those 'undercover' SAS guys doing? Setting bombs?

Uri Avnery on 1967 and the settlers: "[The religious-nationalist] approach [represented] a very minor and even despised faction of Zionism before 1967. It took the settlement project over, robbed the socialist-Zionist camp of its original vision, and turned it into the hallmark of the national religious Zionist camp. And this is a change, not just in quantity, but also in quality. It is this camp which has become stronger every year for the last thirty-eight years. It has been promoted by all Israeli governments, whether Labor or Likud. It has been assisted not only by the Israeli army, but also by every part of the Israeli government and every ministry, both openly and covertly. This camp has become a very important force in Israeli society."

"The old socialist part of the Zionist movement and the kibbutz movement has broken down. It is economically bankrupt, and, what's more important, it is ideologically bankrupt. A third generation has now come to the fore in the Labor Party, a generation without ideology, without any real motivation. They are as capitalist as other parts of Israeli society. They're out to make money. The Labor Party is nothing but a reeking cadaver today, and is typical of this process. "

The religious Zionist movement has grown in force, ideological motivation, and fanaticism. It is a new kind of Jewish religion -- a tribal religion, a very aggressive nationalist religion -- and has elements (as I've said before) that must be characterized as fascist. And this force is now the only force in Israel that has a clear-cut ideology, that has thousands of people believing in it. Its thinking is clearly aimed at evicting the Palestinian population, and [creating] a homogeneous Jewish religious state, subject to the Halachah, and governed by rabbis. This is not often clearly articulated, but you can find it in the writings and the sayings of the leaders of this movement."

"Why did the majority of Israelis allow that to happen?

"UA: That's a very good question, and it's not easy to answer. When a majority doesn't have a clear and dominant ideology, and is faced with a strongly motivated, ideologically fanatical minority, the majority is at a great disadvantage.

"A majority of Israelis believe in democracy, but don't feel the urge to go out into the streets. For years, my friends and I have been demonstrating for an end to the Occupation, for peace with the Palestinians, and for democracy in Israel. We have experienced many heartbreaking moments when we called on people to come out and demonstrate and found that there is no force that can bring Israelis out, except on the annual day of mourning for Yitzhak Rabin. The only thing that mobilized these people was his murder and his memory. But it is very difficult to get them out for any other aim.

"It is a basic weakness of democracy that the democratic majority only comes out when it is severely provoked. And what is happening now in Israel, perhaps, is that the provocation by the settlers may reach a point where it will succeed in provoking the majority of Israelis to come out and fight for what they believe is important."

Nearly everyone believes or say they believe in democracy and liberty but how many are prepared to fight for it? Democracy hangs by a thread.

"All this shows that there is no clear will of the government to fight against the settlers. They find themselves in a fight that they did not expect to have. Sharon is completely bewildered, because when he started this so called "disengagement plan" he did not dream of entering a battle with the settlers. Quite the contrary. Ariel Sharon has been the father of the settlers more than any other person in the country. He put the settlements where they are and has worked tirelessly for years for the settlers. Sharon did not think that his plan was aimed against them. What he told the settlers was something like "we should give up a few settlements in the Gaza Strip, which are quite small and unimportant, in order to consolidate and save the big settlements in the West Bank and annex all the territory on which these settlements are sitting.""

"This sounded logical to Sharon. It is the logic of an army officer used to giving up territory in order to gain other territory. But the settlers did not accept it, and Sharon found himself unexpectedly confronted by them. This is a difficult situation, not only for Sharon personally, but for the entire Israeli political system to operate with any sense of consistency and determination because it [represents] a kind of cognitive dissonance."

"The great majority of Israelis are not aware of the real and present danger to Israeli democracy. They still have the illusion that this is something that will pass. Only when people realize that real danger is there and that people must come out and face it will there be a chance that some leadership will emerge. One can only hope that it will not be too late. I'm very much reminded of the last days of the Weimar Republic. I think about it constantly. And I think that the dangers that people were facing at that time are here. It has been said that the Weimar Republic collapsed not because the fascists overthrew it, but because at the moment of truth no one was ready to step up and defend the Republic. This nightmare pursues me. I think about it all the time."

Uri Avnery on 1967 and the settlers: "[The religious-nationalist] approach [represented] a very minor and even despised faction of Zionism before 1967. It took the settlement project over, robbed the socialist-Zionist camp of its original vision, and turned it into the hallmark of the national religious Zionist camp. And this is a change, not just in quantity, but also in quality. It is this camp which has become stronger every year for the last thirty-eight years. It has been promoted by all Israeli governments, whether Labor or Likud. It has been assisted not only by the Israeli army, but also by every part of the Israeli government and every ministry, both openly and covertly. This camp has become a very important force in Israeli society."

"The old socialist part of the Zionist movement and the kibbutz movement has broken down. It is economically bankrupt, and, what's more important, it is ideologically bankrupt. A third generation has now come to the fore in the Labor Party, a generation without ideology, without any real motivation. They are as capitalist as other parts of Israeli society. They're out to make money. The Labor Party is nothing but a reeking cadaver today, and is typical of this process. "

The religious Zionist movement has grown in force, ideological motivation, and fanaticism. It is a new kind of Jewish religion -- a tribal religion, a very aggressive nationalist religion -- and has elements (as I've said before) that must be characterized as fascist. And this force is now the only force in Israel that has a clear-cut ideology, that has thousands of people believing in it. Its thinking is clearly aimed at evicting the Palestinian population, and [creating] a homogeneous Jewish religious state, subject to the Halachah, and governed by rabbis. This is not often clearly articulated, but you can find it in the writings and the sayings of the leaders of this movement."

"Why did the majority of Israelis allow that to happen?

"UA: That's a very good question, and it's not easy to answer. When a majority doesn't have a clear and dominant ideology, and is faced with a strongly motivated, ideologically fanatical minority, the majority is at a great disadvantage.

"A majority of Israelis believe in democracy, but don't feel the urge to go out into the streets. For years, my friends and I have been demonstrating for an end to the Occupation, for peace with the Palestinians, and for democracy in Israel. We have experienced many heartbreaking moments when we called on people to come out and demonstrate and found that there is no force that can bring Israelis out, except on the annual day of mourning for Yitzhak Rabin. The only thing that mobilized these people was his murder and his memory. But it is very difficult to get them out for any other aim.

"It is a basic weakness of democracy that the democratic majority only comes out when it is severely provoked. And what is happening now in Israel, perhaps, is that the provocation by the settlers may reach a point where it will succeed in provoking the majority of Israelis to come out and fight for what they believe is important."

Nearly everyone believes or say they believe in democracy and liberty but how many are prepared to fight for it? Democracy hangs by a thread.

"All this shows that there is no clear will of the government to fight against the settlers. They find themselves in a fight that they did not expect to have. Sharon is completely bewildered, because when he started this so called "disengagement plan" he did not dream of entering a battle with the settlers. Quite the contrary. Ariel Sharon has been the father of the settlers more than any other person in the country. He put the settlements where they are and has worked tirelessly for years for the settlers. Sharon did not think that his plan was aimed against them. What he told the settlers was something like "we should give up a few settlements in the Gaza Strip, which are quite small and unimportant, in order to consolidate and save the big settlements in the West Bank and annex all the territory on which these settlements are sitting.""

"This sounded logical to Sharon. It is the logic of an army officer used to giving up territory in order to gain other territory. But the settlers did not accept it, and Sharon found himself unexpectedly confronted by them. This is a difficult situation, not only for Sharon personally, but for the entire Israeli political system to operate with any sense of consistency and determination because it [represents] a kind of cognitive dissonance."

"The great majority of Israelis are not aware of the real and present danger to Israeli democracy. They still have the illusion that this is something that will pass. Only when people realize that real danger is there and that people must come out and face it will there be a chance that some leadership will emerge. One can only hope that it will not be too late. I'm very much reminded of the last days of the Weimar Republic. I think about it constantly. And I think that the dangers that people were facing at that time are here. It has been said that the Weimar Republic collapsed not because the fascists overthrew it, but because at the moment of truth no one was ready to step up and defend the Republic. This nightmare pursues me. I think about it all the time."

Sealing them in: Digby's post and the links he supplies discuss the amazing callousness, neglect, mismanagement, racism and incompetence of the authorities in dealing with the people trapped in New Orleans after the hurricane.

Sealing them in: Digby's post and the links he supplies discuss the amazing callousness, neglect, mismanagement, racism and incompetence of the authorities in dealing with the people trapped in New Orleans after the hurricane.

The Outer Limits of Empire - Tom Engelhardt interviews Howard Zinn: "It's interesting that we've had short wars ever since [Vietnam], except for this one, and those wars were deliberately designed to be short so that there wouldn't be time for an antiwar movement to develop. In this case, they miscalculated. Now, I don't think it's a question of if, just when. When and how. I don't think there's any question that the United States is going to have to get out of Iraq. The only questions are: How long will it take? How many more people will die? And how will it be done?"

"It does seem like a hard concept – war crimes, war criminals – to catch on here. There's a willingness to say the leadership is wrong, but it's a great jump from there to saying that the leadership is vicious. Unfortunately, in American culture, there's still a kind of monarchical idea that the president, the people up there, are very special people and while they may make mistakes, they couldn't be criminals. Even after the public had turned against the Vietnam War, there was no widespread talk about Johnson, [Secretary of Defense Robert] McNamara, and the rest of them being war criminals. And I think it has to do with an American culture of deference to the president and his men – beyond which people refuse to think."

One might think the idea of 'deference to the monarch' is not exclusively American.

"I would guess that a very large number of Americans against the war in Vietnam still believed in the essential goodness of this country. They thought of Vietnam as an aberration. Only a minority in the antiwar movement saw it as part of a continuous policy of imperialism and expansion. I think that's true today as well. It's very hard for Americans to let go of the idea that we're an especially good nation. It's comforting to know that, even though we do wrong things from time to time, these are just individual aberrations. I think it takes a great deal of political consciousness to extend the criticism of a particular policy or a particular war to a general negative appraisal of the country and its history. It strikes too close to something Americans seem to need to hold onto."

"Of course, there's an element that's right in this as well – in that there are principles for which the United States presumably stands that are good. It's just that people confuse the principles with the policies – and so long as they can keep those principles in their heads (justice for all, equality, and so on), they are very reluctant to accept the fact that they have been crassly, consistently violated. This is the only way I can account for the stopping short when it comes to looking at the president and the people around him as war criminals."

Hence the singular importance of the anarchistic philosophy.

"I like to think that the American empire has reached its outer limits with the Middle East. I don't believe it has a future in Latin America. I think it's worn out whatever power it had there and we're seeing the rise of governments that will not play ball with the United States. This may be one of the reasons why the war in Iraq is so important to this administration. Beyond Iraq there's no place to go. So, let's put it this way, I see withdrawal from Iraq whenever it takes place – and think of this as partly wish and partly belief [he chuckles at himself] – as the first step in the retrenchment of the American empire. After all we aren't the first country in history to be forced to do this.

"I'd like to say that this will be because of American domestic opposition, but I suspect mostly it will be because the rest of the world won't accept further American forays into places where we don't belong. In the future, I believe 9/11 may be seen as representing the beginning of the dissolution of the American empire; that is, the very event that immediately crystallized popular support for war, in the long run – and I don't know how long that will be – may be seen as the beginning of the weakening and crumbling of the American empire."

"Although lots of things are unclear to me, one thing is very clear. [War] is not in our genes. Whenever I read accounts, even by people who have been in war, that suggest there's something in the masculine psyche that requires this kind of violence and militarism, I don't believe it. I say this on the basis of historical experience; that is, if you compare the instances in which people, mostly men, have committed violent acts and gone to war to those in which people have not gone to war, have rejected war, it seems people don't naturally want war.... To me the strongest argument against an inherent drive to war is the extent to which governments have to resort to get people to go to war, the huge amounts of propaganda and deception of which we had an example very recently. And don't forget coercion. So I discard that idea of a natural inclination to war."

Let's hope the old man has got the wisdom here. The rest of us could be forgiven for thinking it most certainly is in the genes. The veneer of civilisation, including the modern veneer of besuited savages, seems just that, a veneer.

"When you look at the ratio of civilian to military dead, it changes from 50-50 in World War II to 80-20 in Vietnam, maybe as high as 90-10 today.... When you face that fact, war is now always a war against civilians, and so against children. No political goal can justify it, and so the great challenge before the human race in our time is to solve the problems of tyranny and aggression, and do it without war. [He laughs quietly.] A very complex and difficult job, but something that has to be faced – and that's what accounts for my becoming involved in antiwar movements ever since the end of World War II."

The Outer Limits of Empire - Tom Engelhardt interviews Howard Zinn: "It's interesting that we've had short wars ever since [Vietnam], except for this one, and those wars were deliberately designed to be short so that there wouldn't be time for an antiwar movement to develop. In this case, they miscalculated. Now, I don't think it's a question of if, just when. When and how. I don't think there's any question that the United States is going to have to get out of Iraq. The only questions are: How long will it take? How many more people will die? And how will it be done?"

"It does seem like a hard concept – war crimes, war criminals – to catch on here. There's a willingness to say the leadership is wrong, but it's a great jump from there to saying that the leadership is vicious. Unfortunately, in American culture, there's still a kind of monarchical idea that the president, the people up there, are very special people and while they may make mistakes, they couldn't be criminals. Even after the public had turned against the Vietnam War, there was no widespread talk about Johnson, [Secretary of Defense Robert] McNamara, and the rest of them being war criminals. And I think it has to do with an American culture of deference to the president and his men – beyond which people refuse to think."

One might think the idea of 'deference to the monarch' is not exclusively American.

"I would guess that a very large number of Americans against the war in Vietnam still believed in the essential goodness of this country. They thought of Vietnam as an aberration. Only a minority in the antiwar movement saw it as part of a continuous policy of imperialism and expansion. I think that's true today as well. It's very hard for Americans to let go of the idea that we're an especially good nation. It's comforting to know that, even though we do wrong things from time to time, these are just individual aberrations. I think it takes a great deal of political consciousness to extend the criticism of a particular policy or a particular war to a general negative appraisal of the country and its history. It strikes too close to something Americans seem to need to hold onto."

"Of course, there's an element that's right in this as well – in that there are principles for which the United States presumably stands that are good. It's just that people confuse the principles with the policies – and so long as they can keep those principles in their heads (justice for all, equality, and so on), they are very reluctant to accept the fact that they have been crassly, consistently violated. This is the only way I can account for the stopping short when it comes to looking at the president and the people around him as war criminals."

Hence the singular importance of the anarchistic philosophy.

"I like to think that the American empire has reached its outer limits with the Middle East. I don't believe it has a future in Latin America. I think it's worn out whatever power it had there and we're seeing the rise of governments that will not play ball with the United States. This may be one of the reasons why the war in Iraq is so important to this administration. Beyond Iraq there's no place to go. So, let's put it this way, I see withdrawal from Iraq whenever it takes place – and think of this as partly wish and partly belief [he chuckles at himself] – as the first step in the retrenchment of the American empire. After all we aren't the first country in history to be forced to do this.

"I'd like to say that this will be because of American domestic opposition, but I suspect mostly it will be because the rest of the world won't accept further American forays into places where we don't belong. In the future, I believe 9/11 may be seen as representing the beginning of the dissolution of the American empire; that is, the very event that immediately crystallized popular support for war, in the long run – and I don't know how long that will be – may be seen as the beginning of the weakening and crumbling of the American empire."

"Although lots of things are unclear to me, one thing is very clear. [War] is not in our genes. Whenever I read accounts, even by people who have been in war, that suggest there's something in the masculine psyche that requires this kind of violence and militarism, I don't believe it. I say this on the basis of historical experience; that is, if you compare the instances in which people, mostly men, have committed violent acts and gone to war to those in which people have not gone to war, have rejected war, it seems people don't naturally want war.... To me the strongest argument against an inherent drive to war is the extent to which governments have to resort to get people to go to war, the huge amounts of propaganda and deception of which we had an example very recently. And don't forget coercion. So I discard that idea of a natural inclination to war."

Let's hope the old man has got the wisdom here. The rest of us could be forgiven for thinking it most certainly is in the genes. The veneer of civilisation, including the modern veneer of besuited savages, seems just that, a veneer.

"When you look at the ratio of civilian to military dead, it changes from 50-50 in World War II to 80-20 in Vietnam, maybe as high as 90-10 today.... When you face that fact, war is now always a war against civilians, and so against children. No political goal can justify it, and so the great challenge before the human race in our time is to solve the problems of tyranny and aggression, and do it without war. [He laughs quietly.] A very complex and difficult job, but something that has to be faced – and that's what accounts for my becoming involved in antiwar movements ever since the end of World War II."

American evangelist Rev Fred Phelps praises the destruction of New Orleans: "Thank God for Katrina. New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter. America is irreversibly doomed. It is a sin to pray for the good of this evil fag nation. It is a sin NOT to rejoice when God executes His wrath and vengeance upon America. Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans."

American evangelist Rev Fred Phelps praises the destruction of New Orleans: "Thank God for Katrina. New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter. America is irreversibly doomed. It is a sin to pray for the good of this evil fag nation. It is a sin NOT to rejoice when God executes His wrath and vengeance upon America. Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans."

"Man loots store" vs "Residents find food": What would that be about?

"Man loots store" vs "Residents find food": What would that be about?

Hurricane Katrina - Our Experiences: 2 Paramedics at a conference in New Orleans relate their survival experiences after the Hurricane struck.

Hurricane Katrina - Our Experiences: 2 Paramedics at a conference in New Orleans relate their survival experiences after the Hurricane struck.

Playing Poker With Dick Cheney

Playing Poker With Dick Cheney