Oil: The Dividing Line Of The New Cold War: "The US today spends about as much on its national defence as the next 20 countries combined. In fact, America is now spending as much on defense as it did during the height of the Cold War. Yet, in spite of this fact, many of the country’s military leaders tell us they don't have enough money and that the Pentagon needs to buy more modern and expensive weapons to assure the country’s national security and, of equal importance, safeguard a steady stream of oil supplies. A military coming up against the constraints of a “mere” $500bn budget is occurring against a backdrop of mounting military activity in the Middle East and substantially higher oil prices. Even more alarming from America’s perspective, the country’s vaunted military strength has little control over the latter."

"Virtually all of the recent political machinations in the [Gulf] region, including, not only the Iraq war, but also developments in Iran, and the Ukraine’s recently disputed Presidential election, can be best understood through the prism of oil pipeline politics.... Even short of a formal new energy alliance, the main outlines of a China-Russia-Iran axis can be discerned in their mutual threat perception."

"In its own version of pipeline politics, Mr Putin’s riposte to the Americans has been to ally the Russian and Iranian oil industries, and open up the shortest, cheapest and most lucrative oil route of all, southwards out of the Caspian to Iran. China has become another component of this strategy. Indeed, China's recent deals with both Kazakhstan (pertaining to Caspian energy) and Iran (pertaining to Persian Gulf resources) signify that the pundits have gotten it wrong until now: the purview of the new great game is not limited to the Central Asia-Caspian Sea basin, but rather has a broader, more integrated, purview increasingly enveloping even the Persian Gulf. Increasingly, the image of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a sort of frontline state in a post-Cold War global lineup against US hegemony is becoming prevalent among Chinese and Russian foreign-policy thinkers."

"Under the guise of “economic reform”, Russia had experienced an economic and social slump far worse than the Great Depression, and things were to get worse for another two years, until after the financial collapse in August 1998. The West vehemently backed Boris Yeltsin, supporting him even as stupendous amounts of money were stolen from an increasingly impoverished population. They cheered him on when he shelled the Russian parliament in 1993 (hundreds died in the subsequent fighting), and visited a campaign of hideous destruction on Chechnya. In the dying days of the Yeltsin regime, the US-controlled IMF poured a further $4 billion into Russia, most of which, it is now accepted, was simply stolen and put into private bank accounts.

"The Putin Presidency has put an end to that. Although his campaign against Yukos has been widely condemned in the western press as “an assault on free enterprise”, his actions appear less arbitrary when viewed in the context of what went on during the previous administration. The country’s oil barons, including the Yukos chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and the now exiled Boris Berezovsky, were key figures in the Yeltsin regime, and specifically in its strategy of creating a class of so-called oligarchs who, having stolen massive amounts from the Russian state which they controlled, then supported Yeltsin in return. Under the guise of “reform” actively supported by the Clinton administration and IMF, the most profitable parts of the Russian economy were sold to “kleptocrats” at ridiculously low prices in rigged auctions, those Russian robber barons often even using cheap loans from the Central Bank for the purpose.

"Only after this mass larceny was achieved did these same figures make grand noises about the need to establish a proper “rule of law” in Russia, a self-serving strategy designed to safeguard their ill-gotten gains. The west’s own complicity in this shameful episode has seldom been commented on, even though it is crucial to understanding President Putin’s “inexplicably” harder line against Yukos, the west generally and America more specifically.

"As the oil price has strengthened, Russia’s balance of payments surplus has exploded as have its foreign exchange reserves. Its growing strength is a mirror image of America’s increasing economic weakness. At the same time, President Bush is proving that he cannot lift Iraqi oil, and America has become increasingly bogged down in a 4th Generation type of guerilla war, which has further exacerbated the country's ongoing economic (and military) weaknesses. Consequently, Mr Putin is beginning to play the oil card more aggressively."

"Capitulating to dollar hegemony effectively perpetuates a monetary system which clearly serves Washington’s interest. But does it serve the interests of Russia, Euroland, OPEC, or the largest foreign holders of US dollar assets in Asia? Were more commerce to be priced in euros, more reserves held in Eurobonds, this would go some ways toward strengthening the euro’s long term foundations as a viable reserve currency alternative, whilst undercutting the pre-eminence of the dollar reserve currency system. As a key marginal producer of both oil and natural gas, Russia is now in an enviable position to catalyse this development."

Oil: The Dividing Line Of The New Cold War: "The US today spends about as much on its national defence as the next 20 countries combined. In fact, America is now spending as much on defense as it did during the height of the Cold War. Yet, in spite of this fact, many of the country’s military leaders tell us they don't have enough money and that the Pentagon needs to buy more modern and expensive weapons to assure the country’s national security and, of equal importance, safeguard a steady stream of oil supplies. A military coming up against the constraints of a “mere” $500bn budget is occurring against a backdrop of mounting military activity in the Middle East and substantially higher oil prices. Even more alarming from America’s perspective, the country’s vaunted military strength has little control over the latter."

"Virtually all of the recent political machinations in the [Gulf] region, including, not only the Iraq war, but also developments in Iran, and the Ukraine’s recently disputed Presidential election, can be best understood through the prism of oil pipeline politics.... Even short of a formal new energy alliance, the main outlines of a China-Russia-Iran axis can be discerned in their mutual threat perception."

"In its own version of pipeline politics, Mr Putin’s riposte to the Americans has been to ally the Russian and Iranian oil industries, and open up the shortest, cheapest and most lucrative oil route of all, southwards out of the Caspian to Iran. China has become another component of this strategy. Indeed, China's recent deals with both Kazakhstan (pertaining to Caspian energy) and Iran (pertaining to Persian Gulf resources) signify that the pundits have gotten it wrong until now: the purview of the new great game is not limited to the Central Asia-Caspian Sea basin, but rather has a broader, more integrated, purview increasingly enveloping even the Persian Gulf. Increasingly, the image of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a sort of frontline state in a post-Cold War global lineup against US hegemony is becoming prevalent among Chinese and Russian foreign-policy thinkers."

"Under the guise of “economic reform”, Russia had experienced an economic and social slump far worse than the Great Depression, and things were to get worse for another two years, until after the financial collapse in August 1998. The West vehemently backed Boris Yeltsin, supporting him even as stupendous amounts of money were stolen from an increasingly impoverished population. They cheered him on when he shelled the Russian parliament in 1993 (hundreds died in the subsequent fighting), and visited a campaign of hideous destruction on Chechnya. In the dying days of the Yeltsin regime, the US-controlled IMF poured a further $4 billion into Russia, most of which, it is now accepted, was simply stolen and put into private bank accounts.

"The Putin Presidency has put an end to that. Although his campaign against Yukos has been widely condemned in the western press as “an assault on free enterprise”, his actions appear less arbitrary when viewed in the context of what went on during the previous administration. The country’s oil barons, including the Yukos chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and the now exiled Boris Berezovsky, were key figures in the Yeltsin regime, and specifically in its strategy of creating a class of so-called oligarchs who, having stolen massive amounts from the Russian state which they controlled, then supported Yeltsin in return. Under the guise of “reform” actively supported by the Clinton administration and IMF, the most profitable parts of the Russian economy were sold to “kleptocrats” at ridiculously low prices in rigged auctions, those Russian robber barons often even using cheap loans from the Central Bank for the purpose.

"Only after this mass larceny was achieved did these same figures make grand noises about the need to establish a proper “rule of law” in Russia, a self-serving strategy designed to safeguard their ill-gotten gains. The west’s own complicity in this shameful episode has seldom been commented on, even though it is crucial to understanding President Putin’s “inexplicably” harder line against Yukos, the west generally and America more specifically.

"As the oil price has strengthened, Russia’s balance of payments surplus has exploded as have its foreign exchange reserves. Its growing strength is a mirror image of America’s increasing economic weakness. At the same time, President Bush is proving that he cannot lift Iraqi oil, and America has become increasingly bogged down in a 4th Generation type of guerilla war, which has further exacerbated the country's ongoing economic (and military) weaknesses. Consequently, Mr Putin is beginning to play the oil card more aggressively."

"Capitulating to dollar hegemony effectively perpetuates a monetary system which clearly serves Washington’s interest. But does it serve the interests of Russia, Euroland, OPEC, or the largest foreign holders of US dollar assets in Asia? Were more commerce to be priced in euros, more reserves held in Eurobonds, this would go some ways toward strengthening the euro’s long term foundations as a viable reserve currency alternative, whilst undercutting the pre-eminence of the dollar reserve currency system. As a key marginal producer of both oil and natural gas, Russia is now in an enviable position to catalyse this development."

The End of Oil?: "If the actions—rather than the words—of the oil business’s major players provide the best gauge of how they see the future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction. Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being decommissioned faster than new ones are being built."

"In 1969, the prominent geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that a graph of world oil production over time would look like a bell curve, with a peak around the year 2000. Thereafter, he argued, production would drop—slowly at first, then ever faster."

The End of Oil?: "If the actions—rather than the words—of the oil business’s major players provide the best gauge of how they see the future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction. Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being decommissioned faster than new ones are being built."

"In 1969, the prominent geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that a graph of world oil production over time would look like a bell curve, with a peak around the year 2000. Thereafter, he argued, production would drop—slowly at first, then ever faster."

Hartmann on habeas corpus and Bush's rejection of same

Hartmann on habeas corpus and Bush's rejection of same

Australian citizen Habib badly tortured, then released without charges being laid: "Habib was taken to the Guantanamo Bay prison in May 2002. Three Britons released from the prison -- Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul -- have said Habib was in "catastrophic shape" when he arrived. Most of his fingernails were missing, and while sleeping he regularly bled from his nose, mouth and ears but U.S. officials denied him treatment, they said."

"The petition says [Habib] was taken to an airfield where, during a struggle, he was beaten by several people who spoke American-accented English. The men cut off his clothes, one placed a foot on his neck "and posed while another took pictures," the document says. He was then flown to Egypt, it alleges, and spent six months in custody in a barren, 6-foot-by-8-foot cell, where he slept on the concrete floor with one blanket. During interrogations, Habib was "sometimes suspended from hooks on the wall" and repeatedly kicked, punched, beaten with a stick, rammed with an electric cattle prod and doused with cold water when he fell asleep, the petition says.

"He was suspended from hooks, with his is feet resting on the side of a large cylindrical drum attached to wires and a battery, the document says. "When Mr. Habib did not give the answers his interrogators wanted, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity" went through the drum, it says. "The action of Mr. Habib 'dancing' on the drum forced it to rotate, and his feet constantly slipped, leaving him suspended by only the hooks on the wall . . . This ingenious cruelty lasted until Mr. Habib finally fainted." At other times, the petition alleges, he was placed in ankle-deep water that his interrogators told him "was wired to an electric current, and that unless Mr. Habib confessed, they would throw the switch and electrocute him." Habib says he gave false confessions to stop the abuse."

"Mr Habib's Australia-based lawyer, Stephen Hopper, says the new evidence implicates the Australian Government. Mr Hopper says the most serious allegation in the documents concerns the involvement of an Australian official in his client's alleged abuse before he was taken to Egypt.

""The Australian officials stood by while what we believe were CIA officials engaged in the type of abuses we've seen at Abu Graib, where Mamdouh Habib's clothes were cut off, he's handcuffed, held down with women around him," he said. "The photos were taken and he was mocked."

"Mr Hopper says his client's treatment has been disgraceful. "The types of abuse that Mamdouh Habib has suffered are medieval and they would horrify any person," he said. "It's beyond imagination what's happened to this man, yet our Government stands by and allows the Americans to do this, and they don't do anything about it.""

So after more than three years of detention without trial and medieval torture, Habib is now to be released without any charges being laid.

Australian citizen Habib badly tortured, then released without charges being laid: "Habib was taken to the Guantanamo Bay prison in May 2002. Three Britons released from the prison -- Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul -- have said Habib was in "catastrophic shape" when he arrived. Most of his fingernails were missing, and while sleeping he regularly bled from his nose, mouth and ears but U.S. officials denied him treatment, they said."

"The petition says [Habib] was taken to an airfield where, during a struggle, he was beaten by several people who spoke American-accented English. The men cut off his clothes, one placed a foot on his neck "and posed while another took pictures," the document says. He was then flown to Egypt, it alleges, and spent six months in custody in a barren, 6-foot-by-8-foot cell, where he slept on the concrete floor with one blanket. During interrogations, Habib was "sometimes suspended from hooks on the wall" and repeatedly kicked, punched, beaten with a stick, rammed with an electric cattle prod and doused with cold water when he fell asleep, the petition says.

"He was suspended from hooks, with his is feet resting on the side of a large cylindrical drum attached to wires and a battery, the document says. "When Mr. Habib did not give the answers his interrogators wanted, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity" went through the drum, it says. "The action of Mr. Habib 'dancing' on the drum forced it to rotate, and his feet constantly slipped, leaving him suspended by only the hooks on the wall . . . This ingenious cruelty lasted until Mr. Habib finally fainted." At other times, the petition alleges, he was placed in ankle-deep water that his interrogators told him "was wired to an electric current, and that unless Mr. Habib confessed, they would throw the switch and electrocute him." Habib says he gave false confessions to stop the abuse."

"Mr Habib's Australia-based lawyer, Stephen Hopper, says the new evidence implicates the Australian Government. Mr Hopper says the most serious allegation in the documents concerns the involvement of an Australian official in his client's alleged abuse before he was taken to Egypt.

""The Australian officials stood by while what we believe were CIA officials engaged in the type of abuses we've seen at Abu Graib, where Mamdouh Habib's clothes were cut off, he's handcuffed, held down with women around him," he said. "The photos were taken and he was mocked."

"Mr Hopper says his client's treatment has been disgraceful. "The types of abuse that Mamdouh Habib has suffered are medieval and they would horrify any person," he said. "It's beyond imagination what's happened to this man, yet our Government stands by and allows the Americans to do this, and they don't do anything about it.""

So after more than three years of detention without trial and medieval torture, Habib is now to be released without any charges being laid.

Iraq: Central America solution: "George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war. But many top Bush aides played key roles in the repression of leftist peasant uprisings in Central America in the ‘80s, a set of lessons the Bush administration is now trying to apply to the violent resistance in Iraq.

"The key counterinsurgency lesson from Central America was that the U.S. government can defeat guerrilla movements if it is willing to back a local power structure, no matter how repulsive, and if Washington is ready to tolerate gross human rights abuses. In Central America in the ‘80s, those tactics included genocide against hundreds of Mayan villages in Guatemala’s highlands and the torture, rape and murder of thousands of young political activists throughout the region.... The temptation to recycle these counterinsurgency strategies from Central America to Iraq is explained by the number of Reagan-era officials now back in prominent roles in George W. Bush’s administration."

"One important difference between Iraq and Central America, however, is that to date, the Bush administration has had trouble finding, arming and unleashing an Iraqi proxy force that compares to the paramilitary killers who butchered suspected leftists in Central America. In El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, well-established “security forces” already existed. Plus, in Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan could turn to the remnants of ousted dictator Anastasio Somoza’s National Guard to fashion a contra rebel force. In Iraq, however, U.S. policymakers chose to disband—rather than redirect—Saddam Hussein’s army and intelligence services, leaving the burden of counterinsurgency heavily on U.S. occupying troops who are unfamiliar with Iraq’s language, history and terrain."

"Children were “thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed.”"

Iraq: Central America solution: "George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war. But many top Bush aides played key roles in the repression of leftist peasant uprisings in Central America in the ‘80s, a set of lessons the Bush administration is now trying to apply to the violent resistance in Iraq.

"The key counterinsurgency lesson from Central America was that the U.S. government can defeat guerrilla movements if it is willing to back a local power structure, no matter how repulsive, and if Washington is ready to tolerate gross human rights abuses. In Central America in the ‘80s, those tactics included genocide against hundreds of Mayan villages in Guatemala’s highlands and the torture, rape and murder of thousands of young political activists throughout the region.... The temptation to recycle these counterinsurgency strategies from Central America to Iraq is explained by the number of Reagan-era officials now back in prominent roles in George W. Bush’s administration."

"One important difference between Iraq and Central America, however, is that to date, the Bush administration has had trouble finding, arming and unleashing an Iraqi proxy force that compares to the paramilitary killers who butchered suspected leftists in Central America. In El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, well-established “security forces” already existed. Plus, in Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan could turn to the remnants of ousted dictator Anastasio Somoza’s National Guard to fashion a contra rebel force. In Iraq, however, U.S. policymakers chose to disband—rather than redirect—Saddam Hussein’s army and intelligence services, leaving the burden of counterinsurgency heavily on U.S. occupying troops who are unfamiliar with Iraq’s language, history and terrain."

"Children were “thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed.”"

Chomsky and Academic History: "Noam Chomsky has written more than 30 books over the last three decades. Yet neither the Journal of American History, nor the American Historical Review, nor Reviews in American History has reviewed them. If the journals had overlooked one or two of Chomsky's books, then the omissions might not rise to the status of a problem, and could be attributed to a combination of reasons each of them incidental to Chomsky himself. If the journals had in fact devoted attention to him, but the preponderance of the attention had been hostile, then they might stand accused of harboring a bias. This is the most respectable way to disagree about such matters. But the journals have not done enough to deserve the accusation. They have not reviewed a single one of his books. Chomsky is one of most widely read political intellectuals in the world. Academic history pretends he does not exist. Why is this so?"

Chomsky is surely the most important political writer of the post-war era. One (of a number) of his achievements is to essentially write the history of the post war era, at least in terms of the dominant global power, the US. The author of this article suggests that Chomsky is ignored because of "the plain fact that liberal and Marxist historians [Chomsky is not one of these] have conquered institutional power and prestige across the country, and have effected a virtual monopoly on serious intellectual discussion." That is a damning and no doubt all too accurate indictment of 'Marxism' and 'liberalism', but perhaps the real reason for Chomsky's plight is simpler: as Chomsky himself said when advising a young writer (Finkelstein) to be cautious about pursuing a line of research "you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you." Except that Chomsky cant be destroyed or refuted, the only option is to treat him with complete silence.

Chomsky and Academic History: "Noam Chomsky has written more than 30 books over the last three decades. Yet neither the Journal of American History, nor the American Historical Review, nor Reviews in American History has reviewed them. If the journals had overlooked one or two of Chomsky's books, then the omissions might not rise to the status of a problem, and could be attributed to a combination of reasons each of them incidental to Chomsky himself. If the journals had in fact devoted attention to him, but the preponderance of the attention had been hostile, then they might stand accused of harboring a bias. This is the most respectable way to disagree about such matters. But the journals have not done enough to deserve the accusation. They have not reviewed a single one of his books. Chomsky is one of most widely read political intellectuals in the world. Academic history pretends he does not exist. Why is this so?"

Chomsky is surely the most important political writer of the post-war era. One (of a number) of his achievements is to essentially write the history of the post war era, at least in terms of the dominant global power, the US. The author of this article suggests that Chomsky is ignored because of "the plain fact that liberal and Marxist historians [Chomsky is not one of these] have conquered institutional power and prestige across the country, and have effected a virtual monopoly on serious intellectual discussion." That is a damning and no doubt all too accurate indictment of 'Marxism' and 'liberalism', but perhaps the real reason for Chomsky's plight is simpler: as Chomsky himself said when advising a young writer (Finkelstein) to be cautious about pursuing a line of research "you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you." Except that Chomsky cant be destroyed or refuted, the only option is to treat him with complete silence.

Juan Cole: timetable for US withdrawal?: "The Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) met on Saturday with 8 officials of the US embassy. Its leader, Harith al-Dhari, offered to end the Sunni Arab organization's call for a boycott of the elections if the US would set a definite timetable for withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. Al-Hayat says that the AMS now says it will accept a Shiite government if it results from the elections, as long as the latter negotiates a firm deadline for the withdrawal of US troops. AMS said that its disagreements with Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani were 'merely differences of opinion.'

"Abdul Salam al-Kubaisi, the number two man in the Association of Muslim Scholars, said that it would be desirable for his organization's leadership to meet with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani so as to reduce the degree of sectarian tension. Al-Kubaisi also said that AMS would seek a follow-up meeting with the US officials.

"I take all this to suggest that the Sunni Arab Iraqis see the withdrawal of US troops as their first and most important priority, coming even before the reestablishment of Sunni Arab political primacy. I also suspect that a withdrawal timetable is something that all Iraqis would like to see (though it is problematic; such timetables in Palestine and India in the late 1940s arguably contributed to the massive violence and Partition in the two British imperial possessions. When the local people sense that the imperial power is a lame duck, they lose all fear of it; and its very withdrawal creates new political opportunities that some will want to seize violently).... The NYT reports that how to get out of Iraq has become a central topic in Washington."

Juan Cole: timetable for US withdrawal?: "The Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) met on Saturday with 8 officials of the US embassy. Its leader, Harith al-Dhari, offered to end the Sunni Arab organization's call for a boycott of the elections if the US would set a definite timetable for withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. Al-Hayat says that the AMS now says it will accept a Shiite government if it results from the elections, as long as the latter negotiates a firm deadline for the withdrawal of US troops. AMS said that its disagreements with Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani were 'merely differences of opinion.'

"Abdul Salam al-Kubaisi, the number two man in the Association of Muslim Scholars, said that it would be desirable for his organization's leadership to meet with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani so as to reduce the degree of sectarian tension. Al-Kubaisi also said that AMS would seek a follow-up meeting with the US officials.

"I take all this to suggest that the Sunni Arab Iraqis see the withdrawal of US troops as their first and most important priority, coming even before the reestablishment of Sunni Arab political primacy. I also suspect that a withdrawal timetable is something that all Iraqis would like to see (though it is problematic; such timetables in Palestine and India in the late 1940s arguably contributed to the massive violence and Partition in the two British imperial possessions. When the local people sense that the imperial power is a lame duck, they lose all fear of it; and its very withdrawal creates new political opportunities that some will want to seize violently).... The NYT reports that how to get out of Iraq has become a central topic in Washington."

The Mad, Mad World of God's People on Earth: "One such newspaper correspondent pleaded, with unintentional black humor, that “God regularly answers our prayers, including recently saving our son’s marriage when it went through a rocky patch, yet He ignores the pleas of thousands who scream for their loved ones lost to the waves. We are in turmoil”.

"Presumably the author of the letter has never previously considered that while their God was busy divinely intervening to stop their son breaking wind under the duvet without apologizing to his wife, He must also, by implication, have been deaf to the prayers from thousands all over the world, screaming mercy for loved ones blown up by bombs, dying of famine, run down by cars, killed by robbers, fires, disease or poverty. The turmoil the letter writer should be experiencing is how he arrived at being so terminally self-centered and unutterably stupid not to have noticed pain and suffering until it came to his attention in the form of a headline-grabbing tsunami.

"But if we can forgive the knuckle-dragging idiocy of a member of the public, who could, after all, quite possibly be educationally subnormal, it’s considerably harder to explain the reaction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, an educated theologian of some intellectual standing, when he described the tsunami as “testing our faith”.

"How the archbishop reasons that a natural, and indeed geologically predictable, earthquake can shake his faith, when war, famine, criminality, religious hatred and the advancement of science that makes his religion look increasingly ridiculous, have never been singled out by him as having the same faith-rocking effect is mystifying. If anything, the indifferent destructive power of the tsunami, in contrast to the malicious destructive power of mankind, is so obscenely impressive that it’s more likely to tempt the swithering non-believer into the fold of supernatural belief than drive them away. Puny humans, armed with all our expensive weaponry, technology and irrational loathing, take months to systematically slaughter thousands of people in Iraq, whereas the Earth’s crust gives one tiny shrug in its sleep and hundreds of thousands die in a matter of days."

"Meanwhile, a letter to The Herald about the tsunami from Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, claims to speak for all Muslims, and tells us that this world’s “reality” is of little consequence, since believers know it is nothing more than a test, and they can look forward after death to an “unimaginable quality of life”. He finishes by expressing bafflement as to how those of us who don’t believe in this promised land manage to cope at all, as in his words, “It’s only the knowledge that everyone will be recompensed in the hereafter that keeps me going”.

"If this perspective came from a deeply depressed, terminally ill person in great pain, or the lone survivor of a terrible family-destroying calamity, one might afford it some sympathy. As it comes from someone fit, healthy and hired to represent the views of a great many diverse Scottish Muslims, most of whom love this life dearly and wish to make the best of it for themselves and those who share the planet, one can only hope he gets better soon."

The Mad, Mad World of God's People on Earth: "One such newspaper correspondent pleaded, with unintentional black humor, that “God regularly answers our prayers, including recently saving our son’s marriage when it went through a rocky patch, yet He ignores the pleas of thousands who scream for their loved ones lost to the waves. We are in turmoil”.

"Presumably the author of the letter has never previously considered that while their God was busy divinely intervening to stop their son breaking wind under the duvet without apologizing to his wife, He must also, by implication, have been deaf to the prayers from thousands all over the world, screaming mercy for loved ones blown up by bombs, dying of famine, run down by cars, killed by robbers, fires, disease or poverty. The turmoil the letter writer should be experiencing is how he arrived at being so terminally self-centered and unutterably stupid not to have noticed pain and suffering until it came to his attention in the form of a headline-grabbing tsunami.

"But if we can forgive the knuckle-dragging idiocy of a member of the public, who could, after all, quite possibly be educationally subnormal, it’s considerably harder to explain the reaction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, an educated theologian of some intellectual standing, when he described the tsunami as “testing our faith”.

"How the archbishop reasons that a natural, and indeed geologically predictable, earthquake can shake his faith, when war, famine, criminality, religious hatred and the advancement of science that makes his religion look increasingly ridiculous, have never been singled out by him as having the same faith-rocking effect is mystifying. If anything, the indifferent destructive power of the tsunami, in contrast to the malicious destructive power of mankind, is so obscenely impressive that it’s more likely to tempt the swithering non-believer into the fold of supernatural belief than drive them away. Puny humans, armed with all our expensive weaponry, technology and irrational loathing, take months to systematically slaughter thousands of people in Iraq, whereas the Earth’s crust gives one tiny shrug in its sleep and hundreds of thousands die in a matter of days."

"Meanwhile, a letter to The Herald about the tsunami from Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, claims to speak for all Muslims, and tells us that this world’s “reality” is of little consequence, since believers know it is nothing more than a test, and they can look forward after death to an “unimaginable quality of life”. He finishes by expressing bafflement as to how those of us who don’t believe in this promised land manage to cope at all, as in his words, “It’s only the knowledge that everyone will be recompensed in the hereafter that keeps me going”.

"If this perspective came from a deeply depressed, terminally ill person in great pain, or the lone survivor of a terrible family-destroying calamity, one might afford it some sympathy. As it comes from someone fit, healthy and hired to represent the views of a great many diverse Scottish Muslims, most of whom love this life dearly and wish to make the best of it for themselves and those who share the planet, one can only hope he gets better soon."

New Zealand Confirms Supplying Agent Orange in Vietnam War: "New Zealand supplied Agent Orange chemicals to the United States military during the Vietnam war, a government minister has revealed. The disclosure led to immediate claims that New Zealand was in breach of the Geneva convention and could face a flood of lawsuits from veterans and Vietnamese.... After nearly three decades of official denials, a high-level parliamentary committee formally acknowledged late last year that New Zealand soldiers in the Vietnam War were significantly exposed to Agent Orange, but no mention was ever made that the country was a supplier.... From 1961 to 1971, the US and South Vietnamese military sprayed millions of litres of toxic herbicides, mainly Agent Orange, over South Vietnam to destroy the vegetation used by communist forces for cover and food. Hanoi says the defoliant has caused health problems for more than one million Vietnamese and continues to have devastating consequences. A study released in August last year by scientists from the United States, Germany and Vietnam found that Agent Orange was still contaminating people through their food."

New Zealand Confirms Supplying Agent Orange in Vietnam War: "New Zealand supplied Agent Orange chemicals to the United States military during the Vietnam war, a government minister has revealed. The disclosure led to immediate claims that New Zealand was in breach of the Geneva convention and could face a flood of lawsuits from veterans and Vietnamese.... After nearly three decades of official denials, a high-level parliamentary committee formally acknowledged late last year that New Zealand soldiers in the Vietnam War were significantly exposed to Agent Orange, but no mention was ever made that the country was a supplier.... From 1961 to 1971, the US and South Vietnamese military sprayed millions of litres of toxic herbicides, mainly Agent Orange, over South Vietnam to destroy the vegetation used by communist forces for cover and food. Hanoi says the defoliant has caused health problems for more than one million Vietnamese and continues to have devastating consequences. A study released in August last year by scientists from the United States, Germany and Vietnam found that Agent Orange was still contaminating people through their food."

Death Squads: the 'Salvador' option: "The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

"Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)"

"Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria."

The only sense in which the Salvadoran death squads were ever 'secret' was that (like Nixon's 'secret bombings') they were kept 'secret' from the American people by the corporate media. And yet it is now openly discussed in the mainstream media, and 'conservatives' are prepared to openly proclaim the 'success' of Nazi-style tactics. Something similar was attempted in Vietnam, the 'Phoenix program'. But it didnt work. One cant see how it is going to work in Iraq either. The insurgents are heavily armed and supported by the population. Membership in a 'death squad' looks like a certain ticket for one's own death.

Death Squads: the 'Salvador' option: "The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

"Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)"

"Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria."

The only sense in which the Salvadoran death squads were ever 'secret' was that (like Nixon's 'secret bombings') they were kept 'secret' from the American people by the corporate media. And yet it is now openly discussed in the mainstream media, and 'conservatives' are prepared to openly proclaim the 'success' of Nazi-style tactics. Something similar was attempted in Vietnam, the 'Phoenix program'. But it didnt work. One cant see how it is going to work in Iraq either. The insurgents are heavily armed and supported by the population. Membership in a 'death squad' looks like a certain ticket for one's own death.

Never again: "Over three years ago I started a book club with a bunch of women. I am the only liberal in this group. We have one born again Christian, and the rest are hardly church oriented.

"This month we read a book called Florida Road Kill. Oh the carrying on about the gore the murders and how truly gross it was! They questioned how anyone could do those horrible things, what kind of mind could think up those gross actions, the awful tortures, etc. Spawn of Satan that I am, I pointed out that our own government tortured people at al Gharib and hid it and now are out-sourcing it to other countries.

"Like a group of cows that turn their heads in unison to see what that noise was, they turned and stared at me and silently chewed their cud. That horrible woman (me) was making those weird, stupid, statements again. Nothing was said. They didn't argue. They never do. They just paused and then went on to discuss the lack of remorse of the people in the book! How oblivious and cold-blooded these characters were!

"I sat there with my mouth hanging open. What are these people? They just shut their eyes, their minds, and hearts, and when I question them the answer I get all the time is "It just upsets me too much." And when they are pushed “I just try to do the best I can in my small area" comes in second.

"I have relatives in this group and I am starting to loathe them. People I believed were good honest loving people have turned into something I don't recognize. These are the exactly same type of people they had to drag to the concentration camps after the war and stick their noses in the ashes---and STILL they claimed they didn't know it was going on. I can't remember ever being so appalled by my fellow Americans."

Years ago, it used to be a popular query in regard to Germany, Hitler and the Nazis, how could a civilised nation have done something so barbaric? With a bit more experience of the world, one might instead remark, its a wonder it doesn't happen more often. And with yet more experience, the question becomes, what must I do today to stop my country's ongoing participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Never again: "Over three years ago I started a book club with a bunch of women. I am the only liberal in this group. We have one born again Christian, and the rest are hardly church oriented.

"This month we read a book called Florida Road Kill. Oh the carrying on about the gore the murders and how truly gross it was! They questioned how anyone could do those horrible things, what kind of mind could think up those gross actions, the awful tortures, etc. Spawn of Satan that I am, I pointed out that our own government tortured people at al Gharib and hid it and now are out-sourcing it to other countries.

"Like a group of cows that turn their heads in unison to see what that noise was, they turned and stared at me and silently chewed their cud. That horrible woman (me) was making those weird, stupid, statements again. Nothing was said. They didn't argue. They never do. They just paused and then went on to discuss the lack of remorse of the people in the book! How oblivious and cold-blooded these characters were!

"I sat there with my mouth hanging open. What are these people? They just shut their eyes, their minds, and hearts, and when I question them the answer I get all the time is "It just upsets me too much." And when they are pushed “I just try to do the best I can in my small area" comes in second.

"I have relatives in this group and I am starting to loathe them. People I believed were good honest loving people have turned into something I don't recognize. These are the exactly same type of people they had to drag to the concentration camps after the war and stick their noses in the ashes---and STILL they claimed they didn't know it was going on. I can't remember ever being so appalled by my fellow Americans."

Years ago, it used to be a popular query in regard to Germany, Hitler and the Nazis, how could a civilised nation have done something so barbaric? With a bit more experience of the world, one might instead remark, its a wonder it doesn't happen more often. And with yet more experience, the question becomes, what must I do today to stop my country's ongoing participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity?

US unilateralism defeated only 8 days after it was announced: "The "core group" [US, Japan, India, Australia] of nations announced by US President George W. Bush to channel aid to victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami will be dissolved today after just eight days as the United Nations takes control of the relief effort, delegates to a donors summit said yesterday.

"There is an attempt to portray this as a non-event by claiming the “core group” has already “served its purpose [so] it is time to dissolve it”. But that doesn’t square with Bush’s statement announcing the group’s formation: “I'm confident more nations will join this core group in short order.” The plan was to expand the core group, not terminate it."

The US reign as relief hyperpower has lasted an even shorter time than its reign as "New Rome". Predictably, Howard followed the US initiative and equally predictably the woeful Labor opposition could not find anything to disagree with. This is a Labor opposition that does not know whether or not it supports the United Nations, international law, the Geneva Convention, and a ban on torture and gulags. It is an opposition that cannot see that the US Imperium is as shortlived as it is immoral. Howard is a sitting duck and the opposition cannot make up its mind to train all its guns and blow him away.

US unilateralism defeated only 8 days after it was announced: "The "core group" [US, Japan, India, Australia] of nations announced by US President George W. Bush to channel aid to victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami will be dissolved today after just eight days as the United Nations takes control of the relief effort, delegates to a donors summit said yesterday.

"There is an attempt to portray this as a non-event by claiming the “core group” has already “served its purpose [so] it is time to dissolve it”. But that doesn’t square with Bush’s statement announcing the group’s formation: “I'm confident more nations will join this core group in short order.” The plan was to expand the core group, not terminate it."

The US reign as relief hyperpower has lasted an even shorter time than its reign as "New Rome". Predictably, Howard followed the US initiative and equally predictably the woeful Labor opposition could not find anything to disagree with. This is a Labor opposition that does not know whether or not it supports the United Nations, international law, the Geneva Convention, and a ban on torture and gulags. It is an opposition that cannot see that the US Imperium is as shortlived as it is immoral. Howard is a sitting duck and the opposition cannot make up its mind to train all its guns and blow him away.

SLAPPS explained: "The strategy of using a SLAPP is to claim some ambit amount, say $6 million dollars, and then serve a writ on the defendants. In the writ are, usually, a series of conditions. One of which is to seek that the defendant make no written or spoken comment on the matter over which they are being sued. In short, the writ seeks to limit the ability of one side of a debate being able to express their truly held, personal beliefs. In short, a SLAPP is a fancy way of trying to get your opponents silenced. Well, at least it's a little more humane than dragging them behind the shelter shed and belting the crap out of them like the schoolyard bullies used to do. That or put a bullet in their head. Whatever tactic is used, the idea is to shut your critics up.

"The main way this has been achieved, without resorting to violence, is through the sheer threat of having a multimillion-dollar 'fine' and potential civil action taken against you. The US experience has been that, 'The resulting effect 'chills' public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This chilling effect is not limited to the SLAPP defendants - other people refrain from speaking out on issues of public concern because they fear being sued for what they say'. The interesting thing and the most enlightening as to why these cases are brought, is to look at the US where almost 80% of the SLAPP cases are won by those being sued. This means only one thing. The SLAPP is not meant to do anything other than to intimidate, waste time and, perhaps, win the company bringing the case a little time to do some fancy PR and save a few percentage points of their profit.

"Sharon Beder, quoting a US judge, points out that, 'The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to 'stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so' . The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism'. "

The SLAPP is thus similar to the 'Fair Game' corporate legal tactic used by Scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard: "The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.... Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized... The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, will knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

SLAPPS explained: "The strategy of using a SLAPP is to claim some ambit amount, say $6 million dollars, and then serve a writ on the defendants. In the writ are, usually, a series of conditions. One of which is to seek that the defendant make no written or spoken comment on the matter over which they are being sued. In short, the writ seeks to limit the ability of one side of a debate being able to express their truly held, personal beliefs. In short, a SLAPP is a fancy way of trying to get your opponents silenced. Well, at least it's a little more humane than dragging them behind the shelter shed and belting the crap out of them like the schoolyard bullies used to do. That or put a bullet in their head. Whatever tactic is used, the idea is to shut your critics up.

"The main way this has been achieved, without resorting to violence, is through the sheer threat of having a multimillion-dollar 'fine' and potential civil action taken against you. The US experience has been that, 'The resulting effect 'chills' public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This chilling effect is not limited to the SLAPP defendants - other people refrain from speaking out on issues of public concern because they fear being sued for what they say'. The interesting thing and the most enlightening as to why these cases are brought, is to look at the US where almost 80% of the SLAPP cases are won by those being sued. This means only one thing. The SLAPP is not meant to do anything other than to intimidate, waste time and, perhaps, win the company bringing the case a little time to do some fancy PR and save a few percentage points of their profit.

"Sharon Beder, quoting a US judge, points out that, 'The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to 'stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so' . The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism'. "

The SLAPP is thus similar to the 'Fair Game' corporate legal tactic used by Scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard: "The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.... Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized... The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, will knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

The Gunns writ is an attack on democracy: "Greg Barns seeks to defend Gunns, the Tasmanian timber and woodchip conglomerate, from charges that it is stifling free speech by suing 20 environmentalists and environmental groups for $6.36 million ('Say what you will, this is not about free speech', on this page last Tuesday). He is dead wrong on all counts. ......... In some cases the writ specifies a person or people who committed the acts, which makes me wonder why these individuals are not being sued individually for the relevant damages. In many other cases the writ alleges that 'one or more' of the individuals listed performed the action. If they do not know for sure, why impute responsibility to a whole group, at least some of who weren't even present? However, the most damning aspect of the suit is that some of the actions being sued for simply are not criminal acts directed against Gunns or its contractors. One claim is that defendants have engaged in 'publicising grievances about the environment and the activities of (Gunns) both in Australia and with its customers and consumers overseas'. This is simply a definition of protest. In several other parts of the writ, Gunns allege that signs were affixed to trees and fences on Crown land near logging coups. Entering this land and putting signs on it may be criminal (in no very terrible way), but it is not a crime against Gunns. Protesting against Gunns may damage its interests, but it isn't criminal or wrong. Connecting the protest against Gunns to alleged minor criminal acts against the Crown doesn't alter the fact that Gunns is suing people for voicing their opinions. If the criminal acts themselves give rise to damages, it is the Crown that is entitled to sue, not Gunns. Gunns is not a 'victim of crime' just because the crime enabled people to protest against it. ......... Gunns is not entitled to overturn these profound principles in the civil courts........."

The Gunns writ is an attack on democracy: "Greg Barns seeks to defend Gunns, the Tasmanian timber and woodchip conglomerate, from charges that it is stifling free speech by suing 20 environmentalists and environmental groups for $6.36 million ('Say what you will, this is not about free speech', on this page last Tuesday). He is dead wrong on all counts. ......... In some cases the writ specifies a person or people who committed the acts, which makes me wonder why these individuals are not being sued individually for the relevant damages. In many other cases the writ alleges that 'one or more' of the individuals listed performed the action. If they do not know for sure, why impute responsibility to a whole group, at least some of who weren't even present? However, the most damning aspect of the suit is that some of the actions being sued for simply are not criminal acts directed against Gunns or its contractors. One claim is that defendants have engaged in 'publicising grievances about the environment and the activities of (Gunns) both in Australia and with its customers and consumers overseas'. This is simply a definition of protest. In several other parts of the writ, Gunns allege that signs were affixed to trees and fences on Crown land near logging coups. Entering this land and putting signs on it may be criminal (in no very terrible way), but it is not a crime against Gunns. Protesting against Gunns may damage its interests, but it isn't criminal or wrong. Connecting the protest against Gunns to alleged minor criminal acts against the Crown doesn't alter the fact that Gunns is suing people for voicing their opinions. If the criminal acts themselves give rise to damages, it is the Crown that is entitled to sue, not Gunns. Gunns is not a 'victim of crime' just because the crime enabled people to protest against it. ......... Gunns is not entitled to overturn these profound principles in the civil courts........."

McGunns Lawsuit by Gunns Limited: "While Tasmanian billion dollar Australian registered company Gunns Limited and its shareholders (including the Commonwealth Bank and AMP) bathe in record profits from woodchipping and vandalising Tasmania's native forests, poisoning its wildlife and spraying carcinogenic chemicals, it initiates legal action in Melbourne against ordinary Tasmanian mums and dads that dare to oppose the Gunns regime and who can't afford legal representation."

McGunns Lawsuit by Gunns Limited: "While Tasmanian billion dollar Australian registered company Gunns Limited and its shareholders (including the Commonwealth Bank and AMP) bathe in record profits from woodchipping and vandalising Tasmania's native forests, poisoning its wildlife and spraying carcinogenic chemicals, it initiates legal action in Melbourne against ordinary Tasmanian mums and dads that dare to oppose the Gunns regime and who can't afford legal representation."

Chomsky: The Non-Election of 2004: " It is easy to demonstrate that for Bush planners, the threat of terror is a low priority. The invasion of Iraq is only one of many illustrations. Even their own intelligence agencies agreed with the consensus among other agencies, and independent specialists, that the invasion was likely to increase the threat of terror, as it did; probably nuclear proliferation as well, as also predicted. Such threats are simply not high priorities as compared with the opportunity to establish the first secure military bases in a dependent client state at the heart of the world’s major energy reserves, a region understood since World War II to be the “most strategically important area of the world,” “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” Apart from what one historian of the industry calls “profits beyond the dreams of avarice,” which must flow in the right direction, control over two-thirds of the world’s estimated hydrocarbon reserves—uniquely cheap and easy to exploit—provides what Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called “critical leverage” over European and Asian rivals, what George Kennan many years earlier had called “veto power” over them. These have been crucial policy concerns throughout the post-World War II period, even more so in today’s evolving tripolar world, with its threat that Europe and Asia might move towards greater independence, and worse, might be united: China and the EU became each other’s major trading partners in 2004, joined by the world’s second largest economy (Japan), and those tendencies are likely to increase. A firm hand on the spigot reduces these dangers.

"Note that the critical issue is control, not access. U.S. policies towards the Middle East were the same when it was a net exporter of oil, and remain the same today when U.S. intelligence projects that the U.S. will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources. Policies would be likely to be about the same if the U.S. were to switch to renewable energy. The need to control the “stupendous source of strategic power” and to gain “profits beyond the dreams of avarice” would remain. Jockeying over Central Asia and pipeline routes reflects similar concerns. There are many other illustrations of the same lack of concern of planners about terror. Bush voters, whether they knew it or not, were voting for a likely increase in the threat of terror, which could be awesome: it was understood well before 9/11 that sooner or later the Jihadists organized by the CIA and its associates in the 1980s are likely to gain access to WMDs, with horrendous consequences."

" As for “moral values,” we learn what we need to know about them from the business press the day after the election, reporting the “euphoria” in board rooms—not because CEOs oppose gay marriage. And from the unconcealed efforts to transfer to future generations the costs of the dedicated service of Bush planners to privilege and wealth: fiscal and environmental costs, among others, not to speak of the threat of “ultimate doom.” That aside, it means little to say that people vote on the basis of “moral values.” The question is what they mean by the phrase. The limited indications are of some interest. In some polls, “when the voters were asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the country, 33 percent cited ‘greed and materialism,’ 31 percent selected ‘poverty and economic justice,’ 16 percent named abortion, and 12 percent selected gay marriage” (Pax Christi). In others, “when surveyed voters were asked to list the moral issue that most affected their vote, the Iraq war placed first at 42 percent, while 13 percent named abortion and 9 percent named gay marriage” (Zogby)."

Chomsky: The Non-Election of 2004: " It is easy to demonstrate that for Bush planners, the threat of terror is a low priority. The invasion of Iraq is only one of many illustrations. Even their own intelligence agencies agreed with the consensus among other agencies, and independent specialists, that the invasion was likely to increase the threat of terror, as it did; probably nuclear proliferation as well, as also predicted. Such threats are simply not high priorities as compared with the opportunity to establish the first secure military bases in a dependent client state at the heart of the world’s major energy reserves, a region understood since World War II to be the “most strategically important area of the world,” “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” Apart from what one historian of the industry calls “profits beyond the dreams of avarice,” which must flow in the right direction, control over two-thirds of the world’s estimated hydrocarbon reserves—uniquely cheap and easy to exploit—provides what Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called “critical leverage” over European and Asian rivals, what George Kennan many years earlier had called “veto power” over them. These have been crucial policy concerns throughout the post-World War II period, even more so in today’s evolving tripolar world, with its threat that Europe and Asia might move towards greater independence, and worse, might be united: China and the EU became each other’s major trading partners in 2004, joined by the world’s second largest economy (Japan), and those tendencies are likely to increase. A firm hand on the spigot reduces these dangers.

"Note that the critical issue is control, not access. U.S. policies towards the Middle East were the same when it was a net exporter of oil, and remain the same today when U.S. intelligence projects that the U.S. will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources. Policies would be likely to be about the same if the U.S. were to switch to renewable energy. The need to control the “stupendous source of strategic power” and to gain “profits beyond the dreams of avarice” would remain. Jockeying over Central Asia and pipeline routes reflects similar concerns. There are many other illustrations of the same lack of concern of planners about terror. Bush voters, whether they knew it or not, were voting for a likely increase in the threat of terror, which could be awesome: it was understood well before 9/11 that sooner or later the Jihadists organized by the CIA and its associates in the 1980s are likely to gain access to WMDs, with horrendous consequences."

" As for “moral values,” we learn what we need to know about them from the business press the day after the election, reporting the “euphoria” in board rooms—not because CEOs oppose gay marriage. And from the unconcealed efforts to transfer to future generations the costs of the dedicated service of Bush planners to privilege and wealth: fiscal and environmental costs, among others, not to speak of the threat of “ultimate doom.” That aside, it means little to say that people vote on the basis of “moral values.” The question is what they mean by the phrase. The limited indications are of some interest. In some polls, “when the voters were asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the country, 33 percent cited ‘greed and materialism,’ 31 percent selected ‘poverty and economic justice,’ 16 percent named abortion, and 12 percent selected gay marriage” (Pax Christi). In others, “when surveyed voters were asked to list the moral issue that most affected their vote, the Iraq war placed first at 42 percent, while 13 percent named abortion and 9 percent named gay marriage” (Zogby)."

US dollar hegenony: a Ponzi scheme: "The crash of the dollar would (will?) crumble this entire world-embracing and -organizing political economic doughnut and throw hundreds of millions of people, not to mention zillions of dollars and their owners, into turmoil, with unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable consequences.

"Many people, high and low on the world totem pole, have a big stake in avoiding that, even if it requires continuing to blow an empty Uncle Sam up like a balloon. Or to refer to a well-know metaphor, to continue to pretend that the emperor with no clothes is dressed up. That still includes China, for which a financial showdown with Uncle Sam would be a blessing in disguise."

"Of course, crashing the dollar would finally also in one fell swoop wipe out, that is default, Uncle Sam's debt altogether. Thereby, it would simultaneously also make all foreigners and rich Americans lose the whole of their dollar-asset shirt, of which they are still desperately trying to save as much as possible by not so doing. In fact, this historically necessary transition out from under the US-run doughnut world could bring the entire world into the deepest depression ever - and in all of them the poorest suffer the most."

US dollar hegenony: a Ponzi scheme: "The crash of the dollar would (will?) crumble this entire world-embracing and -organizing political economic doughnut and throw hundreds of millions of people, not to mention zillions of dollars and their owners, into turmoil, with unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable consequences.

"Many people, high and low on the world totem pole, have a big stake in avoiding that, even if it requires continuing to blow an empty Uncle Sam up like a balloon. Or to refer to a well-know metaphor, to continue to pretend that the emperor with no clothes is dressed up. That still includes China, for which a financial showdown with Uncle Sam would be a blessing in disguise."

"Of course, crashing the dollar would finally also in one fell swoop wipe out, that is default, Uncle Sam's debt altogether. Thereby, it would simultaneously also make all foreigners and rich Americans lose the whole of their dollar-asset shirt, of which they are still desperately trying to save as much as possible by not so doing. In fact, this historically necessary transition out from under the US-run doughnut world could bring the entire world into the deepest depression ever - and in all of them the poorest suffer the most."

American Gulag: US Said to Mull Lifetime Terror-Suspect Detentions: "The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts."

This is indefinite detention without trial. The ability of the state to snatch people off the street and hold them in a dungeon at its whim is the essence of tyranny or dictatorship. Conversely, the right of every person to a fair trial before an independent judge, the right to be charged or released, the right of habeas corpus, is the essence of freedom and civil liberties. So, are you with us or against us?

American Gulag: US Said to Mull Lifetime Terror-Suspect Detentions: "The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts."

This is indefinite detention without trial. The ability of the state to snatch people off the street and hold them in a dungeon at its whim is the essence of tyranny or dictatorship. Conversely, the right of every person to a fair trial before an independent judge, the right to be charged or released, the right of habeas corpus, is the essence of freedom and civil liberties. So, are you with us or against us?

We Must Resist America's Attempts to Undermine the United Nations: "In the middle of an extremely complex emergency, [Bush] tells us that the US, Australia, Japan and India will co-ordinate the international response. None of these countries has a strong record in responding to international emergencies, although India takes pride in its capacity to deal with its own problems. This proposal is likely to complicate rather than help international coordination Efforts are now under way to try to ensure that the coalition of four will work with the UN, but it is hard to see where the proposal came from, apart from yet another US attempt to snub the UN.

"I find this growing appetite for UN bashing very worrying. In a period of growing international disorder, humanitarian crisis and environmental threat, there is a major push by the world's strongest power to undermine the only system we have for taking co-ordinated action to enforce peace, respond to humanitarian crisis and reach environmental agreements."

"At a time when the world faces terrible challenges, of poverty, disorder and environmental degradation, there is a real danger that the US government is consistently undermining the only legitimate system of international co-operation that we have. And because the UK sees the US alliance as its foreign policy priority, we are increasingly part of the problem rather than the solution."

Australian PM John Howard, of course, instead of aligning himself, suporting and building the established UN relief and emergency structures, predictably follows the Bush administration's 'UN bashing' 'unitaleral' approach.

We Must Resist America's Attempts to Undermine the United Nations: "In the middle of an extremely complex emergency, [Bush] tells us that the US, Australia, Japan and India will co-ordinate the international response. None of these countries has a strong record in responding to international emergencies, although India takes pride in its capacity to deal with its own problems. This proposal is likely to complicate rather than help international coordination Efforts are now under way to try to ensure that the coalition of four will work with the UN, but it is hard to see where the proposal came from, apart from yet another US attempt to snub the UN.

"I find this growing appetite for UN bashing very worrying. In a period of growing international disorder, humanitarian crisis and environmental threat, there is a major push by the world's strongest power to undermine the only system we have for taking co-ordinated action to enforce peace, respond to humanitarian crisis and reach environmental agreements."

"At a time when the world faces terrible challenges, of poverty, disorder and environmental degradation, there is a real danger that the US government is consistently undermining the only legitimate system of international co-operation that we have. And because the UK sees the US alliance as its foreign policy priority, we are increasingly part of the problem rather than the solution."

Australian PM John Howard, of course, instead of aligning himself, suporting and building the established UN relief and emergency structures, predictably follows the Bush administration's 'UN bashing' 'unitaleral' approach.

Agent Orange: "Collateral Damage" In Viet Nam - The Digital Journalist: "My initial motivation for spending 22 years engrossed in this subject has to do with witnessing a staggering human tragedy unfold. In many ways the sad and terrible Viet Nam war has become a war without end.... The US did not drop Agent Orange to produce deformed babies - it was simply meant to kill vegetation. The Dioxin was an accidental by-product. This gives America a perfect excuse to be magnanimous towards the victims.... Each and every person on the planet now has this deadly chemical [dioxin] in their bodies, mostly from industrial pollution and the embrace of plastics by society. Even the EPA declares that a quarter of all cancers in America are caused by Dioxin."

Agent Orange: "Collateral Damage" In Viet Nam - The Digital Journalist: "My initial motivation for spending 22 years engrossed in this subject has to do with witnessing a staggering human tragedy unfold. In many ways the sad and terrible Viet Nam war has become a war without end.... The US did not drop Agent Orange to produce deformed babies - it was simply meant to kill vegetation. The Dioxin was an accidental by-product. This gives America a perfect excuse to be magnanimous towards the victims.... Each and every person on the planet now has this deadly chemical [dioxin] in their bodies, mostly from industrial pollution and the embrace of plastics by society. Even the EPA declares that a quarter of all cancers in America are caused by Dioxin."

Gunns attack on Greens threatens freedom of speech: "This case is putting free speech on trial. If Gunns are successful in getting injunctions against protesters then they will have effectively made political protest against corporations illegal.

"This suit is clearly intended to bully into silence politicians, protesters, and anyone attempting to exercise their democratic right to speak out. The Greens will not be silenced by Gunns or any other company from identifying environmentally damaging practices and speaking out to protect our ecological heritage.

""I, for one, will never be cowed by John Gay, Robin Gray, their wealth or their power of destruction. They will not stop me from campaigning to save Australia’s heritage even if it means losing every penny, every home comfort, every peaceful night’s sleep life offers" said Senator Bob Brown."

That is courageous talk from Bob Brown and, indeed, he is one of the few public figures from which such talk might be credible. Nevertheless it is outrageous and intolerable that a person or politician engaged in legitimate political activity should face such a threat. If successful, the Gunns suit would set an appalling precedent whereby corporations could use legal action to silence protestors, dissidents, political opponents and activists. The mere filing of the suit, regardless of its ultimate outcome, is an harassing activity of a kind that should be considered unacceptable.

Gunns attack on Greens threatens freedom of speech: "This case is putting free speech on trial. If Gunns are successful in getting injunctions against protesters then they will have effectively made political protest against corporations illegal.

"This suit is clearly intended to bully into silence politicians, protesters, and anyone attempting to exercise their democratic right to speak out. The Greens will not be silenced by Gunns or any other company from identifying environmentally damaging practices and speaking out to protect our ecological heritage.

""I, for one, will never be cowed by John Gay, Robin Gray, their wealth or their power of destruction. They will not stop me from campaigning to save Australia’s heritage even if it means losing every penny, every home comfort, every peaceful night’s sleep life offers" said Senator Bob Brown."

That is courageous talk from Bob Brown and, indeed, he is one of the few public figures from which such talk might be credible. Nevertheless it is outrageous and intolerable that a person or politician engaged in legitimate political activity should face such a threat. If successful, the Gunns suit would set an appalling precedent whereby corporations could use legal action to silence protestors, dissidents, political opponents and activists. The mere filing of the suit, regardless of its ultimate outcome, is an harassing activity of a kind that should be considered unacceptable.

Interview with Amos Elon: "Do you find Israel to be barbaric, unenlightened, nationalistic?

'In Israel there's the `Gush Dan' state and the political state. The `Gush Dan' state is a state of live-and-let-live. Of tolerance. Of the desire for peace and a good life. But the political state, well, you know what it looks like.'

What does it look like?

'It's partly quasi-fascist and partly religious with narrow horizons.'

Quasi-fascist?

'Quasi-fascist in the sense that abstract principles of religion are dictating our fate without any democratic process. There are religious people here who believe they've put their finger on the very essence of being. They know everything. They're in direct contact with God.'

You have some profound anti- religious sentiment.

'I'm not being original when I say that religion that enters politics is dangerous. Such religious people would be better off behind bars and not in politics. Certainly.'

The critical mistake of `67 opened the door to dark forces that overwhelmed the Israel to which you belonged, to which you felt a genuine closeness?

'There were two sources of the perversion: the mixture of religion with political policy and the secular right's military adventurism. Force. The worship of force. By the way, it hasn't only come from the Likud. It also came from Ahdut Ha'avoda (the United Workers Party, a precursor of the Labor Party), from people like Allon and Galili. Ahdut Ha'avoda always seemed to me to be a party of farmers fighting over each piece of land with pitchforks.'

And the result is that this place has corrupted itself?

'The occupation certainly corrupted Israeli society. There is no dispute about that.'

Has Israel slid into a situation that places it in a category other than the democratic Western nations?

"Without a doubt. And I'm still wracking my brain wondering what those people were thinking after the Six-Day War. How did they think they could keep it? What did Dayan think? Did he really think that if we just treat them nicely, everything will be fine? What provinciality it was. What historic ignorance. Had this ever happened anywhere else in the world? From this perspective, the Israeli occupation is perhaps the least successful attempt at colonialism that I can think of. This is the crappiest colonial regime that I can think of in the modern age."

How is it worse than French or British colonialism?

"In the French and British colonies, there were mixed marriages. In India, for instance. But especially with the French. They're freer than the British are in bed, that's well-known. But both the French and the British tried to co-opt the elites. As a rule, whenever a European nation took over territory in the Third World, it tried to embrace the elite. Here there was no such attempt. There were no mixed marriages, there was no significant commercial cooperation. The only human partnership was in the lowest dimension of all: crime.""

Its a tragic and enormous error that Israel succumbed to the temptation try to hold onto the Territories. Israel could have had peace, security, and its liberal values. But this is the kind of tragedy that is inevitable: given the premisses of Zionism, how could it be otherwise?

Interview with Amos Elon: "Do you find Israel to be barbaric, unenlightened, nationalistic?

'In Israel there's the `Gush Dan' state and the political state. The `Gush Dan' state is a state of live-and-let-live. Of tolerance. Of the desire for peace and a good life. But the political state, well, you know what it looks like.'

What does it look like?

'It's partly quasi-fascist and partly religious with narrow horizons.'

Quasi-fascist?

'Quasi-fascist in the sense that abstract principles of religion are dictating our fate without any democratic process. There are religious people here who believe they've put their finger on the very essence of being. They know everything. They're in direct contact with God.'

You have some profound anti- religious sentiment.

'I'm not being original when I say that religion that enters politics is dangerous. Such religious people would be better off behind bars and not in politics. Certainly.'

The critical mistake of `67 opened the door to dark forces that overwhelmed the Israel to which you belonged, to which you felt a genuine closeness?

'There were two sources of the perversion: the mixture of religion with political policy and the secular right's military adventurism. Force. The worship of force. By the way, it hasn't only come from the Likud. It also came from Ahdut Ha'avoda (the United Workers Party, a precursor of the Labor Party), from people like Allon and Galili. Ahdut Ha'avoda always seemed to me to be a party of farmers fighting over each piece of land with pitchforks.'

And the result is that this place has corrupted itself?

'The occupation certainly corrupted Israeli society. There is no dispute about that.'

Has Israel slid into a situation that places it in a category other than the democratic Western nations?

"Without a doubt. And I'm still wracking my brain wondering what those people were thinking after the Six-Day War. How did they think they could keep it? What did Dayan think? Did he really think that if we just treat them nicely, everything will be fine? What provinciality it was. What historic ignorance. Had this ever happened anywhere else in the world? From this perspective, the Israeli occupation is perhaps the least successful attempt at colonialism that I can think of. This is the crappiest colonial regime that I can think of in the modern age."

How is it worse than French or British colonialism?

"In the French and British colonies, there were mixed marriages. In India, for instance. But especially with the French. They're freer than the British are in bed, that's well-known. But both the French and the British tried to co-opt the elites. As a rule, whenever a European nation took over territory in the Third World, it tried to embrace the elite. Here there was no such attempt. There were no mixed marriages, there was no significant commercial cooperation. The only human partnership was in the lowest dimension of all: crime.""

Its a tragic and enormous error that Israel succumbed to the temptation try to hold onto the Territories. Israel could have had peace, security, and its liberal values. But this is the kind of tragedy that is inevitable: given the premisses of Zionism, how could it be otherwise?

Iraq Election poll favourites want US gone: "The Iraqi newspaper 'al-Adalah' published on Dec. 23 the platform of the United Iraqi Alliance, the mainly Shiite coalition sponsored by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.... I'm not sure most Americans realize that the biggest and most important party coalition in Iraq, which will almost certainly form the next government, has explicitly stated in its platform that it wants a specific timetable announced for withdrawal of US troops from the country.... I think we are looking at the policies of the new Iraq. They aren't what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz imagined."

The US may have to accept defeat and withdraw from the country. But is this possible? It been said of Cheney that he cannot imagine giving up all that oil and the Pentagon cannot imagine giving up those bases. Such a withdrawal would represent a tremendous strategic defeat for the US.

Iraq Election poll favourites want US gone: "The Iraqi newspaper 'al-Adalah' published on Dec. 23 the platform of the United Iraqi Alliance, the mainly Shiite coalition sponsored by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.... I'm not sure most Americans realize that the biggest and most important party coalition in Iraq, which will almost certainly form the next government, has explicitly stated in its platform that it wants a specific timetable announced for withdrawal of US troops from the country.... I think we are looking at the policies of the new Iraq. They aren't what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz imagined."

The US may have to accept defeat and withdraw from the country. But is this possible? It been said of Cheney that he cannot imagine giving up all that oil and the Pentagon cannot imagine giving up those bases. Such a withdrawal would represent a tremendous strategic defeat for the US.

Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition': "United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief following the Asian tsunami disaster. The president has announced that the US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the world’s response.

"But former International Development Secretary Clare Short said that role should be left to the UN. “I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up,” she said. “Only really the UN can do that job,” she told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme. “It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.”

"Ms Short said the coalition countries did not have good records on responding to international disasters. She said the US was “very bad at coordinating with anyone” and India had its own problems to deal with. “I don’t know what that is about but it sounds very much, I am afraid, like the US trying to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through the UN system,” she added."

Under Howard, of course, Australia shamefully goes along with this US 'unilateralism' and undermining of the UN. An opportunity has been missed for Australia to announce its armed forces would put down their weapons and be mobilised in the cause of humanitarian relief and international goodwill. Australia has a fleet of 24 Hercules aircraft, organised into two squadrons, one tactical and one strategic. The question might be asked as to whether this entire force with personnel and support could not be mobilised and put at the service of the relief effort.

Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition': "United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief following the Asian tsunami disaster. The president has announced that the US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the world’s response.

"But former International Development Secretary Clare Short said that role should be left to the UN. “I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up,” she said. “Only really the UN can do that job,” she told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme. “It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.”

"Ms Short said the coalition countries did not have good records on responding to international disasters. She said the US was “very bad at coordinating with anyone” and India had its own problems to deal with. “I don’t know what that is about but it sounds very much, I am afraid, like the US trying to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through the UN system,” she added."

Under Howard, of course, Australia shamefully goes along with this US 'unilateralism' and undermining of the UN. An opportunity has been missed for Australia to announce its armed forces would put down their weapons and be mobilised in the cause of humanitarian relief and international goodwill. Australia has a fleet of 24 Hercules aircraft, organised into two squadrons, one tactical and one strategic. The question might be asked as to whether this entire force with personnel and support could not be mobilised and put at the service of the relief effort.

American support for democracy is thin: "44% of respondents favored some form of restriction of civil liberties for Muslims. The poll actually contains some even more amazing results. Only 63% of respondents felt that people should be allowed to criticize government policies in times of war or crisis, and only 60% felt that people should be allowed to protest. 33% believed the media should not cover protests and 31% that it shouldn’t report criticisms. These numbers fly in the face of any comfortable suppositions about Americans and their respect for individual freedom or for informed policy debate in a democracy. Not much over half of people even believe they should be legally allowed, let alone engaged in."

"Other striking statistics: Although 70% favored, somewhat or strongly, the so-called “war on terrorism,” only 42% believe its primary purpose is protecting the United States from attack. 22%, more than one in five people, believe the primary purpose is controlling Middle East oil. Most interesting, of that 22%, 43% still favored the war on terrorism – with a margin of error of close to 8%. Since those 22% are likely to be of the more oppositional sort of people, it’s entirely plausible that even if the whole American public knew that control of Middle East oil and U.S. imperial hegemony is the primary reason, half or more might still support the “war on terrorism.”"

American support for democracy is thin: "44% of respondents favored some form of restriction of civil liberties for Muslims. The poll actually contains some even more amazing results. Only 63% of respondents felt that people should be allowed to criticize government policies in times of war or crisis, and only 60% felt that people should be allowed to protest. 33% believed the media should not cover protests and 31% that it shouldn’t report criticisms. These numbers fly in the face of any comfortable suppositions about Americans and their respect for individual freedom or for informed policy debate in a democracy. Not much over half of people even believe they should be legally allowed, let alone engaged in."

"Other striking statistics: Although 70% favored, somewhat or strongly, the so-called “war on terrorism,” only 42% believe its primary purpose is protecting the United States from attack. 22%, more than one in five people, believe the primary purpose is controlling Middle East oil. Most interesting, of that 22%, 43% still favored the war on terrorism – with a margin of error of close to 8%. Since those 22% are likely to be of the more oppositional sort of people, it’s entirely plausible that even if the whole American public knew that control of Middle East oil and U.S. imperial hegemony is the primary reason, half or more might still support the “war on terrorism.”"

Residential-property prices are now falling in Britain and Australia, but have taken off in America and France: "IN THE past three years, the total value of residential property in developed economies has increased by an estimated $20 trillion, to over $60 trillion. Granted, that increase is partly explained by the decline in the dollar; still, it is double the $10 trillion by which global share values climbed in the three years to 1999. Is this the biggest financial bubble in history?

"The growing impact of housing markets on economies prompted The Economist to launch its global house-price indices in early 2002; these now cover 20 countries, using data from lending institutions, estate agents and national statistics. Our latest quarterly update shows that prices have risen over the past year by around 10% or more in 11 of the countries that we track (see table). Top of the league is South Africa, where prices surged by 35% in the year to the third quarter, pushing it into first place ahead of Hong Kong (31%)."

Residential-property prices are now falling in Britain and Australia, but have taken off in America and France: "IN THE past three years, the total value of residential property in developed economies has increased by an estimated $20 trillion, to over $60 trillion. Granted, that increase is partly explained by the decline in the dollar; still, it is double the $10 trillion by which global share values climbed in the three years to 1999. Is this the biggest financial bubble in history?

"The growing impact of housing markets on economies prompted The Economist to launch its global house-price indices in early 2002; these now cover 20 countries, using data from lending institutions, estate agents and national statistics. Our latest quarterly update shows that prices have risen over the past year by around 10% or more in 11 of the countries that we track (see table). Top of the league is South Africa, where prices surged by 35% in the year to the third quarter, pushing it into first place ahead of Hong Kong (31%)."

How the corporate right meets the challenge of blogs and the Internet: "IF OLD MEDIA--the 'legacy media' of the big papers and old networks plus the newsweeklies--was a city and not simply a set of gasping institutions, it would look like Stalingrad circa 1944. Parts of most of the virtual buildings are still standing, but the devastation is pretty complete."

"The old media went left into a deep ditch of agenda journalism, forfeiting the trust of a large portion of their audience and, in the process, opening the door to Rush Limbaugh, the second generation of radio talkers, Fox News, and, of course, the blogs."

This is the usual tactic of attacking the corporate media as being hopelessly left-wing combined with a willingness (even eagerness$$$) to accept it will be replaced by blogs and internet journalism. Hence there must be a big and well-financed push into blogging with the purpose of creating a self-reinforcing right-wing echochamber, to develop and protect the delusions of the misinformed mass supporters. The push has already shown itself to be remarkably successful. In fact it may have created a phenomenon where the public mind is split between different spheres of the internet which essentially do not communicate with each other. How to breach this communication divide? One means may be politics, where everyone is forced to address similar issues. Another may be the Chomsky approach, to force oneself (ugghhh!!!) to read it and systematically demolish it.

How the corporate right meets the challenge of blogs and the Internet: "IF OLD MEDIA--the 'legacy media' of the big papers and old networks plus the newsweeklies--was a city and not simply a set of gasping institutions, it would look like Stalingrad circa 1944. Parts of most of the virtual buildings are still standing, but the devastation is pretty complete."

"The old media went left into a deep ditch of agenda journalism, forfeiting the trust of a large portion of their audience and, in the process, opening the door to Rush Limbaugh, the second generation of radio talkers, Fox News, and, of course, the blogs."

This is the usual tactic of attacking the corporate media as being hopelessly left-wing combined with a willingness (even eagerness$$$) to accept it will be replaced by blogs and internet journalism. Hence there must be a big and well-financed push into blogging with the purpose of creating a self-reinforcing right-wing echochamber, to develop and protect the delusions of the misinformed mass supporters. The push has already shown itself to be remarkably successful. In fact it may have created a phenomenon where the public mind is split between different spheres of the internet which essentially do not communicate with each other. How to breach this communication divide? One means may be politics, where everyone is forced to address similar issues. Another may be the Chomsky approach, to force oneself (ugghhh!!!) to read it and systematically demolish it.

Sample Chapter for Deffeyes, K.S.: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage.: "In 1956, the geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s.1 Almost everyone, inside and outside the oil industry, rejected Hubbert's analysis. The controversy raged until 1970, when the U.S. production of crude oil started to fall. Hubbert was right.

"Around 1995, several analysts began applying Hubbert's method to world oil production, and most of them estimate that the peak year for world oil will be between 2004 and 2008. These analyses were reported in some of the most widely circulated sources: Nature, Science, and Scientific American. None of our political leaders seem to be paying attention. If the predictions are correct, there will be enormous effects on the world economy."

If Hubbert predicted the peak of US oil production as long ago as 1956, why did it take so long for it to be verified? If US oil production peaked in 1971, why did it take another 20 years for geologists to make a prediction of the global peak? If a prediction for a global peak was made in 1995 that the global peak was for somewhere between 2004-2008, why did no one pay any attention?

Sample Chapter for Deffeyes, K.S.: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage.: "In 1956, the geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s.1 Almost everyone, inside and outside the oil industry, rejected Hubbert's analysis. The controversy raged until 1970, when the U.S. production of crude oil started to fall. Hubbert was right.

"Around 1995, several analysts began applying Hubbert's method to world oil production, and most of them estimate that the peak year for world oil will be between 2004 and 2008. These analyses were reported in some of the most widely circulated sources: Nature, Science, and Scientific American. None of our political leaders seem to be paying attention. If the predictions are correct, there will be enormous effects on the world economy."

If Hubbert predicted the peak of US oil production as long ago as 1956, why did it take so long for it to be verified? If US oil production peaked in 1971, why did it take another 20 years for geologists to make a prediction of the global peak? If a prediction for a global peak was made in 1995 that the global peak was for somewhere between 2004-2008, why did no one pay any attention?

More information about the earthquake and tsunami: "Japan and the USA have a very a effective tsunami warning system in the Pacific Ocean. It is based on pressure sensors on the ocean floor. Tsunami waves are so long that they change the pressure at the seafloor whereas wind waves get smoothed out. It would be possible to set up a similar tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean - for a few $million (ie the cost of a cruise missile)! The threat in this area is well documented - STH Abstract (1999): Tsunamis along the coastlines of India.

"Whether people would heed a tsunami alarm is another matter. People have been known to flock to the coast in the USA to watch for the tsunami."

More information about the earthquake and tsunami: "Japan and the USA have a very a effective tsunami warning system in the Pacific Ocean. It is based on pressure sensors on the ocean floor. Tsunami waves are so long that they change the pressure at the seafloor whereas wind waves get smoothed out. It would be possible to set up a similar tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean - for a few $million (ie the cost of a cruise missile)! The threat in this area is well documented - STH Abstract (1999): Tsunamis along the coastlines of India.

"Whether people would heed a tsunami alarm is another matter. People have been known to flock to the coast in the USA to watch for the tsunami."

The South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami: "Dr.Pornthip Rojanasuand and a team of Forensic experts from the Central Forensic Institute in Bangkok are racing against time in collecting DNA/hair samples of unidentified bodies before burial or cremation. She has vowed to not let a single body be cremated or buried without proper DNA collection for further identification. The sheer number of bodies in various states of decay have made their task all but impossible. The team has issued calls for help to forensic specialists from outside the country. So far, a team of specialists from the United Kingdom has answered the call for help."

Much more news and information about the disaster and the relief effort is available at this site.

The South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami: "Dr.Pornthip Rojanasuand and a team of Forensic experts from the Central Forensic Institute in Bangkok are racing against time in collecting DNA/hair samples of unidentified bodies before burial or cremation. She has vowed to not let a single body be cremated or buried without proper DNA collection for further identification. The sheer number of bodies in various states of decay have made their task all but impossible. The team has issued calls for help to forensic specialists from outside the country. So far, a team of specialists from the United Kingdom has answered the call for help."

Much more news and information about the disaster and the relief effort is available at this site.

MAGINOT MINDS IN WASHINGTON GLOSS OVER THE TRUTH IN IRAQ: "'The problem in getting Iraqis to fight the insurgency may be deeper across Iraq. The military assessment now is that the U.S. miscalculated Iraqi tribal and religious loyalties and did not realize Iraqis are likely to fight only for their brethren ... So in cases like Mosul, they simply will not fight the intimidation of the insurgents, the U.S. now believes.'"

"American generals speak of a "virtual connectivity" of the insurgents never seen before, as they use the Internet to pass along techniques, tactics and advice to one another. American generals now admit that almost all of them are Iraqis; we have created the Iraqi terrorists who were not there before.... American generals now speak in interviews about the "cellular expansion" of the insurgents. They see a constant spread of new, small cells with no clear command and control links that can form quickly, exploit and sacrifice, rather than relying on hard-core or closed, secure cells and forces. The Independent newspaper in London estimates there were at least 190 suicide bombers in the last 12 months."

MAGINOT MINDS IN WASHINGTON GLOSS OVER THE TRUTH IN IRAQ: "'The problem in getting Iraqis to fight the insurgency may be deeper across Iraq. The military assessment now is that the U.S. miscalculated Iraqi tribal and religious loyalties and did not realize Iraqis are likely to fight only for their brethren ... So in cases like Mosul, they simply will not fight the intimidation of the insurgents, the U.S. now believes.'"

"American generals speak of a "virtual connectivity" of the insurgents never seen before, as they use the Internet to pass along techniques, tactics and advice to one another. American generals now admit that almost all of them are Iraqis; we have created the Iraqi terrorists who were not there before.... American generals now speak in interviews about the "cellular expansion" of the insurgents. They see a constant spread of new, small cells with no clear command and control links that can form quickly, exploit and sacrifice, rather than relying on hard-core or closed, secure cells and forces. The Independent newspaper in London estimates there were at least 190 suicide bombers in the last 12 months."

Susan Sontag dead at 71: This is the full text of a piece she published on 17/09/01, less than a week after the Sept 11 attacks, for which, as the King of Zembla reminds us, "she was roundly excoriated as a traitor, a moral monster, a fifth columnist, a collaborator with those who would destroy America.":

"The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.

"Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And this was not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy.

"Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy—which entails disagreement, which promotes candor—has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. "Our country is strong," we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be."

Susan Sontag dead at 71: This is the full text of a piece she published on 17/09/01, less than a week after the Sept 11 attacks, for which, as the King of Zembla reminds us, "she was roundly excoriated as a traitor, a moral monster, a fifth columnist, a collaborator with those who would destroy America.":

"The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.

"Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And this was not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy.

"Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy—which entails disagreement, which promotes candor—has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. "Our country is strong," we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be."

US Businesses Overseas Threatened by Rising Anti-Americanism: "Brands closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil are particularly at risk.... One third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly the "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, constituted their strongest impression of the United States. Twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies."

" "There have already been casual protest brands, such as Mecca Cola, which are primarily political," he told the weekly. "But things are now moving beyond that. For instances, German restaurants are beginning to refuse American Express cards. This is new territory."

"The latest poll found that more than two thirds of European and Canadian consumers have had a negative change in their view of the United States as a result of U.S. foreign policy over the last three years. Nearly half believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control oil supplies, while only 15 percent believed it was related to terrorism. Nearly two thirds of European and Canadian consumers also said they believe U.S. foreign policy is guided primarily by self-interest and empire-building, while only 17 percent believe that the defense of freedom and democracy is its guiding principle."

US Businesses Overseas Threatened by Rising Anti-Americanism: "Brands closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil are particularly at risk.... One third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly the "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, constituted their strongest impression of the United States. Twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies."

" "There have already been casual protest brands, such as Mecca Cola, which are primarily political," he told the weekly. "But things are now moving beyond that. For instances, German restaurants are beginning to refuse American Express cards. This is new territory."

"The latest poll found that more than two thirds of European and Canadian consumers have had a negative change in their view of the United States as a result of U.S. foreign policy over the last three years. Nearly half believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control oil supplies, while only 15 percent believed it was related to terrorism. Nearly two thirds of European and Canadian consumers also said they believe U.S. foreign policy is guided primarily by self-interest and empire-building, while only 17 percent believe that the defense of freedom and democracy is its guiding principle."

Empires Prefer a Baby and the Cross to the Adult Jesus. From Constantine to Bush, power has needed to stifle a revolutionary message: "Every Sunday in church, Christians recite the Nicene Creed. 'Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.' It's the official summary of the Christian faith but, astonishingly, it jumps straight from birth to death, apparently indifferent to what happened in between.

"Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favor of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.... Bush may have claimed that "Jesus Christ changed my life", but Jesus doesn't seem to have changed his politics."

Empires Prefer a Baby and the Cross to the Adult Jesus. From Constantine to Bush, power has needed to stifle a revolutionary message: "Every Sunday in church, Christians recite the Nicene Creed. 'Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.' It's the official summary of the Christian faith but, astonishingly, it jumps straight from birth to death, apparently indifferent to what happened in between.

"Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favor of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.... Bush may have claimed that "Jesus Christ changed my life", but Jesus doesn't seem to have changed his politics."

"Fragging" and "Combat Refusals" in Vietnam: "When one American killed another American, usually a superior officer or an NCO, the term 'fragging' came into use. Although the term simply meant that a fragmentation grenade was used in the murder, it later became an all encompassing term for such an action. It is known that 'fraggings' did occur during Vietnam, but the precise number is uncertain. 'During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging - that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field,' says historian Terry Anderson of Texas A & M University. 'The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. "

"Fragging" and "Combat Refusals" in Vietnam: "When one American killed another American, usually a superior officer or an NCO, the term 'fragging' came into use. Although the term simply meant that a fragmentation grenade was used in the murder, it later became an all encompassing term for such an action. It is known that 'fraggings' did occur during Vietnam, but the precise number is uncertain. 'During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging - that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field,' says historian Terry Anderson of Texas A & M University. 'The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. "

EnviroHealth: Enough Is Enough: "The spectacle of the United States single-handedly destroying the mid-December meeting in Buenos Aires on global warming offered further proof, if such were needed, that the world needs to confront this rogue state. Representatives of 200 nations had gathered to develop a plan for further reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. According to press reports, the Bush Administration's recalcitrance shocked and dismayed even longtime friends and allies like Australia."

EnviroHealth: Enough Is Enough: "The spectacle of the United States single-handedly destroying the mid-December meeting in Buenos Aires on global warming offered further proof, if such were needed, that the world needs to confront this rogue state. Representatives of 200 nations had gathered to develop a plan for further reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. According to press reports, the Bush Administration's recalcitrance shocked and dismayed even longtime friends and allies like Australia."

Chomsky: Civilization Versus Barbarism?: "And in fact, it's not exactly correct that the media haven't reported the war crimes. They often report them and celebrate them. So take for example the invasion of Fallujah, which is one of the - it's a major war crime, it's very similar to the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years earlier, a city of approximately the same size, bombed to rubble, people driven out.

"Alam: They herded all the males, I think, they didn't let them escape the corridor.

"Chomsky: Which incidentally is very much like Srebrenica - which is universally condemned as genocide -- Srebrenica was an enclave, lightly protected by UN forces, which was being used as a base for attacking nearby Serb villages. It was known that there's going to be retaliation. When there was a retaliation, it was vicious. They trucked out all the women and children, they kept the men inside, and apparently slaughtered them. The estimates are thousands of people slaughtered.

"Well, with Fallujah, the US didn't truck out the women and children, it bombed them out. There was about a month of bombing, bombed out of the city, if they could get out somehow, a couple hundred thousand people fled, or somehow got out, and as you say men were kept in and we don't know what happened after that, we don't estimate [the casualties for which we are responsible]. But what was dramatic about Fallujah was that it was not kept secret. So you could see on the front page of the New York Times, a big picture of the first major…step in the offensive, namely the capture of the Fallujah general hospital."

"That was an interesting report [interruption, door is opened, background noise continues from here on] - this Pentagon report which was sort of interesting, is virtually a repetition, almost a verbatim repetition of a report by the NSC in 1958 when President Eisenhower raised the question with his staff, why there is a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world, and not among governments but from the people. That's Eisenhower, 1958, why is there a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. An answer was given in an analysis by the National Security Council in 1958: it's because there's a perception in the Arab that the United States supports brutal and repressive regimes and blocks democracy and development, and we do it because we want to get control of oil and resources - their oil. That's 1958. And they went on to say, yes the perception's accurate, and we're going to continue doing it. That's been perfectly well known for years that that was the case."

Chomsky: Civilization Versus Barbarism?: "And in fact, it's not exactly correct that the media haven't reported the war crimes. They often report them and celebrate them. So take for example the invasion of Fallujah, which is one of the - it's a major war crime, it's very similar to the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years earlier, a city of approximately the same size, bombed to rubble, people driven out.

"Alam: They herded all the males, I think, they didn't let them escape the corridor.

"Chomsky: Which incidentally is very much like Srebrenica - which is universally condemned as genocide -- Srebrenica was an enclave, lightly protected by UN forces, which was being used as a base for attacking nearby Serb villages. It was known that there's going to be retaliation. When there was a retaliation, it was vicious. They trucked out all the women and children, they kept the men inside, and apparently slaughtered them. The estimates are thousands of people slaughtered.

"Well, with Fallujah, the US didn't truck out the women and children, it bombed them out. There was about a month of bombing, bombed out of the city, if they could get out somehow, a couple hundred thousand people fled, or somehow got out, and as you say men were kept in and we don't know what happened after that, we don't estimate [the casualties for which we are responsible]. But what was dramatic about Fallujah was that it was not kept secret. So you could see on the front page of the New York Times, a big picture of the first major…step in the offensive, namely the capture of the Fallujah general hospital."

"That was an interesting report [interruption, door is opened, background noise continues from here on] - this Pentagon report which was sort of interesting, is virtually a repetition, almost a verbatim repetition of a report by the NSC in 1958 when President Eisenhower raised the question with his staff, why there is a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world, and not among governments but from the people. That's Eisenhower, 1958, why is there a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. An answer was given in an analysis by the National Security Council in 1958: it's because there's a perception in the Arab that the United States supports brutal and repressive regimes and blocks democracy and development, and we do it because we want to get control of oil and resources - their oil. That's 1958. And they went on to say, yes the perception's accurate, and we're going to continue doing it. That's been perfectly well known for years that that was the case."

Documents prove torture authorised at highest levels of US government: "THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.... Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock. Several dozen detainees have died in U.S. custody."

Documents prove torture authorised at highest levels of US government: "THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.... Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock. Several dozen detainees have died in U.S. custody."

Neocons targetting Rumsfeld?: "The big conflict during the first Bush term was of course that between Colin Powell on the one hand and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and all the neocons on the other. That conflict will soon be resolved with Powell's departure. Despite setbacks, the neocons have generally enhanced their position since the election. The key figures (Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Wurmser, Bolton, Abrams) retain their influence within the second tier of power. Neocon propagandists such as Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Richard Perle enjoy unbounded access to a generally deferential media; when not in government, they flash credentials as members of a handful of interconnected rightwing think tanks. Some suppose the neocons have triumphed, but that is simplistic. Much depends on the neocons' relationships to Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and new National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley."

"As Powell recedes from the scene, what is the current big conflict in the administration? It seems to be between Now or Later, and conceivably, the neocons versus Rumsfeld, among others. On the one hand the neocons relentlessly build the case for regime change in Syria and Iran.... On the other hand, pundits across the mainstream political spectrum agree that the U.S. is so badly overextended in Iraq that an invasion and occupation of a second country would now be very difficult if not impossible. Without a massive increase in the size of the military, which is half the size it was in the Vietnam era, or maybe the use of tactical nukes, it's hard to see how the neocons could pull off their plans."

"Rumsfeld probably understands that a return to the draft would be politically explosive and a conscript army unreliable. Perhaps he worries about desertion, insubordination, fragging. His own project is to further streamline the armed forces, not to staff them with resentful draftees, and it may be that he places this objective ahead of empire expansion. But there may be others in this administration, which has already so boldly assaulted civil liberties, smugly affronted science and logic, and offended the world with its brutal aggressions, who'd happily reinstate the draft if they thought it would abet their world-transforming ends.... Rumsfeld's departure might only increase neocon influence, while what today seems unthinkable becomes thinkable. Imagine the administration announcing, in the patriotic, shell-shocked atmosphere following another terrorist attack, that the nation has no choice but to reinstate conscription. Given immediately imaginable alternatives, one almost feels relieved by Bush's continuing public support for his war secretary under fire."

Neocons targetting Rumsfeld?: "The big conflict during the first Bush term was of course that between Colin Powell on the one hand and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and all the neocons on the other. That conflict will soon be resolved with Powell's departure. Despite setbacks, the neocons have generally enhanced their position since the election. The key figures (Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Wurmser, Bolton, Abrams) retain their influence within the second tier of power. Neocon propagandists such as Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Richard Perle enjoy unbounded access to a generally deferential media; when not in government, they flash credentials as members of a handful of interconnected rightwing think tanks. Some suppose the neocons have triumphed, but that is simplistic. Much depends on the neocons' relationships to Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and new National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley."

"As Powell recedes from the scene, what is the current big conflict in the administration? It seems to be between Now or Later, and conceivably, the neocons versus Rumsfeld, among others. On the one hand the neocons relentlessly build the case for regime change in Syria and Iran.... On the other hand, pundits across the mainstream political spectrum agree that the U.S. is so badly overextended in Iraq that an invasion and occupation of a second country would now be very difficult if not impossible. Without a massive increase in the size of the military, which is half the size it was in the Vietnam era, or maybe the use of tactical nukes, it's hard to see how the neocons could pull off their plans."

"Rumsfeld probably understands that a return to the draft would be politically explosive and a conscript army unreliable. Perhaps he worries about desertion, insubordination, fragging. His own project is to further streamline the armed forces, not to staff them with resentful draftees, and it may be that he places this objective ahead of empire expansion. But there may be others in this administration, which has already so boldly assaulted civil liberties, smugly affronted science and logic, and offended the world with its brutal aggressions, who'd happily reinstate the draft if they thought it would abet their world-transforming ends.... Rumsfeld's departure might only increase neocon influence, while what today seems unthinkable becomes thinkable. Imagine the administration announcing, in the patriotic, shell-shocked atmosphere following another terrorist attack, that the nation has no choice but to reinstate conscription. Given immediately imaginable alternatives, one almost feels relieved by Bush's continuing public support for his war secretary under fire."

Eyewitness Interview: "Iraq Is An Absolute Disaster":: "n this war, like every other war I’ve been in, there’s one absolute, and that is that everyone lies. On all sides. Civil, military, the West, the Insurgents, the Jihadis, everyone is spinning the story.... There’s not a single one amongst us in Baghdad who could quibble with a skerrick or a phrase of [Farnaz's] email. And quite frankly, I was stunned by it, because, most of us have put that into print anyway. And certainly, when we avail ourselves of broader media opportunities on television and radio, we are all saying the exact same thing: Iraq is an absolute disaster. And it’s …it’s… it’s not improving. It’s deteriorating with a rapid pulse."

"They can pin as much as they like on those [Jan 30] elections. I don’t know what good it’s going to do them. I mean, I’ll tell you right now, you can set any Disneyland date you like, let’s call it January 30th. You can hold an election. It will certainly look like an election. And it will sound like an election. But, anything other than sham, you can’t hope to produce. I mean, the… the West will do it’s best to support this process, but under no circumstances can I see any election in Iraq now or anywhere near in the future that will produce anything akin to a real mandate for anyone."

Eyewitness Interview: "Iraq Is An Absolute Disaster":: "n this war, like every other war I’ve been in, there’s one absolute, and that is that everyone lies. On all sides. Civil, military, the West, the Insurgents, the Jihadis, everyone is spinning the story.... There’s not a single one amongst us in Baghdad who could quibble with a skerrick or a phrase of [Farnaz's] email. And quite frankly, I was stunned by it, because, most of us have put that into print anyway. And certainly, when we avail ourselves of broader media opportunities on television and radio, we are all saying the exact same thing: Iraq is an absolute disaster. And it’s …it’s… it’s not improving. It’s deteriorating with a rapid pulse."

"They can pin as much as they like on those [Jan 30] elections. I don’t know what good it’s going to do them. I mean, I’ll tell you right now, you can set any Disneyland date you like, let’s call it January 30th. You can hold an election. It will certainly look like an election. And it will sound like an election. But, anything other than sham, you can’t hope to produce. I mean, the… the West will do it’s best to support this process, but under no circumstances can I see any election in Iraq now or anywhere near in the future that will produce anything akin to a real mandate for anyone."

Left Behind heresy: Cursed are the peacemakers: "That word -- 'peacemaker' -- practically screams Antichrist. For LaHaye and Jenkins' intended readers, it wouldn't be any clearer if Carpathia had the number '666' tattooed on his forehead and went by the nickname 'Horny Beast.' For those not initiated into the cabalistic logic of PMD prophecy freaks, this seems counter-intuitive. Peace, after all, is generally regarded by Scripture as a Good Thing. Peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). The Messiah is described as the 'Prince of Peace' (Isaiah 9:6-7). Peace is often spoken of by God's angels, including the heavenly host of the Christmas story in Luke 2 (cue Linus), who sing, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

"But none of this matters to the prophecy nuts who are convinced that the Antichrist will be a man of peace. And since they believe that the most important thing for Christians to do is to be on the lookout against the Antichrist, and vigilantly opposed to his evil ways, they believe that Christians must oppose anyone who speaks of, pursues, or tries to make, peace. This is one of the most astonishing and dangerous aspects of the popularity of the End Times heresies promoted by people like LaHaye and Jenkins. It is one of this biggest reasons why this matters -- deeply, truly, seriously matters. Tens of millions of copies of the Left Behind books have been sold. That doesn't just mean that tens of millions of our fellow citizens have horrible taste in literature. It also means they are being taught to oppose -- to condemn as immoral and ungodly -- any effort that goes under the name "peacemaking.""

Left Behind heresy: Cursed are the peacemakers: "That word -- 'peacemaker' -- practically screams Antichrist. For LaHaye and Jenkins' intended readers, it wouldn't be any clearer if Carpathia had the number '666' tattooed on his forehead and went by the nickname 'Horny Beast.' For those not initiated into the cabalistic logic of PMD prophecy freaks, this seems counter-intuitive. Peace, after all, is generally regarded by Scripture as a Good Thing. Peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). The Messiah is described as the 'Prince of Peace' (Isaiah 9:6-7). Peace is often spoken of by God's angels, including the heavenly host of the Christmas story in Luke 2 (cue Linus), who sing, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

"But none of this matters to the prophecy nuts who are convinced that the Antichrist will be a man of peace. And since they believe that the most important thing for Christians to do is to be on the lookout against the Antichrist, and vigilantly opposed to his evil ways, they believe that Christians must oppose anyone who speaks of, pursues, or tries to make, peace. This is one of the most astonishing and dangerous aspects of the popularity of the End Times heresies promoted by people like LaHaye and Jenkins. It is one of this biggest reasons why this matters -- deeply, truly, seriously matters. Tens of millions of copies of the Left Behind books have been sold. That doesn't just mean that tens of millions of our fellow citizens have horrible taste in literature. It also means they are being taught to oppose -- to condemn as immoral and ungodly -- any effort that goes under the name "peacemaking.""

Iraq: First we vote then we kick you out: "There's one overarching question facing the 83 entities - nine coalition lists, 47 political parties and 27 individuals, totaling more than 5,000 candidates - now competing for the 275 seats in Iraq's interim parliament and that will be entitled to write the next Iraqi constitution. The absolute majority of Iraqis want the Americans out of their country as soon as possible. But how?

"The United Iraqi Alliance - the Shi'ite, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani-supervised electoral list (228 candidates) - has a detailed, 23-point platform. According to its main negotiator, Hussein Shahristani, the platform insists on the 'sovereignty, unity and Islamic identity' of Iraq, and most crucially includes a plan with a precise date for the end of the military occupation. Whether the Americans will accept the plan (neo-conservative dreams for the Middle East collapsing in the sand), or whether this will be enough to placate Sunni anger, no one yet knows."

Iraq: First we vote then we kick you out: "There's one overarching question facing the 83 entities - nine coalition lists, 47 political parties and 27 individuals, totaling more than 5,000 candidates - now competing for the 275 seats in Iraq's interim parliament and that will be entitled to write the next Iraqi constitution. The absolute majority of Iraqis want the Americans out of their country as soon as possible. But how?

"The United Iraqi Alliance - the Shi'ite, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani-supervised electoral list (228 candidates) - has a detailed, 23-point platform. According to its main negotiator, Hussein Shahristani, the platform insists on the 'sovereignty, unity and Islamic identity' of Iraq, and most crucially includes a plan with a precise date for the end of the military occupation. Whether the Americans will accept the plan (neo-conservative dreams for the Middle East collapsing in the sand), or whether this will be enough to placate Sunni anger, no one yet knows."

Olduvai theory: "The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030. World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45 %/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64 %/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years."

Olduvai theory: "The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030. World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45 %/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64 %/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years."

Rocket attack on base in Mosul, Iraq kills 19 US soldiers: Rummy is going to be furious. Of all the rotten luck. If only it had happened last week, some flunky with the signamatron could have stamped the letters to the families. Now Rummy is going to have to spend a whole f****** half hour personally signing each one. It could be the last straw. Rummy might prefer to resign rather than have to put up with this.

Rocket attack on base in Mosul, Iraq kills 19 US soldiers: Rummy is going to be furious. Of all the rotten luck. If only it had happened last week, some flunky with the signamatron could have stamped the letters to the families. Now Rummy is going to have to spend a whole f****** half hour personally signing each one. It could be the last straw. Rummy might prefer to resign rather than have to put up with this.

US and Torture: "A historian in the future, or a moralist, is likely to deem the Bush administration's enthusiasm for torture the most striking aspect of its war against terrorism. This started early. Proposals to authorize torture were circulating even before there was anyone to torture. Days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration made it known that the United States was no longer bound by international treaties, or by American law and established U.S. military standards, concerning torture and the treatment of prisoners. By the end of 2001, the Justice Department had drafted memos on how to protect military and intelligence officers from eventual prosecution under existing U.S. law for their treatment of Afghan and other prisoners.

"In January 2002, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales (who is soon to become attorney general), advised George W. Bush that it could be done by fiat. If the president simply declared 'detainees' in Afghanistan outside the protection of the Geneva conventions, the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act - which carries a possible death penalty for Geneva violations - would not apply. Those who protested were ignored, though the administration declared it would abide by the 'spirit' of the conventions. Shortly afterward, the CIA asked for formal assurance that this pledge did not apply to its agents.

"In March 2003, a Defense Department legal task force concluded that the president was not bound by any international or federal law on torture. It said that as commander in chief, he had the authority 'to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.' Subsequent legal memos to civilian officials in the White House and Pentagon dwelt in morbid detail on permitted torture techniques, for practical purposes concluding that anything was permitted that did not (deliberately) kill the victim. What is this all about? The FBI, the armed forces' own legal officers, bar associations and other civil law groups have protested, as have retired intelligence officers and civilian law enforcement officials."

"The United States has never before officially practiced torture. It was not deemed necessary in order to defeat Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Its indirect costs are enormous: in their effect on the national reputation, their alienation of international opinion, and their corruption of the morale and morality of the American military and intelligence services.

"Torture doesn't even work that well. An indignant FBI witness of what has gone on at the Guantánamo prison camp says that "simple investigative techniques" could produce much information the army is trying to obtain through torture. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is not torturing prisoners because it is useful but because of its symbolism."

Barbarism, more likely, not symbolism. The US may not have 'officially' practiced torture before, but it has had plenty of 'unofficial' practice via the CIA and other agencies. As in other matters, Bush is simply dropping the mask and openly adopting the techniques and characteristics of fascism and tyranny. It is all part of the relentless decline of the Republic and the end of liberal democracy.

US and Torture: "A historian in the future, or a moralist, is likely to deem the Bush administration's enthusiasm for torture the most striking aspect of its war against terrorism. This started early. Proposals to authorize torture were circulating even before there was anyone to torture. Days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration made it known that the United States was no longer bound by international treaties, or by American law and established U.S. military standards, concerning torture and the treatment of prisoners. By the end of 2001, the Justice Department had drafted memos on how to protect military and intelligence officers from eventual prosecution under existing U.S. law for their treatment of Afghan and other prisoners.

"In January 2002, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales (who is soon to become attorney general), advised George W. Bush that it could be done by fiat. If the president simply declared 'detainees' in Afghanistan outside the protection of the Geneva conventions, the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act - which carries a possible death penalty for Geneva violations - would not apply. Those who protested were ignored, though the administration declared it would abide by the 'spirit' of the conventions. Shortly afterward, the CIA asked for formal assurance that this pledge did not apply to its agents.

"In March 2003, a Defense Department legal task force concluded that the president was not bound by any international or federal law on torture. It said that as commander in chief, he had the authority 'to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.' Subsequent legal memos to civilian officials in the White House and Pentagon dwelt in morbid detail on permitted torture techniques, for practical purposes concluding that anything was permitted that did not (deliberately) kill the victim. What is this all about? The FBI, the armed forces' own legal officers, bar associations and other civil law groups have protested, as have retired intelligence officers and civilian law enforcement officials."

"The United States has never before officially practiced torture. It was not deemed necessary in order to defeat Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Its indirect costs are enormous: in their effect on the national reputation, their alienation of international opinion, and their corruption of the morale and morality of the American military and intelligence services.

"Torture doesn't even work that well. An indignant FBI witness of what has gone on at the Guantánamo prison camp says that "simple investigative techniques" could produce much information the army is trying to obtain through torture. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is not torturing prisoners because it is useful but because of its symbolism."

Barbarism, more likely, not symbolism. The US may not have 'officially' practiced torture before, but it has had plenty of 'unofficial' practice via the CIA and other agencies. As in other matters, Bush is simply dropping the mask and openly adopting the techniques and characteristics of fascism and tyranny. It is all part of the relentless decline of the Republic and the end of liberal democracy.

Merger of Church and State corrupts both Church and State: "Which brings up one of the main reasons - almost always overlooked by modern-day commentators, both left and right - that the Founders and Framers were so careful to separate church and state: They didn't want religion to be corrupted by government. Many of the Founders were people of faith, and even the Deists like Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson were deeply touched by what Franklin called 'The Mystery.' And they'd seen how badly religious bodies became corrupted when churches acquired power through affiliation with or participation in government."

"Throughout most of the 1700s in Virginia, a citizen could be imprisoned for life for saying that there was no god, or that the Bible wasn't inerrant. "Little wonder," notes Cousins, "that Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison believed the situation to be intolerable.... Certainly the Founders wanted to protect government from being hijacked by the religious.... But several of them were even more concerned that the churches themselves would be corrupted by the lure of government's easy access to money and power."

"Madison even objected to government giving money to churches to care for the poor. It would be the beginning of a dangerous mixture, he believed - dangerous both to government and churches alike.... In Madison's mind, caring for the poor was a public and civic duty - a function of government - and must not be allowed to become a hole through which churches could reach and seize political power or the taxpayer's purse. Funding a church to provide for the poor would establish a "legal agency" - a legal precedent - that would break down the wall of separation the founders had put between church and state to protect Americans from religious zealots gaining political power.... But always, in Madison's mind, the biggest problem was that religion itself showed a long history of becoming corrupt when it had access to the levers of governmental power and money.... Yet now, in 2004, the religious appear to be on the verge of both corrupting government and being corrupted themselves by the power and influence government can wield."

Merger of Church and State corrupts both Church and State: "Which brings up one of the main reasons - almost always overlooked by modern-day commentators, both left and right - that the Founders and Framers were so careful to separate church and state: They didn't want religion to be corrupted by government. Many of the Founders were people of faith, and even the Deists like Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson were deeply touched by what Franklin called 'The Mystery.' And they'd seen how badly religious bodies became corrupted when churches acquired power through affiliation with or participation in government."

"Throughout most of the 1700s in Virginia, a citizen could be imprisoned for life for saying that there was no god, or that the Bible wasn't inerrant. "Little wonder," notes Cousins, "that Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison believed the situation to be intolerable.... Certainly the Founders wanted to protect government from being hijacked by the religious.... But several of them were even more concerned that the churches themselves would be corrupted by the lure of government's easy access to money and power."

"Madison even objected to government giving money to churches to care for the poor. It would be the beginning of a dangerous mixture, he believed - dangerous both to government and churches alike.... In Madison's mind, caring for the poor was a public and civic duty - a function of government - and must not be allowed to become a hole through which churches could reach and seize political power or the taxpayer's purse. Funding a church to provide for the poor would establish a "legal agency" - a legal precedent - that would break down the wall of separation the founders had put between church and state to protect Americans from religious zealots gaining political power.... But always, in Madison's mind, the biggest problem was that religion itself showed a long history of becoming corrupt when it had access to the levers of governmental power and money.... Yet now, in 2004, the religious appear to be on the verge of both corrupting government and being corrupted themselves by the power and influence government can wield."

Yukos forced by Putin to sell key asset: "The State had commandeered oil reserves of 11.63 billion barrels, or 17 per cent of Russia’s total, re-establishing control over a huge slice of an industry that is its main source of economic growth and international clout. “By doing so, the State will have restored its previous control over a big piece of an industry that is not only the most important element in the local economy, but, along with natural gas, is increasingly the modern equivalent of military might,” Christopher Weafer, chief strategist at Alfa Bank, said.

"The auction effectively reversed the controversial privatisation deal, in which Mr Khodorkovsky bought Yukos’s oil and gas fields at way below their market value in the mid-1990s. It served as a chilling warning to Russia’s remaining oligarchs, who bought up the pillars of state industry for a song in the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union."

Yukos forced by Putin to sell key asset: "The State had commandeered oil reserves of 11.63 billion barrels, or 17 per cent of Russia’s total, re-establishing control over a huge slice of an industry that is its main source of economic growth and international clout. “By doing so, the State will have restored its previous control over a big piece of an industry that is not only the most important element in the local economy, but, along with natural gas, is increasingly the modern equivalent of military might,” Christopher Weafer, chief strategist at Alfa Bank, said.

"The auction effectively reversed the controversial privatisation deal, in which Mr Khodorkovsky bought Yukos’s oil and gas fields at way below their market value in the mid-1990s. It served as a chilling warning to Russia’s remaining oligarchs, who bought up the pillars of state industry for a song in the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union."

Pew Global Survey: Additional Findings and Analyses: A Year After Iraq War: Fascinating survey results show the extent to which US credibility is broken worldwide. Some of the more interesting results: Majorities in every country except the US think the Iraq war has hurt the 'war on terrorism' rather than helped; majorities in France, Germany, Turkey, Russia and Pakistan believe British and US leaders lied about Iraqi WMDs (instead of being misled by their advisors); majorities in France, Germany, Turkey and Pakistan do not believe the US led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism; majorities in Russia, France, Germany, Pakistan and Turkey believe US motives are to control Mideast oil; France, Pakistan and Turkey believe the US aims to dominate the globe. And so on and so on.

The disastrous image of the US could be put down to a few factors: the breaking down of the propaganda machine (the internet has played a role here); the blatant nature of the Iraqi aggression combined with obvious lying; the deliberate disdain on the part of Bush for diplomacy; the ripping off of the mask by Bush and the neocons as they openly embrace goals of imperialism and domination.

Pew Global Survey: Additional Findings and Analyses: A Year After Iraq War: Fascinating survey results show the extent to which US credibility is broken worldwide. Some of the more interesting results: Majorities in every country except the US think the Iraq war has hurt the 'war on terrorism' rather than helped; majorities in France, Germany, Turkey, Russia and Pakistan believe British and US leaders lied about Iraqi WMDs (instead of being misled by their advisors); majorities in France, Germany, Turkey and Pakistan do not believe the US led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism; majorities in Russia, France, Germany, Pakistan and Turkey believe US motives are to control Mideast oil; France, Pakistan and Turkey believe the US aims to dominate the globe. And so on and so on.

The disastrous image of the US could be put down to a few factors: the breaking down of the propaganda machine (the internet has played a role here); the blatant nature of the Iraqi aggression combined with obvious lying; the deliberate disdain on the part of Bush for diplomacy; the ripping off of the mask by Bush and the neocons as they openly embrace goals of imperialism and domination.

Can Bush notice the Palestinian olive branch?: "The Palestine problem, a legacy of Western colonialism as virulent today as it ever was, has always been the greatest single source of anti-Western sentiment in the region.... The history of the conflict so far is one massive Zionist gain versus proportionate Palestinian loss. If the Palestinians were to secure the redress that other colonized peoples have earned, there would either be no Israel - just as there is no French Algeria - or Israel would be a binational state - like South Africa - in which it would lose its exclusively Jewish identity. But the Palestinians are not demanding that. They have formally committed themselves, via Oslo, to the loss of 78 percent of their original homeland. If there ever is a settlement, this concession, unique in the history of European decolonization, would rank as by far the greatest contribution to it. Moreover, it was under Arafat's auspices that the Palestinians made it."

Can Bush notice the Palestinian olive branch?: "The Palestine problem, a legacy of Western colonialism as virulent today as it ever was, has always been the greatest single source of anti-Western sentiment in the region.... The history of the conflict so far is one massive Zionist gain versus proportionate Palestinian loss. If the Palestinians were to secure the redress that other colonized peoples have earned, there would either be no Israel - just as there is no French Algeria - or Israel would be a binational state - like South Africa - in which it would lose its exclusively Jewish identity. But the Palestinians are not demanding that. They have formally committed themselves, via Oslo, to the loss of 78 percent of their original homeland. If there ever is a settlement, this concession, unique in the history of European decolonization, would rank as by far the greatest contribution to it. Moreover, it was under Arafat's auspices that the Palestinians made it."

Why Boycott Israel: "No matter how we define Israel, the fundamental and undisputed existence in it of a system of racial discrimination based on religious/ethnic identity is what motivates calls for South Africa-like sanctions against Israel. “Apartheid,” “Zionist settler-colonialism,” “Jewish supremacy,” ...etc. are all variations on the name of the ailment. What matters is how best to cure it.... As Etienne Balibar says, “Israel should not be allowed to instrumentalize the genocide of European Jews to put [itself] above the law of nations.” ... How can an ethno-religious supremacy that is also a colonial power ever qualify as a democracy? Israel may be a democracy for its Jewish citizens, but it is an apartheid for its Palestinian citizens, as argued earlier. New York University professor Tony Judt, for instance, calls Israel a “dysfunctional anachronism,” categorizing it among the “belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno states.”"

"Israel’s most celebrated philosopher, Asa Kasher, provided “ethical” justification for extra-judicial killings, even when a large number of innocent civilians are deliberately killed or injured in the process. Israel’s foremost military historian, Martin Van Creveld, of Hebrew University, advised the Israeli army in 2002 ... to commit swift genocide against the Palestinians, explaining that, “Perhaps 5.000 or 10.000 killed won’t be enough, and then we will have to kill more.” He concludes by saying, “it is better that there be one massive crime, after which we will exit and lock the gate behind us.” Like any proper peacenik, his ultimate objective remains to “exit” the occupied territories.

"Benny Morris has recently argued that completely emptying Palestine of its indigenous Arab inhabitants in 1948 might have led to peace in the Middle East. In response, Baruch Kimmerling, professor at Hebrew University, wrote: “Let me extend Benny Morris's logic …. If the Nazi programme for the final solution of the Jewish problem had been complete, for sure there would be peace today in Palestine.” Far from being isolated examples, such explicitly racist and criminal positions are quite popular in Israel today. They are not only condoned in universities, but highly praised."

Why Boycott Israel: "No matter how we define Israel, the fundamental and undisputed existence in it of a system of racial discrimination based on religious/ethnic identity is what motivates calls for South Africa-like sanctions against Israel. “Apartheid,” “Zionist settler-colonialism,” “Jewish supremacy,” ...etc. are all variations on the name of the ailment. What matters is how best to cure it.... As Etienne Balibar says, “Israel should not be allowed to instrumentalize the genocide of European Jews to put [itself] above the law of nations.” ... How can an ethno-religious supremacy that is also a colonial power ever qualify as a democracy? Israel may be a democracy for its Jewish citizens, but it is an apartheid for its Palestinian citizens, as argued earlier. New York University professor Tony Judt, for instance, calls Israel a “dysfunctional anachronism,” categorizing it among the “belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno states.”"

"Israel’s most celebrated philosopher, Asa Kasher, provided “ethical” justification for extra-judicial killings, even when a large number of innocent civilians are deliberately killed or injured in the process. Israel’s foremost military historian, Martin Van Creveld, of Hebrew University, advised the Israeli army in 2002 ... to commit swift genocide against the Palestinians, explaining that, “Perhaps 5.000 or 10.000 killed won’t be enough, and then we will have to kill more.” He concludes by saying, “it is better that there be one massive crime, after which we will exit and lock the gate behind us.” Like any proper peacenik, his ultimate objective remains to “exit” the occupied territories.

"Benny Morris has recently argued that completely emptying Palestine of its indigenous Arab inhabitants in 1948 might have led to peace in the Middle East. In response, Baruch Kimmerling, professor at Hebrew University, wrote: “Let me extend Benny Morris's logic …. If the Nazi programme for the final solution of the Jewish problem had been complete, for sure there would be peace today in Palestine.” Far from being isolated examples, such explicitly racist and criminal positions are quite popular in Israel today. They are not only condoned in universities, but highly praised."

Israelis vote with their fee t: "According to AFP, as many as 600,000 Israeli Jews have emigrated or become permanent citizens in North America, Australia or Europe since the beginning of the second intifada.This amounts to a steady monthly average stream of 12500 leaving the land of 'milk and honey' in search of greener pastures elsewhere.

"This vote of no confidence expressed by more than a million feet, representing a substantial chunk of Israeli Jews - more than 10% of the population - has become a new nightmare for the Sharon regime. Coupled with the fact that Palestinians are still denied their very basic and fundamental human rights, both in the Occupied Territories as well as in historic Palestine, demographics has turned into a new weapon of resistance."

"Some forthright commentators have offered the view that Jews are less secure in Israel than in other countries. They suggest that the racist ideological underpinning of the Jewish state - Zionism - is responsible for the instability within Israel. Their explanation is elementary material which most students of political science would understand without any difficulty: COLONIAL PROJECTS REMAIN UNSUSTAINABLE, INSECURE AND INDEFENSIBLE!

"Yet it appears that propagandists for Israel are bent on swimming against the tide of critical public opinion which is characterized by hugely popular solidarity campaigns against Israel. More important is the fact that these lobby groups, not satisfied with their dismal performance, are once again seeking to wield the axe of 'anti-semitism' to attack anti-Israeli comment. Radical efforts by Zionist groups to stem a growing body of public sympathy for Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal right-wing regime led by a warmonger Ariel Sharon, includes seeking international acceptance for a wider definition of 'anti-semitism', through conferences under the aegis of the United Nations.

"This is also extended by lobbyists to individual countries in Europe and the developing world. In the case of South Africa for instance, the issue of 'anti-semitism' has been raised by the Jewish Board of Deputies with President Mbeki. All these campaigns do not however detract from the fact that Israel is losing Jewish support."

Israelis vote with their fee t: "According to AFP, as many as 600,000 Israeli Jews have emigrated or become permanent citizens in North America, Australia or Europe since the beginning of the second intifada.This amounts to a steady monthly average stream of 12500 leaving the land of 'milk and honey' in search of greener pastures elsewhere.

"This vote of no confidence expressed by more than a million feet, representing a substantial chunk of Israeli Jews - more than 10% of the population - has become a new nightmare for the Sharon regime. Coupled with the fact that Palestinians are still denied their very basic and fundamental human rights, both in the Occupied Territories as well as in historic Palestine, demographics has turned into a new weapon of resistance."

"Some forthright commentators have offered the view that Jews are less secure in Israel than in other countries. They suggest that the racist ideological underpinning of the Jewish state - Zionism - is responsible for the instability within Israel. Their explanation is elementary material which most students of political science would understand without any difficulty: COLONIAL PROJECTS REMAIN UNSUSTAINABLE, INSECURE AND INDEFENSIBLE!

"Yet it appears that propagandists for Israel are bent on swimming against the tide of critical public opinion which is characterized by hugely popular solidarity campaigns against Israel. More important is the fact that these lobby groups, not satisfied with their dismal performance, are once again seeking to wield the axe of 'anti-semitism' to attack anti-Israeli comment. Radical efforts by Zionist groups to stem a growing body of public sympathy for Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal right-wing regime led by a warmonger Ariel Sharon, includes seeking international acceptance for a wider definition of 'anti-semitism', through conferences under the aegis of the United Nations.

"This is also extended by lobbyists to individual countries in Europe and the developing world. In the case of South Africa for instance, the issue of 'anti-semitism' has been raised by the Jewish Board of Deputies with President Mbeki. All these campaigns do not however detract from the fact that Israel is losing Jewish support."

Sharon will maintain roadblocks to peace: "Since the 1980s, Palestinian leaders, including Arafat, have sought only the rump 22 percent of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967 (the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab East Jerusalem). Under the 1993 Oslo Accords Palestinians recognized Israel in 78 percent of the historical Palestinian homeland and, along with the international community, naively assumed Israel would return all of the lands occupied in 1967."

Uri Avnery argues that Arafat effectively adopted this position following the 73 war, but it seems to have taken a while for it to be formally stated and adopted. The remarkable story of Palestine is that an internationally agreed political settlement has been available for at least 30 years, but it has been deliberately avoided by an endless series of crimes, evasions and breaches of international law on the part of the US and Israel, combined with a truly monumental barrage of propaganda to try and make the issue appear other than what it is.

Sharon will maintain roadblocks to peace: "Since the 1980s, Palestinian leaders, including Arafat, have sought only the rump 22 percent of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967 (the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab East Jerusalem). Under the 1993 Oslo Accords Palestinians recognized Israel in 78 percent of the historical Palestinian homeland and, along with the international community, naively assumed Israel would return all of the lands occupied in 1967."

Uri Avnery argues that Arafat effectively adopted this position following the 73 war, but it seems to have taken a while for it to be formally stated and adopted. The remarkable story of Palestine is that an internationally agreed political settlement has been available for at least 30 years, but it has been deliberately avoided by an endless series of crimes, evasions and breaches of international law on the part of the US and Israel, combined with a truly monumental barrage of propaganda to try and make the issue appear other than what it is.

Sham of democracy as U.S. caught in Kabul: "Afghanistan's new 'democratic' president is the world's most expensive mayor. Karzai rules only downtown Kabul, protected by 200 U.S. bodyguards, 17,000 U.S. troops and a token NATO force that includes Canadians. It costs Washington $1.6 billion US monthly to keep Karzai in power. Without the foreign troops' bayonets, Karzai's little puppet regime would quickly be swept away.

"The real power behind figurehead Karzai is the Northern Alliance, the rump of the old Afghan Communist Party, made up of Tajiks and Uzbeks. Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers almost totally ended poppy/heroin production. Today, America's Northern Alliance communist allies have restored the multibillion-dollar drug trade and are now said to control 95% of the world heroin supply. As in Indochina, the U.S. again finds itself in bed with major drug dealers while espousing a platitudinous 'war on drugs.'

"Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is a chaotic mess ruled by warlords, drug kingpins, and the Taliban, which is alive and well, waiting with legendary Pushtun patience for the U.S. to withdraw. The U.S. has stuck its head in a hornet's nest in Afghanistan. Staying on is hugely expensive and painful. But a U.S. pullout would be hailed as a triumph by anti-American forces across the Islamic world. So the U.S. is good and stuck in Afghanistan -- just what Osama bin Laden wanted."

Sham of democracy as U.S. caught in Kabul: "Afghanistan's new 'democratic' president is the world's most expensive mayor. Karzai rules only downtown Kabul, protected by 200 U.S. bodyguards, 17,000 U.S. troops and a token NATO force that includes Canadians. It costs Washington $1.6 billion US monthly to keep Karzai in power. Without the foreign troops' bayonets, Karzai's little puppet regime would quickly be swept away.

"The real power behind figurehead Karzai is the Northern Alliance, the rump of the old Afghan Communist Party, made up of Tajiks and Uzbeks. Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers almost totally ended poppy/heroin production. Today, America's Northern Alliance communist allies have restored the multibillion-dollar drug trade and are now said to control 95% of the world heroin supply. As in Indochina, the U.S. again finds itself in bed with major drug dealers while espousing a platitudinous 'war on drugs.'

"Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is a chaotic mess ruled by warlords, drug kingpins, and the Taliban, which is alive and well, waiting with legendary Pushtun patience for the U.S. to withdraw. The U.S. has stuck its head in a hornet's nest in Afghanistan. Staying on is hugely expensive and painful. But a U.S. pullout would be hailed as a triumph by anti-American forces across the Islamic world. So the U.S. is good and stuck in Afghanistan -- just what Osama bin Laden wanted."

Arafat dead and Bush re-elected: An Opportunity?: James Zogby rebuts some of the core myths of US corporate/state power in regard to Palestine: Arafat was the problem, Sharon is a man of peace, Barak offered the best deal ever and the Palestinians refused it, Palestinians need to become democratic.

Arafat dead and Bush re-elected: An Opportunity?: James Zogby rebuts some of the core myths of US corporate/state power in regard to Palestine: Arafat was the problem, Sharon is a man of peace, Barak offered the best deal ever and the Palestinians refused it, Palestinians need to become democratic.

No Apology for Dissent: Truth and Cowardice: Eloquent rebuttal of the accusation that to be antiwar is to be a traitor.

No Apology for Dissent: Truth and Cowardice: Eloquent rebuttal of the accusation that to be antiwar is to be a traitor.

Will Bush attack Syria and Iran?: "The CIA under Porter Goss has been through a Soviet-style purge and is being turned into an ersatz Office of Special Plans (OSP), which everyone remembers was a Rumsfeld-sponsored operation that specialized in fabricating false pretexts for the invasion of Iraq. The OSP was directed by neo-conservative Douglas Feith (who now wants the US to attack Iran). The new CIA is Feith's OSP on steroids. Goss' job is to make sure the CIA agrees with everything Bush and the neo-conservatives say."

"Bush and the neo-cons must implicate Syria by all means available. This week Bush warned both Syria and Iran against "meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq" - as if Baghdad was the capital of Ohio. On a more serious note, Pentagon military intelligence officials suddenly discovered a few days ago that the Iraqi resistance "is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria" and funded by "private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe"."

"It doesn't matter that Iran has agreed - at least temporarily - to stop enriching uranium, in exchange for security arrangements, trade, investment and support for World Trade Organization admission offered by the European "Big 3" of Germany, France and Britain. In the neo-con master plan, Iran is doomed to be "shocked and awed" by 2006. The chatter at the AEI, the PNAC and other think-tanks has been thunderous for quite some time: Iran could be bombed from American bases in Iraq, in Pakistan, or from warships in the Persian Gulf. There are no illusions about it at the European Union headquarters. According to a EU diplomat in Brussels, "This bitter controversy over the Iranian nuclear program works as a smokescreen. The neo-conservatives are obsessed with Iran as a fundamentalist Islamic regime bound on exterminating Israel." Another diplomat adds that the question is not Iran's virtual nukes, per se, but how to cripple Iran as a military power: "It's the same agenda for Israel, the Pentagon and the White House National Security Council." "

"European diplomats confirm that when they got together with their American counterparts in Washington last October to discuss Iran, there was simply nothing to discuss. Under Secretary of State John Bolton - a man who, on the record, wants the US to invade Iran - simply read aloud a text where the US refused to back any European Big 3 negotiations, and wanted Iran immediately dragged to the UN Security Council. European diplomats remain wary: "The Americans may be paralyzed at the moment - by the lack of international support and because they are trapped in Iraq. But we cannot underestimate the neo-conservatives, and especially Dick Cheney. He might end up convincing Bush of the need of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear sites." Another diplomat adds that "the Americans complain all the time about our dialogue with the Iranians, but they are incapable of formulating an American strategy". "

"Both Iran and the EU have a tremendous stake in the success of the new round of negotiations, which started this week and will, according to European diplomats, last for many months. For Iran, a deal with the EU is a major twofold strategic victory: it amplifies the political abyss between Washington and Brussels, and from the point of view of Iranian consumers, it's good for business. For the EU, it's above all good for big business in the oil and gas industry. A who's who of European majors - Royal Dutch-Shell, Total-Fina-Elf, Agip, British Gas, Enterprise, Lasmo, Monument - already has and looks forward to expanding Iranian contracts. Not to mention the Chinese, who last month assured the Iranians in Beijing, after signing a major oil-and-gas deal, that they would block any move by the International Atomic Energy Agency to take the nuclear impasse to the UN Security Council."

"The joint negotiation with Iran has been one more indication of what these diplomats see as the EU's gradual emergence as a global political player - a historical inevitability. The EU will eventually have a collective military force - and then NATO's existence will be pointless. The EU has already questioned the neo-con equivalence of "pre-emptive war" with "just war". The EU - unlike Bush and the neo-cons - heavily supports the UN, as well as the World Court and the International Criminal Court. The EU is multilateral - a concept that is anathema for the neo-cons. Nonetheless, this all leads a diplomat to be overtly pessimistic: "Iran must prepare for an air attack from Israel and the US. This time, no one - the United Nations, the European Union, not even Britain - will be consulted." "

"Afghanistan's new democracy rests on the shoulder of the world's most expensive mayor (US$1.6 billion a month and counting), Hamid Karzai, who barely controls downtown Kabul protected by 200 American bodyguards, 17,000 American troops and a North Atlantic Treaty Organization contingent. Without all this heavy metal, Karzai would never last. The country is essentially ruled by the Tajiks and Uzbeks of the former Northern Alliance - who now control most of the world's supply of heroin - powerful regional warlords and the Taliban (in the south and southeast). So much for Afghan "democracy". "

Will Bush attack Syria and Iran?: "The CIA under Porter Goss has been through a Soviet-style purge and is being turned into an ersatz Office of Special Plans (OSP), which everyone remembers was a Rumsfeld-sponsored operation that specialized in fabricating false pretexts for the invasion of Iraq. The OSP was directed by neo-conservative Douglas Feith (who now wants the US to attack Iran). The new CIA is Feith's OSP on steroids. Goss' job is to make sure the CIA agrees with everything Bush and the neo-conservatives say."

"Bush and the neo-cons must implicate Syria by all means available. This week Bush warned both Syria and Iran against "meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq" - as if Baghdad was the capital of Ohio. On a more serious note, Pentagon military intelligence officials suddenly discovered a few days ago that the Iraqi resistance "is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria" and funded by "private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe"."

"It doesn't matter that Iran has agreed - at least temporarily - to stop enriching uranium, in exchange for security arrangements, trade, investment and support for World Trade Organization admission offered by the European "Big 3" of Germany, France and Britain. In the neo-con master plan, Iran is doomed to be "shocked and awed" by 2006. The chatter at the AEI, the PNAC and other think-tanks has been thunderous for quite some time: Iran could be bombed from American bases in Iraq, in Pakistan, or from warships in the Persian Gulf. There are no illusions about it at the European Union headquarters. According to a EU diplomat in Brussels, "This bitter controversy over the Iranian nuclear program works as a smokescreen. The neo-conservatives are obsessed with Iran as a fundamentalist Islamic regime bound on exterminating Israel." Another diplomat adds that the question is not Iran's virtual nukes, per se, but how to cripple Iran as a military power: "It's the same agenda for Israel, the Pentagon and the White House National Security Council." "

"European diplomats confirm that when they got together with their American counterparts in Washington last October to discuss Iran, there was simply nothing to discuss. Under Secretary of State John Bolton - a man who, on the record, wants the US to invade Iran - simply read aloud a text where the US refused to back any European Big 3 negotiations, and wanted Iran immediately dragged to the UN Security Council. European diplomats remain wary: "The Americans may be paralyzed at the moment - by the lack of international support and because they are trapped in Iraq. But we cannot underestimate the neo-conservatives, and especially Dick Cheney. He might end up convincing Bush of the need of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear sites." Another diplomat adds that "the Americans complain all the time about our dialogue with the Iranians, but they are incapable of formulating an American strategy". "

"Both Iran and the EU have a tremendous stake in the success of the new round of negotiations, which started this week and will, according to European diplomats, last for many months. For Iran, a deal with the EU is a major twofold strategic victory: it amplifies the political abyss between Washington and Brussels, and from the point of view of Iranian consumers, it's good for business. For the EU, it's above all good for big business in the oil and gas industry. A who's who of European majors - Royal Dutch-Shell, Total-Fina-Elf, Agip, British Gas, Enterprise, Lasmo, Monument - already has and looks forward to expanding Iranian contracts. Not to mention the Chinese, who last month assured the Iranians in Beijing, after signing a major oil-and-gas deal, that they would block any move by the International Atomic Energy Agency to take the nuclear impasse to the UN Security Council."

"The joint negotiation with Iran has been one more indication of what these diplomats see as the EU's gradual emergence as a global political player - a historical inevitability. The EU will eventually have a collective military force - and then NATO's existence will be pointless. The EU has already questioned the neo-con equivalence of "pre-emptive war" with "just war". The EU - unlike Bush and the neo-cons - heavily supports the UN, as well as the World Court and the International Criminal Court. The EU is multilateral - a concept that is anathema for the neo-cons. Nonetheless, this all leads a diplomat to be overtly pessimistic: "Iran must prepare for an air attack from Israel and the US. This time, no one - the United Nations, the European Union, not even Britain - will be consulted." "

"Afghanistan's new democracy rests on the shoulder of the world's most expensive mayor (US$1.6 billion a month and counting), Hamid Karzai, who barely controls downtown Kabul protected by 200 American bodyguards, 17,000 American troops and a North Atlantic Treaty Organization contingent. Without all this heavy metal, Karzai would never last. The country is essentially ruled by the Tajiks and Uzbeks of the former Northern Alliance - who now control most of the world's supply of heroin - powerful regional warlords and the Taliban (in the south and southeast). So much for Afghan "democracy". "

On Receiving Harvard Medical School's Global Environment Citizen Award: "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

"Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'

"Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."

On Receiving Harvard Medical School's Global Environment Citizen Award: "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

"Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'

"Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."

Chomsky: Draft not likely: "The military command, and the civilian leadership, learned an important lesson in Vietnam: you can’t expect a citizen’s army to fight a vicious, brutal colonial war. Their predecessors knew that. The British, French, etc., provided the officer corps, special forces, and professional military, but relied on the Foreign Legion, Ghurkas, Indian troops, and other mercenaries. That’s standard. The US made a serious tactical error in this regard in Vietnam—though it had plenty of mercenaries too: South Korean, Thai, and others. In Iraq, the US is using what amounts to a mercenary army of the disadvantaged, and the second largest military force is the “private” companies made up of ex-military officers, South African killers, etc.

"In Vietnam, the army collapsed from within: drugs, killing officers, etc. Citizens are not trained killers, and they are not sufficiently dissociated from the civilian culture at home to fight colonial wars properly. The top brass wanted the army out, before it fell apart. And the civilian leadership agreed."

Chomsky: Draft not likely: "The military command, and the civilian leadership, learned an important lesson in Vietnam: you can’t expect a citizen’s army to fight a vicious, brutal colonial war. Their predecessors knew that. The British, French, etc., provided the officer corps, special forces, and professional military, but relied on the Foreign Legion, Ghurkas, Indian troops, and other mercenaries. That’s standard. The US made a serious tactical error in this regard in Vietnam—though it had plenty of mercenaries too: South Korean, Thai, and others. In Iraq, the US is using what amounts to a mercenary army of the disadvantaged, and the second largest military force is the “private” companies made up of ex-military officers, South African killers, etc.

"In Vietnam, the army collapsed from within: drugs, killing officers, etc. Citizens are not trained killers, and they are not sufficiently dissociated from the civilian culture at home to fight colonial wars properly. The top brass wanted the army out, before it fell apart. And the civilian leadership agreed."

The Yushchenko 'Poison Plot' Fraud: Justin Raimondo reiterates his doubts about the case, pointing out the links between Yuschenko and the Western powers. Official corruption and media lying is of such a scale that, somewhat like the 'Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope', a gigantic fraud could be perpetrated.

The Yushchenko 'Poison Plot' Fraud: Justin Raimondo reiterates his doubts about the case, pointing out the links between Yuschenko and the Western powers. Official corruption and media lying is of such a scale that, somewhat like the 'Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope', a gigantic fraud could be perpetrated.

Investigative reporter Gary Webb dead by suicide: This article together with its links reviews the way in which the CIA has been involved in criminal drug smuggling for fifty years as a means of raising illegal funds. The opportunity to engage in such activity and to raise such funds must certainly be one of the main and enduring reasons for the phony 'war on drugs' and drug prohibition policy; and also therefore one of the main arguments in favour of drug law reform. There is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion, that the vast profits of drug smuggling repeatedly generate vast corruption in societal institutions.

Investigative reporter Gary Webb dead by suicide: This article together with its links reviews the way in which the CIA has been involved in criminal drug smuggling for fifty years as a means of raising illegal funds. The opportunity to engage in such activity and to raise such funds must certainly be one of the main and enduring reasons for the phony 'war on drugs' and drug prohibition policy; and also therefore one of the main arguments in favour of drug law reform. There is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion, that the vast profits of drug smuggling repeatedly generate vast corruption in societal institutions.