Justice by the barrell of a gun, US Military style: No trial, No Rights, No truth – just guns and bombs and celebration. That’s the mentality. Now they say they have killed Saddam’s sons, which of course, none of us can prove, so we just believe it.
They claim that killing Saddam’s sons is important, because they organize the resistance and they are generally bad people. Such beliefs prove that the US occupation force and its leaders understand nothing of what its like to have your home occupied by a bunch of outsiders who arrest and shoot your neighbors. No killing of any leaders will stop the resistance, never has that worked in the history of occupations. Kill Saddam’s sons, but don’t believe for a second that killing will make things better. Violence can only bring about violence. And by killing their leaders, the US not only shows is disregard for justice and rule of law, but its ignorance regarding opressed people and resistance.
Tag Archives: history
Worst regime in history? Looks like it!
White House cuts global warming from report
Environmental study censored, say critics
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday June 20, 2003
The Guardian
The White House has removed damaging references to global warming from a major US government report on the environment due to be published next week.
References to health threats posed by exhaust emissions that were part of the draft report by the environmental protection agency (EPA) have been removed, according to leaked versions of the report.
White House officials have cut details about the sudden increase in global warming over the past decade compared with the past 1,000 years and inserted information from a report that questions this conclusion and which was partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, according to the New York Times, to whom the draft documents were leaked.
The removal of controversial passages has caused concern within the EPA. At the end of April a memo circulated among staff members and also leaked to the paper said the report “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change”.
Another memo warned of the danger to the agency’s credibility posed by agreeing to the deletions, because the “EPA will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science”.
The report was commissioned in 2001 by the agency’s head, Christie Whitman, who has just announced her resignation for unrelated reasons. Its aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of the major environmental issues facing the government and the scientific community.
One of the most striking changes comes in the report’s “global issues” section.
In the draft version the introduction reads: “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”
This has been replaced with: “The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future.”
Environmental groups have criticised the changes. Aaron Rappaport of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington said yesterday: “It’s ridiculous to leave global warming out of a report on change in the environment.”
The references had apparently been “censored out”, he said.
“It shows a serious lack of transparency,” Mr Rappaport added. “I regret to say we’re not surprised.
“The administration’s prejudice against the scientific consensus around global warming is well known.”
Ms Whitman, who will leave office at the end of next week, has said she is content with the deletions made by the White House.
“The first draft, as with many first drafts, contained everything,” she said.
“As it went through the review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change.
“So, rather than go out with something half-baked or not put out the whole report, we felt it was important for us to get this out because there is a lot of really good information that people can use to measure our successes.”
The EPA did not return a call yesterday requesting a comment by time of going to press.
Mr Bush angered environmentalists early in his administration by declining to endorse the Kyoto international agreement on global warming, and subsequently expressing doubts about whether global warming even existed.
His administration has often clashed with environmental groups. Environmentalists have accused the government of being too ready to listen to oil and logging interests.
The major environmental clash has centred around the Arctic national wildlife refuge where the White House seeks to allow drilling for oil. The issue remains stalled in the legislature.
The following is just more evidence of the horrendous state of the United States Government…. enjoy
May 28, 2003
Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
ASHINGTON, May 27 ? Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research.
At the same time, the company, the world’s largest oil and gas concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.
Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
The organizations are modest in size but have been outspoken in the global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the groups say they also receive some money from other oil companies, it is only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.
“We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,” said Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. “There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change that is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.” He also noted, “These are not single-agenda groups.”
The organizations emphasize that while their views align with Exxon’s, the company’s money does not influence their policy conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought out in part because of their credibility. “They’ve determined that we are effective at what we do,” said George C. Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that maintains that human activities are not responsible for global warming. He says Exxon essentially takes the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of that.”
Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth was not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually spread over three years.
The increase corresponds with a rising level of public debate since the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, some of the groups said. After President Bush rejected the protocol, a treaty requiring nations to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, many corporations shifted their attention to Washington, where the debate has centered on proposals for domestic curbs on the emissions.
“Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” said Fred L. Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron Ebell, an analyst from the institute, spoke at last year’s Exxon shareholders’ meeting, where he criticized a renewable energy resolution proposed by a group of shareholders.
Exxon’s backing of third-party groups is a marked contrast to its more public role in the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group formed in 1989 to challenge the science around global warming. The group eventually disbanded when oil and auto companies started to withdraw. As companies were left to walk their own path, Exxon shifted money toward independent policy groups.
“Now it’s come down to a few of these groups to be the good foot soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,” said Kert Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which has tried to organize an international boycott of Exxon.
Exxon’s publicly disclosed documents reveal that donations to many of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent from 2000 to 2002. And money to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that works with state legislators, has almost tripled, as the policy debate has moved to the state level.
The gifts are minuscule compared with the $100 million, 10-year scientific grant to Stanford, which is establishing a research center that will focus on technologies that could provide energy without adding to greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming. Nevertheless, the donations in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars are significant for groups with budgets ranging from $700,000 to $4 million.
Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much of the industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward the reality of global warming. As Exxon has become isolated from its peers, it has faced increasing pressure from shareholders and environmentalists. BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco have developed strategies that incorporate renewable energy, carbon trading and emissions reductions.
Among the initiatives that Exxon’s money has helped is the Center for Science and Public Policy. The two-month-old center is a one-man operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill on two issues: global warming and the health effects of mercury.
“We don’t lobby, we educate,” said Bob Ferguson, head of the center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican Congressional staff member. “We try to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan and nonideological.”
May 28, 2003
In Shift, U.S. to Offer Grants to Historic Churches
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
n a reversal of a longstanding policy, the Bush administration said yesterday that it would allow federal grants to be used to renovate churches and religious sites that are designated historic landmarks.
Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton announced the change in an afternoon news conference at the Old North Church in Boston, where in 1775 Paul Revere spotted two lanterns hung to signal the advance of British troops. Ms. Norton said the church, which still houses a congregation, would receive a federal grant of $317,000 to repair windows and make the building more accessible to the public.
“Today we have a new policy that will bring balance to historic preservation and end the discriminatory double standard that has been applied against religious properties,” said Ms. Norton, standing below the church’s famed steeple.
The decision was the latest step by the White House to remove barriers to government financing of religious organizations, and it received mixed reviews from constitutional experts.
In December, Mr. Bush issued executive orders telling federal agencies not to discriminate against religious groups in awarding social service contracts. He also directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to allow religious organizations, including schools, to receive earthquake and hurricane relief.
This year, the administration proposed regulations that would allow the use of federal housing aid to build religious centers where worship occurs, as long as the centers were used primarily for social services.
Jim Towey, the director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, said in a telephone interview that the change in policy on historic preservation would apply only to places of worship that qualify as landmarks under the “Save America’s Treasures” program. The program gives out about $30 million in grants annually to preserve all kinds of historic sites.
Mr. Towey said that the administration was reviewing regulations in other government agencies to determine whether religious organizations were being subject to discrimination in federal programs. He declined to identify the agencies or the regulations.
“They’re clearly interested, and they said it all along, in expanding the amount of government subsidies for religious institutions,” Mark Tushnet, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said of the administration.
The policy barring religious institutions from receiving federal preservation money had been in place since the late 1970’s because of concerns about the separation of church and state, said Paul W. Edmondson, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the organization’s general counsel. The policy was formalized by a legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in the Clinton administration in 1995.
Recently, the Old North Church applied for a preservation grant under the “Save America’s Treasures” program, which is run jointly by the National Park Service and the National Trust. Last fall the church was told the grant was approved, said Timothy Matthews, a church official. But a week later, the church was informed of the 1995 ruling and the grant was revoked, he said.
Mr. Edmondson said the National Trust appealed to the Bush administration, sensing that the Old North Church was an ideal candidate for testing the ban. The White House asked the Justice Department for a new opinion and received one that took a stand different from the Clinton administration’s, Ms. Norton said.
“The buildings that we’re talking about have tremendous secular importance as historic places,” Mr. Edmondson said in an interview. “It has nothing to do with their importance as religious buildings per se ? it’s either the role they played in American history or their architectural significance.”
The Old North Church was designated a historic landmark in 1961. A foundation that is legally separate from the church will administer the grant, and the church is expected to raise an equal amount from private sources.
Constitutional scholars said that while there were Supreme Court precedents that barred the use of federal money to maintain religious buildings, the law was shifting and still murky.
“Is this government support for religion?” Mr. Tushnet asked. “In one sense, no, because it’s not paying the salary of the minister at Old North Church. But in another sense, yes, because it’s supporting the essential physical character of the church.”
“We’ll find out what the rule is when somebody litigates it,” he said, “but if I were a litigator I wouldn’t go after Old North Church because it is obviously of historic significance.”
Some First Amendment experts said that giving federal grants to preserve religious sites seemed to be constitutionally permissible because they were not grants to advance religion or worship. But others said the move was evidence that the administration was intent on dismantling the wall between church and state.
“This is just one more step in a governmentwide drive to fund religion with tax dollars,” said Joseph Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group in Washington. “Literally you’re putting public money in the collection plate for the church’s building fund.”
Mr. Towey said other religious sites that could soon receive grants were the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., a civil rights landmark where a bombing in 1963 killed four girls, and the Touro Synagogue in Newport, R.I., the oldest synagogue in the United States.
In an interview after the Boston news conference, Michael L. Balaban, executive director of the Touro Synagogue, said the synagogue had already requested a $750,000 grant.
Caretakers of the nation’s oldest Roman Catholic cathedral, the Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore, will also seek a grant soon, Robert J. Lancelotta Jr., the executive vice president of the basilica’s trust, said in an interview in Boston.
Happy May 1st to all. To all those who work: whether it be at home, in the office, at school, on the street, in the factory, in the air, at sea, on the road, underground, in orbit… this is our bond.. we work. Today.. one day out of the year… on this day we remember the millions worldwide… throughout history and still today who have fought and died to bring us a better life. To bring us things like healthcare, retirement plans, 8 hour work days, and WEEKENDS! Yet this is not only a day for remembering and honoring, but to renew a commitment. The commitment to struggle.. whether it be through everyday work or specific direct-action, the struggle around the world continues, for a better life, where profit is not the only god, but where quality of life and human dignity are valued above all.
On this day I remember Joe Hill. Organizer, Worker, Poet, Human. Murdered by the firing squad of the state of Utah. His life commitment to fighting for change will always be an inspiration for my own life commitment.
(Written in his cell, November 18, 1915,
on the eve of his execution)
My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide.
My kind don’t need to fuss and moan —
“Moss does not cling to a rolling stone.”
My body? Ah, If I could choose,
I would to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my last and final will.
Good luck to all of you.
Last week’s Courrier International which is published by the Le Monde Group, included an interview from the New York Times Magazine with Qaddafi back in January. This was a really long and detailed interview, with the journalist and the leader of Libya dicussing the past, the present, and the future. From this interview, usual media portrayals, and the infamy of his name Qaddafi is generally seen as a tyrant. Reading this interview and seeing the man, hearing him speak, sometimes proud and pompous, sometimes regretful and remorseful, you see a man that has shaped his part of the world as much as the world has shaped him. He admits that back in the eighties he believed armed struggle was the best way to advance your movement, he now says he was wrong. He denounces terrorism, and was the first arab leader to present Washington with his security reports on terrorist groups worldwide. Yet he never forgets how the Reagan administration targeted him, bombed Libya, killing his 1 year old adopted daughter while she slept. These days he seems obsessed with the new formed African Union, created in the spirit of the European Union, in order to unite Africa and promote developement.
Why are these things significant? Because Qaddafi represents man who was considered crazy and a threat to the world/United States. He was targetted. He was bombed. He was denounced over and over again by Reagan, Bush, and even GWBush denounces him. Yet the UN has lifted sanctions… after so many years of delay, Qaddafi released the Lockerbie bombing suspects to face trial. He has also agreed to pay the conpensation. He has also given over his powers as administrative/ government leader in Libya to parliament. He retains the title of “leader” wielding only symbolic importance in his country. He may not be a good man. But he is a clear example of what happens to semi-dictators in the Arab world if you approach the situation with patience and using measures besides war.
Qaddafi is not unique. Many aging Arab leaders, who used to be considered mad threats, later became old and quirky, but not crazed killers. Reagan used to refer to Qaddafi as “The rabid dog of the middle east”… but years later, it is clear that Reagan was just trying to get political attention… because that raging dog, has become a calm K-9, interested more in hanging nice pictures of himself in the streets and being remembered as a great leader.
And so once again there’s a president waging a vague Cold War Part II against terrorism, and he declares another middle east dictator a “threat”… history repeats itself… only this time, it could be far bloodier.
The biggest danger in the world, is not the average American who might be in favor of war in order to “liberate” another country. No, the biggest danger in this world is the education system that produced that American. Because it was that system, those schools, that curriculum, and those teachers, who gave that person the tools he would use to interpret the world around him, for the rest of his/her life. Sure, parental figures are important, but reality is, whoever your guardian, they’re probably working 1 or 2 jobs just to keep that roof over your head and the clothes on your back, etc. Your real education today, when its not coming from your loved ones, is coming at you from all sides when it comes to TV and school. And if that school doesn’t teach a person to ask questions, to ask how things work, to seek more information than that which is spoonfed to them, then that person may never learn to do so.
Never has this been more apparent than now. Tabloid newspapers publish embarassingly ignorant headlines depicting the French as the culture which America saved and died for which now turns their back on the United States. With a large photo of Normandy to boot. CBS’s Andy Rooney, who has already received piercing criticism from this journalist, in his old wise age, still has his own program on that network, where he presents news to the public, with his own commentary mixed in. This week Rooney decided to “englighten” the viewers about the French. This man who neither speaks French or has ever lived there longer than his tour of media duty in the 40’s, told millions of CBS watchers about how the French “Have no right to an opinion” because they “owe” the United States for having saved their country and defeated the Germans in WWII.
This same idea has been spreading like wildfire throughout the American media. Whats alarming is not that it’s spreading in a populist, racist, ill-informed, and attention seeking media environment. Rather, it is that so many Americans read this and it appeals to this sensitive memory or this national pride, it touches of some misplaced anger, and the result is poor humor like “Surrender like the French.” This is poor humor because it ignores the sufferring and starvation endured by France during the occupation, and it negates the enormous resistance movement and all those who died for it. It ignores that fact that untold millions of Russians and Germans had already died long before Normandy. It ignores how many millions of innocent Polish, Russians, Germans, Czechs, French, and British died before America finally decided to get involved.
Rooney has a right to his opinion. But once he gets in front of millions to put forth information, he then has a responsibility, to the public. If he presents one side of an arguement or opinion, he must present the otherside, otherwise he’s nothing but a propaganda producing would-be journalist. Furthermore, if he is indeed a journalist, then part of his job is to question public officials and government decisions.
It is not for the journalist or any media to promote or support the decision of elected officials, they have media people to do that for them. No, it’s the media’s role to keep them in check, to make sure their information isn’t full of holes and half-truths. But alas, that’s what a media is supposed to do, it hasn’t been doing that in America or several other countries for quite a long time. There’s a long overdue reform that the people must demand of the very media that seek their attention. Trouble is, if people aren’t educated properly, only schooled in “their” national history and never told the other side of the story, never shown the other truths that are out there, they’ll just keep eating the same spoon-fed government propaganda… and they’ll even say thank you.