Friday, August 29, 2003
The Interview Game
The Rules:
1. Leave a comment, saying you want to be interviewed.
2. I'll respond and ask you five questions.
3. You'll update your website with my five questions, and your five answers.
4. You'll include this explanation.
5. You'll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.
My questions were provided by Bud.
1. If it were up to you, what would you change about today’s internet?
I’d want it to be less commercial. And I’d get rid of spam. I report all my spam via spam cop when I’m at home, and that has reduced it quite a lot, but I really object to being sent porn and all the other unsolicited rubbish. What particularly bothers me is that my son probably gets the same stuff – although he deletes it without opening it (he says he does anyway). I use spybot to remove spyware and adware from my machine, but still get harassed by pop-ups. I know that websites need to pay for themselves in some way – but maybe if we had a more co-operative way of doing things, or were prepared to pay more for our usage, we could reduce the amount of advertising. Perhaps a system similar to the way the BBC operates, whereby licensing covers costs instead of advertising. I much prefer watching BBC tv channels, and listening to BBC radio because there is no advertising (and quite often their programmes are better!).
2. What is your all-time favourite film?
I’m more bookish than film watching, and usually forget films pretty quickly. But there are some that have managed to retain some space in my head. I think ‘Edward Scissorhands’ has to be a special favourite. Apart from the fact that I have a soft spot for Johnny Depp, I love the surreal cinematography – those pastel coloured houses, larger than life characters, and of course the bitter-sweet story. I suppose I’m a romantic at heart – which clashes somewhat with my cynicism! Other favourites include ‘Singing in the Rain’ – I was brought up on musicals as a result of having a dancing mother, ‘Like Water for Chocolate’ – I’m a big fan of magical realism, especially on paper (still reading Midnight’s Children, it gets better with every reading), ‘Raising Arizona’ and most other Coen brothers films, and the first two ‘Lord of the Rings’ films.
3. Do you feel a satisfactory solution exists to the Iraq situation?
The short answer to that is NO. I certainly don’t feel that occupation by US & UK forces are the answer. I don’t think their being replaced by UN forces would be any better. The best that can be hoped for would probably mean something similar to the situation in Iran – problems between secular and fundamentalist Muslims. There would be people killing each other whether foreign troops are involved or not. I think probably we should let them sort it out for themselves and stop interfering. Its far from ideal, and there’s no way the US government will let that happen. Last night we watched a bit of Spanish satellite tv – the only English language channel we could get was Fox News. What a nightmare! If that is typical of the news the American people get I despair. They call themselves ‘Fair and Balanced’ – or did I mishear? It seemed more like ‘Fairly Unbalanced’ to me. There was a discussion on the Iraq situation, and I hear that the current favourite idea is to get UN forces in under US control. And its patently obvious that any democracy that the US government allow will have to be on US terms, with US approved leaders.
I reckon let the Iraqis sort themselves out, provide aid where it is needed. If western aid agencies can’t operate safely there, maybe the Red Crescent can. As long as the west arrogantly assumes it knows best, there is no hope of a solution.
4. Of the things you learned at University, which serve you well today? Which things do you consider to be totally useless?
Well, in a very immediate and obvious way, the Spanish language module I took in my final semester is currently most useful, because ´'m on holiday in Spain. I did the course partly in preparation for the holiday I was planning after graduating, but also because it meant I wouldn’t have to write any essays or take a big exam.
Doing an English degree, covering both the development of the language and the history of literature in english (small’e’, englishes from around the world) was quite a strange thing, in that it has no real practical application unless one wants to teach or write. I never wanted to teach and I haven’t really got the self-discipline to write. So much of what I learned isn’t exactly ‘useful’. But I wouldn’t say any of it was useless. It involved delving into the cultures and histories of many different peoples. I found all of that fascinating and it certainly expanded my world-view and contributed to making me the person I am today. There were certainly texts I read that I didn’t like, writers who I don’t think it was necessary to study – but that is down to personal taste I suppose.
5. Without thinking, name one place you’ve never been that you’d like to visit. Now, thinking a bit, why would you like to go there?
Only one? Without thinking? Naples in Italy comes to mind. Although I briefly visited Italy many years ago, en route to a non-existent job in Greece (that’s a long, fairly traumatic story!), I’ve never had the opportunity to get to know the country. My great-grandfather came from Naples to London in the late 19th century, so I’d like to acquaint myself with my ancestral origins. Of course, I’d have to learn something of the language first, and it will be a couple of years before I will allow myself to fly again (carbon miles). But I think it is next on my list of places to go. There are many many other places I’d like to visit. The problem would come in deciding which to choose!
The Rules:
1. Leave a comment, saying you want to be interviewed.
2. I'll respond and ask you five questions.
3. You'll update your website with my five questions, and your five answers.
4. You'll include this explanation.
5. You'll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.
My questions were provided by Bud.
1. If it were up to you, what would you change about today’s internet?
I’d want it to be less commercial. And I’d get rid of spam. I report all my spam via spam cop when I’m at home, and that has reduced it quite a lot, but I really object to being sent porn and all the other unsolicited rubbish. What particularly bothers me is that my son probably gets the same stuff – although he deletes it without opening it (he says he does anyway). I use spybot to remove spyware and adware from my machine, but still get harassed by pop-ups. I know that websites need to pay for themselves in some way – but maybe if we had a more co-operative way of doing things, or were prepared to pay more for our usage, we could reduce the amount of advertising. Perhaps a system similar to the way the BBC operates, whereby licensing covers costs instead of advertising. I much prefer watching BBC tv channels, and listening to BBC radio because there is no advertising (and quite often their programmes are better!).
2. What is your all-time favourite film?
I’m more bookish than film watching, and usually forget films pretty quickly. But there are some that have managed to retain some space in my head. I think ‘Edward Scissorhands’ has to be a special favourite. Apart from the fact that I have a soft spot for Johnny Depp, I love the surreal cinematography – those pastel coloured houses, larger than life characters, and of course the bitter-sweet story. I suppose I’m a romantic at heart – which clashes somewhat with my cynicism! Other favourites include ‘Singing in the Rain’ – I was brought up on musicals as a result of having a dancing mother, ‘Like Water for Chocolate’ – I’m a big fan of magical realism, especially on paper (still reading Midnight’s Children, it gets better with every reading), ‘Raising Arizona’ and most other Coen brothers films, and the first two ‘Lord of the Rings’ films.
3. Do you feel a satisfactory solution exists to the Iraq situation?
The short answer to that is NO. I certainly don’t feel that occupation by US & UK forces are the answer. I don’t think their being replaced by UN forces would be any better. The best that can be hoped for would probably mean something similar to the situation in Iran – problems between secular and fundamentalist Muslims. There would be people killing each other whether foreign troops are involved or not. I think probably we should let them sort it out for themselves and stop interfering. Its far from ideal, and there’s no way the US government will let that happen. Last night we watched a bit of Spanish satellite tv – the only English language channel we could get was Fox News. What a nightmare! If that is typical of the news the American people get I despair. They call themselves ‘Fair and Balanced’ – or did I mishear? It seemed more like ‘Fairly Unbalanced’ to me. There was a discussion on the Iraq situation, and I hear that the current favourite idea is to get UN forces in under US control. And its patently obvious that any democracy that the US government allow will have to be on US terms, with US approved leaders.
I reckon let the Iraqis sort themselves out, provide aid where it is needed. If western aid agencies can’t operate safely there, maybe the Red Crescent can. As long as the west arrogantly assumes it knows best, there is no hope of a solution.
4. Of the things you learned at University, which serve you well today? Which things do you consider to be totally useless?
Well, in a very immediate and obvious way, the Spanish language module I took in my final semester is currently most useful, because ´'m on holiday in Spain. I did the course partly in preparation for the holiday I was planning after graduating, but also because it meant I wouldn’t have to write any essays or take a big exam.
Doing an English degree, covering both the development of the language and the history of literature in english (small’e’, englishes from around the world) was quite a strange thing, in that it has no real practical application unless one wants to teach or write. I never wanted to teach and I haven’t really got the self-discipline to write. So much of what I learned isn’t exactly ‘useful’. But I wouldn’t say any of it was useless. It involved delving into the cultures and histories of many different peoples. I found all of that fascinating and it certainly expanded my world-view and contributed to making me the person I am today. There were certainly texts I read that I didn’t like, writers who I don’t think it was necessary to study – but that is down to personal taste I suppose.
5. Without thinking, name one place you’ve never been that you’d like to visit. Now, thinking a bit, why would you like to go there?
Only one? Without thinking? Naples in Italy comes to mind. Although I briefly visited Italy many years ago, en route to a non-existent job in Greece (that’s a long, fairly traumatic story!), I’ve never had the opportunity to get to know the country. My great-grandfather came from Naples to London in the late 19th century, so I’d like to acquaint myself with my ancestral origins. Of course, I’d have to learn something of the language first, and it will be a couple of years before I will allow myself to fly again (carbon miles). But I think it is next on my list of places to go. There are many many other places I’d like to visit. The problem would come in deciding which to choose!
Friday, August 22, 2003
Buenas dias! Estoy de vacaciones en Espagne. Mi español no es muy bueno pero creo es importante intentar hablar el idioma.
Es muy calor hoy. La cerveza es muy buena!
Estoy en Alicante con mi hijo. Mañana vamos a Moraira por una semana.
Ok. That just about exhausts my rusty Spanish. I did a short course 2 years ago, but haven't spoken any since our holiday after I graduated from university in 2001. I can manage menus, and very limited conversation but not much else. I do feel disappointed with my fellow Brits though when I hear them refusing to try to speak the language. Last night when we were out for dinner there was an English couple at the next table. They insisted on sticking with English even though the waiter was saying "¿Dos cervezas?", and holding up 2 fingers. The customer kept on saying "Two beers". How hard is it to learn a few numbers? I think it is good manners at the very least. But it also enhances the experience of being in another country.
I don´t think I´ll be blogging much while I´m here. I´m taking a break from current affairs. Well, trying to anyway.
Es muy calor hoy. La cerveza es muy buena!
Estoy en Alicante con mi hijo. Mañana vamos a Moraira por una semana.
Ok. That just about exhausts my rusty Spanish. I did a short course 2 years ago, but haven't spoken any since our holiday after I graduated from university in 2001. I can manage menus, and very limited conversation but not much else. I do feel disappointed with my fellow Brits though when I hear them refusing to try to speak the language. Last night when we were out for dinner there was an English couple at the next table. They insisted on sticking with English even though the waiter was saying "¿Dos cervezas?", and holding up 2 fingers. The customer kept on saying "Two beers". How hard is it to learn a few numbers? I think it is good manners at the very least. But it also enhances the experience of being in another country.
I don´t think I´ll be blogging much while I´m here. I´m taking a break from current affairs. Well, trying to anyway.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
There are strange goings on in the Philippines, as Naomi Klein reports here:
"On July 27, 300 soldiers rigged a giant Manila shopping mall with C-4 explosives, accused one of Washington's closest allies of staging terrorist attacks to attract US military dollars--and still barely managed to make the international news.
That's our loss, because in the wake of the Marriott bombing in Jakarta and newly leaked intelligence reports claiming that the September 11 attacks were hatched in Manila, it looks like Southeast Asia is about to become the next major front in Washington's War on Terror™.
The Philippines and Indonesia may have missed the cut for the Axis of Evil, but the two countries do offer Washington something Iran and North Korea do not: US-friendly governments willing to help the Pentagon secure an easy win. Both Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri have embraced Bush's crusade as the perfect cover for their brutal cleansing of separatist movements from resource-rich regions--Mindanao in the Philippines, Aceh in Indonesia.
The Philippine government has already reaped a bonanza from its status as Washington's favored terror-fighting ally in Asia. US military aid increased from $2 million in 2001 to $80 million a year while US soldiers and Special Forces flooded into Mindanao to launch offensives against Abu Sayyaf, a group the White House claims has links to Al Qaeda."
Terrorism comes in many guises, it would seem.
"On July 27, 300 soldiers rigged a giant Manila shopping mall with C-4 explosives, accused one of Washington's closest allies of staging terrorist attacks to attract US military dollars--and still barely managed to make the international news.
That's our loss, because in the wake of the Marriott bombing in Jakarta and newly leaked intelligence reports claiming that the September 11 attacks were hatched in Manila, it looks like Southeast Asia is about to become the next major front in Washington's War on Terror™.
The Philippines and Indonesia may have missed the cut for the Axis of Evil, but the two countries do offer Washington something Iran and North Korea do not: US-friendly governments willing to help the Pentagon secure an easy win. Both Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri have embraced Bush's crusade as the perfect cover for their brutal cleansing of separatist movements from resource-rich regions--Mindanao in the Philippines, Aceh in Indonesia.
The Philippine government has already reaped a bonanza from its status as Washington's favored terror-fighting ally in Asia. US military aid increased from $2 million in 2001 to $80 million a year while US soldiers and Special Forces flooded into Mindanao to launch offensives against Abu Sayyaf, a group the White House claims has links to Al Qaeda."
Terrorism comes in many guises, it would seem.
The Hutton enquiry into the death of Dr Kelly is continuing. Today Alistair Campbell will be called to give his version of events, which should be interesting. Yesterday Jonathan Powell, one of Blair's closest advisors had his turn. It seems that he told the government , "We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat," a week before the 'dodgy dossier' was released. But, as the Guardian reports:
"His remarks urging caution contrasted with the chilling language used by Mr Blair in a passionate speech in the Commons as he launched the dossier a week later.
He described Iraq's prog-ramme for weapons of mass destruction as "active, detailed, and growing... It is up and running now."
Maybe Campbell will be able to tell us what happened in those intervening days.
Meanwhile, the US government, true to form, is seeking to undermine the democratic rights of world citizens. Staying with the Guardian:
"Europe's dispute with America over genetically modified food escalated yesterday after Washington asked the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to force the EU to lift its five-year-old ban on new GM food products."
European governments are trying to protect the health of their peoples, at the request of those peoples, but if the US government had its way those voices would be ignored.
Finally for this morning, the Pacific Island Forum ends today. It is a meeting of delegates from around the world, to discuss issues pertinent to the area. Indymedia reports:
"The nature of the discussion is weighed heavily in favour of economic issues to the detriment of social ones. If migration, ecological issues, labour issues or human rights issues are discussed, the discussion proceeds within an economic frame of reference, ignoring the un-quantifiable social problems or evironmental degradation as "externalities". This creates the problem of an inadequate focus on issues that cannot be addressed in purely economic terms. As such, the Forum ignores a great many concerns that are not economic in nature.
First of all, there are already social and ecological issues in the Pacific that merit immediate attention. Foreign interests have been responsible for dispossession of indigenous tribes and ecological damage in a number of Pacific states such as Solomon Islands, Bouganville and Papua New Guinea. It is likewise a matter of course in Australia and New Zealand as well as dialogue partners such as Indonesia. Further liberalisation of trade barriers will grant additional rights to transnational corporations to quite literally strip mine away the mineral wealth of the region. As it has been the case with market reform all over the world as well as the Pacific, transnational corporations are allowed by local authority to pollute, hire private militias, confiscate customary land, destroy ecological habitats, displace indigenous populations and force primitive indigenous populations to abandon local culture in favour of integration into capitalist economic systems."
There's lots of information about this and related effects of developing the Pacific if you follow the Indymedia link,
including a revealing list of "winners & losers" (but no real surprises).
"His remarks urging caution contrasted with the chilling language used by Mr Blair in a passionate speech in the Commons as he launched the dossier a week later.
He described Iraq's prog-ramme for weapons of mass destruction as "active, detailed, and growing... It is up and running now."
Maybe Campbell will be able to tell us what happened in those intervening days.
Meanwhile, the US government, true to form, is seeking to undermine the democratic rights of world citizens. Staying with the Guardian:
"Europe's dispute with America over genetically modified food escalated yesterday after Washington asked the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to force the EU to lift its five-year-old ban on new GM food products."
European governments are trying to protect the health of their peoples, at the request of those peoples, but if the US government had its way those voices would be ignored.
Finally for this morning, the Pacific Island Forum ends today. It is a meeting of delegates from around the world, to discuss issues pertinent to the area. Indymedia reports:
"The nature of the discussion is weighed heavily in favour of economic issues to the detriment of social ones. If migration, ecological issues, labour issues or human rights issues are discussed, the discussion proceeds within an economic frame of reference, ignoring the un-quantifiable social problems or evironmental degradation as "externalities". This creates the problem of an inadequate focus on issues that cannot be addressed in purely economic terms. As such, the Forum ignores a great many concerns that are not economic in nature.
First of all, there are already social and ecological issues in the Pacific that merit immediate attention. Foreign interests have been responsible for dispossession of indigenous tribes and ecological damage in a number of Pacific states such as Solomon Islands, Bouganville and Papua New Guinea. It is likewise a matter of course in Australia and New Zealand as well as dialogue partners such as Indonesia. Further liberalisation of trade barriers will grant additional rights to transnational corporations to quite literally strip mine away the mineral wealth of the region. As it has been the case with market reform all over the world as well as the Pacific, transnational corporations are allowed by local authority to pollute, hire private militias, confiscate customary land, destroy ecological habitats, displace indigenous populations and force primitive indigenous populations to abandon local culture in favour of integration into capitalist economic systems."
There's lots of information about this and related effects of developing the Pacific if you follow the Indymedia link,
including a revealing list of "winners & losers" (but no real surprises).
Monday, August 18, 2003
I'm a few days late with this, but better late than never. John Pilger has written about the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Japan.
"The first Allied journalist to reach Hiroshima following the bombing was Wilfred Burchett, the Australian war correspondent of the London Daily Express. Burchett found thousands of survivors suffering mysterious symptoms of internal haemorrhage, spotted skin and hair loss. In a historic despatch to the Express that began, "I write this as a warning to the world", he described the effects of radiation.
The Allied occupation authorities vehemently denied Burchett's reports. People had died only as a result of the blast, they lied, and the "embedded" Allied press amplified this. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" was the headline in the New York Times of 13 September 1945. Burchett had his press accreditation withdrawn and was issued with an expulsion order from Japan, which was later rescinded. Japanese film shot in the hospitals was confiscated and sent to Washington, where it was classified as top secret and not released for 23 years.
The true motive for using this ultimate weapon of mass destruction was suppressed even longer. The official truth was that the bomb was dropped to speed the surrender of Japan and save Allied lives. Today, as the public becomes more attuned to the scale of government deception, this was probably the biggest lie of all. As the historian Gar Alperovitz, among others, has documented, US political and military leaders, knowing that Japan's surrender was already under way, believed the atomic bombing was militarily unnecessary. In 1946 the US Strategic Bombing Survey confirmed this. None of this was shared with the public, nor the belief in Washington that the atomic bomb "experiment" in Japan, as President Truman put it, would demonstrate US primacy to the Russians."
Makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes now. Pilger continues:
"Two weeks ago, on the 58th anniversary of Hiroshima's incineration, a secret conference was held at the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, Nebraska, the base where, 24 hours a day, the United States keeps its "nuclear vigil". (It was the setting for Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove.) In attendance were cabinet members, generals and leading scientists from America's three main nuclear weapons laboratories. Members of Congress were banned, even as observers. The agenda was the development of "mini-nukes" for possible use against "rogue states"."
I think we should be worried.
"The first Allied journalist to reach Hiroshima following the bombing was Wilfred Burchett, the Australian war correspondent of the London Daily Express. Burchett found thousands of survivors suffering mysterious symptoms of internal haemorrhage, spotted skin and hair loss. In a historic despatch to the Express that began, "I write this as a warning to the world", he described the effects of radiation.
The Allied occupation authorities vehemently denied Burchett's reports. People had died only as a result of the blast, they lied, and the "embedded" Allied press amplified this. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" was the headline in the New York Times of 13 September 1945. Burchett had his press accreditation withdrawn and was issued with an expulsion order from Japan, which was later rescinded. Japanese film shot in the hospitals was confiscated and sent to Washington, where it was classified as top secret and not released for 23 years.
The true motive for using this ultimate weapon of mass destruction was suppressed even longer. The official truth was that the bomb was dropped to speed the surrender of Japan and save Allied lives. Today, as the public becomes more attuned to the scale of government deception, this was probably the biggest lie of all. As the historian Gar Alperovitz, among others, has documented, US political and military leaders, knowing that Japan's surrender was already under way, believed the atomic bombing was militarily unnecessary. In 1946 the US Strategic Bombing Survey confirmed this. None of this was shared with the public, nor the belief in Washington that the atomic bomb "experiment" in Japan, as President Truman put it, would demonstrate US primacy to the Russians."
Makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes now. Pilger continues:
"Two weeks ago, on the 58th anniversary of Hiroshima's incineration, a secret conference was held at the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, Nebraska, the base where, 24 hours a day, the United States keeps its "nuclear vigil". (It was the setting for Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove.) In attendance were cabinet members, generals and leading scientists from America's three main nuclear weapons laboratories. Members of Congress were banned, even as observers. The agenda was the development of "mini-nukes" for possible use against "rogue states"."
I think we should be worried.
Sunday, August 17, 2003
I've been fiddling with my template, and not sure how successful I'm being. I don't know whether its me or blogger who is being a bit cantankerous, so bear with me. I'm sure I'll get it right in the end.
Unlike Bud, the country quiz wasn't very accurate about me. I'm not particularly athletic, although I do walk a lot so I'm reasonably fit. I mind considerably about chopping down the rain forest, and I don't think homeless people are expendable. The quiz asked me if I like soccer, which I do, and have been known to jump up and down and shout both at football on tv and at Elland Road.
You're Brazil!
You're athletic, charming, and probably a good dancer.
Unfortunatley, you don't really mind chopping down the rain forest, and you probably consider homeless people expendable in certain circumstances. Of course, your personality is so diverse that it's hard to track down exactly what you're like. You definitely like Pele, the World Cup, and shouting "gooooal" at the top of your lungs.
Take the Country Quiz at the Blue Pyramid
Friday, August 15, 2003
Re-reading Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children at the moment. I first read it while I was travelling in India in 1988, and I loved it straight away. Rushdie captures the magic & mystery of India - at least in my foreign eyes. I read it again several years ago, after having spent some time studying literature at University, so I picked up on much more - the wit and general clever literariness of the writing, stuff that I missed the first time round. This third time of reading is like meeting an old friend, and coming back to a book after a few years always brings a new perspective.
I copied this from Wordsonapage. I thought it was so good I couldn't resist:
LESSON IN POLITICS (long but very interesting!)
Foreign Policy Q & A
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Like the ruler of Pakistan who came to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
LESSON IN POLITICS (long but very interesting!)
Foreign Policy Q & A
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Like the ruler of Pakistan who came to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
"In Colombia union workers who bottle Coca Cola products have been kidnapped, tortured and murdered. The largest Coca Cola union in Colombia has asked for an international campaign against Coke to stop the violence against workers, which has included a half-dozen murders at one plant alone in the mid-1990’s."
For more info and to send a letter of protest go to CokeWatch .
For more info and to send a letter of protest go to CokeWatch .
The ever-so not environmentally friendly Bush administration is continuing its efforts to destroy the planet.
"The White House claims that complying with requirements for ecological sustainability made under the Clinton administration ‘would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.’ So they’ve gone. No more maintenance and monitoring of wildlife populations. In the words of Robert Dewey, vice-president of Defenders of Wildlife, ‘It’s a blatant effort by the Bush administration to boost logging and help the timber industry, which had a clear hand on the pen of these regulations.’", reports Open Democracy.
"The White House claims that complying with requirements for ecological sustainability made under the Clinton administration ‘would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.’ So they’ve gone. No more maintenance and monitoring of wildlife populations. In the words of Robert Dewey, vice-president of Defenders of Wildlife, ‘It’s a blatant effort by the Bush administration to boost logging and help the timber industry, which had a clear hand on the pen of these regulations.’", reports Open Democracy.
As the number of cars on our roads increases, life is threatened in Africa. Isn't it time to get out and walk? This story points out the effect global warming is having on fish stocks in Lake Tanganyika.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
I have serious doubts about the sanity of those who seek to control our planet. Its getting more like the fictional realms of Superman and his ilk everyday. Lex Luther has nothing on Bush & his follow megalomaniacs. I'm referring to this story from today's Guardian:
"American military scientists are developing a weapon which kills by delivering an enormous burst of high-energy gamma rays, it is claimed today.
The bomb, which produces little fallout, blurs the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons, and experts have already warned it could spark a new arms race. The science behind the gamma ray bomb is still in its infancy, and technical problems mean it could be decades before the devices are developed. But the Pentagon is taking the project seriously."
As the report points out, a probable consequence of the development of such weapons would be that other countries will want to increase their arsenals, most likely their nuclear arms, as this would be their only real route to defence. M.A.D for sure.
"American military scientists are developing a weapon which kills by delivering an enormous burst of high-energy gamma rays, it is claimed today.
The bomb, which produces little fallout, blurs the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons, and experts have already warned it could spark a new arms race. The science behind the gamma ray bomb is still in its infancy, and technical problems mean it could be decades before the devices are developed. But the Pentagon is taking the project seriously."
As the report points out, a probable consequence of the development of such weapons would be that other countries will want to increase their arsenals, most likely their nuclear arms, as this would be their only real route to defence. M.A.D for sure.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
I'm quite well know at work for being a bit stroppy. If I think something is out of order in the way staff are treated I say so, and I'm a trade union steward so that I can do it officially. But I consider myself quite fortunate to live and work in a place where workers do have rights, and can get support and representation if they have a problem. Others are not so lucky. In Sri Lanka, workers at the Jaqalanka factory in the so-called 'Free Trade' zone, have been trying to organise a trade union for themselves, but intimidation from management is making it very difficult. These workers are busy making Nike products. You can read more about it, and send letters of protest to Nike and to the factory manager here.
Naomi Klein visited similar factories and wrote about it in No Logo.
Naomi Klein visited similar factories and wrote about it in No Logo.
I found this story on Codshit.I tend to be wary of conspiracy theories, but this is certainly thought provoking, and at the very least shows that what we saw on our tv screens was not quite what they were telling us it was.
"By now we have all been saturated with the standard “War on Terror” blurb about the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in downtown Jakarta on 5 August 2003. Speaking with a single corporate voice, the western media stated surprisingly quickly that the bomb was the work of a lone suicide bomber working for the “feared terrorist organization ” Jemaah Islamiah, which allegedly and very brazenly drove a Toyota van up to the front of the hotel, where the Toyota obligingly and predictably exploded with a loud and unmistakable bang.
Warming to this incredibly inaccurate and deceitful theme, the corporate media then ran thousands of feet of video footage showing smoke billowing out of the hotel, people running around in circles, “experts” from three different continents saying how evil these Muslim Jemaah Islamiah folk really are, and so on and so on. Then in less than 48 hours we were told that the guilty bomber was called “Asmal”, who was unfortunately killed in the blast, making embarrassing trials like those in Bali completely unnecessary in the future.
Alas, the corporate media was lying through its teeth as usual, with none of its “facts” standing up to even the most casual of scrutiny."
Read the whole story.
"By now we have all been saturated with the standard “War on Terror” blurb about the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in downtown Jakarta on 5 August 2003. Speaking with a single corporate voice, the western media stated surprisingly quickly that the bomb was the work of a lone suicide bomber working for the “feared terrorist organization ” Jemaah Islamiah, which allegedly and very brazenly drove a Toyota van up to the front of the hotel, where the Toyota obligingly and predictably exploded with a loud and unmistakable bang.
Warming to this incredibly inaccurate and deceitful theme, the corporate media then ran thousands of feet of video footage showing smoke billowing out of the hotel, people running around in circles, “experts” from three different continents saying how evil these Muslim Jemaah Islamiah folk really are, and so on and so on. Then in less than 48 hours we were told that the guilty bomber was called “Asmal”, who was unfortunately killed in the blast, making embarrassing trials like those in Bali completely unnecessary in the future.
Alas, the corporate media was lying through its teeth as usual, with none of its “facts” standing up to even the most casual of scrutiny."
Read the whole story.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
It appears that the British government are still up to their neck in mistrust over the dossier that said Iraq was ready to attack us all with WMD. The Guardian reports that:
"The government's attempts to bolster its case for the war against Iraq suffered a heavy blow on the first day of the Hutton inquiry yesterday when it was revealed that unease about the dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme ran much deeper than Downing Street has claimed.
Evidence presented to the inquiry into the apparent suicide of the Ministry of Defence scientist David Kelly showed that concerns expressed by Dr Kelly about the language of the government's dossier was shared within the intelligence community, even at a senior level."
The first day of the inquiry heard that Alistair Campbell was not responsible for the 45 minute claim. This begs the question, "Who was?".
George Monbiot discusses climate change in today's Guardian. He writes:
"Were we governed by reason, we would be on the barricades today, dragging the drivers of Range Rovers and Nissan Patrols out of their seats, occupying and shutting down the coal-burning power stations, bursting in upon the Blairs' retreat from reality in Barbados and demanding a reversal of economic life as dramatic as the one we bore when we went to war with Hitler."
But we aren't, because we either don't believe our lifestyles are doing any damage, or because we don't care, or because we believe that technology will save us. These are the arguments we use to avoid making any changes to our lives, but will our children and grandchildren thank us for it when fire, flood and famine assail them? I doubt it.
"The government's attempts to bolster its case for the war against Iraq suffered a heavy blow on the first day of the Hutton inquiry yesterday when it was revealed that unease about the dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme ran much deeper than Downing Street has claimed.
Evidence presented to the inquiry into the apparent suicide of the Ministry of Defence scientist David Kelly showed that concerns expressed by Dr Kelly about the language of the government's dossier was shared within the intelligence community, even at a senior level."
The first day of the inquiry heard that Alistair Campbell was not responsible for the 45 minute claim. This begs the question, "Who was?".
George Monbiot discusses climate change in today's Guardian. He writes:
"Were we governed by reason, we would be on the barricades today, dragging the drivers of Range Rovers and Nissan Patrols out of their seats, occupying and shutting down the coal-burning power stations, bursting in upon the Blairs' retreat from reality in Barbados and demanding a reversal of economic life as dramatic as the one we bore when we went to war with Hitler."
But we aren't, because we either don't believe our lifestyles are doing any damage, or because we don't care, or because we believe that technology will save us. These are the arguments we use to avoid making any changes to our lives, but will our children and grandchildren thank us for it when fire, flood and famine assail them? I doubt it.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
War is a dirty business.
"Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders say they dropped firebombs similar to napalm on Iraqi troops earlier this year, according to a report published Tuesday.
The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad."
Maybe there are some nicer weapons available. Europe's biggest arms fair is happening in London's Docklands this September. Corporate Watch has a few words to say about it, and you can read more about it here. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade is working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade, together with progressive demilitarisation within arms-producing countries. Good luck to them!
Cans of fizzy sugary water full of chemicals are not my first choice when I'm thirsty. If I lived in India I'd certainly be very careful what I chose to drink:
"The Indian government has ordered in investigation into why an analysis of 12 brands of cold drinks owned and marketed by Coca-Cola and Pepsi allegedly found that they contained on average more than 30 times the EU legal limit for pesticides." Read the full story.
"Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders say they dropped firebombs similar to napalm on Iraqi troops earlier this year, according to a report published Tuesday.
The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad."
Maybe there are some nicer weapons available. Europe's biggest arms fair is happening in London's Docklands this September. Corporate Watch has a few words to say about it, and you can read more about it here. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade is working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade, together with progressive demilitarisation within arms-producing countries. Good luck to them!
Cans of fizzy sugary water full of chemicals are not my first choice when I'm thirsty. If I lived in India I'd certainly be very careful what I chose to drink:
"The Indian government has ordered in investigation into why an analysis of 12 brands of cold drinks owned and marketed by Coca-Cola and Pepsi allegedly found that they contained on average more than 30 times the EU legal limit for pesticides." Read the full story.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Just found disinfopedia.org,
via prwatch.org. Its good to know who is trying to mess with your head!
From disinfopedia I went to wikipedia where I read an excellent biog of George Bush, which includes lots of useful links.
via prwatch.org. Its good to know who is trying to mess with your head!
From disinfopedia I went to wikipedia where I read an excellent biog of George Bush, which includes lots of useful links.
Occupation Watch is keeping an eye on whats happening in Iraq. They have reports on many aspects of the situation, from the conduct of occupying forces, through environmental issues to human rights. I found this article about the profits being made:
"Halliburton, the second biggest oilfield service company in the world, on Thursday said work in Iraq had boosted revenue as it swung from a loss to record second-quarter net income of $26m , or 6 cents a share, compared with the year-earlier period.
The Houston-based company credited the quarter's 11 per cent rise in revenue, to $3.6bn largely to increased activity in its Engineering and Construction Group (ECG) projects, including government services work in the Middle East."
And this story:
"During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Those soldiers knew the score, even if the Pentagon's talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their blood
The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the UN under U.S. pressure is the Development Fund for Iraq which is being controlled by the U.S. and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil."
But Iraq isn't the only place where the World Bank and oil are causing problems. In Azerbaijan plans are moving ahead to build two major oil and gas pipelines. The World Bank is currently considering providing funding, and as this is the public consultation period its the right time to make our objections known. Friends of the Earth have a ready made letter you can email to Baroness Amos who is responsible for the UK contribution to the World Bank, and as such has the power to say no to the pipeline being funded.
"Halliburton, the second biggest oilfield service company in the world, on Thursday said work in Iraq had boosted revenue as it swung from a loss to record second-quarter net income of $26m , or 6 cents a share, compared with the year-earlier period.
The Houston-based company credited the quarter's 11 per cent rise in revenue, to $3.6bn largely to increased activity in its Engineering and Construction Group (ECG) projects, including government services work in the Middle East."
And this story:
"During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Those soldiers knew the score, even if the Pentagon's talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their blood
The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the UN under U.S. pressure is the Development Fund for Iraq which is being controlled by the U.S. and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil."
But Iraq isn't the only place where the World Bank and oil are causing problems. In Azerbaijan plans are moving ahead to build two major oil and gas pipelines. The World Bank is currently considering providing funding, and as this is the public consultation period its the right time to make our objections known. Friends of the Earth have a ready made letter you can email to Baroness Amos who is responsible for the UK contribution to the World Bank, and as such has the power to say no to the pipeline being funded.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
I’ve been at the Big Green Gathering for the past few days. While I was away, my pc miraculously cured itself of the problems it has been having for the last few weeks. Or mybe my ISP realised the problem was theirs all along, after strenuously denying it on several occasions. Whatever, at least things seem to be working now.
It was my first visit to the Big Green Gathering. Along with another dozen or so people, I organise the Northern Green Gathering every year – although we are taking this year off. It’s a voluntary thing, any money we make goes straight back into the company, and the most we get out of it (apart from an immense sense of satisfaction and lots of stress) is a group curry after the event is over. Northern Green attracts about 2,000 people, and that’s how we like it. We run a Campaigns area, Craft area, Kids area (my bit), provide space for people to educate and enlighten, host a Low Impact Living zone and invite carefully chosen traders and caterers to provide sustainable, environmentally friendly products and food. The Big Green attracted around 15,000 people! It was spread over several fields, and had all that we have, but more of it. It was very well organised, but a bit big and a bit commercial for my taste. There were lots of traders, and dozens of flypitchers, selling bits and pieces of stuff people has picked up in India and similar places. At Northern Green we allow a limited amount of on-site selling because we believe that rampant consumerism is one of the problems facing the health of the planet. Hippy festivals are full to bursting with crystals and gemstones, and the mining industries that produce them can be very damaging. There was a stall selling carnivorous plants which only grow on peat – and in this country at least there is an issue with irreplaceable peat habitats being destroyed. Why did they allow such a trade at a Green Gathering? Anyway, on the whole I enjoyed myself (can’t really say the same for my 13 year old son, but then he doesn’t really like anything at the moment!). I saw some friends I hadn’t seen for a while, and several friends who I see quite often. And I picked up lots of information in the Campaigns area, so I’ll be posting links to various sites as I work through the literature.
One evening we watched films in Groovy Movie’s Solar Cinema – a mobile solar powered cinema that travels around the festivals every summer. We watched a film about a family preparing for war in Iraq. Their flour mill had been destroyed during the first Gulf war. I don’t know if it survived the second. You can view some of the films we saw at undercurrents.org.
The rest of today’s post is stuff I wrote last week when my internet connection was playing up so I couldn’t post it.
A report on Choike says:
“A large body of evidence suggests that rich oil resources obstruct democracy and equitable economic growth in developing countries because of a lack of transparency, and therefore accountability, in oil revenues paid by oil companies to governments. The human rights implications of the activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in conflict zones, “failed states” and repressive regimes have drawn increased public attention, concern and scrutiny in recent years.”
There are many useful links on the page to other stories about oil-related problems around the world.
Then, of course, there is this:
"The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the UN under U.S. pressure is the Development Fund for Iraq which is being controlled by the U.S. and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. "
Now, I don't really want to be picking on the US all the time, but its difficult when things like this are going on:
"Leonard Peltier, a citizen of the Anishinabe and Lakota Nations, is a father, a grandfather, an artist, a writer, and an Indigenous rights activist. He has spent more than twenty-seven years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Amnesty International considers him a "political prisoner" who should be "immediately and unconditionally released."
To the international community, the case of Leonard Peltier is a stain on America's Human Rights record. Nelson Mandela, Rigoberta Menchu, the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, the Dalai Lama, the European Parliament, the Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, and Rev. Jesse Jackson are only a few who have called for his freedom. To many Indigenous Peoples, Leonard Peltier is a symbol of the long history of abuse and repression they have endured. The National Congress of American Indians and the Assembly of First Nations, representing the majority of First Nations in the U.S. and Canada, have repeatedly called for Leonard Peltier's freedom."
As Alternet reports,
"Today Peltier attorneys are pursuing an appeal of the recent denial of Peltier's 1999 Habeas Corpus petition. They seek to overturn the U.S. Parole Commission's denial of parole consideration until December 2008. Parole Commission guidelines for prisoners convicted of homicide offenses is 200-plus months served. By those standards, Peltier should have been freed more than a decade ago. However, the Commission refuses to consider setting a parole date until 2008 – when Peltier will have served almost double the normal time. "
I did a course on American Indian literature and American Indians in literature as part of my English course at University a couple of years ago, and that involved reading up on the politics that excluded these people and their culture. I became acquiainted with Peltier's case then. I suppose I forgot about it, what with so much else going on in the world. Its good to be reminded though. Good luck to him and his attorneys.
