Actual Reuters headline today: "Online dating brings hope and frustration, researchers find".
And this is different how from real-life dating?
We need research to tell us this?
This is about as momentous as Slovenia signing on to be witness to the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Seven Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe
OK, after this I don't want to hear it from any of yous! These seven "well-known facts" are medical myths, as documented by the British Medical Journal.
It's very hard in discussions with people to pinpoint exactly from where one gathered one's information, especially when it comes to mythbusting and debunking, two of my favourite activities (how do you think I got so interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?).
Once the link rots, I'll lose my source. But here are the myths for now, with explanations given as summarised from the BMJ study.
Link to article with explanations:
http://www.livescience.com/health/071220-medical-myths.html
The Seven Myths Even Doctors Believe (without explanations):
1. We use only 10% of our brains.
2. You should drink at least eight glasses of water a day.
3. Fingernails and hair grow after death. (Come on, this one is obviously false.)
4. Shaved hair grows back faster, coarser, and darker. (You can never convince anyone that this is a falsehood, especially not a woman or anyone from the Indian Subcontinent.)
5. Eating turkey makes you drowsy. (Tryptophan my arse.)
6. Mobile phones are dangerous in hospitals. (They should still be banned because they're intrusive and disruptive.)
7. Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight. (This is the only one I believe still may be true over the long run. I want more evidence!)
It's very hard in discussions with people to pinpoint exactly from where one gathered one's information, especially when it comes to mythbusting and debunking, two of my favourite activities (how do you think I got so interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?).
Once the link rots, I'll lose my source. But here are the myths for now, with explanations given as summarised from the BMJ study.
Link to article with explanations:
http://www.livescience.com/health/071220-medical-myths.html
The Seven Myths Even Doctors Believe (without explanations):
1. We use only 10% of our brains.
2. You should drink at least eight glasses of water a day.
3. Fingernails and hair grow after death. (Come on, this one is obviously false.)
4. Shaved hair grows back faster, coarser, and darker. (You can never convince anyone that this is a falsehood, especially not a woman or anyone from the Indian Subcontinent.)
5. Eating turkey makes you drowsy. (Tryptophan my arse.)
6. Mobile phones are dangerous in hospitals. (They should still be banned because they're intrusive and disruptive.)
7. Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight. (This is the only one I believe still may be true over the long run. I want more evidence!)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Bullshit News Item of the Day: Religion and the Presidency
Wow, Mitt Romney passed the latest test in his bid to become president, and the media are gushing. Romney, a Mormon, when asked whether he will show favouritism to Mormons or be a president for all Americans, promised that he would "serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
Brilliant! No wonder the media are all smiles. It was a tense moment there, because he may very well have said that he will work only for Mormon issues and ignore what other Americans think. Good thing he is nice-guy enough to want to work for all Americans. Thank God that's cleared up. He must have a brilliant campaign manager.
What if a Muslim - excuse me, Muzzlim - ran for president? I wonder if he'd be asked about his religion? I wonder if everyone would immediately accept his word that he would serve all Americans and not just Muslim Americans. I wonder if no matter what he said people would show "proof" that he's secretly working for Muslim causes.
Nah, they'd never do that. Americans take politicians at their word, especially when it comes to religion. Just look at their handling of the Mitt Romney-and-religion scandal. Americans are good people.
Brilliant! No wonder the media are all smiles. It was a tense moment there, because he may very well have said that he will work only for Mormon issues and ignore what other Americans think. Good thing he is nice-guy enough to want to work for all Americans. Thank God that's cleared up. He must have a brilliant campaign manager.
What if a Muslim - excuse me, Muzzlim - ran for president? I wonder if he'd be asked about his religion? I wonder if everyone would immediately accept his word that he would serve all Americans and not just Muslim Americans. I wonder if no matter what he said people would show "proof" that he's secretly working for Muslim causes.
Nah, they'd never do that. Americans take politicians at their word, especially when it comes to religion. Just look at their handling of the Mitt Romney-and-religion scandal. Americans are good people.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
American Poetry Performance
A handful of Muslim readers of this website have recommended this poem read aloud by American poetess Suheir Hammad, a Brooklyn native. Ms. Hammad, whose two brothers serve in the American Navy, talks about 9/11 and the way it affected her as an American and as a Muslim.
It's poignant, it's heartrending. Don't take my word for it. Watch the video yourself:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0fhWX2F6G7Y
It's poignant, it's heartrending. Don't take my word for it. Watch the video yourself:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0fhWX2F6G7Y
Thursday, November 29, 2007
bin Laden's Message - a book review
Journalist Thom Hartmann invokes Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese author of The Art of War, to argue that we must know our enemy first in order to fight him better. This introduces his review of James Howarth and Bruce Lawrence's collaboration entitled Messages of the World, the Statements of Osama bin Laden.
Somehow, this book has disappeared from the shelves of all New York City Barnes & Noble stores, per my brother-in-law. It didn't sell out, but was removed by the store without explanation. Howarth and Lawrence, of course, do not support bin Laden's message and are not trying to get the word out, as it were, but simply want Americans to know what bin Laden says and why he says it.
We might think we know what bin Laden is all about because The New York Times and CNN helpfully summarise his message, but to read his actual words (in translation) provides a far more illuminating picture. Every now and then, according to Hartmann, he makes some interesting, even edifying, points.
As Hartmann writes, "There are no Arab military bases in Texas or California, no Arab contract mercenaries stationed in Britain or France, no Arab fleets in the Gulf of Mexico, no Arab-sponsored schemes of forcible settlement in the Mid-West. All the lines of intrusion and violence historically run in one direction."
Hartmann goes on to describe American and Western imperialism and aggression against Arab states over recent decades, and also makes the argument that if Americans had only read Mein Kampf - instead of removing it from their bookstor shelves in the 1930s, we might have been better prepared to handle Hitler.
Link to Hartmann's review:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/hartmann/010
Somehow, this book has disappeared from the shelves of all New York City Barnes & Noble stores, per my brother-in-law. It didn't sell out, but was removed by the store without explanation. Howarth and Lawrence, of course, do not support bin Laden's message and are not trying to get the word out, as it were, but simply want Americans to know what bin Laden says and why he says it.
We might think we know what bin Laden is all about because The New York Times and CNN helpfully summarise his message, but to read his actual words (in translation) provides a far more illuminating picture. Every now and then, according to Hartmann, he makes some interesting, even edifying, points.
As Hartmann writes, "There are no Arab military bases in Texas or California, no Arab contract mercenaries stationed in Britain or France, no Arab fleets in the Gulf of Mexico, no Arab-sponsored schemes of forcible settlement in the Mid-West. All the lines of intrusion and violence historically run in one direction."
Hartmann goes on to describe American and Western imperialism and aggression against Arab states over recent decades, and also makes the argument that if Americans had only read Mein Kampf - instead of removing it from their bookstor shelves in the 1930s, we might have been better prepared to handle Hitler.
Link to Hartmann's review:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/hartmann/010
Israel Says: No Peace Deal by End of 2008
Contrary to the overhyped reports in our U.S. media about Israelis and Palestinians reaching a final accord by the end of 2008, Israeli officials promised that their government would refuse to compromise on any outstanding issues. Israel is not willing to make a single concession, according to multiple Israeli officials speaking out in Israel.
As Dion Nissenbaum and Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers report today, the Palestinians expected that their compromises would be met with reciprocal Israeli compromises. However, an Israeli official today bragged that, "At the end, we arrived at a delcaration that contains almost no Israeli concessions."
Past Israeli leaders like Rabin and Peres assured their nation that negotiations were designed to be drawn out over several decades, by which time "facts on the ground", like Israeli encroachment onto, and confiscation of, Palestinian land would make a Palestinian state impossible.
This has already happened, with the West Bank currently chopped up into over 120 separate, noncontiguous cantons (per UN and Israeli maps available to the public), cut off from each other by illegal Israeli settlements, making a viable Palestinian state infeasible. However, Prime Minister Olmert and the Israeli government want to buy still more time to demolish Palestinian homes and build Jewish-only neighbourhoods in their stead. They want to reduce the Palestinians to less than their current Native American-like reservations.
This is offical Israeli policy, well-documented in statements made by their own leaders in all of their newspapers. Somehow, Americans are unaware of it.
Link to McClatchy article that contains above quote:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/22257.html
As Dion Nissenbaum and Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers report today, the Palestinians expected that their compromises would be met with reciprocal Israeli compromises. However, an Israeli official today bragged that, "At the end, we arrived at a delcaration that contains almost no Israeli concessions."
Past Israeli leaders like Rabin and Peres assured their nation that negotiations were designed to be drawn out over several decades, by which time "facts on the ground", like Israeli encroachment onto, and confiscation of, Palestinian land would make a Palestinian state impossible.
This has already happened, with the West Bank currently chopped up into over 120 separate, noncontiguous cantons (per UN and Israeli maps available to the public), cut off from each other by illegal Israeli settlements, making a viable Palestinian state infeasible. However, Prime Minister Olmert and the Israeli government want to buy still more time to demolish Palestinian homes and build Jewish-only neighbourhoods in their stead. They want to reduce the Palestinians to less than their current Native American-like reservations.
This is offical Israeli policy, well-documented in statements made by their own leaders in all of their newspapers. Somehow, Americans are unaware of it.
Link to McClatchy article that contains above quote:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/22257.html
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Fuck Whitey?
"Fuck Whitey." That's the only thing one can think to say, according to one of my readers, after reading about the case of Bisher al-Rawi.
Mr. al-Rawi is a British resident who worked for the MI5 (UK equivalent of the CIA) for several years on anti-terrorism intelligence. American terrorists - I mean, soldiers - kidnapped him from Gambia in 2002 and sent him to Guantanamo, where he spent the next four years. In March 2007 he was released after found not to be related to terrorism in any way.
Mr. al-Rawi's family fled Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime in Iraq in the 1980s. Later, Mr. al-Rawi worked with the MI5 and was given "cast-iron assurances" from the organisation that if he ever needed their help, they would provide it. However, the MI5 did nothing to free Mr. al-Rawi from extraordinary rendition and illegal detention forced upon him by the United States.
This is a man who spied on British Muslims in order to help the British government and keep his nation safe. He was rewarded with four years of imprisonment and torture. What do you make of a people who would do that?
And then they ask, "Why aren't Muzzlims more cooperative with law enforcement agencies? Why don't Muzzlims use their A-rabic speaking skills to help the FBI and CIA?"
Fuck Whitey, indeed. But what does that mean?
Link to shorter article (Associated Press): http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/29/asia/rendition.php#end_copy
Link to longer article (The Guardian): http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2137161,00.html
Shorter Article Text Below:
British Iraqi denounces U.S. and British officials after 4 years at Guantánamo
The Associated Press
Published: July 29, 2007
LONDON: A British resident who was seized by the CIA, transported on an "extraordinary rendition" flight and held at a U.S. military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, sharply criticized U.S. and British officials in an interview published on Sunday.
Bisher al-Rawi, who moved to England as a teenager after fleeing Saddam Hussein's Iraq, reportedly had served as an intelligence source for MI5, the British domestic spy agency, and had helped it keep track of Abu Qatada, a Muslim cleric in London accused of being Osama bin Laden's "ambassador in Europe."
But the MI5 did little to protect Rawi, 39, when the CIA detained him in Gambia in November 2002. He was taken to the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan, and held there for about a month before being transferred to Guantanámo.
Rawi was released in March, after more than four years in U.S. captivity.
Last week, a British parliamentary report criticized U.S. intelligence agencies for ignoring British concerns and sending Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, another British resident, to Guantánamo.
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament said the incident had "serious implications for the intelligence relationship" between the two countries.
The committee said British spy agencies passed on intelligence about Rawi and Banna on the understanding that no action would be taken by the U.S. authorities.
In an interview with The Observer, Rawi said he was bundled onto one of the illegal "extraordinary rendition" flights chartered by the CIA to take terror suspects to other countries.
He said he was stripped naked by U.S. agents, clad in diapers, a track suit and shackles, blindfolded and forced to wear earmuffs, then strapped to a stretcher on board a plane bound for a secret CIA jail in Afghanistan, according to The Observer.
"All the way through that flight I was on the verge of screaming," Rawi was quoted as saying.
"At last we landed. I thought, thank God it's over. But it wasn't; it was just a refueling stop in Cairo. There were hours still to go."
Rawi added that he was kept from moving while on the flight.
"My back was so painful, the handcuffs were so tight. All the time they kept me on my back. Once I managed to wriggle a tiny bit, just shifted my weight to one side. Then I felt someone hit my hand. Even this was forbidden."
He said he was thrown into the CIA's "dark prison," deprived of all light 24 hours a day in temperatures so low that ice formed on his food and water. He was taken to Guantánamo in March 2003 and released this year after a tribunal cleared him of any involvement in terrorism.
Rawi alleged that the CIA told him it had been given the contents of his MI5 file, information he had given his British handlers as their source.
He criticized Britain's spy services for this, saying an MI5 lawyer had previously given him "cast-iron" assurances that anything he told them would be treated in the strictest confidence and, if he ever got into trouble, the MI5 would do everything in its power to help him.
Mr. al-Rawi is a British resident who worked for the MI5 (UK equivalent of the CIA) for several years on anti-terrorism intelligence. American terrorists - I mean, soldiers - kidnapped him from Gambia in 2002 and sent him to Guantanamo, where he spent the next four years. In March 2007 he was released after found not to be related to terrorism in any way.
Mr. al-Rawi's family fled Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime in Iraq in the 1980s. Later, Mr. al-Rawi worked with the MI5 and was given "cast-iron assurances" from the organisation that if he ever needed their help, they would provide it. However, the MI5 did nothing to free Mr. al-Rawi from extraordinary rendition and illegal detention forced upon him by the United States.
This is a man who spied on British Muslims in order to help the British government and keep his nation safe. He was rewarded with four years of imprisonment and torture. What do you make of a people who would do that?
And then they ask, "Why aren't Muzzlims more cooperative with law enforcement agencies? Why don't Muzzlims use their A-rabic speaking skills to help the FBI and CIA?"
Fuck Whitey, indeed. But what does that mean?
Link to shorter article (Associated Press): http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/29/asia/rendition.php#end_copy
Link to longer article (The Guardian): http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2137161,00.html
Shorter Article Text Below:
British Iraqi denounces U.S. and British officials after 4 years at Guantánamo
The Associated Press
Published: July 29, 2007
LONDON: A British resident who was seized by the CIA, transported on an "extraordinary rendition" flight and held at a U.S. military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, sharply criticized U.S. and British officials in an interview published on Sunday.
Bisher al-Rawi, who moved to England as a teenager after fleeing Saddam Hussein's Iraq, reportedly had served as an intelligence source for MI5, the British domestic spy agency, and had helped it keep track of Abu Qatada, a Muslim cleric in London accused of being Osama bin Laden's "ambassador in Europe."
But the MI5 did little to protect Rawi, 39, when the CIA detained him in Gambia in November 2002. He was taken to the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan, and held there for about a month before being transferred to Guantanámo.
Rawi was released in March, after more than four years in U.S. captivity.
Last week, a British parliamentary report criticized U.S. intelligence agencies for ignoring British concerns and sending Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, another British resident, to Guantánamo.
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament said the incident had "serious implications for the intelligence relationship" between the two countries.
The committee said British spy agencies passed on intelligence about Rawi and Banna on the understanding that no action would be taken by the U.S. authorities.
In an interview with The Observer, Rawi said he was bundled onto one of the illegal "extraordinary rendition" flights chartered by the CIA to take terror suspects to other countries.
He said he was stripped naked by U.S. agents, clad in diapers, a track suit and shackles, blindfolded and forced to wear earmuffs, then strapped to a stretcher on board a plane bound for a secret CIA jail in Afghanistan, according to The Observer.
"All the way through that flight I was on the verge of screaming," Rawi was quoted as saying.
"At last we landed. I thought, thank God it's over. But it wasn't; it was just a refueling stop in Cairo. There were hours still to go."
Rawi added that he was kept from moving while on the flight.
"My back was so painful, the handcuffs were so tight. All the time they kept me on my back. Once I managed to wriggle a tiny bit, just shifted my weight to one side. Then I felt someone hit my hand. Even this was forbidden."
He said he was thrown into the CIA's "dark prison," deprived of all light 24 hours a day in temperatures so low that ice formed on his food and water. He was taken to Guantánamo in March 2003 and released this year after a tribunal cleared him of any involvement in terrorism.
Rawi alleged that the CIA told him it had been given the contents of his MI5 file, information he had given his British handlers as their source.
He criticized Britain's spy services for this, saying an MI5 lawyer had previously given him "cast-iron" assurances that anything he told them would be treated in the strictest confidence and, if he ever got into trouble, the MI5 would do everything in its power to help him.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thanksgiving in Palestine
It's Thanksgiving Day in America, when Americans gather round to celebrate the myth of a multicultural past of European settlers sitting down to share a meal with exotic indigenous people, when in reality the unsuspecting natives were slaughtered in cold blood and the whitefolk's original Thanksgiving was a celebration of the massacres.
On this Thanksgiving Day in Palestine, farmers are not allowed to share their food with white Europeans. Palestinian strawberry farmers, nearly 5,000 of them, are being denied the right to export their goods to Europe.
People often ask me, "What, in concrete terms, does Israel do to the Palestinians that's so bad?"
Apart from murdering them in their homes, bulldozing their homes, kicking them out of their homes to make room for Jewish settlers, bombing their pre-schools, maiming the old and further maiming the already crippled, using human shields, and violating every norm of human rights known to man and beast, and starving or malnourishing millions of children, they use economics as a weapon. They rob the Palestinians of any and every opportunity to make money lawfully (not to mention the literal robbing committed by Israeli soldiers' walking into Palestinian banks with machine guns and walking out with millions of dollars in cash).
The article below, from McClatchy Washington Bureau, explains in some detail how Israel is crushing the greatest strawberry harvest in Gaza history. Ask yourself how you would respond if someone did this to you for 40 years. Where would you turn? What recourse would you have? Appeals to the international community have failed. The UN, the EU, and the US sit on their hands, occasionally lifting a finger only to harangue you.
CLOSED ISRAELI BORDERS SQUEEZE GAZA FARMERS
By Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy Newspapers
Wed Nov 21, 1:06 PM ET
BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip — It's harvest time on the sandy hillsides of the northern Gaza Strip , but about the only one picking strawberries on a recent afternoon was 2-year-old Ala Abu Halima, who quietly smushed berry after berry into his mouth.
The strawberries going into the boy's mouth should have been on their way to upscale markets across Europe . Instead, what was expected to be the largest strawberry harvest in Gaza Strip history may turn out to be one of the worst.
"It's making me crazy," said Ahmed Abu Halima , Ala's father and a farmer. "Every day I come and go, but there's nothing to do."
On the eve of the Bush administration's Middle East conference in Annapolis, Md ., which is scheduled to begin Tuesday with diplomats from as many as 40 countries attending, the Gaza Strip remains under economic lockdown. Virtually nothing is getting in or out as Israel retains a chokehold that's intended to force rulers from the Islamist group Hamas , who control Gaza , into submission. And fears are rising that the anemic Gaza economy will be unable to recover if the crisis doesn't end soon.
On Wednesday, under heavy pressure from European nations and Israeli businesses, the Israeli government announced that it would allow Gaza farmers to export strawberries and flowers— the first real export of Gaza goods in nearly six months. But carrying out the decision could prove impossible.
The main import-export terminal in Gaza remains closed, and Israel refuses to reopen it while Hamas remains in control. It's doubtful that smaller border crossings can handle the volume. Israel also is unlikely to allow any goods out of Gaza without taking time to inspect their contents— a process that could leave the flowers and berries rotting at the border. Since June, exactly seven truckloads of potatoes have left Gaza .
"It's very hard to implement from a security point of view," said Shlomo Dror , a spokesman for the branch of the Israeli military that oversees the nation's borders with Gaza .
At one time, Abu Halima's strawberry fields were expected to become part of the foundation for a rejuvenated Palestinian economy.
After Israel razed its Gaza Strip settlements in 2005, international donors invested millions of dollars in Palestinian farms, which export everything from strawberries to fresh-cut flowers to Israel and Europe . U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used significant political clout to force Israeli leaders to accept a deal that was supposed to open up Gaza's borders.
But then came the Hamas victory in elections and the U.S.-backed international boycott of the Palestinian Authority, followed by prolonged combat over Palestinian rockets fired into Israel , which Israeli forces responded to with air strikes and regular artillery bombardments.
When Hamas seized military control of Gaza last summer, Israel clamped down even harder. Now only medicine and food gets in, and almost no one gets out.
That's meant death to Gaza factories, which rely on raw material to make soda, ice cream, furniture and other goods. Soon, it could cripple Gaza's 4,500 strawberry farmers.
There were high hopes that this year the Gaza farmers would produce the biggest strawberry crop in history. Even though the ban on imports prevented farmers from getting the plastic and pesticides needed to protect their crops, they planted more than 600 acres, which were expected to produce 2,000 tons of strawberries for export.
With the first strawberries of the season ready, however, the borders remain closed.
The same thing already has happened to flowers. Earlier this year, Dror said, Israel approved the transfer of 3 million flower seedlings into Gaza . The flowers were meant for shops in the Netherlands . But the flower growers watched their goods blossom and then rot in the fields.
In a letter to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair , who's now a special Middle East envoy for the United States , Russia , the European Union and the United Nations , leaders of Gaza's farm union warned that continued closure would rob 8,000 Palestinian families of their livelihood and cost them $14 million .
The farm leaders warned that desperate farmers might be forced to look for other ways to make money.
"All the farmers will leave their farms and approach other income means that are meanwhile available in the Gaza Strip , which is terrorism," the union wrote.
Abu Halima isn't ready to embrace such extremes. But the 35-year-old father of seven is growing tired of being caught in the middle of a political feud without end. If the season goes bust, Abu Halima said he would have to sell his tractor to pay his debts.
"I blame them all," Abu Halima said while carrying his 2-year-old through his strawberry fields. " Hamas . Fatah . Israel . All of them. Things here have been bad, but never this bad."
(Special correspondent Cliff Churgin contributed to this report from Jerusalem .)
==END OF MCCLATCHY ARTICLE==
On this Thanksgiving Day in Palestine, farmers are not allowed to share their food with white Europeans. Palestinian strawberry farmers, nearly 5,000 of them, are being denied the right to export their goods to Europe.
People often ask me, "What, in concrete terms, does Israel do to the Palestinians that's so bad?"
Apart from murdering them in their homes, bulldozing their homes, kicking them out of their homes to make room for Jewish settlers, bombing their pre-schools, maiming the old and further maiming the already crippled, using human shields, and violating every norm of human rights known to man and beast, and starving or malnourishing millions of children, they use economics as a weapon. They rob the Palestinians of any and every opportunity to make money lawfully (not to mention the literal robbing committed by Israeli soldiers' walking into Palestinian banks with machine guns and walking out with millions of dollars in cash).
The article below, from McClatchy Washington Bureau, explains in some detail how Israel is crushing the greatest strawberry harvest in Gaza history. Ask yourself how you would respond if someone did this to you for 40 years. Where would you turn? What recourse would you have? Appeals to the international community have failed. The UN, the EU, and the US sit on their hands, occasionally lifting a finger only to harangue you.
CLOSED ISRAELI BORDERS SQUEEZE GAZA FARMERS
By Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy Newspapers
Wed Nov 21, 1:06 PM ET
BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip — It's harvest time on the sandy hillsides of the northern Gaza Strip , but about the only one picking strawberries on a recent afternoon was 2-year-old Ala Abu Halima, who quietly smushed berry after berry into his mouth.
The strawberries going into the boy's mouth should have been on their way to upscale markets across Europe . Instead, what was expected to be the largest strawberry harvest in Gaza Strip history may turn out to be one of the worst.
"It's making me crazy," said Ahmed Abu Halima , Ala's father and a farmer. "Every day I come and go, but there's nothing to do."
On the eve of the Bush administration's Middle East conference in Annapolis, Md ., which is scheduled to begin Tuesday with diplomats from as many as 40 countries attending, the Gaza Strip remains under economic lockdown. Virtually nothing is getting in or out as Israel retains a chokehold that's intended to force rulers from the Islamist group Hamas , who control Gaza , into submission. And fears are rising that the anemic Gaza economy will be unable to recover if the crisis doesn't end soon.
On Wednesday, under heavy pressure from European nations and Israeli businesses, the Israeli government announced that it would allow Gaza farmers to export strawberries and flowers— the first real export of Gaza goods in nearly six months. But carrying out the decision could prove impossible.
The main import-export terminal in Gaza remains closed, and Israel refuses to reopen it while Hamas remains in control. It's doubtful that smaller border crossings can handle the volume. Israel also is unlikely to allow any goods out of Gaza without taking time to inspect their contents— a process that could leave the flowers and berries rotting at the border. Since June, exactly seven truckloads of potatoes have left Gaza .
"It's very hard to implement from a security point of view," said Shlomo Dror , a spokesman for the branch of the Israeli military that oversees the nation's borders with Gaza .
At one time, Abu Halima's strawberry fields were expected to become part of the foundation for a rejuvenated Palestinian economy.
After Israel razed its Gaza Strip settlements in 2005, international donors invested millions of dollars in Palestinian farms, which export everything from strawberries to fresh-cut flowers to Israel and Europe . U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used significant political clout to force Israeli leaders to accept a deal that was supposed to open up Gaza's borders.
But then came the Hamas victory in elections and the U.S.-backed international boycott of the Palestinian Authority, followed by prolonged combat over Palestinian rockets fired into Israel , which Israeli forces responded to with air strikes and regular artillery bombardments.
When Hamas seized military control of Gaza last summer, Israel clamped down even harder. Now only medicine and food gets in, and almost no one gets out.
That's meant death to Gaza factories, which rely on raw material to make soda, ice cream, furniture and other goods. Soon, it could cripple Gaza's 4,500 strawberry farmers.
There were high hopes that this year the Gaza farmers would produce the biggest strawberry crop in history. Even though the ban on imports prevented farmers from getting the plastic and pesticides needed to protect their crops, they planted more than 600 acres, which were expected to produce 2,000 tons of strawberries for export.
With the first strawberries of the season ready, however, the borders remain closed.
The same thing already has happened to flowers. Earlier this year, Dror said, Israel approved the transfer of 3 million flower seedlings into Gaza . The flowers were meant for shops in the Netherlands . But the flower growers watched their goods blossom and then rot in the fields.
In a letter to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair , who's now a special Middle East envoy for the United States , Russia , the European Union and the United Nations , leaders of Gaza's farm union warned that continued closure would rob 8,000 Palestinian families of their livelihood and cost them $14 million .
The farm leaders warned that desperate farmers might be forced to look for other ways to make money.
"All the farmers will leave their farms and approach other income means that are meanwhile available in the Gaza Strip , which is terrorism," the union wrote.
Abu Halima isn't ready to embrace such extremes. But the 35-year-old father of seven is growing tired of being caught in the middle of a political feud without end. If the season goes bust, Abu Halima said he would have to sell his tractor to pay his debts.
"I blame them all," Abu Halima said while carrying his 2-year-old through his strawberry fields. " Hamas . Fatah . Israel . All of them. Things here have been bad, but never this bad."
(Special correspondent Cliff Churgin contributed to this report from Jerusalem .)
==END OF MCCLATCHY ARTICLE==
Monday, November 19, 2007
My Illiterate Nation
Yup, it's official: Americans are illiterate and stupid. You don't have to point to the results of our past two presidential elections to know that; hard data bears it out ever more clearly.
A new, comprehensive government study shows that only 31% of Americans are proficient in reading the English language, and only 28% are proficient in writing it.
Only half of all American adults even read a single book a year.
For the very few people who do read, there are immense benefits. People deemed "literary readers", according to the study, are more likely to exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current events, vote in presidential elections and perform volunteer work.
Link at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_en_ot/books_nea_study
Full article text from Associated Press below:
GOVERNMENT STUDY: AMERICANS READING LESS
By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Mon Nov 19, 12:31 AM ET
NEW YORK - The latest National Endowment for the Arts report draws on a variety of sources, public and private, and essentially reaches one conclusion: Americans are reading less.
The 99-page study, "To Read or Not to Read," is being released Monday as a follow-up to a 2004 NEA survey, "Reading at Risk," that found an increasing number of adult Americans were not even reading one book a year.
"To Read or Not to Read" gathers an array of government, academic and foundation data on everything from how many 9-year-olds read every day for "fun" (54 percent) to the percentage of high school graduates deemed by employers as "deficient" in writing in English (72 percent).
"I've done a lot of work in statistics in my career, and I've never seen a situation where so much data was pulled from so many places and absolutely everything is so consistent," NEA chairman Dana Gioia said.
Among the findings:
• In 2002, only 52 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24, the college years, read a book voluntarily, down from 59 percent in 1992.
• Money spent on books, adjusted for inflation, dropped 14 percent from 1985 to 2005 and has fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s.
• The number of adults with bachelor's degrees and "proficient in reading prose" dropped from 40 percent in 1992 to 31 percent in 2003.
Some news is good, notably among 9-year-olds, whose reading comprehension scores have soared since the early 1990s.
But at the same time, the number of 17-year-olds who "never or hardly ever" read for pleasure has doubled, to 19 percent, and their comprehension scores have fallen.
"I think there's been an enormous investment in teaching kids to read in elementary school," Gioia said. "Kids are doing better at 9, and at 11. At 13, they're doing no worse, but then you see this catastrophic falloff. ... If kids are put into this electronic culture without any counterbalancing efforts, they will stop reading."
Publishers and booksellers have noted that teen fiction is a rapidly expanding category in an otherwise flat market, but the NEA's director of research, Sunil Iyengar, wondered how much of that growth has been caused by the "Harry Potter" books, the last of which came out in July.
"It's great that millions of kids are reading these long, intricate novels, but reading one such book every 18 months doesn't make up for daily reading," Gioia said.
Doug Whiteman, president of the Penguin Young Readers Group, a division of Penguin Group (USA), said sales of teen books were the strongest part of his business. But he added that a couple of factors could explain why scores were dropping: Adults are also buying the "Potter" books, thus making the teen market seem bigger on paper, and some sales are for non-English language books.
"There are so many nuances," Whiteman said. "Reading scores don't necessarily have any relevance to today's sales."
The head of Simon & Schuster's children's publishing division, Rick Richter, saw another reason why sales could rise even as scores go down: A growing gap between those who read and those who don't. Richter considers it "very possible" that the market is driven by a relatively small number of young people who buy large numbers of books. Test scores, meanwhile, are lowered by the larger population of teens who don't read.
"A divide like that is really a cause for concern," Richter said.
The report emphasizes the social benefits of reading: "Literary readers" are more likely to exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current events, vote in presidential elections and perform volunteer work.
"This should explode the notion that reading is somehow a passive activity," Gioia said. "Reading creates people who are more active by any measure. ... People who don't read, who spend more of their time watching TV or on the Internet, playing video games, seem to be significantly more passive."
Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the most important socio-economic issue in the United States," and called for changes "in the way we're educating kids, especially in high school and college. We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and enlightenment."
"'To Read or Not to Read' suggests we are losing the majority of the new generation," Gioia said. "The majority of young Americans will not realize their individual, economic or social potential."
==END OF AP ARTICLE TEXT==
A new, comprehensive government study shows that only 31% of Americans are proficient in reading the English language, and only 28% are proficient in writing it.
Only half of all American adults even read a single book a year.
For the very few people who do read, there are immense benefits. People deemed "literary readers", according to the study, are more likely to exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current events, vote in presidential elections and perform volunteer work.
Link at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_en_ot/books_nea_study
Full article text from Associated Press below:
GOVERNMENT STUDY: AMERICANS READING LESS
By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Mon Nov 19, 12:31 AM ET
NEW YORK - The latest National Endowment for the Arts report draws on a variety of sources, public and private, and essentially reaches one conclusion: Americans are reading less.
The 99-page study, "To Read or Not to Read," is being released Monday as a follow-up to a 2004 NEA survey, "Reading at Risk," that found an increasing number of adult Americans were not even reading one book a year.
"To Read or Not to Read" gathers an array of government, academic and foundation data on everything from how many 9-year-olds read every day for "fun" (54 percent) to the percentage of high school graduates deemed by employers as "deficient" in writing in English (72 percent).
"I've done a lot of work in statistics in my career, and I've never seen a situation where so much data was pulled from so many places and absolutely everything is so consistent," NEA chairman Dana Gioia said.
Among the findings:
• In 2002, only 52 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24, the college years, read a book voluntarily, down from 59 percent in 1992.
• Money spent on books, adjusted for inflation, dropped 14 percent from 1985 to 2005 and has fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s.
• The number of adults with bachelor's degrees and "proficient in reading prose" dropped from 40 percent in 1992 to 31 percent in 2003.
Some news is good, notably among 9-year-olds, whose reading comprehension scores have soared since the early 1990s.
But at the same time, the number of 17-year-olds who "never or hardly ever" read for pleasure has doubled, to 19 percent, and their comprehension scores have fallen.
"I think there's been an enormous investment in teaching kids to read in elementary school," Gioia said. "Kids are doing better at 9, and at 11. At 13, they're doing no worse, but then you see this catastrophic falloff. ... If kids are put into this electronic culture without any counterbalancing efforts, they will stop reading."
Publishers and booksellers have noted that teen fiction is a rapidly expanding category in an otherwise flat market, but the NEA's director of research, Sunil Iyengar, wondered how much of that growth has been caused by the "Harry Potter" books, the last of which came out in July.
"It's great that millions of kids are reading these long, intricate novels, but reading one such book every 18 months doesn't make up for daily reading," Gioia said.
Doug Whiteman, president of the Penguin Young Readers Group, a division of Penguin Group (USA), said sales of teen books were the strongest part of his business. But he added that a couple of factors could explain why scores were dropping: Adults are also buying the "Potter" books, thus making the teen market seem bigger on paper, and some sales are for non-English language books.
"There are so many nuances," Whiteman said. "Reading scores don't necessarily have any relevance to today's sales."
The head of Simon & Schuster's children's publishing division, Rick Richter, saw another reason why sales could rise even as scores go down: A growing gap between those who read and those who don't. Richter considers it "very possible" that the market is driven by a relatively small number of young people who buy large numbers of books. Test scores, meanwhile, are lowered by the larger population of teens who don't read.
"A divide like that is really a cause for concern," Richter said.
The report emphasizes the social benefits of reading: "Literary readers" are more likely to exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current events, vote in presidential elections and perform volunteer work.
"This should explode the notion that reading is somehow a passive activity," Gioia said. "Reading creates people who are more active by any measure. ... People who don't read, who spend more of their time watching TV or on the Internet, playing video games, seem to be significantly more passive."
Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the most important socio-economic issue in the United States," and called for changes "in the way we're educating kids, especially in high school and college. We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and enlightenment."
"'To Read or Not to Read' suggests we are losing the majority of the new generation," Gioia said. "The majority of young Americans will not realize their individual, economic or social potential."
==END OF AP ARTICLE TEXT==
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Desmond Tutu Not Welcome
You can't make this shit up.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his activism against apartheid.
From CBS affiliate WCCO in Minneapolis:
Oct 4, 2007 11:26 am US/Central
Desmond Tutu Not Invited To St. Thomas
St. Paul (AP) ¯ Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu won't be speaking at the University of St. Thomas in April because school officials are worried his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would offend the Jewish community, a school official said.
And an associate professor who pushed for Tutu's visit has been removed as director the university's justice and peace studies program.
The Rev. Dennis Dease, St. Thomas' president, decided not to invite Tutu after talking with his staff, said Doug Hennes, vice president for university and government relations.
"He (Tutu) has been critical of Israel and Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians, so we talked with people in the Jewish community and they said they believed it would be hurtful to the Jewish community, because of things he's said," Hennes said.
Hennes said the university does not believe Tutu is anti-Semitic. But Hennes cited a 2002 speech in which he said Tutu criticized "the Jewish lobby." Hennes also said Jewish groups feel Tutu has compared the Israeli policy toward Palestinians to how Adolf Hitler treated Jews.
Julie Swiler, public affairs director for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, said she told St. Thomas officials that Tutu's remarks were hurtful to Jews. In addition to comparing Jews to Hitler, the speech "questions Jewish faithfulness to God," she said.
In his speech, Tutu said he supported the existence of the state of Israel, but compared the treatment of Palestinians to that of blacks under South African apartheid. He also criticized demolition of Palestinian homes if Israeli authorities suspected a family member was a terrorist.
Tutu said he wasn't criticizing Jewish people, but the Israeli government.
"The apartheid government was very powerful, but we said to them, 'Watch it,"' he said in the speech in Boston. "If you flout laws of this universe, you're going to bite the dust. Hitler was powerful. (Josef) Stalin was powerful. Idi Amin was powerful."
A lie, injustice, oppression, those will never prevail in this world of God," he said.
Marv Davidov, a peace activist and teacher at St. Thomas, was dismayed with the university's decision.
"I am Jewish, and stifling debate and dissent (and) criticism of Israel is a disservice to all Jews, the state of Israel and the American people," he said.
A leader of the international group that was to sponsor the visit also disagreed with the decision.
"This is a tragedy for the entire community of Minneapolis-St. Paul and indeed for the entire state of Minnesota," said Ivan Suvanjieff, president and co-founder of Colorado-based PeaceJam. "Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a towering moral arbiter of our day. He has worked tirelessly on a global basis in the name of human rights and all that is decent."
Mike Klein, who taught at St. Thomas and is a board member of Youththrive, PeaceJam's Upper Midwest affiliate, said the group learned the 75-year-old Tutu was available in April.
"I was quite excited about it, and passed on that news, expecting the same excitement back from the administration," Klein said. "Instead, the response I got was, 'We will have to pass."'
Meanwhile, Cris Toffolo, an associate professor and former director of the university's justice and peace studies program, wrote two memos urging university officials to reconsider their position. She said asked whether the university reached its conclusions based on a Web site that she said misquoted Tutu as linking Israel to Hitler.
Toffolo said she received a letter in August removing her as director of the peace studies program for two reasons: She had kept pressing to invite Tutu, and she should not have sent Tutu a letter using her director's title to tell him what happened.
Hennes confirmed Toffolo had been relieved of the position, but could not disclose the reasons. He said she is still a tenured faculty member.
http://wcco.com/local/desmond.tutu.jewish.2.370693.html
[Scroll to bottom of page for article.]
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his activism against apartheid.
From CBS affiliate WCCO in Minneapolis:
Oct 4, 2007 11:26 am US/Central
Desmond Tutu Not Invited To St. Thomas
St. Paul (AP) ¯ Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu won't be speaking at the University of St. Thomas in April because school officials are worried his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would offend the Jewish community, a school official said.
And an associate professor who pushed for Tutu's visit has been removed as director the university's justice and peace studies program.
The Rev. Dennis Dease, St. Thomas' president, decided not to invite Tutu after talking with his staff, said Doug Hennes, vice president for university and government relations.
"He (Tutu) has been critical of Israel and Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians, so we talked with people in the Jewish community and they said they believed it would be hurtful to the Jewish community, because of things he's said," Hennes said.
Hennes said the university does not believe Tutu is anti-Semitic. But Hennes cited a 2002 speech in which he said Tutu criticized "the Jewish lobby." Hennes also said Jewish groups feel Tutu has compared the Israeli policy toward Palestinians to how Adolf Hitler treated Jews.
Julie Swiler, public affairs director for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, said she told St. Thomas officials that Tutu's remarks were hurtful to Jews. In addition to comparing Jews to Hitler, the speech "questions Jewish faithfulness to God," she said.
In his speech, Tutu said he supported the existence of the state of Israel, but compared the treatment of Palestinians to that of blacks under South African apartheid. He also criticized demolition of Palestinian homes if Israeli authorities suspected a family member was a terrorist.
Tutu said he wasn't criticizing Jewish people, but the Israeli government.
"The apartheid government was very powerful, but we said to them, 'Watch it,"' he said in the speech in Boston. "If you flout laws of this universe, you're going to bite the dust. Hitler was powerful. (Josef) Stalin was powerful. Idi Amin was powerful."
A lie, injustice, oppression, those will never prevail in this world of God," he said.
Marv Davidov, a peace activist and teacher at St. Thomas, was dismayed with the university's decision.
"I am Jewish, and stifling debate and dissent (and) criticism of Israel is a disservice to all Jews, the state of Israel and the American people," he said.
A leader of the international group that was to sponsor the visit also disagreed with the decision.
"This is a tragedy for the entire community of Minneapolis-St. Paul and indeed for the entire state of Minnesota," said Ivan Suvanjieff, president and co-founder of Colorado-based PeaceJam. "Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a towering moral arbiter of our day. He has worked tirelessly on a global basis in the name of human rights and all that is decent."
Mike Klein, who taught at St. Thomas and is a board member of Youththrive, PeaceJam's Upper Midwest affiliate, said the group learned the 75-year-old Tutu was available in April.
"I was quite excited about it, and passed on that news, expecting the same excitement back from the administration," Klein said. "Instead, the response I got was, 'We will have to pass."'
Meanwhile, Cris Toffolo, an associate professor and former director of the university's justice and peace studies program, wrote two memos urging university officials to reconsider their position. She said asked whether the university reached its conclusions based on a Web site that she said misquoted Tutu as linking Israel to Hitler.
Toffolo said she received a letter in August removing her as director of the peace studies program for two reasons: She had kept pressing to invite Tutu, and she should not have sent Tutu a letter using her director's title to tell him what happened.
Hennes confirmed Toffolo had been relieved of the position, but could not disclose the reasons. He said she is still a tenured faculty member.
http://wcco.com/local/desmond.tutu.jewish.2.370693.html
[Scroll to bottom of page for article.]
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
A Racist War
Let's face it, the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq boils down to one question: "Why are we in Iraq?"
Leaving aside the fact that the U.S. government's answer to this simple question has changed, almost on a monthly basis, let us deal with their current answer to this question: "To help the Eye-rackis. To bring them democracy and to help them build a stable nation."
This same answer is echoed by Fox News and by everyday God-fearing, right-wing people all over the U.S., people who would kindly invite you into their homes for a piece of pie or help you when your car is stranded on the highway.
If that answer is true, however, then the two questions must be asked, "Why do these same God-fearing right-wing people hate Iraqis? Why, if they believe in Christian charity, are there no Christian charities that raise funds to help the millions of injured Iraqis or the millions more whose families are bereft of their chief breadwinner?"
Keep in mind that these aren't simply randomly injured or murdered people, these are people killed by the hand of our own American boys, good Christian boys who defend our country's honour and are willing to die for freedom.
It's dishonest - not just disingenuous; we've long since moved past that stage - to say that American troops' wilful murder, torture, and mutiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians is isolated or the work of "a few bad apples". No, this is systematic, planned, encouraged, and, worst of all, gleeful. Our boys in Eye-rack are glad to rape 14-year-old Iraqi girls, then set them on fire, then murder their parents. It makes them happy. And our good, God-fearing Christian nation does nothing to stop it.
An article in the East Bay Express excerpted in Ted Rall's 9 Oct 2007 column, provides loads of supporting evidence in some gruesome detail.
Here's the link to the full article, and the relevant part excerpted below:
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/
But it isn't just Blackwater. Official U.S. soldiers are no less stupid or vicious or trigger-happy than their private counterparts.
In 2003 U.S. troops manning a checkpoint in Karbala repeatedly fired a 25-millimeter cannon at a Toyota containing 13 people trying to flee the fighting. At least seven people, including five children age five or under, were killed. "You just f---ing killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough," a captain radioed to his platoon leader moments later. Checkpoint shootings of innocent civilians became a daily occurrence, due to rules of engagement that placed more value upon the lives of American troops than those of the Iraqis they were supposedly there to liberate.
Often the "checkpoints" were invisible to Iraqi motorists. American soldiers would hide in buildings near an intersection and fire "warning shots" at the engine blocks of approaching vehicles. Assuming that they were being ambushed by bandits, Iraqi drivers would floor the accelerator. Soldiers then treated them as potential suicide bombers, turning them into Swiss cheese. "Many U.S. officials describe...the military's standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in Iraq," reports The Washington Post.
"We fired warning shots at everyone," said one soldier. "They would speed up to come at us, and we would shoot them. You couldn't tell who was in the car from where we were. We found that out later. We would just look in and see they were dead and could see there were women inside."
That's what happened to Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari. After obtaining the release of a journalist from insurgents who had held her hostage for one month, Calipari accompanied her to a checkpoint near the Baghdad airport. U.S. soldiers opened fire. The warning shot missed the engine block. Calipari died; the reporter was wounded. Though their Iraqi driver insists that he was driving their Toyota Corolla (memo to travelers to Iraq: consider a Honda) under 25 miles per hour, the Pentagon said he was "speeding."
A lot of professional U.S. soldiers have screamed their contempt for Iraqis since the beginning of the war. "For almost a year," reported the East Bay Express in 2005, "American soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to [a pornographic website]. American soldiers have been using the pictures of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography."
If you've just eaten, stop reading now.
The Express describes the photos: "A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as U.S. Marines, laugh and smile for the camera while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet."
There's more.
"[A] person who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, 'What every Iraqi should look like.' One person posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled his collection 'DIE HAJI [a racist slur for Iraqis used by U.S. soldiers] DIE.'"
Google the Express story. It gets even uglier.
Blackwater's hired goons are exempt from prosecution. So, apparently, are real soldiers. Atrocity after atrocity goes unpunished or rewarded with a slap on the wrist.
Specialist Jorge Sandoval, 22, was acquitted of murdering two Iraqis, one on April 27, the other on May 11 near Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad. However, a military court-martial found him guilty of planting detonation wire on the first victim to make him look like an insurgent. If he was innocent, why did he try to cover up the shooting?
Specialist James Barker, 23, of the 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, based in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, admitted that he held down a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in 2005 while another soldier raped her, then shot her several times in her Mahmudiya home. He dowsed her with kerosene and set her on fire. According to CNN, "he was not sure if he penetrated the girl, because he was having trouble getting an erection." He and five fellow soldiers also murdered her parents and her 7-year-old sister. Thanks to a plea bargain, said The New York Times, "he could be released on parole in 20 years."
The same crime committed in the U.S. would earn life in prison, or the death penalty.
A Marine Staff Sergeant charged in the massacre of 24 people in Haditha, The New York Times reports, will not face murder charges because investigating civilian deaths isn't a military priority. "Prosecuting the Haditha case has posed special challenges because the killings were not comprehensively investigated when they first occurred," says the Times. "Months later, when details came to light, there were no bodies to examine and no Iraqi witnesses to test."
The 2005 Express piece contains this tragicomic gem: "[Disrespect for Iraqi deaths] could become an international public-relations catastrophe." Internationally, the "war porn" scandal was merely one of a string of stories that confirmed our reputation as brutal neocolonialists. Here in the United States, however, "supporting the troops" means turning a blind eye to their actions--or blaming them on private contractors.
(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
Leaving aside the fact that the U.S. government's answer to this simple question has changed, almost on a monthly basis, let us deal with their current answer to this question: "To help the Eye-rackis. To bring them democracy and to help them build a stable nation."
This same answer is echoed by Fox News and by everyday God-fearing, right-wing people all over the U.S., people who would kindly invite you into their homes for a piece of pie or help you when your car is stranded on the highway.
If that answer is true, however, then the two questions must be asked, "Why do these same God-fearing right-wing people hate Iraqis? Why, if they believe in Christian charity, are there no Christian charities that raise funds to help the millions of injured Iraqis or the millions more whose families are bereft of their chief breadwinner?"
Keep in mind that these aren't simply randomly injured or murdered people, these are people killed by the hand of our own American boys, good Christian boys who defend our country's honour and are willing to die for freedom.
It's dishonest - not just disingenuous; we've long since moved past that stage - to say that American troops' wilful murder, torture, and mutiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians is isolated or the work of "a few bad apples". No, this is systematic, planned, encouraged, and, worst of all, gleeful. Our boys in Eye-rack are glad to rape 14-year-old Iraqi girls, then set them on fire, then murder their parents. It makes them happy. And our good, God-fearing Christian nation does nothing to stop it.
An article in the East Bay Express excerpted in Ted Rall's 9 Oct 2007 column, provides loads of supporting evidence in some gruesome detail.
Here's the link to the full article, and the relevant part excerpted below:
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/
But it isn't just Blackwater. Official U.S. soldiers are no less stupid or vicious or trigger-happy than their private counterparts.
In 2003 U.S. troops manning a checkpoint in Karbala repeatedly fired a 25-millimeter cannon at a Toyota containing 13 people trying to flee the fighting. At least seven people, including five children age five or under, were killed. "You just f---ing killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough," a captain radioed to his platoon leader moments later. Checkpoint shootings of innocent civilians became a daily occurrence, due to rules of engagement that placed more value upon the lives of American troops than those of the Iraqis they were supposedly there to liberate.
Often the "checkpoints" were invisible to Iraqi motorists. American soldiers would hide in buildings near an intersection and fire "warning shots" at the engine blocks of approaching vehicles. Assuming that they were being ambushed by bandits, Iraqi drivers would floor the accelerator. Soldiers then treated them as potential suicide bombers, turning them into Swiss cheese. "Many U.S. officials describe...the military's standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in Iraq," reports The Washington Post.
"We fired warning shots at everyone," said one soldier. "They would speed up to come at us, and we would shoot them. You couldn't tell who was in the car from where we were. We found that out later. We would just look in and see they were dead and could see there were women inside."
That's what happened to Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari. After obtaining the release of a journalist from insurgents who had held her hostage for one month, Calipari accompanied her to a checkpoint near the Baghdad airport. U.S. soldiers opened fire. The warning shot missed the engine block. Calipari died; the reporter was wounded. Though their Iraqi driver insists that he was driving their Toyota Corolla (memo to travelers to Iraq: consider a Honda) under 25 miles per hour, the Pentagon said he was "speeding."
A lot of professional U.S. soldiers have screamed their contempt for Iraqis since the beginning of the war. "For almost a year," reported the East Bay Express in 2005, "American soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to [a pornographic website]. American soldiers have been using the pictures of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography."
If you've just eaten, stop reading now.
The Express describes the photos: "A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as U.S. Marines, laugh and smile for the camera while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet."
There's more.
"[A] person who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, 'What every Iraqi should look like.' One person posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled his collection 'DIE HAJI [a racist slur for Iraqis used by U.S. soldiers] DIE.'"
Google the Express story. It gets even uglier.
Blackwater's hired goons are exempt from prosecution. So, apparently, are real soldiers. Atrocity after atrocity goes unpunished or rewarded with a slap on the wrist.
Specialist Jorge Sandoval, 22, was acquitted of murdering two Iraqis, one on April 27, the other on May 11 near Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad. However, a military court-martial found him guilty of planting detonation wire on the first victim to make him look like an insurgent. If he was innocent, why did he try to cover up the shooting?
Specialist James Barker, 23, of the 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, based in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, admitted that he held down a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in 2005 while another soldier raped her, then shot her several times in her Mahmudiya home. He dowsed her with kerosene and set her on fire. According to CNN, "he was not sure if he penetrated the girl, because he was having trouble getting an erection." He and five fellow soldiers also murdered her parents and her 7-year-old sister. Thanks to a plea bargain, said The New York Times, "he could be released on parole in 20 years."
The same crime committed in the U.S. would earn life in prison, or the death penalty.
A Marine Staff Sergeant charged in the massacre of 24 people in Haditha, The New York Times reports, will not face murder charges because investigating civilian deaths isn't a military priority. "Prosecuting the Haditha case has posed special challenges because the killings were not comprehensively investigated when they first occurred," says the Times. "Months later, when details came to light, there were no bodies to examine and no Iraqi witnesses to test."
The 2005 Express piece contains this tragicomic gem: "[Disrespect for Iraqi deaths] could become an international public-relations catastrophe." Internationally, the "war porn" scandal was merely one of a string of stories that confirmed our reputation as brutal neocolonialists. Here in the United States, however, "supporting the troops" means turning a blind eye to their actions--or blaming them on private contractors.
(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Seinfeld in the Arab World
Last week I visited Dubai for a few days - and I confess, it was a relief to be out of Africa and to have running water - and literally the first thing I saw when I switched on the television was (drumroll, please)... Seinfeld!
Yup, contrary to the assertions made on Bill Maher's show [see my blog post dated 10 July 2007], Seinfeld is popular in the Arab world. Speaking to a few Arabs from countries other than the UAE reveals that Seinfeld is popular in syndication in Egypt, Lebanon, and even terrorist-0riented Syria.
So it seems, Bill, that even evildoers who obsess over obliterating Israel are fond of following the exploits of "a few neurotic New York Jews", (the words of Jason Alexander, who played George Costanza on the show).
Yup, contrary to the assertions made on Bill Maher's show [see my blog post dated 10 July 2007], Seinfeld is popular in the Arab world. Speaking to a few Arabs from countries other than the UAE reveals that Seinfeld is popular in syndication in Egypt, Lebanon, and even terrorist-0riented Syria.
So it seems, Bill, that even evildoers who obsess over obliterating Israel are fond of following the exploits of "a few neurotic New York Jews", (the words of Jason Alexander, who played George Costanza on the show).
Starvation in Palestine
If you had any doubts as to the deliberate aim and effects of the Israeli occupation, look no further than this article from the LA Times [see below].
The Israelis have imposed a "carefully managed" starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza, in the words of the UN.
The Israeli government, for its part, laughs at its starvation policy as a case of "put[ting] the Palestinians on a diet."
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-makdisi22sep22,0,2737657.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Full text below. Saree Makdisi is a UCLA professor and nephew of the late Edward Said.
=====BEGIN ARTICLE====
The war on Gaza's children
Israel's sanctions are leaving a generation of Palestinian children poorly educated and hungry.
By Saree Makdisi September 22, 2007
An entire generation of Palestinians in Gaza is growing up stunted: physically and nutritionally stunted because they are not getting enough to eat; emotionally stunted because of the pressures of living in a virtual prison and facing the constant threat of destruction and displacement; intellectually and academically stunted because they cannot concentrate -- or, even if they can, because they are trying to study and learn in circumstances that no child should have to endure.
Even before Israel this week declared Gaza "hostile territory" -- apparently in preparation for cutting off the last remaining supplies of fuel and electricity to 1.5 million men, women and children -- the situation was dire.
As a result of Israel's blockade on most imports and exports and other policies designed to punish the populace, about 70% of Gaza's workforce is now unemployed or without pay, according to the United Nations, and about 80% of its residents live in grinding poverty. About 1.2 million of them are now dependent for their day-to-day survival on food handouts from U.N. or international agencies, without which, as the World Food Program's Kirstie Campbell put it, "they are liable to starve."
An increasing number of Palestinian families in Gaza are unable to offer their children more than one meager meal a day, often little more than rice and boiled lentils. Fresh fruit and vegetables are beyond the reach of many families. Meat and chicken are impossibly expensive. Gaza faces the rich waters of the Mediterranean, but fish is unavailable in its markets because the Israeli navy has curtailed the movements of Gaza's fishermen.
Los Angeles parents who have spent the last few weeks running from one back-to-school sale to another could do worse than to spare a few minutes to think about their counterparts in the Gaza Strip. As a result of the siege, Gaza is not only short of raw textiles and other key goods but also paper, ink and vital school supplies. One-third of Gaza's children started the school year missing necessary textbooks. John Ging, the Gaza director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, whose schools take care of 200,000 children in Gaza, has warned that children come to school "hungry and unable to concentrate."
Israel says that its policies in Gaza are designed to put pressure on the Palestinian population to in turn put pressure on those who fire crude home-made rockets from Gaza into the Israeli town of Sderot. Those rocket attacks are wrong. But it is also wrong to punish an entire population for the actions of a few -- actions that the schoolchildren of Gaza and their beleagueredparents are in any case powerless to stop.
It is a violation of international law to collectively punish more than a million people for something they did not do. According to the Geneva Convention, to which it is a signatory, Israel actually has the obligation to ensure the well-being of the people on whom it has chosen to impose a military occupation for more than four decades.
Instead, it has shrugged off the law. It has ignored the repeated demands of the U.N. Security Council. It has dismissed the International Court of Justice in the Hague. What John Dugard, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories, refers to as the "carefully managed" strangulation of Gaza -- in full view of an uncaring world -- is explicitly part of its strategy. "The idea," said Dov Weisglass, an Israeli government advisor, "is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not make them die of hunger."
Saree Makdisi is a professor of English literature at UCLA and the author of "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation," forthcoming from Norton.
The Israelis have imposed a "carefully managed" starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza, in the words of the UN.
The Israeli government, for its part, laughs at its starvation policy as a case of "put[ting] the Palestinians on a diet."
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-makdisi22sep22,0,2737657.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Full text below. Saree Makdisi is a UCLA professor and nephew of the late Edward Said.
=====BEGIN ARTICLE====
The war on Gaza's children
Israel's sanctions are leaving a generation of Palestinian children poorly educated and hungry.
By Saree Makdisi September 22, 2007
An entire generation of Palestinians in Gaza is growing up stunted: physically and nutritionally stunted because they are not getting enough to eat; emotionally stunted because of the pressures of living in a virtual prison and facing the constant threat of destruction and displacement; intellectually and academically stunted because they cannot concentrate -- or, even if they can, because they are trying to study and learn in circumstances that no child should have to endure.
Even before Israel this week declared Gaza "hostile territory" -- apparently in preparation for cutting off the last remaining supplies of fuel and electricity to 1.5 million men, women and children -- the situation was dire.
As a result of Israel's blockade on most imports and exports and other policies designed to punish the populace, about 70% of Gaza's workforce is now unemployed or without pay, according to the United Nations, and about 80% of its residents live in grinding poverty. About 1.2 million of them are now dependent for their day-to-day survival on food handouts from U.N. or international agencies, without which, as the World Food Program's Kirstie Campbell put it, "they are liable to starve."
An increasing number of Palestinian families in Gaza are unable to offer their children more than one meager meal a day, often little more than rice and boiled lentils. Fresh fruit and vegetables are beyond the reach of many families. Meat and chicken are impossibly expensive. Gaza faces the rich waters of the Mediterranean, but fish is unavailable in its markets because the Israeli navy has curtailed the movements of Gaza's fishermen.
Los Angeles parents who have spent the last few weeks running from one back-to-school sale to another could do worse than to spare a few minutes to think about their counterparts in the Gaza Strip. As a result of the siege, Gaza is not only short of raw textiles and other key goods but also paper, ink and vital school supplies. One-third of Gaza's children started the school year missing necessary textbooks. John Ging, the Gaza director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, whose schools take care of 200,000 children in Gaza, has warned that children come to school "hungry and unable to concentrate."
Israel says that its policies in Gaza are designed to put pressure on the Palestinian population to in turn put pressure on those who fire crude home-made rockets from Gaza into the Israeli town of Sderot. Those rocket attacks are wrong. But it is also wrong to punish an entire population for the actions of a few -- actions that the schoolchildren of Gaza and their beleagueredparents are in any case powerless to stop.
It is a violation of international law to collectively punish more than a million people for something they did not do. According to the Geneva Convention, to which it is a signatory, Israel actually has the obligation to ensure the well-being of the people on whom it has chosen to impose a military occupation for more than four decades.
Instead, it has shrugged off the law. It has ignored the repeated demands of the U.N. Security Council. It has dismissed the International Court of Justice in the Hague. What John Dugard, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories, refers to as the "carefully managed" strangulation of Gaza -- in full view of an uncaring world -- is explicitly part of its strategy. "The idea," said Dov Weisglass, an Israeli government advisor, "is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not make them die of hunger."
Saree Makdisi is a professor of English literature at UCLA and the author of "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation," forthcoming from Norton.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Bill Maher Drops the Ball... on Purpose
Bill Maher, well-known hater of Arabs and blind supporter of Israel and its well-documented war crimes against Lebanon last summer (more on that coming up), has the perfect opportunity to ask Jason Alexander, who used to play George on the sitcom Seinfeld, about his experiences in the Palestinian Territories. However, as soon as Alexander mentions that he was part of a grassroots peace initiative involving both Israelis and Palestinians, Maher clams up and says nothing more.
Maher is terrified that Alexander might say something positive about Palestinians or something negative about Israel. If Alexander had said that he was pelted by Palestinian stone-throwers and called a dirty Jew, Maher would have milked it for all it was worth, launching into one of his classic harangues about how Arabs and Muslims are backward, hateful, useless, and should be bombed to the Stone Age. However, since Alexander visited Ramallah and lived to tell the tale - in fact, enjoyed his experiences with Palestinians, as he has said on numerous occasions - Maher could not take the chance of letting him discuss it on air.
How did all of this start? Another pundit on Maher's show arrogantly posits that Seinfeld was not popular among Arabs, and Alexander quickly rebuts him, saying that his experience in the West Bank indicates otherwise.
Watch the clip from 1:27 to 2:10.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zykrh-jQCII
Maher is not interested in peace or in peace initiatives, but in Israel waging war on its neighbours and gobbling up more land. For a man who claims to be neither liberal nor conservative, but simply an independent and rational thinker not swayed by illiberal passions or wanton bloodlust, Maher sure does salivate a lot at the prospect of mass murder of Arab peoples, especially Palestinians. (No, he doesn't say this in the clip, but it is coming up as I figure out how to work this blog.)
Maher is terrified that Alexander might say something positive about Palestinians or something negative about Israel. If Alexander had said that he was pelted by Palestinian stone-throwers and called a dirty Jew, Maher would have milked it for all it was worth, launching into one of his classic harangues about how Arabs and Muslims are backward, hateful, useless, and should be bombed to the Stone Age. However, since Alexander visited Ramallah and lived to tell the tale - in fact, enjoyed his experiences with Palestinians, as he has said on numerous occasions - Maher could not take the chance of letting him discuss it on air.
How did all of this start? Another pundit on Maher's show arrogantly posits that Seinfeld was not popular among Arabs, and Alexander quickly rebuts him, saying that his experience in the West Bank indicates otherwise.
Watch the clip from 1:27 to 2:10.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zykrh-jQCII
Maher is not interested in peace or in peace initiatives, but in Israel waging war on its neighbours and gobbling up more land. For a man who claims to be neither liberal nor conservative, but simply an independent and rational thinker not swayed by illiberal passions or wanton bloodlust, Maher sure does salivate a lot at the prospect of mass murder of Arab peoples, especially Palestinians. (No, he doesn't say this in the clip, but it is coming up as I figure out how to work this blog.)
Michael Moore Goes Crazy on Wolf Blitzer (former lobbyist for Israel)
If somehow you haven't seen this elsewhere, you may be living under a rock. If you have seen it, this is your handy-dandy link to referencing it more easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bs_LBXD69w&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bs_LBXD69w&eurl=
Monday, July 9, 2007
What are you, some kind of sicko?
A word after watching Sicko in the cinema:
The film is not about promoting socialised medicine, but about promoting socialism, period.
After watching the movie, my wife wants to emigrate to Canada, or possibly, to the UK. While it's certainly possible to make more money in the States than you ever could in Canada or the UK (how many Bill Gateses or Warren Buffetts are from Canada?), it requires an immense investment of effort, time, and yes, money; conversely, if you're interested in working only a reasonable or even negligible amount of time, you can live well in Western Europe or Canada, whereas you'll live like a dog in the States.
This is the power of the film: it can convince ordinary, law-abidin' 'mericans to want to pack up and skip town... forever.
The film is not about promoting socialised medicine, but about promoting socialism, period.
After watching the movie, my wife wants to emigrate to Canada, or possibly, to the UK. While it's certainly possible to make more money in the States than you ever could in Canada or the UK (how many Bill Gateses or Warren Buffetts are from Canada?), it requires an immense investment of effort, time, and yes, money; conversely, if you're interested in working only a reasonable or even negligible amount of time, you can live well in Western Europe or Canada, whereas you'll live like a dog in the States.
This is the power of the film: it can convince ordinary, law-abidin' 'mericans to want to pack up and skip town... forever.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Hypocrisy of Bashing Celebrities' Politics as Sport
I'm no fan of celebrity news taking precedence over 'real' news, but I am continually surprised at the double standard our mainstream American media take when it comes to celebrities' political views. Celebrities who wave the flag and say, "I support our troops," are not only tolerated, but celebrated (hence the term 'celebrity'), while those who dare step outside the carefully proscribed and prescribed bounds are virtually lynched.
The latest virtual lynch mob is feasting on Rosie O'Donnell. What did she do? She posted photos on her website that show her daughter dressed in a costume featuring a bullet sash. Everyone has been quick to call her 'sick' and polish off their best this-time-she's-gone-too-far! pious speeches.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3322991&page=1
In this ABC News story, several 'experts' immediately spring from hiding and attack Rosie for her disgusting political beliefs:
[excerpt from news story linked above]
"People don't like children being used for political messages because they know the children aren't choosing to be involved," said Mark Weaver, Republican message strategist and professor at the University of Akron.
Are you fucking kidding me? Republican and Democratic strategists alike use kids to sell their messages. Are you telling me that the little girl in Ronald Reagan's 'Morning in America' campaign in 1984 waving a small American flag in a field of yellow poppies chose to be involved? And did people not like her 'being used for political messages'?
This is a classic case of accusing your enemy of doing something that you yourself do, and it's so transparent that anyone reading this ABC News article is immediately sickened and feels his intelligence insulted.
People accused Martin Luther King, Jr. and American civil rights activists in the 1960s of deliberately putting their children in the face of police dogs and fire hoses. When Americans see Palestinian children protesting nonviolently, they say, 'Look at that, a whole 'nother generation being brainwashed. How can those parents do that to their children?' without realising that when sane people see tiny white kids marching in Memorial Day parades in military garb and waving American flags, we think the same thing: Parents --> brainwashing children --> putting them out there on the streets.
The same thing. When you do it, it's inspirational. When a brown person does it, it's psychotic.
Rosie O'Donnell, you are officially a brown person now.
The latest virtual lynch mob is feasting on Rosie O'Donnell. What did she do? She posted photos on her website that show her daughter dressed in a costume featuring a bullet sash. Everyone has been quick to call her 'sick' and polish off their best this-time-she's-gone-too-far! pious speeches.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3322991&page=1
In this ABC News story, several 'experts' immediately spring from hiding and attack Rosie for her disgusting political beliefs:
[excerpt from news story linked above]
"People don't like children being used for political messages because they know the children aren't choosing to be involved," said Mark Weaver, Republican message strategist and professor at the University of Akron.
Are you fucking kidding me? Republican and Democratic strategists alike use kids to sell their messages. Are you telling me that the little girl in Ronald Reagan's 'Morning in America' campaign in 1984 waving a small American flag in a field of yellow poppies chose to be involved? And did people not like her 'being used for political messages'?
This is a classic case of accusing your enemy of doing something that you yourself do, and it's so transparent that anyone reading this ABC News article is immediately sickened and feels his intelligence insulted.
People accused Martin Luther King, Jr. and American civil rights activists in the 1960s of deliberately putting their children in the face of police dogs and fire hoses. When Americans see Palestinian children protesting nonviolently, they say, 'Look at that, a whole 'nother generation being brainwashed. How can those parents do that to their children?' without realising that when sane people see tiny white kids marching in Memorial Day parades in military garb and waving American flags, we think the same thing: Parents --> brainwashing children --> putting them out there on the streets.
The same thing. When you do it, it's inspirational. When a brown person does it, it's psychotic.
Rosie O'Donnell, you are officially a brown person now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)