VIEW FROM THE MOON

WHOM DOES THE IMF REALLY HELP?

2010-06-28T09:42:00.000-05:00

The International Monetary Fund does not help the people of countries which have financial problems, but instead helps those to whom those countries owe money.

I've read enough about the IMF to realize that it's too complicated for me to understand without a lot more study than I'm willing to devote to it, but I believe I've had a valid insight.

My impression had been that the IMF "helped" countries which had fallen into financial trouble because they had spent much more than they could squeeze from their citizens in taxes. The IMF stepped in, imposed spending disciplines on the politicians in exchange for IMF loans to the country, and thereby in some way benefitted the people of the country.

Wrong. The IMF is not helping the country, but instead is helping those from whom the country has borrowed money. . . by demanding measures which actually hurt the people of the country.

The scenario:

1. Politicians in so-called "democracies" buy votes from the people by giving pleasing benefits which might include roads, parks, housing, medical care, retirement, education, unemployment benefits, even money paid to parents for having a child.

2. The people are happy to have more "free" benefits and reward the most lavish politicians by voting for them.

3. In order to finance their largesse, the politicians borrow more and more money from outside the country by selling bonds (IOU's) to foreigners -- banks, large institutions, etc.

4. Eventually the borrowing country owes more to foreigners than it can ever pay back, and faces national bankruptcy -- the dreaded "default."

5. Enter the IMF, willing to lend the debtor country enough money to stave off default, but at the expense of drastically cutting the benefits which the politicians of that country have given their voters. "Cutting the deficit."

Does this help the citizens of the country? No. It helps those who have loaned money to the country. The IMF loans, together with the cutting of government spending, assist the country to stay afloat sufficiently to repay debts. Meanwhile, the people of the country suffer as the IMF forces the country's economy to shrink, especially during a period of international recession such as we are experiencing.

So, as usual, what is masked as help for "the people" is actually help for the international banks and other big investors. Basically, IMF money is funneled through the debtor country to the lenders.

"SINS OF OMISSION"

2009-09-18T10:24:00.003-05:00

From its beginning this blog's major aim has been to reveal important events and facts which have been omitted from the “news”. Here is a relevant statement from an interesting book I've been reading, “All The News Unfit to Print” by Eric Burns (John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2009):

'[I]t is possible for a journalist to lie without actually misrepresenting the facts . . . by simply turning one's back on the truth. Actually, the latter is an easier way to lie than misstating the facts; it does not require any energy or special storytelling skills, nor does it require that one remember the details of the falsehood so that he can recall them later. One can be passive rather than active. For this reason, ignoring the truth has been an attractive alternative to many dishonest journalists over the years for many different reasons, from ideological bias to financial gain to sheer indolence.' p. 141

'Some years earlier, the Wall Street Journal had demonstrated that it was possible to tell a lie not by omitting the truth, but by hiding it away in the interior pages of the paper. In other words, a publication does not have to ignore reality to provide a disservice to its customers; it needs only to report it in a context that makes it seem less significant than it really is. Burying the lead, this is called in the news business.'

US SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL WAS CAUSE OF 9/11

2009-09-14T06:06:00.010-05:00

ISRAEL IN PALESTINE

I have repeatedly emphasized an obvious fact which has been kept from the American people's attention. The cause of the attack on the Twin Towers was the United States' support of Israel's aggressions and illegal occupation and theft of land in Palestine. The attack was not for such stupid "reasons" as "They hate freedom" or "They don't like our way of life." It was plain and simple a war on the Israel/US coalition which has brought poverty, torment, and captivity upon the Palestinian people.

The painstaking ignoring of the obvious has been achieved by refusal to report numerous statements by Arabs that the cause of Muslim hostility to America is Israel. Now Bin Laden himself, the planner of 9/11, has issued a statement which makes the cause specifically clear. But will you hear these important words on television? I doubt it.

'(AGI)[Italian News Agency] - Washington, 14 Sept - Three days after the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden has once again made himself heard. In an audio message the al Qaeda leader warned the American populace over the close ties between its government and Israel,"which induced me to plot the attacks on the Twin Towers." The message was broadcast on an Islamic site used in the past by the terrorist network. "The time has come for you to break free from the fear and ideological terror of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby which wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bin Laden in the message, called "Declaration to the American Populace".

[He] then explained the "reasons for the dispute" with the American populace: "your support for Israel, which occupies our territory in Palestine". In the message Bin Laden said that there had not been a true change in US policy, since Obama has kept representatives of the Bush administration in the government -such as Defence Secretary Robert Gates. "The White House is under the control of pressure groups. Instead of fighting to free Iraq as Bush wanted, the White House is what needs to be freed. The bitter truth is that neoconservatives continue to cast a heavy shadow over all of you."'

(Neoconservatives is a sugarcoated word for Jews who moved into the Republican Party, primarily to exert their support of Israel there.)

ISRAEL IN PALESTINE

ISRAEL OVER PALESTINE

THE RESULT IN NEW YORK

A FLY ON THE NEWSROOM WALL

2009-07-28T06:47:00.006-05:00

Writer 1: “Here's the Henry Gates story.”

Editor: “Hm. 'Black Professor Arrested Breaking into Own Home.'
Nope. Get rid of everything after 'Arrested.' And build him up some.”

“Famous Black Professor Arrested. . . “

“Can't you do better than 'famous'?”

“Uh. Very Famous Black. . . “

“Jesus! Do I have to think for you!”

Writer 1: "Prominent?"

(Sounds of mixed approval.)

Writer 2, inspired: “Eminent!”

Writer 1: "Great! Eminent Black. . . “

Editor: “It's okay, but 'Eminent' doesn't sound much better than famous to me. Is there something stronger?”

(Writers consult thesaurus.) “Preeminent!”

“What does that mean?”

“More than eminent. The greatest of the eminent.”

(Reading) “Greatest in importance or degree or significance or achievement. With superiority or distinction above others.”

“Now that's more like it! Better than anybody else.”

Writer 2: “What makes him preeminent?”

“I have no idea. Jesus! Don't you know how things work? And spice up “Professor.”

“Scholar?”

“Yes! Preeminent Black Professor and Scholar Henry Gates. . . “
Keep it coming.”

“Distinguished!”

“Good. Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Gates. . ."

“Henry Louis Gates.”

“Junior.”

“Okay: 'Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Arrested Entering Own Home.'”

“Let's fly with that.”

(A few minutes later. . .)

Writer 2: "Chief, something doesn't make sense to me. Last week you told us to take 'Black' out of 'Black Youth Arrested on Seven Rape Charges' but today you told us to say 'Black Professor'. I don't get it. They both got arrested."

"Christ. Who let you in here?"

The Case of the Missing Rabbis

2009-07-25T06:36:00.008-05:00

“The Washington Post, NEW YORK, July 23 -- A two-year federal probe into a money laundering operation taking place between the New York area and Israel ballooned into one of the biggest bribery and corruption sweeps in New Jersey history, netting three northern New Jersey mayors, two members of the New Jersey Legislature, a raft of local officials, five rabbis, and a Brooklyn man accused of trafficking in human kidneys, U.S. prosecutors said today.
“FBI agents arrested 44 people in a series of morning raids, creating a dramatic scene of politicians and rabbis in traditional outfits handcuffed and being marched into the federal building in Newark, and then boarded onto a bus for the drive to the federal courthouse.”
“The arrested rabbis included Saul Kassin, the chief rabbi for the tight-knit Syrian Jewish community in the United States, and the chief rabbis of synagogues in Brooklyn and Deal, N.J. “

Doesn't that seem like a story that would be relished by American television? Dozens of prominent politicians paraded in front of cameras on their way to jail, juicy eye-catching pictures of handcuffed rabbis sporting black hats, long coats, and pigtails? I expected it to be the featured story on the evening news, but I looked in vain.

Now, class, can anyone tell me why the tale was overlooked, or dare we suggest suppressed, by the usually scandal-hungry media? Hint: Note the words “Israel” and “rabbis”.

I laughed when I learned that some published accounts referred only to “religious leaders”. You can be sure that if the “religious leaders” were Christian evangelists or Roman Catholic priests we would have seen them identified as such and pilloried on every evening news program in the United States.

Courtesy of Google, we can see how journalistic excitement over this story grew!

Obama versus Israel

2009-07-23T06:35:00.006-05:00

This blog began in November 2006 with the question,“What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there?” What information is being omitted or distorted? It turns out that the purpose of most such censorship and misrepresentation was to protect Israel and further of the goals of the Zionist/Israel lobby. A particularly egregious example is occurring at present.

The president of the United States is directly confronting Israel with vigorous demands – demands, not coy suggestions – that the self-proclaimed Jewish state cease certain activities which are preventing a resolution of the “Palestinian issue” and are preventing a successful conclusion of the "peace process". These activities primarily involve the Jewish “settlements” beyond the Palestinian land already stolen in the name of Israel, as well as activities within Jerusalem. The activities are illegal, and break promises made to Bush administration.

In response to the unequivocal presidential demands, the Israeli government simply says, “No.” This brings to mind the image of a petulant little child balking at a direct parental order – but is the winner so easily predictable?

Have you noticed headlines or lead-ins to television news programs which trumpet this head-on conflict? I have not seen even a mention of it on TV or in the major news services – with this exception “Israel Rejects U.S. Call to Halt Jerusalem Project”. Other reports have appeared in relatively obscure places. . . even though President Obama has made his demands in interviews and public speeches. From the 'Jerusalem Post' I classify Israel's 'Jerusalem Post" as "obscure" because it is probably unknown to 99% of Americans.

It would appear that in this serious conflict the United States holds all the cards financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and yet the Israel lobby wields tremendous power over Congress and American politicians generally. Jewish pressure groups like AIPAC openly boast (more openly within Israel than in the U.S.) that they can get anything they want from Congress. A recent demonstration was the line-up of obedient senators and representatives who parroted support for Israel's barbaric invasion of Gaza in the exact same words conveniently supplied to them by their Zionist masters.

The question is, will Obama's determination be undermined by Congress, whose hand essentially controls the flow of money to Israel? What powers can a president exercise in such an international situation? Can Obama influence his own party more than a foreign nation's pressure groups can? This is a fascinating situation which would almost monopolize television news except for the Zionist desire for a blackout.

I predict that in American public commentary Obama will now be depicted – with never a reference to his confrontation of Israel –less and less as a knight in shining armor and more and more as a questionable adventurer in tarnished tin. Such a fate befell George Bush, Sr., when he tried to pressure Israel; almost overnight George the First tumbled from the bright star of the first Iraq war into the mud and lost his chance for the reelection that had seemed certain a few days before – while probably not one in a million Americans knew why he was suddenly demoted from darling to dodo.

THE ULTIMATE DISGRACE OF THE U.S. SENATE

2009-01-09T07:26:00.007-05:00

On the same day that the International Red Cross and the United Nations condemned Israel for violations of international law, including deliberate murder of UN aid workers, the United States Senate enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza in every way. While the Red Cross presented detailed stories of Israeli forces deliberately causing the deaths of wounded civilians and small children through neglect, even though Israel's military had posts within a few yards of such horrific scenes, U.S. senators cheered Israel on by voting in favor of a resolution written by Israel's chief American lobby AIPAC ('American Israel Public Affairs Committee'). The resolution unreservedly endorses and supports the murderous Israeli invasion and the lie that Israel is “retaliating” for unprovoked Gaza aggression.

Every senator who voted for the resolution put before him by Israel has branded “murderer” and “coward” on his soul. Those people have no moral or ethical principles, or regard for truth, which can stand up against their fear of not being reelected. They know that in the United States a politician's fate is determined by the good will or ill will of the Zionists who work here to support Israel, and the Jews who support the more active Zionists. And Israel knows that it can do anything, no matter how despicable or illegal or disapproved by the rest of the world, because it can count on the obedient support of American politicians and administrations.

The passive American public's perception of Israel is based on lies, and so it is necessary to repeat once again that Israel in Palestine is an invader, an occupier, and a thief of other people's land and water, as documented throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON. It is also important to remember that Hamas, reviled in the US and Israel with the phony “terrorist” label, was driven into Gaza by violence after its candidates were freely elected as the legitimate government of Palestine.

The current Israeli massacres in Gaza – like the many more limited ones in the past – are obviously timed to inflict the maximum possible damage on Palestine's government and people while the docile Bush administration is still in power. If Israel does not “trust” Obama, we can only hope they are right, and that Obama's pre-election bows to the Zionists were no more than an essential part of getting elected. For me, the great test of Obama will be whether or not he casts off the yoke of Israel.

Here is what the United States Senate supports:

guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 January 2009 11.38 GMT
'At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated around 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their own safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house with rockets. Around half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children.'

INCREDIBLY HONEST ARTICLE

2009-01-07T19:23:00.003-05:00

Coming from the Washington Post, this is astonishing. It mentions many significant facts about Palestine, Gaza, and Israel which are studiously kept buried by our nightly television news toadies. I've noticed that some of those TV "personalities" are looking noticeably uncomfortable about the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, and the lies used to justify it, and yet restrict their personal protest to squirming and changing the subject. Their body language reveals their true feelings but isn't revealing enough to get them fired through Jewish pressure.

Israel's Gaza Gamble

By Mahmoud Sabit

This has been a particularly brutal two weeks in the tragic saga of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. It's not very clear as to what precisely all this death and destruction is supposed to accomplish from an Israeli perspective. The utter defeat of Hamas? There's no consensus that this can accomplished by military means; Hamas is an ideological organization with strong support in Gaza, and their structure is woven into the very fabric of the refugee camps. To cow the civilian population of Gaza into withdrawing their support of Hamas? This is not very likely, especially after the sheer quantity of explosives showered on Gaza like confetti, and their resultant toll on the civilian population. Civilians tend to harden their determination when subjected to a constant diet of explosives, as the Germans learned during the London Blitz in WWII. As an election 'gimmick' to show how 'tough' Israel's leaders can be? Perhaps Israel's leaders have lost all sense of moral and ethical proportion if they believe that bombing an oppressed civilian population and its choice of leadership into a state of total submission following two years of virtual siege is a measure of toughness or lack of 'squeamishness.' To present President-elect Barack Obama with a fait accompli when he is sworn in later this month? A crisis that will force the new administration's hand upon taking office? It would not be the first time an Israeli government has attempted to impose its narrow agenda on an incoming U.S. administration.

Whatever the reason, it is a serious gamble, and a gamble without any likely long-term benefits. On the contrary, the long term implications do not benefit the interests of arriving at a final and just settlement to all parties in this dispute, whether Israeli, or Palestinian or Arab. It's certainly a gamble that may change the perspective of Arab governments in their interests in a rapprochement with Israel. There has been for the past few years an offer of peace to Israel by the Arab countries formulated in the Beirut Declaration of March 2002. This offer has so far been gathering dust, unaddressed by Israel, and it could be withdrawn (though this is not really likely.) The pressure from Arab public opinion as a result of this situation may well force the hand of some Arab governments to withdraw their support of this Declaration. To so dramatically reveal the Arab governments' inability to influence anyone at all on the conduct of Israel in Gaza would strengthen the position of Iran and its allies in the region. These are potentially serious consequences. For Israel to gamble with such possibilities is to engage in a serious disservice to their Israeli constituency as well as to their Arab neighbors.

Any and all civilian deaths and casualties should be deplored, be they Palestinian or Israeli. Firing homemade rockets into Israeli territory and bombing civilians in Gaza with modern ordinance are both acts that do not advance the cause of peace. Neither will tormenting a quite helpless refugee Palestinian population in Gaza with an economic embargo, nor denying its basic right to some sort of compensation through an overall peace settlement, nor attempting to coerce them into an abject capitulation to Israel's demands.

As for Hamas, they exist solely as a result of over 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation over the Palestinians without any recourse to a just settlement that would allow these people to have some sort of choice for their own future. At first the PLO/Fatah represented their interests, but Fatah was not able to deliver, thanks to Israeli intransigence and U.S. complicity. Thanks to a compliant U.S., Israel has an effective Security Council veto on any inconvenient resolution that this international body considers that might in any way restrict actions Israel considers 'appropriate' - which may or may not be abhorrent to the international community.

So when a free and open election took place in 2005, Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian people, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Hamas was brought into power because they are an element just as intransigent, just as doctrinaire and just as hard headed as past Israeli governments have proven to be. The reaction by Israel, the U.S. and Western Europe to this election was, as expected, vociferous. Even the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, however odious they may be considered, has been denied them. In a cynical display of moral outrage, Israel and the U.S. conspired with Fatah to topple Hamas, through violent means. The end result was that Gaza remained under Hamas control, whereas the West Bank effectively came under Fatah control. In addition Gaza has been under an economic embargo for several years now, causing immeasurable hardship to the Palestinian civilian population, in effect reinforcing a brutal occupation with a state of siege, actions more reminiscent of the excesses of the Middle Ages rather than the 21st century. If Hamas is considered so unsuitable today, 60 years after these Palestinians became refugees, perhaps Israel and its allies should have entered into a sincere and just settlement with more acceptable Palestinian partners decades ago.

Possibly one of the more sinister aspects of this tragedy is the clumsy attempt through media 'spin' to portray Israeli civilians as victims in this crisis. When we see on our TV screens and computer monitors the effects of Hamas 'rockets' on Israeli communities, compared to the sheer havoc wreaked by Israeli high explosives on the Gaza urban landscape and its civilian population, the educated and informed can safely put this fiction aside. As of a couple of days ago, in an TV interview with the BBC, Dr. Mars Gilbert at Dar el Shifa hospital in Gaza informed us that the overwhelming majority of casualties he had treated were civilians and that of the 900 casualties that they had so far cared for at Dar el Shifa, 25% of the fatalities and fully 45% of the wounded were women and children.

In an article that appeared January 7, 2009 in the UK, Avi Shlaim, a respected Israeli historian and Oxford University scholar, wrote that Israel had become a 'rogue' state, by definition a state that ignores and violates international law at will, has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and practices terrorism (the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.)

In another BBC World interview with another noted Israeli historian, Tom Segev, when posed the question, "After the fighting is over, what should then happen?" answered, "We shall have to talk to Hamas - they may be a terrorist organization, but they are also a political party, a social welfare movement and the elected representatives of the Palestinian people."

These educated and informed Israelis are well aware of the fundamental truth of this situation, which is that Israel's long term security, its very survival, relies on making a just and equitable peace with the Palestinians, making peace with the rest of the Arab World, and making the Arabs their best friends as quickly as possible.

From an Egyptian perspective, the government is not thrilled that Hamas is in this leadership position with the Palestinian people. They are after all the 'little' brother of Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, opponents today of the Egyptian government. Egypt also realizes that Hamas will probably survive this onslaught; their survival will be considered a victory and may well have serious repercussions in the Arab World. In short this Israeli gamble, ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised, may well reinforce and encourage political Islamist ideologues and their extremist elements in the moderate Arab World. If Hamas does not survive, even more extremist elements may replace them in Gaza - elements that have been waiting on the sidelines for just such an opportunity, including al-Qaeda.'

THE LOST ART OF SAVING

2008-12-01T08:56:00.007-05:00

I am old enough to remember when there was not a single credit card in all of America. You don't believe me? I'm not surprised. With your government frantically doing everything possible to persuade you to go deeper in debt via credit cards and other loans, you might well ask if this country ever survived without massive debt on all levels.

The first credit cards went into general use with the American Express card and the Bankamericard (now Visa) in 1958. Credit cards freed “consumers” from having to pay for things at the time they bought them and to delay the day of reckoning indefinitely as long as they met the payment demand each month while the cost of their purchase was grossly inflated by hefty interest rates. Thus instant gratification was introduced into the American bloodstream with the approximate disastrous effect of the forcible introduction of opium into China by the British in the 19th Century.

Add to credit cards the wild promotion of borrowing money secured by a car or a house which the lender could take if you didn't pay, and the US was ripening for economic catastrophes.

BY 2007, BORROWING WAS AT NEW HIGH LEVELS

But, you ask, in the Dark Ages before 1960 did no one buy Christmas presents? Did no one own a car or go to college? Ho, ho, ho! Of course they did. There was something called “saving” in order to pay something later. There was even an atypical system, little used today, in which the bank would pay you interest to place money in a savings account – so that the bank could lend the money to others (maybe even you) at much higher interest.

Watch some old movies and you will see how your ancestors “saved up” to buy things – scrimping and putting coins in a jar until the day they could buy that fancy dress or that doll or that 40 acres. What terrible times, thankfully gone along with dentistry without anesthetics. Now you take home that dress or bicycle today and have the rest of your life to pay for it at double the cost compared to a cash purchase.

In those olden days before credit cards, when it was generally felt that borrowing money was something shameful or dangerous, there was a prominent feature of advertising during the weeks before Christmas called The Layaway Plan. The shopper gave the store a small downpayment on the merchandise, which was then held for the buyer, who made periodic payments until the great day when the bicycle or diamond ring was fully paid for and taken home. There was a small service charge, but it was nothing compared to compound interest on borrowed money. The worst that could happen if one failed to make the payments was that the money would be refunded minus the service charge and a cancellation fee.

So, why is our government not encouraging a debt-free population? Why is it not touting savings instead of the borrowing that has caused the financial collapse of the world? Who benefits from undisciplined borrowing? Who gets richer the more you go into debt?

Class, if anyone can't answer that question, please leave the room and max out all your credit cards in a Christmas shopping binge. No need to save up for that television set or Nintendo Wii that you can't afford. Just take it home today and worry about paying for it next year.

NOBODY NOTICED THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM

2008-11-30T07:19:00.004-05:00

INDIAN FORCES DESCEND ON JEWISH CENTER

When I began this blog two years ago I expressed its main purpose:

'What is missing from daily news coverage in the United States is often more important than what is in it, especially since the big news media are designed to be more opinion-forming than informative.

That is largely what this blog will be about: What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there? When you look at the jigsaw puzzle assembled for you by the TV news editors, why is there a piece conspicuously missing from the middle of the picture? What was the motive for leaving a hole in the picture? Who benefits from the omission? Who would have been displeased if the information had not been left out?'

As I've shown repeatedly since writing those words, the important subjects most often missing from American “news” are Israel, the Israel Lobby, and the influence of Jews in American society. I raise this again today because of reporting of the attack on the Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai.

Notice the puzzlement over why a Jewish establishment would have been chosen as target:

'On Wednesday, the Chabad house became an unlikely target of the terrorist gunmen who unleashed a series of bloody coordinated attacks at locations in and around Mumbai’s commercial center. It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.'

At least the Associated Press said outright, 'The attackers' main targets appeared to be Americans, Britons and Jews,' . . . of course without any explanation as to why Jews were included.

As often happens, reports specifically aimed at a Jewish audience were more open:

'Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this afternoon denounced the terrorist assaults in Mumbai, India. . . Hier called terrorism "the plague of the 21st century" and said the attackers "were not just delivering a message to the Indian government. They were sending a message to America and London and Jews and the state of Israel."'

The ludicrous implication that the occupation of the Jewish center was 'unlikely' and might have been 'accidental' is a typical evasion of mentioning Israel as the root cause of anger and hatred in the Islamic world and the Middle East. And who in all the world is Israel's only support? The United States. And who faithfully trots at the heels of America? England. When the United States invaded Iraq because Israel wanted Iraq neutered, England provided the illusion of a 'coalition' – while Israel was carefully omitted from any discussion of the attack on Iraq which it instigated through its creatures in the Pentagon.

(Throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON you will find many detailed discussions and facts relating to the preceding paragraph.)

Endnote:

'In 2003, barely out of their teens and newly married, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, moved from Brooklyn to the coastal city of Mumbai, India, to manage a mix of educational center, synagogue and social hall known as a Chabad house, one of about 3,500 outposts around the world run by the Lubavitch Hasidic movement. Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were born in Israel, though he and his siblings were brought to Crown Heights as children by their parents.

'Rabbi Holtzberg’s parents, Noah and Freida, spent most of Thursday holed up in their house in Crown Heights, but left for Israel late in the afternoon. Meanwhile, Rivka Holtzberg’s parents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who live in Israel, boarded a plane to Mumbai.'

URGENT: BORROW, BORROW, BORROW!

2008-11-26T10:28:00.002-05:00

Yesterday we were bombarded with government plans for even more huge amounts of money to be given to banks. As I forced myself to listen to the television news – BBC, MSNBC, CNN -- I heard the same message again and again:

The government must do something to get the public to start borrowing again. More billions of dollars will be given to the banks in the hope that they will begin to lend money and stimulate Americans to borrow. The people must be motivated to start using their credit cards more. America's financial future depends on more borrowing.

'Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's new $800 billion effort to combat the financial crisis is designed to make credit more accessible to shaken consumers who aren't sure they want more debt.'

Why? Why give $800 billion more to banks in order to encourage the populace to borrow more money and safari farther into Darkest Debt? What is the magic of borrowed money?

If the object is to encourage Americans to start buying more, in order to stimulate the economy with consumer purchases, why not just give the $800 billion (and all those earlier billions in handouts) directly to American citizens? There are about 306 million people in the US, and $800 billion would give every man, woman, and child about $2,600.00. This would mean about $8000 in cash for a family of three. Could you use that this Christmas?

Given the choice, would you prefer to have $8000 free and clear, or to borrow $8000 on which you'll be charged interest that will require you to repay not just $8000 but more like $12,000 and up?

We're told that it wouldn't be safe to give the $800 billion directly to the people, because they might not spend it. Horrors! Save money. Only direct donations to Al Qaeda could be more unpatriotic.

The system is insane. The thinking that supports the debt system might seem insane, but I'm sure it makes sense to the banks who not only get money directly from the U.S. government but also huge profits in interest payments from the people who will rent that money from them.

'OUTCRY IN NETHERLANDS OVER NAZI LINK TO SHIP'S NAME'

2008-11-08T11:25:00.006-05:00

'Dutch Outcry Over Naming Ship After Nazi' and 'Outcry in Netherlands over Nazi Link to Ship's Name' are headlines of the past 24 hours which imply that all Holland is in an uproar because of something equivalent to the discovery that a major dike was defectively engineered and is about to drown everybody in Amsterdam.

The published story begins, 'It ought to be a proud milestone in Netherlands seafaring heritage – the construction of a ship its owner claims will be the largest in the world. There's just one problem: the name.'

'Edwin Heerema, founder of the company that commissioned the vessel, wants to name it the “Pieter Schelte” after his late father, Pieter Schelte Heerema, who was renowned as a maritime engineer.'

Why is Holland in a state of collective outcry because a man wants to name a ship with his illustrious father's first two names? Note the picture which appears in the story.

PIETER SCHELTE HEEREMA

Next note the solitary source of the 'outcry': Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, who cried, 'For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever.'

'Pitch black?' A spokesman for the son explained that Pieter Schelte Heerema was widely appreciated during his life, that he joined the Nazis out of opposition to Stalin's soviet communism (as did a multitude of other non-German Europeans) rather than enthusiasm for national socialism, and by 1943 had changed his mind and worked against the Nazis. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says that he provided "very important" services to the resistance. There is no assertion that he ever did anything illegal or immoral in his life.

But his virtues or lack of them aren't the point here. The point is that the head of a small pro-Israel organization in the Netherlands has managed to have a minor event reported and exaggerated by news organizations all around the world.

I had never heard of the “CIDI” until this morning, but it took me about two seconds to realize its similarity to the major Jewish/Zionist pressure organizations in the U.S. which are plentifully discussed in this blog – the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith (ADL) and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

By its own account, the Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel distributes propaganda about Israel and the Jewish people. 'Our publications on the relationship between the Netherlands and Israel, anti-Semitism . . . play a large role in defining public opinion in the Netherlands.'

Ronny Naftaniel, director and outcrier of the CIDI, son of a German Jew, expanded the CIDI to 'monitoring anti-Semitism in addition to challenging criticism on Israel.' The American ADL also describes itself as 'monitoring' 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it is a bruising and unscrupulous aggressor in trying to silence all criticism of Israel or Jews.

The fictitious 'outcry' over the name of a ship which will lay pipes in offshore oil fields is typical of the ludicrous extremes to which such groups as the CIDI, the ADL, AIPAC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center will go – not least in order to stir up unease among Jews who may donate and pay their leaders' salaries.

CONFIDENCE BRINGS FOLLOWERS

2008-11-06T12:26:00.005-05:00

The election just ended reinforced my belief that the most important characteristic of a leader is confidence. Even a would-be leader who is equipped with the intellect and experience to lead people through a challenge will not attract as many followers as a would-be leader who exudes a superior imperturbable confidence.

Most people, whether soldiers or voters, are unsure of themselves. In a difficult or dangerous situation they hope that somebody is better able than they are to guide them to a successful outcome. When pressure is on, emotions make the uneasy herd more likely to flock after a supremely confident leader than after a person who makes good arguments but doesn't appear as sure of himself.

Ironically, it doesn't matter whether the confidence of the strongest leader is based on superior ability or not, as long as the crowd believes that it is. 'He wouldn't be so confident if he didn't know what he's doing.' On the other hand, the confidence that brings power to a leader must be completely convincing in every way.

Words alone won't do the trick. In the recent election one candidate constantly repeated, “I can do this! I'm prepared! I know how to do this!”, but beyond the words a large number of voters intuitively felt that the man lacked complete, unshakable confidence. Tone of voice, tempo, body language, along with a kind of instability when making decisions under pressure were at least as important as words in communicating true confidence or lack thereof. From that candidate, the herd sniffed uncertainty and nervousness.

The other candidate conveyed confidence with an impressively steady demeanor under pressure, with certainty, and with a sense that his daily decision-making was thoughtful and firmly controlled. He didn't boast as much about his leadership ability as the other candidate did, but his carriage, his voice, the calm and measured movement of his body, aroused in those looking for a leader to trust a sense of steadiness, sureness, and unshakable confidence that they concluded must rest on a solid foundation.

ELECTION LINGUISTICS

2008-11-03T10:38:00.004-05:00

You are “friends” of presidential candidates even if they've never met you.

Your dollars are always “hard earned”.

“I'm a maverick” means, “I've worked in the Republican Party for years, but now that they're in deep trouble I'm disowning them.” [“Maverick”: An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, considered the property of the first person who brands it. From Samuel Maverick, 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves.]

“Elitist”: One who speaks good English and is therefore ill-suited to be president.

“Just like us”: A candidate who speaks poor English and therefore qualifies for the presidency.

“Our heroes”: Everybody who has enlisted in the army.

“Support our troops” : Support continuing whatever wars the politicians have involved our troops in.

Regardless of what much of the world has thought for a century, in American politics “socialism” is the equivalent of “hell”, and “socialist” is the equivalent of “devil”.
(Exception: Socialist economic policies are not “socialism” if promulgated by Republicans.)

There are “real Americans”, and therefore “unreal Americans”. The difference can't be defined, but one clue is that the more an American favors wars and rude behavior toward foreign leaders, the more “real” he is.

Any criticism of American society is “un-American” and automatically makes the critic unfit for public office.

“Threats to our allies” means “Threats to Israel”.

“Our good, stalwart friend, Israel” means, “I want the Jewish vote”.

“It's time we get this country moving again” means, “I'm running for President.”

A METEORITE THROUGH THIN ICE?

2008-10-24T07:46:00.003-05:00

As I write this early in the morning in Florida, world stock markets have plummeted overnight, and it looks as if it will be the same in the U.S. -- at least at the opening.

I am not an investment advisor, and anything I write about stock markets is strictly for my own amusement and the entertainment of my readers. I do not suggest that you act on what I say.

I rely on a “technical” approach involving charts based on price and volume, and on various technical indicators, especially the MACD and the William%R.

It looks as if the U.S. market will plunge in panic selling this morning, which could be so extreme that it will lead soon to a “reversal” day, followed by a strong bounce up in prices.

The most likely level for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to find temporary support is around its low point of 2001-2002 -- about 7100. It closed yesterday (October 23) at 8691.

For the S&P 500 the support level is around 770. It closed yesterday at 908.

The rebound will not necessarily mean that we've seen the bottom of this bear market, but it could mean a vigorous rise in prices for awhile – probably setting an even bigger bear trap than the one I pointed out a few days ago.

Of course stock prices could go straight on down through those support levels like a hot meteorite through thin ice, but if so, don't despair. No matter what happens to stocks and banks, we'll always have plenty of politicians!

"YOU COULD BUY A CAR FOR $10, BUT NOBODY HAD $10"

2008-10-19T09:22:00.008-05:00

Will prices go up or down as we head into a recession or depression?

Should we prepare for inflation or for deflation?

In deflationary times, cash is king. In inflationary times, we want to own things like gold whose price will rise. My mother told me that in the Great Depression of the 1930's, “You could buy a car for ten dollars, but nobody had ten dollars.” On the other hand, in hyperinflationary times, a gold coin may be worth a fortune.

German Children Play with Money During the Great Inflation of the 1920's. Employees were paid daily or several times daily so they and their families could rush out and buy things before the money lost most of its buying power as prices skyrocketed.

Having cursorily researched expert opinion on the relationship between recessions and inflation and deflation, I can summarize the results as follows:

A recession may see either inflation (rising prices), or deflation (decreasing prices). Brilliant! Wikipedia: 'Recessions are the result of falling demand and may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or sharply rising prices (inflation) or a combination of rising prices and stagnant economic growth (stagflation).'

Armed with this lack of knowledge, I predict that despite the example of deflation during the Great Depression, we are entering a period of increasing inflation.

Logically, the economic collapse the United States is experiencing will result in loss of jobs, loss of spending power, and a surplus of goods over demand, which will lead sellers to slash the prices of refrigerators and television sets and automobiles in order to find buyers. So, prices will go down, right?

Yes, right in the near term for some items, but wrong in the longer term. The increase in the supply of money (combined with eventual decrease in production of cars, refrigerators, etc.) is the giant fly in the ointment. During the Great Depression the government let the money supply go down, but at present the government is creating money by the ocean-full and pumping it into banks virtually without limit. To my amateur eyes, this certainly looks like an unprecedented increase in the money supply which will drown any deflationary tendencies of the recession/depression.

The government's panicky efforts to make us borrow our way out of a crisis caused by borrowing will most likely result in a long-term tsunami of inflation. If production is decreasing, as we hear every day, then how can the supply of goods keep up with the supply of money? And when money supply grows in proportion to things for sale, the prices of things for sale go up. Even with the current financial malaise, most grocery items are “on sale” for far more than they were a year ago.

I would really appreciate some comments on the issues raised here. I want to know whether to buy a new refrigerator or a new car now, while desperate sellers are offering price-cutting sales, especially leading into Christmas, or whether I can get even better deals next year. I want to know whether to prepare for inflation by buying gold or gold mining stocks, or whether to prepare for a deflation in which “cash is king” by putting cash under the mattress.

I am betting on inflation and will be closely watching those sale prices to see if they go down or up.

HORROR MOVIE 2008

2008-10-16T10:23:00.008-05:00

Come, Igor. We must stop this financial Frankenstein monster before it destroys the world.

Photo: Reuters (Candidates leaving debate, Oct 15.)
Caption: Fleming Lee

BEAR TRAP

2008-10-14T11:15:00.002-05:00

I'm betting that the tremendous stock market gains of the past couple of days do not mark the bottom of this bear market, and that the current rally will turn into a “bear trap” for those who buy stocks and don't get out quickly.

I was shocked to read in interviews with several investment "experts" that they are as heavily into the market as ever (which means they must have lost 40% of their stake already), and are buying more now -- because stocks are "cheap." Well, $20 a share compared to $60 is cheap, but so will $8 a share be in comparison with $20.

As the market cliché goes, you can't turn an ocean liner around on a dime. Bear market rallies have a tendency to be swift and strong, but not to have staying power. I'm betting that the current hoorah of relief doesn't carry the Dow Jones Industrials up much past 11,000, if that. Then we shall see.

MUST BORROWING MAKE THE WORLD GO ROUND?

2008-10-14T09:53:00.009-05:00

'Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.'*

Revolutions bring revelations, and the first revelation which the current financial revolution brought to me was that the United States economic system is based on borrowing money.

As we've watched the economic system collapse, and heard of failing banks and panic selling of company shares, we've repeatedly been told that without a healthy banking system we, the people, could essentially do nothing: We could not go to college because we couldn't borrow the money to go. We couldn't buy a house because we couldn't borrow the money for a mortgage. We couldn't buy a car because we couldn't “finance” it. We might not even be able to buy clothes if things got so bad that banks wouldn't lend us money via our credit cards. And if business owners couldn't borrow payroll money, their employees would go unpaid.

I got the impression that few Americans have actual money and pay for things. All most people have are debts -- and their right to borrow money from “lending institutions” was equal to their right to life and liberty. The most drastic emergency actions were needed to preserve the right not to live within one's means!

I oversimplify, but simplicity is needed here. A secret of control of societies by huge financial institutions interwoven internationally is a camouflage of complexity which gives most people the helpless feeling that there is no possible way they can understand the system. For many intelligent people I've talked to, the mysteries of quantum physics are at least as fathomable as the workings of monetary and financial machinery.

Banks Hide Reality Not Only Behind Impressive Facades, but Also Behind a Smokescreen of Complexity

Here's one simple question: Is it really to the advantage of society to encourage everybody to live on borrowed money? Can the answer be anything but “no” in light of the crash brought on by U.S. banks lending mortgage money to “subprime” borrowers (people with such bad “credit histories” that the odds were against their paying the money back)?

Why did banks loan massive amounts of money to “subprime” people who predictably might not repay it? A major reason is that America was excitedly inflating a housing bubble in which real estate rose in price weekly, and a house bought for $120,000 in March would sell for $200,000 a year later. Thus the banks enabled a subprime person to “buy” a house which the bank could take and sell at a profit if the mortgage payments weren't made. Meanwhile the bank could collect fancy fees as well as interest payments.

If a society based on borrowing is bad for society, then who benefits from it? The banks, of course. Never forget that your local banks make their living from renting out money at “interest”, plus various “costs”. The picture of a lady saying gleefully, “I'm so lucky! I got the loan! The bank gave me a loan!” should instead be the banker saying gleefully, “I sold a loan! I sold a loan!”

-----

*Shakespeare, Hamlet. “Husbandry” in Shakespeare's time meant domestic management, thrift, or frugality.

PAINFUL PALIN

2008-09-27T08:31:00.004-05:00

TODAY'S PHOTO QUIZ: Can you find the brain in this picture?

The selection of Sarah Palin as candidate for what could well be the presidency of the United States was akin to entering a poodle in the Kentucky Derby, but her goofy ramblings when interviewed by Katie Couric leave me scrambling for more extravagant similes.

That interview is available in a million places, but I can't resist a choice quote which convinces me that no sane person would trust this bubblehead to be assistant manager of a backwater Burger King, much less President of the United States. In comparison with Palin's incoherent interview as a whole, the typical “I'm for world peace” mewings of a beauty pageant contestant sound like an address by Henry Kissinger.

"COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters-- [Finally breaks down and gives up groping for words.]
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."

After posting this I received such a witty comment that I decided to rescue it from Comment obscurity and post it here:

From Adriana in Romania

'I was as astonished after I read what "brilliant" Sarah said in the interview as I was when she said that the war in Iraq is a task of God. I had the feeling I was reading the geography homework written by a kid who lives on the border with Russia. And I'm asking myself the same question: Should I laugh or should I cry?

Poodle at Kentucky Derby?! Ohhh, no, you're too nice! I'm wondering who put these "single-neuron" heads to be candidates for leading a nation? Poor Sarah! Soon her single neuron will die because of too much loneliness.

I tried to make the picture bigger using Photoshop and I found a weird pixel there. I think it was Sarah's neuron!'

OF BUBBLES AND BAILOUTS

2008-09-20T16:45:00.013-05:00

In the cacophony of a collapsing economy we're hearing from Republicans the perennial cry of the guilty: “This is not a time for finger pointing!”

Well, it is a time for finger pointing. The loud crash of the economy was preceded by another sound -- the “POW” of a bursting bubble which took years to form. The people who were entrusted with the care of the country during that time can't claim that they were suddenly overtaken by catastrophe in the manner of a meteor flashing into the atmosphere without warning and smashing to Earth six seconds later.

The bubble which portends a financial crisis like this one is very visibly blown bigger and bigger over months of wild speculation in something – Dutch tulip bulbs in the 1630s (the price of a single bulb reaching many times the annual income of a skilled artisan), the South Sea Bubble (worthless stock rocketing from 100 to 1000 pounds a share in a few months), the Florida land boom (and bust) of the 1920's, the U.S. stock market bubble leading to the crash of 1929, and the Internet “dot-com” stock market bubble of 1995-2000.

The pattern repeats now as then: Enthusiasm for a “get rich quick” investment spreads to people all walks of life. Stories of quick profits lure more and more people into the frenzy until even the most unlikely speculators, from shoe shine boys to drugstore clerks, are telling tales of incredible gains.

The media are only too happy to trumpet the sensational growth of wealth. The certainty that one can put a little money in and take a lot out encourages people to “invest” money they can't afford to lose – and to borrow gambling money from banks. Buy a house or tulip bulb today on borrowed money and sell it soon at a 50% profit from which you can pay back your bank loan. Guaranteed!

The South Sea Bubble

The banks love it. Banks make their living renting out money for a fee called “interest”. By the time a speculative bubble approaches the bursting point the banks are practically begging people to rent money – including people who ordinarily would be turned down as bad credit risks, as demonstrated in the most recent housing bubble.

What happens, of course, is that the inevitable limit is reached and for the first time sellers outnumber buyers. Prices falter, borrowers can't make their mortgage payments, and a chilly breeze of fear sweeps through the land as stories of foreclosures and losses replace the “New Golden Era” headlines. When it is recognized that the rainbow glistening bubble has disintegrated into insubstantial mist, there is widespread panic as borrowers default in hordes and the banking system is stuck with “toxic” loans which will never be repaid.

The Dot Com Bubble -- From 5000 to 1000 in a Gasp, But Plenty of Warning Before the Top

Meanwhile, for months before the “bust” there have been plenty of wise heads warning publicly that frenzy is leading to a predictable crash. Those warnings, citing the lessons of history, mean that even as low a form of intelligence as an American politician – not to mention political appointees like the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the heads of regulatory agencies -- had to know that the recent housing bubble was expanding to an unsustainable point long before it blew up in their faces. No wonder they are crying, “Now is not a time for finger pointing!”

Ah, but there is one happy bit to all this for one class of participants: The bankers have learned in modern times, and are being taught once more by the government's actions during the present week, that they are “too important” to be allowed to fail and go bankrupt. No matter how irresponsibly they behave in blowing up a bubble, they will be bailed out by the government taking what you and I have paid in income taxes to “buy” the worthless mortgages and IOU's from the bankers – readying them for another round of Blow up the Bubble after everybody catches his breath.

For the financial institutions, it's like going to Las Vegas with a guarantee that Uncle Sam will pay them back all the money they lose at the roulette table.

For the taxpayers it's like Robin Hood in reverse – the government robbing the poor to bail out the rich.

It's definitely time for finger pointing.

----
NEWS BULLETIN: As I wrote the last sentence this morning, Saturday, September 20, 2008, a USAToday story arrived in my email:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is asking Congress to let the government buy $700 billion in bad mortgages as part of the largest financial bailout since the Great Depression.

Important Freedom of Speech Issue

2008-02-27T11:19:00.004-05:00

Please click on my title (above) to link to http://palestineiraqresistance.blogspot.com/

There is story there about a student anti-war protest which is under dishonest attack. Your support is needed.

View from the End of the Year

2007-12-29T13:12:00.000-05:00

I have taken an unplanned sabbatical from posting on VIEW FROM THE MOON as a few days of procrastination grew into weeks. The longer I was away the less I felt like focusing my mind on the horrific results of U.S. policies. I had already begun to feel that if readers of this blog had not been persuaded to see the influence of the Israel Lobby on U.S. foreign policy, then more months of the same message would not open their eyes. If they could not see by now that American “news” omitted information essential to understanding the truth of what was going on, they would never see it. All it takes to penetrate the propaganda smokescreen are a few basic truths – which have been repeated again and again in VIEW FROM THE MOON – and some easy observation and analysis.

I was further discouraged because I realized I was generally preaching to the choir rather than the unenlightened. How many people began reading my blog as hypnotized parroters of propaganda and became independent thinkers willing to search for truth in the world of forbidden ideas? How many people are actually capable and willing to think outside the walls of their societal training? I suspected that the people who feared the truth to begin with were continuing to fear it, while those who accepted it were not learning anything from me which they did not already know.

If a writer like me feels that his words are not bringing about changes in the world, not altering people’s thinking, a sense of futility sets in, followed by, “Well, let them stew in the pot they’ve chosen.”

As I return to this blog I look over the period since I left and see that things are about the same as they were when I found more fulfilling creative activities in “Second Life”. I don’t think the situation would be any different had I continued posting. Cosmetic reshuffling in the Bush administration has had no significant effect. The Democrats have become even more spineless and ineffectual than I would have believed possible. I thought that because the Zionists had accomplished their war purpose of turning Iraq into a chaotic wasteland they would permit the newly empowered Democrats to wind down the U.S. presence there to some extent – instead of giving Bush everything he wanted without so much as a convincing growl. The timorous toadies of Congress remain interested in nothing except retaining their jobs in future elections.

In Palestine the legally elected Hamas government remains sealed into a small area and left to starve except when Israel tanks and troops invade to hasten their demise – while the U.S. applauds and pretends that the Palestinian usurpers who overthrew the Hamas legitimate government are able to “negotiate” for the Palestinians in the never-ending “peace process.”

The only area where there is even an appearance of improvement is Iran – because Iran is still at peace and not blown to pieces by U.S./Zionist bombs and missiles. I’m sure that the Israeli designs on Iran have not changed, but even a lessening of the bombastic threats is welcome.

If there should be any doubt about the ultimate Israeli aim to neuter and dominate Iran, it is shown in what must be the most ludicrous American performance of 2007, after the highest U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously declared that Iran had ceased any effort to develop nuclear weapons several years ago – contrary to the steady stream of lies emanating from the U.S. during those years. Instead of praising Iran, the American government (with the meek collaboration of Democrats, after Bush had personally consulted with the leader of Israel) declared that the cessation of a weapons development program was cause for renewed alarm!

I may continue to post here when something inspires me, but with the conviction that I’m merely amusing myself rather than helping improve the world.

Bush Library Catastrophe

2007-09-14T06:54:00.000-05:00

This is so funny I had to post it. The person who sent it didn't tell me where it came from:

TEXAS FLOOD DESTROYS PRESIDENT BUSH'S LIBRARY

Crawford, Texas - A tragic flood this morning destroyed the
personal library of President Bush. The flood began in the
presidential bathroom where both of the books were kept.

Both books have been lost. A presidential spokesman said the
president was devastated, since he had almost finished coloring the second one.

The White House tried to call FEMA for aid, but there was no answer.

Jewish Reaction to "God's Warriors" Documentaries.

2007-09-12T06:52:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Jason and Furgaia for telling me about the following article, ‘CNN Comes Under Unprecedented Attack’, by Nathan Guttman, published on September 05 in the ‘Jewish Daily Forward’, which relates to my previous post. In reading this, anyone who has not seen ‘God’s Warriors’ should be aware that almost all statements in the documentaries are directly from interviews with Israelis and other individuals who are the subject of the documentaries. The awful things revealed about Jewish “settlers” and other Israelis comes from their own mouths.

‘Washington - A CNN documentary about religious extremists has prompted an unprecedented outcry from the organized Jewish community, including a call to advertisers to pressure the network.

The three-episode special, “God’s Warriors,” by CNN’s chief international correspondent, Christiana Amanpour, is being characterized by Jewish groups as equating Jewish extremists in West Bank settlements with Muslim jihadists. The program is also accused of containing numerous factual errors.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents more than 50 national Jewish organizations, convened a special discussion with its members following the airing of the program last month, and has urged them to take up the issue with companies that have bought advertising slots during the show.
In the past, there have been widespread complaints about the media’s treatment of Israel, but this appears to be the first time that so many organizations have come together in opposition to a single media outlet.

“This was not an average show,” said Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi, founder of The Israel Project. “CNN bought full-page ads promoting the show and ran it on prime time. The perspective the show left the viewers with is that Israel doesn’t want peace and that Israel’s friends in the United States don’t want peace.” The Israel Project, a group focused on providing information to the press and the public about Israel, broke a five-year tradition of not reacting to media reports on Israel and put out a press release about the Amanpour show, detailing Israel’s efforts to promote peace in the region.
“The program definitely has a great damage potential because of the people who watch CNN,” Laszlo-Mizrahi added, pointing to the fact that foreign officials and decision makers tend to view CNN as an important news source.

Relations between Jewish organizations and American media outlets were rocky during the first years of the intifada when Jewish activists protested outside almost every major media outlet and threatened to embark on reader boycotts. As violence on the ground died down, though, so did the tensions over media coverage. Now, “God’s Warriors” has the potential of drawing the Jewish community into the media debate once again.

The vigorous response appears to be due, at least in part, to the coincidence of the program’s screening just before the release of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a book by scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The book levies serious charges against the power of the Jewish lobby which, it states, influences the United States to choose a foreign policy in favor of Israel against its own interest.

In the CNN program, among those interviewed are Mearsheimer and former president Jimmy Carter, who has been controversial in the Jewish community since the publication of his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

In a letter to CNN’s vice president, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director, Abraham Foxman, wrote: “The program made a huge and unfounded leap from legitimate pro-Israel advocacy in the U.S. to nefarious support for Jewish extremists.”

The first episode of Amanpour’s trilogy, titled “God’s Jewish Warriors,” dealt mainly with extreme Jewish settlers in the West Bank who vow never to leave the land because of biblical traditions and religious beliefs.

Amanpour interviews a member of the former Jewish underground who not only planted bombs in cars of Palestinian mayors [and in Palestinian schools] but also plotted to blow up the mosques on the Temple Mount. In addition, the show deals extensively with the relations between Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the territories, and with the support for settler groups from Jewish and Christian groups in America.

Critics of the show point to a series of inaccuracies and claim that little was done to maintain a balance in choosing interviewees. But the main issue for media watchers is the equation that the series appears to make among extremists in all three major monotheistic religions. [Fleming's comment: Despite allegations of "factual inaccuracies", not one objector has identified one erroneous factual statement.]

“The whole setup from the start is false,” said Andrea Levin, executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America — a media watchdog group that follows coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict in American media outlets.

A CNN representative would not remark on the complaints of Jewish groups. The representative said that the network will respond directly to media-monitoring organization Camera and other groups that voiced concerns about the program.

The strongest reaction so far came from the Presidents Conference. An e-mail sent by its chair, June Walker, and Malcolm Hoenlein, its executive vice president, details steps taken by the Jewish community since the program aired. Conference members have asked CNN to avoid rerunning the show before concerns about factual errors and bias are addressed and corrected. It is also requesting that the network invest similar resources to produce a new program that would “rectify the bias and inappropriate context.”
“We are aware of some advertisers that have already distanced themselves from ‘God’s Jewish Warriors,’” the e-mail reads. “It was recommended that all advertisers be contacted to express concern at their association with this offensive program.”’

Footnote:

CNN arranged for people to question Christiana Amanpour online , and most of the queries were quite sympathetic to her documentary, but the first question in the list shows a mentality so thoroughly conditioned by the Israel Lobby and the American media generally that it can be called only ignorant, stupid, or both:

'Jack Wilson of Cannes, France: How can you even begin to compare Islamic extremists with Christians or Jews? How can you even put them in the same sentence?'

'Amanpour: We're not comparing. We're showing that each faith has their committed and fervent believers, and we're showing how each of those are active in the political sphere in today's world.'

More Truth from the Glowing Screen -- and a Violent Reaction

2007-08-30T10:10:00.001-05:00

Recently CNN showed reporter Christiana Amanpour’s three part documentary, “God’s Warrior’s,” whose general theme is that: ‘during the last 30 years, each faith [Jewish, Muslim, and Christian] has exploded into a powerful political force, comprised of followers – “God’s warriors” – who share a deep dissatisfaction with modern society, and a fierce determination to place God and religion back into daily life and to the seats of power. Their political and cultural struggles to save the world from what they view as secular materialism, greed and sexual corruption have caused anger, division and fear.’

The first hour was about Jews – in particular Zionists and the “settlers” on Palestinian land, the second about Muslims, and the third (which I haven’t watched yet) about Christians. I was amazed at the facts which Ms. Amanpour and CNN managed to get away with presenting on American television, particularly where the lies and subterfuge and usually unreported terrorism of the militant settlers are concerned, although I felt she was too easy on the Zionists and too hard on the Muslims out of deference for America’s silent censorship.

It’s obvious that influential Jews did not feel as I did, because lo and behold, the prime time MSNBC program, “MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams” has just devoted an entire hour – or what seemed like the entire hour – to Abrams’ harsh attack on Ms. Amanpour. Are you surprised to learn that his objection wasn’t that she had been too hard on the Muslims or too easy on the Jews, or that she had insulted Christians, but that she had outrageously favored the Muslims and smeared the Zionists?

Dan Abrams -- who last summer became General Manager of MSNBC, replacing former MSNBC president Rick Kaplan -- literally spewed spittle in his indignant enthusiasm as he denounced Ms. Amanpour because she had presented Israelis as less than perfect and Muslims (particularly the Palestnians) as less than embodiments of evil. How could anyone dare to besmirch the reputation of the virtuous and victimized Israelis by comparing them in any way with the Arab terrorists?

The pro-Zionist machinery does not take much time or provocation to get the buzzsaws spinning, and outside of some Fox News propaganda, I have never seen a television program so overtly dedicated to downplaying truths which had been told on another program.

I should add for those who haven’t seen “God’s Warriors” that its message is conveyed almost primarily by interviews with Jews, Arabs, and Christians, along with some video footage of events, and not by commentary by Christiana Amanpour.

A Line to Remember

2007-08-30T09:26:00.000-05:00

Last night I heard a remarkable line in the movie, “The Million Dollar Hotel”.

A detective says to the rich Jewish character, Stanley Goldkiss, “You wanna stick with me, you’re gonna get the truth.”

Goldkiss responds:

“My people decide the truth in sixty countries every morning. And in every one it's different.”

2007-08-24T12:53:00.000-05:00

I offer this as evidence supporting my last post.

The New York Times:

"A stark assessment released Thursday by the nation’s intelligence agencies depicts a paralyzed Iraqi government unable to take advantage of the security gains achieved by the thousands of extra American troops dispatched to the country this year."

I Didn't Do It! I Didn't Do It!

2007-08-24T09:54:00.000-05:00

Just after considering a break from MOON, I can’t resist remarking about the latest Washington perfidy.

It is becoming clear from the statements of President Bush and Republican as well as Democrat politicians that a clear strategy for getting out of Iraq is being evolved: Blame the mess on Iraqis.

If you’ve created a disaster (and all the Americans mentioned in the first paragraph are guilty), just pretend that somebody else is responsible.

In this case you keep saying that the Iraqi puppet government you’ve created and sheltered in your U.S. Green Zone is to blame for all of Bush’s failures. We’re beginning to hear an astonishingly unified chorus in Washington that even if the Bush military efforts (The Surge in particular) give the impression of some success, it will do no good because of those useless Iraqis, who have only themselves to blame for the hell they’re in.

Think of it: Suddenly, in light of this new lie, Bush has waged a successful war and must withdraw his troops from Iraq only because he cannot (and of course should not) control Iraqi politics. The generals look good for "winning" militarily, even Bush looks a bit better than a two day old piece of road kill, and the Democrats have an excuse for shucking Iraq after one of them becomes president – which must be why Hillary is suddenly heard singing in Bush’s choir.

Beneficial as this new lie is to the American warmongers and those who live with their snouts in the tax-fed trough, it heaps additional disgrace on the infamy of the invasion of Iraq and the complete failure of the U.S. to create any positive results from that carnage.

After all, look at all we’ve done for the Iraqis: Destroyed their country, their infrastructure, their army, and their police force, not to mention their irreplaceable ancient treasures. Murdered most of their leaders who had succeeded in creating a stable and prosperous Iraq, an almost miraculously unified Iraq considering the obvious difficulties now in plain view. Killed tremendous numbers of citizens. Reduced a once well-off people to poverty, hunger, and misery. Unleashed a civil war which would not have occurred except for the American occupation.

In spite of all those good things, the Iraqis ignominously persist in killing Americans and one another, while their U.S.-pampered politicians fail again and again to bring back the pre-war peace and stability. How can they be so incompetent? How can they be so ungrateful? They even have the effrontery to take vacations, something unheard-of in Washington, D.C.

To me this latest propaganda campaign is the most inexcusable since the “weapons of mass destruction” lies. The burglar breaks into your home, ransacks and vandalizes it, and then lectures you on your failure to repair the damage and clean up the mess.

The future Big Lie we can expect, around the next big turn in the road, is that the Americans have left Iraq when they actually have not left.

Thoughts About This Blog

2007-08-22T07:49:00.000-05:00

In case anyone is interested, I just haven't felt inspired about writing for VIEW FROM THE MOON lately. Maybe it's the way the world news has gone, maybe it's the fact that my topics have become repetitious -- or maybe it's that I've said everything I have to say on the subjects covered here.

I do feel that I have created a valuble resource for anyone who is interested in the subject matter, but I'm not sure that additional regular posting is going to enhance what is already here.

I do not want to join those who simply add to the thousands of comments on daily mainstream news developments. (In particular I want nothing to do with stories about candidates for an election to be held a year and a half in the future!)

I want to contribute something original, to uncover what is not generally perceived. And I'll continue to try to do those things, but I have a feeling that my posts here are going to become less frequent.

WHAT THIS FLOWER TELLS IS GREATER THAN ALL THE "NEWS" THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE WORLD TODAY

I thank all those who have read this blog, and especially those who have encouraged me with comments.

Stock Market Update

2007-08-16T09:51:00.000-05:00

On August 10 I wrote:

‘Based on the chart of the S&P 500 index, which ended yesterday at 1453.09, it looks as if a drop below about 1430 would mean a more prolonged decline for the U.S. stock market unless there’s an immediate bounce-back. A drop to the 1430 area on high volume with a strong rebound on the same day could, in fact, be a good sign for those who want the market to go up. But a real break below about 1430 would likely precede a significant further drop.’

The S&P 500 is at 1389 as I write this. It paused for about a day at the 1430 level without enthusiasm, then broke sharply down. I would say that 1453 to 1385 (earlier this morning) constitutes a significant decline.

Any technical analyst can see that there are several indications of technical support around 1380, which means that the decline will probably slow or stop in that area at least temporarily. The next likely place for a pause or a rebound is close to 1300.

AGGRESSION ENGENDERS DANGEROUS ALLIANCES

2007-08-14T11:03:00.000-05:00

I feel as if I’m cheating by being lazy when I publish other people’s articles in my blog, but on the other hand I love being agreed with. A recurring theme in VIEW FROM THE MOON has been my warning that the aggressive international behavior of the United States, particularly since the latest Bush put on the costume of president, would drive other nations and regions into defensive alliances. DEFENDING AGAINST A SUPERTYRANT (February 11, 2007); THE U.S. IS PROVOKING OTHER COUNTRIES AND REGIONS TO FORM ALLIANCES AGAINST IT (May 17, 2007). The US will then face potentially hostile bodies of military and economic strength far greater than what would have existed had the US stayed home and minded its own business.

Image by Julia

‘US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance

By Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

08/09/07 This week the Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles. The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance.

This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China.
Russia and China have now witnessed enough of the Bush administration’s unprovoked aggression in the world to take neocon intentions seriously. As the US has proven that it cannot occupy the Iraqi city of Baghdad despite 5 years of efforts, it most certainly cannot occupy Russia or China. That means the conflict toward which the neocons are driving will be a nuclear conflict.

Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war. However, US administrations after Reagan’s have broken the agreements and understandings. The US gratuitously brought NATO and anti-ballistic missiles to Russia’s borders. The Bush regime has initiated a propaganda war against the Russian government of V. Putin.

These are gratuitous acts of aggression. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are trying to devote resources to their economic development, not to their militaries. Yet, both are being forced by America’s aggressive posture to revamp their militaries.

Americans need to understand what the neocon Bush regime cannot: a nuclear exchange between the US, Russia, and China would establish the hegemony of the cockroach.’

Stock Markets and Gold Stocks

2007-08-10T07:39:00.000-05:00

S&P 500

For what it’s worth, I’m posting my opinion on the US stock market and the gold market. I am definitely not an investment advisor. I’ve studied the stock market for years and abandoned most methods of prediction because they didn’t work.

I soon adopted a “technical” approach rather than a “fundamental” approach, which means that I go by charts based on price and volume rather than by facts and figures about the economy or the companies traded on the exchanges.

First opinion: I think that gold mining stocks are, after a long, flat consolidation, getting ready for a big run upward. I’m not talking in terms of days, but of months.

Second opinion: The stock markets have jumped into the headlines because of a couple of large daily losses, and if there’s another big loss in the US today, the journalistic fervor will increase. But a few days of large losses doesn’t in itself mean anything. Based on the chart of the S&P 500 index, which ended yesterday at 1453.09, it looks as if a drop below about 1430 would mean a more prolonged decline for the U.S. stock market unless there’s an immediate bounce-back. A drop to the 1430 area on high volume with a strong rebound on the same day could, in fact, be a good sign for those who want the market to go up. But a real break below about 1430 would likely precede a significant further drop.

The public tends to think in terms of “bargains” when they read about sensational declines in stocks, but that is a shortsighted and simplistic view based only on recent prices rather than the bigger picture. If a market is in the process of peaking and experiencing sharp drops before a long decline (one can never be sure), an apparent bargain bought at that time will become a disaster.

The main result of all my research on the stock market over many years is that prediction of price movements for periods of months is very risky at best, and that the charts give valuable information about “where we are” rather than “where we are going.” But it’s a lot more helpful to have a map of where you are (e.g. in a deep valley or on a high mountain) than to rely on headlines about the most recent price movement. Perspective helps.

I’ll tell you the secret I learned after trying many ways of “investing” in stocks, sometimes with very little money which became even less money. It is that I made money with any consistency only when I began what is called “day trading.” In that term I now include, for myself, trading on price movements in a time frame of anything from an hour to several days. While it is impossible to know in advance where the market is going to be in a month or a year, technical analysis combined with nimble action on short price movements can produce more profits than losses if one obeys the cardinal rule of getting out quickly when things go against you. It may seem contrary to common sense to say that it’s safer to buy and sell in the extremely short term than to “buy and hold” long term, but it’s true. Caveat: You have to know what you’re doing!

I repeat. I am not an investment advisor, and I’m not suggesting that anyone act on anything I’ve written here. I must say that in order to keep from being fined by some regulatory agency!

A Truth to be Kept in Mind

2007-07-28T06:54:00.000-05:00

"Government doesn't exist to protect the people. Government exists to protect the government."

Private statement by British admiralty official regarding the British responsibility in the "Lusitania" disaster, 1915.

The truth of the statement is being demonstrated with particular vividness in Washington currently. Unfortunately it's one of those catchy aphorisms that we think "sounds good" (like "taxation is theft") but then dissolve in the long-inculcated fiction that government, more accurately government officials and legislators, serve the people and uphold their interests and protect them from harm.

We need to remind ourselves every day of those words from the Winston Churchill admiralty of the First World War: "Government doesn't exist to protect the people. Government exists to protect the government."

Ironically, the German government made a greater attempt to prevent American and British civilians from meeting death on the luxury liner "Lusitania" than did the US and British governments. At the New York dock the British passenger ship's hold was clandestinely loaded with explosive armaments being smuggled unlawfully to England from supposedly "neutral" America. The passengers were unaware they would be sailing on a floating bomb; when the liner was later hit by a single torpedo in the war zone, there was a tremendous secondary explosion of the munitions which sank the ship in less than twenty minutes, with great loss of life.

Before the Lusitania sailed from New York the German government sent fifty anonymous telegrams addressed to prominent passengers, warning them not to sail on the liner. More importantly, the German government placed the following advertisement in the leading metropolitan newspapers next to Cunard Line ads.

'NOTICE !

'Travelers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.

'Imperial German Embassy,

'Washington, D. C., April 22, 1915.'

The German government had pre-paid for its ad to be placed in fifty US newspapers a number of days ahead of the liner's departure date. Of all the papers, only the Des Moines Register published the warning on the requested date. It is reported that the U.S. State Department frightened newspaper publishers by raising the possibility of libel suites if they published without prior clearance from State Department attorneys. The result was that despite the German early request, the advertisement was not published in New York until the morning before the Lusitania sailed.

"Government doesn't exist to protect the people. Government exists to protect the government."

Wrestling Lessons

2007-07-24T09:17:00.000-05:00

I have decided to re-post my two articles on wrestling. I received a favorable comment on one recently (see Labels for originals), and they are among my favorites.

The most instructive four hours I ever spent, as far as mass psychology and mob mentality are concerned, were at an evening of professional wrestling matches in West Palm Beach.

Why was I there? I knew professional wrestling was phony and I had no interest in wrestling generally. As it happened, a young law clerk at the appellate court where I worked was a wrestling addict who illustrated that the word “fan” came from “fanatic”. He had ringside seats for the entire season, a girlfriend who apparently shared his enthusiasm, and a generosity that resulted in my being asked to come along for an evening.

If the night’s display was surreal, no less surreal was the fact that this particular young lawyer had ringside seats there. Law clerks (research and case analysis aides to judges) have an often deserved reputation for timidity. With a few exceptions they have chosen to avoid the hurly burly of practicing law competitively in favor of spending as many years of their lives as possible in a quiet courthouse cranny wrapped in Westlaw and Microsoft Word.

The wrestling fan was no exception. He embodied the cliché of the shy appellate court gnome who would not have lasted a month as what the gnomes themselves jokingly called a “real lawyer”. He was thin, awkward, meek, and hesitant. I thought it was amazing that he had even managed to get a girlfriend. I will leave the psychological analysis to you.

We arrived at the coliseum as part of a huge, noisy crowd which rose up the sides of the building in layer after layer of baseball caps, bulging jeans and T-shirts, and skirts and blouses overflowing with the results of high carbohydrate diets rich in beer.

When the announcer introduced the first wrestler, and the giant came striding toward the ring, resplendent in flowing red-white-and-blue cape and shining red boots, the audience – and in particular women – went into a frenzy of screaming and applause. Many had home made signs which they raised and waved. Some tried to throw themselves as living offerings into the path of the behemoth.

Obviously, this was a Good Guy. That was the first thing I learned: There is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy, if not at the beginning of a match, by the end.

The contrast between good and evil was evident when a murderous roar of rage assailed the second competitor, who would presumably have been killed except for the intervention of security guards and a few wild lunges of his own at threatening fans. It was clear that one of the roles in this pretend world was that of macho audience member who physically attacks wrestler in the aisle – knowing that both parties will be kept from harm by the guards. He would never try such a thing alone with the wrestler in the parking lot, even plentifully lubricated by Budweiser.

It’s easy to see wrestling on TV, and so I don’t need to describe the well-rehearsed moves and throws and leaps and fake moans of pain. It is essentially a gymnastic display by stereotyped actors who earn their money not only for their thespian ability and charismatic qualities, but also for putting up with some rough treatment.

My education came from the audience’s reaction to the set piece they knew would occur in and around the ring. Because only the most severely retarded could have believed that the wrestling and the wrestler's personalities were real, most of the audience must enjoy not only the wrestlers' role-playing but also their own. They loved being caught up in, and becoming an active part of, this makebelieve world of supercharged drama.

As I said, there is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy, just as there is in the White House propaganda of international relations. You even hear generals refer to “the bad guys”. Very profound.

In professional wrestling, what makes the Good Guy good and the Bad Guy bad?

First, appearance. The Good Guy is good looking and the Bad Guy usually looks bad, if not really ugly. A handsome or pleasant face marks a hero, while a homely, scowling face designates a villain. It helps if the villain appears foreign in some way, or of an unpopular race.

Second, reputation. The Good Guy is good primarily by designation. Also, the Good Guy often comes to the ring after fighting fairly in a previous match and being victimized by a sneaky villain. If he was victimized by the particular villain he's wrestling tonight, the element of revenge drives the crowd's expectations to tornadic proportions.

Third, demeanor. The hero will be confident and even cocky, but he is not as outrageously vain and boastful as his opposite number, who is likely to point repeatedly at himself to invite applause and then howl at the audience for not giving it. He is the embodiment of hubris. As far as the audience is concerned, the worst possible thing that can happen is that the villain is not brought down because of his pride and actually wins the match. He will be hated all the more next time.

At this point our moral training might lead us to expect that the hero abides by the rules and fights fair, while the villain breaks the rules and fights dirty. To a point that is true, but only to a point.

The most interesting thing I learned beyond the awesome effect of “good” and “bad” was that the Good Guy always starts out fighting fair but often gets hurt, and almost defeated, because the Bad Guy breaks the rules, ignores the referee, attacks unexpectedly from behind, uses illegal holds, and even resorts to furniture as a weapon. At the last moment – unless the Good Guy is scheduled for defeat that night – the hero gathers his strength and turns on the villain with even greater disrespect for the rules than the villain showed. Now it is the berserk Good Guy who cheats, ignores the referee, and dishes out unlawful punishment. The things he does would have marked the Bad Guy as the very personification of sadism, but torture is fine if the Good Guy does it.

Does this mean that the Good Guy has become the Bad Guy? No! That’s the fascinating point. The more the hero rains illegal violence on the villain, the louder the audience cheers. The Good Guy becomes a virtual whirlwind of venom, ignoring all laws and ethical standards, doing more outrageous things to the Bad Guy than were done to him, and the audience loves the Good Guy for it.

It is during this stage that a fourth characteristic shows itself:
Courage. The hero was brave even during agonizing setbacks, refusing to retreat or ask for mercy, staggering forward for more punishment even when he could hardly stand. Now that the tables have turned, we see that the boastful villain is a wretched coward. He cowers, begs, even tries to escape from the ring. Even now, though, he is treacherous: He may kneel and plead for mercy, only to put the hero off guard and attack him with an illegal blow from behind.

Good appearance, good reputation, an attractive and moderate demeanor, fair fighting until provoked, and courage. How are those reflected outside the wrestling arena, in the mob’s reaction to propaganda in international affairs?

(To be continued.)

"Wrestling" Republished

2007-07-24T09:14:00.000-05:00

Wrestling Lessons, Part II

Today I’m going to apply my wrestling perceptions to international conflicts.

There is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. With rare exceptions, people identify with the Good Guy and see his victories as theirs.

Can you remember the United States ever fighting a war in which there was no Bad Guy, or in which America was not the Good Guy?

What makes the Good Guy good and the Bad Guy bad?

First, appearance. The Good Guy is usually good looking, or at least pleasant looking, and the Bad Guy looks unpleasant, if not outright ugly. It helps if the villain appears foreign in some way, or of an unpopular race.

In international propaganda, “we” look better than “they” do. Our facial features are familiar, while theirs are depicted as alien, or distorted into unpleasant expressions in the case of people, like the Germans, who may actually look better than we do. Our soldiers are handsome and familiar-looking, while theirs are, for example, short, yellow, and buck-toothed, with slanty eyes behind thick glasses – or swarthy, big-nosed, and bearded. Our clothing is “normal” while they are “towel heads”. If “they” are from the Arab World (other than Israel), they are usually shown in U.S. photos as poorly dressed in un-American robes, squatting in the dirt next to ruins – not shown in the modern western dress in a well-furnished home one would actually see if one visited middle class and professional people in Arab countries. How many photographs have you seen of an Arab in a business suit, carrying a Gucci briefcase?

Appearance is related to the first aim of war propaganda -- to “dehumanize” the enemy so as to make the Good Guys willing to see the enemy killed, or even willing to help kill him. We must never be allowed to identify with the people our leaders want to destroy. Showing the enemy looking “different from us” is an important step toward dehumanization.

Second, reputation. The Good Guy is good primarily by designation, and not because he has done anything in particular to earn the title. In international politics, unlike wrestling, there is the additional arbitrary factor of where one is born. For most people, where they happen to be born determines where their patriotism lies. Loyalty goes with birthplace, which designates where the “Good Guys” come from . . . whether it’s California, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, Berlin, or Marseilles. Few Americans would ask, “Why should I fight for America instead of North Korea?” It’s just a given.

(Wrestlers know how to use the “patriotism” factor. Some deck themselves out like the star spangled banner for a kind of “Captain America” effect, while some deliberately appeal to the denizens of a certain region, as by wearing cowboy boots and a Western hat. Wait a minute now; I could be talking about politicians!)

Third, demeanor. The hero may be confident and even cocky, but he is not as outrageously vain and boastful as his opposite number. Boasting is less important on the international front than in wrestling, but what Americans cheer as admirable in the shouting bravado of a U.S. Marine would be seen as threatening bluster in an armed Al Qaeda trainee. Foreign leaders we are meant to dislike are almost always portrayed as bombastic boasters.

Fourth, courage. The Good Guy is always brave, even when he is in serious trouble, but the Bad Guy exhibits bravery only as long as he’s on top. When the Bad Guy gets into trouble, he cringes, cowers, kneels and begs, retreats, and even tries to jump out of the ring and run away from the fight.

Yes, “our” people are courageous by nature, by virtue of being born where we were, while the enemy appears brave (if ever) only because of insane fanaticism or outlandish religious beliefs, or drugs, or brainwashing, or some other factor which explains the apparent bravery away. When an American “celebrity” opined that the men in the planes which brought down the twin towers were brave, he was promptly ostracized. The enemy can never be brave. His attacks, no matter how courageous and self-sacrificing, are “cowardly”. Professional military men may acknowledge the bravery of enemy troops, but that remains a private matter.

Fifth, fair fighting and abiding by the rules differentiate a Good Guy from a Bad Guy . . . but only to a point. What the audience wants, and often gets, is a Good Guy who is driven over the edge by a cheating, dirty-fighting villain, so that the Good Guy gives back worse than the Bad Guy gave in the first place. Whereas rule-breaking, sneaky tactics, and torture were booed by the audience when they are used by the villain, they are cheered when used by the hero. The very things which most marked the Bad Guy as a villain are now approved for the Good Guy. Here we see also the holy power of “retaliation” as compared to villainous “aggression”. "Isn't it terrible? But we have to do it."

We Americans were always told – until the past few years when the truth became too obvious to hide – that American soldiers fought cleaner than their enemies, abided by the rules of war and the Geneva Convention, and were in particular distinguished from the enemy because the enemy used torture and Americans didn’t. Atrocity and torture tales – true and untrue – are the staple of war propaganda. Why was Saddam Hussein so bad? Mainly because he tortured people. (How many times before and during the invasion of Iraq did I see that photograph of an empty chair in the middle of an empty room with some kind of line hanging above it, supposedly going to prove Saddam Hussein’s use of torture. It could have been in Minnesota.) Why were Nazis so bad? Because they tortured people. Many a Hollywood “war movie” told us so. And what was the main Nazi evidence that the Soviet Bolsheviks were so horrible? The Bolsheviks tortured people.

What is now the main evidence before the world that Americans are bad? They torture people. While the president of the U.S. says (in ludicrous contradiction of hundreds of photographs and documented reports) that “Americans don’t torture people”, he seeks and obtains laws which make torture legal. Has torture become respectable – as torture by the Good Wrestler is okay under certain circumstances – or has America become a Bad Guy? It sometimes happens, even in wrestling, that a Good Guy turns bad.

To wrap this up, when I read the daily propaganda and the results of opinion polls and man-in-the-street interviews, I often think of that evening of wrestling in West Palm Beach. It was truly illuminating.

It's All in the Family

2007-07-21T09:58:00.000-05:00

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE, EXPOSED, DISGRACED, FIRED . . . . HIRED!

And he has been through that sequence not once but twice – first when he was kicked upstairs from his disastrous fraudulent performance as Deputy Secretary of Defense and was immediately hired as President of the World Bank, and most recently when he was kicked out as President of the World Bank and instantly hired by the American Enterprise Institute, a so-called “think tank”, as a visiting “scholar”. (A “think tank” is Washingtonese for a propaganda-generating organization in scholarly guise, and a place to go when you’ve lost your job.)

Wolfowitz is the person primarily responsible for lying the US into the catastrophic holocaust of Iraq – predicting the invasion would be a "cake walk", that the Iraqis would welcome the aggressors with singing and dancing, and that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily”. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell initially blocked Wolfowitz’ war schemes, but Wolfowitz, along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, held secret meetings about invading Iraq from which Powell was excluded.

During Wolfowitz' pre-war testimony before Congress, he ridiculed General Eric K. Shinseki's estimates of the size of the post war occupation force and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war. General Shinseki had testified that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq.

Wolfowitz testified:
‘There has been a good deal of comment—some of it quite outlandish—about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark.’
In 2006, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid testified to Congress that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct. In July 2007 the US has at least 154,000 troops in Iraq, with 30,000 sent over as the “surge”. That’s about twice what Wolfowitz said would be needed, and events show that it is still insufficient.

Eventually Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz left the Bush administration as total failures, and Wolfowitz was punished by Bush & Co. with a nomination to be president of the World Bank. Criticism was widespread in European media. The former chief economist for the World Bank said that if Wolfowitz became its president, "'The World Bank will once again become a hate figure.” But the nomination was, of course, praised by the US press.

Wolfowitz’ presidency brought not only protests, but also a gigantic salary for Wolfowitz’ girlfriend, and loudly protested appointments of two of his Bush administration buddies, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, as his close advisors with $250,000 tax-free contracts. Basically, Wolfowitz stole from the World Bank to enrich his friends and was properly fired . . . although he called it a resignation.

End of the line for Wolfowitz, right? Shouldn’t he be looking at the “Help Wanted” ads or considering a career in Burger King management? Oh, no. As soon as he walks out the door of the World Bank he walks into the American Enterprise Institute -- which just happens to be home to other leading advocates of the Iraq war, including omnipresent Richard Perle (ex chairman of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, who has at least as many reasons to be jobless as Paul Wolfowitz has), former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Cheney.

It’s like a family reunion.

Addition to Wednesday's Post

2007-07-19T13:21:00.000-05:00

'COLIN POWELL: QUARTET SHOULD FIND WAY TO TALK TO HAMAS'

If only Colin Powell had spoken up like this about Iraq before he helped invade it.

AP Washington
'Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas.

'"I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community," Powell said in a radio interview.

'He said Hamas, which controls Gaza, is not going away and enjoys considerable support among the Palestinian people.

'"They won an election that we insisted upon having," Powell said.'

AN ADMISSION FROM THE ZIONIST SIDE

From the Jewish Telegraph Agency (Baltimore Jewish Times) July 17:

‘Israel and the Quartet’s strategy has been to isolate Hamas, considered a terrorist group ["Considered" by whom?], and support Abbas. If Palestinian standards of living can be raised under Abbas’ regime while Hamas is unable to deliver in Gaza, then more Palestinians likely will support Fatah and its position of acceptance of a peaceful two-state solution to the conflict, the reasoning goes.’

Does that not sum up my accusations in my previous post? Here’s more of the JTA article:

‘A group of 10 European foreign ministers recently wrote an open letter to Blair calling the Quartet’s "road map" peace plan a failure, urging Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians and recommending the establishment of an international force to deal with the conflict.

‘Clara Marina, a research fellow at London’s Centre for European Reform, said the letter to Blair demonstrates a widely held view among European leaders that the Quartet’s policy of isolating Hamas has been responsible, at least in part, for the current suffering among the Palestinians, and even Hamas’ military takeover of the Gaza Strip. . . . By all accounts, Gaza is teetering on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Some human rights groups lay the blame on Israel, saying the Jewish state put Gaza in an economic stranglehold by closing its border crossings. [”Some” lay the blame on Israel? Who doesn’t?]

‘In their letter to Blair, the foreign ministers urged the former British leader “to pressure Israel to arrange for the transfer of all taxes due, the release of the thousands of prisoners who do not have blood on their hands," as well as “a freeze in new settlements and the evacuation of unauthorized settlements."’

Is It Clear to All What is Happening Here?

2007-07-18T09:36:00.000-05:00

I don't mean to underestimate my readers, but many Americans do not comprehend what is happening in the Middle East, and so I am posting this.

1. Bush/Israel push for free elections in Palestine, thinking their pet Palestinians (Abbas/Fatah) will be elected.

2. Oops . . . Palestinians elect wrong group to run their government. They elect candidates of honest and efficient Hamas instead of corrupt Fatah. (What is “wrong” with Hamas is that it represents Palestinian interests rather than the interests of Israel and refuses to accept the Israeli occupation as legitimate.)

3. Despite the free and fair elections and formation of a stable, popular government under Hamas, Bush/Israel move to cut off funds from the Palestinian government and people in order to undermine the elected government.

THE LEADERS OF US/ISRAEL CARRY THE TORCHES OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

4. Bush/Israel aid an effort by Abbas/Fatah to overthrow the legitimate government by force, but Hamas beats back Fatah and continues to control Gaza, leaving Abbas/Fatah forming a Bush/Israel backed illegitimate “government’’ in the West Bank, contrary to the election results. (The US press reports this in reverse, indicating that Hamas “seized” control of Gaza.)

5. Bush/Israel seek to bolster the unpopular and illegitimate West Bank faction by resuming some funding, freeing some unlawfully withheld funds which were due to the Palestinians long ago, and making a show of cooperation and generosity . . . all directed exclusively at the phony West Bank “government” instead of the elected government.

(Latest bulletin on Israeli good will: ‘CAIRO, July 17 (RIA Novosti) - Israeli authorities have stopped a convoy of trucks carrying UN humanitarian aid to Gaza at Israel's Kerem Shalom crossing near Egypt. Under the United Nations World Food Program, vital humanitarian aid has been entering Gaza through the Karem Shalom crossing under an agreement between Israel, the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas to facilitate the movement of supplies. The small, crowded Gaza Strip is heavily dependent on outside aid, and has been increasingly isolated. Over 15 trucks carrying sacks with wheat flour destined for Gaza were diverted earlier Tuesday to a warehouse in Egypt.’)

6. Suddenly Israel is ready to release some of its 10,000 plus Palestinian political prisoners to the obedient Fatah. ‘A committee of Israeli Cabinet ministers has Tuesday approved a list of 250 Palestinian prisoners to be released this week as a gesture in support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.’ (Voice of America)

7. Recently booted British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- a loyal pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian, Bush lapdog – becomes European “envoy” to aid the mythical “peace process”.

THE BOYS PREPARE TO HELP THE PALESTINIANS

8. Bush now announces a grand Mideast Conference in which Abbas/Fatah will negotiate the future of the Palestinian people who refused to elect them and are still loyal to Hamas. Of course all of the Palestinian representatives to the conference will be hailed as “respected”, while the uninvited elected officials will be styled “terrorists”. US media -- even habitual critics of Bush -- hail Bush’s announcement as a sign that Bush is finally going to do something about the “peace process”.

‘BUSH ANNOUNCES MIDEAST PEACE CONFERENCE
U.S. pledges $190 million in direct aid to Fatah government’

‘AP WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday announced an international conference this fall to include Israel, the Palestinian Authority and some of their Arab neighbors to help restart Mideast peace talks and review progress in building democratic institutions. . .

‘Bush said the conference would include representatives from Israel, the Palestinians "and their neighbors in the region" and said participants would include just those governments that support creation of a Palestinian state. [Read: “those governments that support creation of a docile Palestinian entity conforming to Israel’s wishes”.]

‘He said Abbas and his new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, "are striving to build the institutions of a modern democracy."’
[That is probably the most outrageously hypocritical lie VIEW FROM THE MOON has ever quoted.

‘Bush also pledged increased U.S. aid to the Palestinian government of President Mahmoud Abbas and called for the convening of a meeting of "donor" nations to consider more international aid, including the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.’

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are the “moderate” Arab states whose leadership has been bought by the US. They will obediently support Israel’s interests while performing a show of concern for the Palestinians. The idea that “just” those bribed governments support creation of a Palestinian state is a stomach-turning bit of verbal acrobatics meaning just the opposite: The Palestinians want a Palestinian state. Lebanon and Syria and other Muslim states (including Iraq, if the US had not destroyed it) want a Palestinian state. The qualification for attendance at Bush's conference isn’t to want a Palestinian state, but to approve a toothless Palestinian mock-state subservient to Israel.

Bulletin!

2007-07-14T07:44:00.000-05:00

Oh, it is so important that these dangerous men be caught!

HEIM (ADD 70 YEARS)

BRUNNER (ADD AT LEAST 30 YEARS)

They are probably the only "fugitives" who can’t see, can’t feed themselves, and have to be pushed along in wheelchairs. On second thought, I’m not too sure about that “only”. The Wiesenthal “Nazi hunters” may yet find a 100 year old man to accuse of persecuting Jews. Ah well, anything to keep “the holocaust” in the news.

MSNBC/Associated Press July 13

'AUSTRIA RENEWS SEARCH FOR ALLEGED NAZI FUGITIVES'

‘Austria wants to find Alois Brunner and Aribert Heim [one a doctor and one a Nazi military officer, Ret.], both in their 90s if still alive, and bring them to justice. [Brunner is 95 years old if still alive; he worked for the US CIA after the Second World War. Heim is 93 if still alive; he had a medical practice at Baden-Baden spa until he disappeared in the 1960’s.]

‘A notice posted on the Justice Ministry’s Web site this week features photos and descriptions of Brunner and Heim and offers rewards for information leading to their capture. Brunner, the most-wanted Nazi war criminal, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, is described as having mutilated hands and only one eye, after reportedly being disfigured by mail bombs.’

Query:

1. Is it really “Austria” that “wants to find” these men?

2. Did the Wiesenthal Center mail those bombs or did they just cheer from the sidelines? Is Austria having any success prosecuting the mail bomber?

A Study in Contrasts Part 1 -- A Mighty Ballyhoo: Daniel Pearl

2007-07-12T07:39:00.001-05:00

This article is related to my previous post. To see through the slanted ways information is presented to the American public, one must be alert not only when words such as “controversial” are used, but also when unimportant matters receive a disproportionate amount of publicity, and important matters receive disproportionately small coverage. By such methods Americans are told not only what to think, but what to think about.

Recently I kept seeing adulatory headlines about a new movie called “A Mighty Heart.” There was a virtual saturation bombing of praise of that “major motion picture”, starring Angelina Jolie. I had no idea what it was about, thought it might be a sports story, but it was mentioned so intrusively in so many places over several days that I became suspicious. The anticipated answer soon presented itself: It was of special Jewish interest. It was about the kidnapping and killing of a Jewish journalist, Daniel Pearl.

A major motion picture . . . yet during his life Pearl did nothing more notable than many other reporters. As film critic James Berardinelli wrote, “Most world renowned people have achieved that status as a result of something accomplished during their lives. Unfortunately, Daniel Pearl was among the few who became famous as a result of his death.”

The film was assigned the primary keyword “Anti Semitism” by Internet Movie Database, leaving us with no doubt about its main message. In spite of that and the incredible hype, almost nobody wanted to see it. “A Mighty Heart” fizzled at the box office when released last month and has been called “a mighty disappointment” for Angelina Jolie and Paramount. “The film had its screenings cut in half recently to give it a longer shelf life.” Despite lack of public interest, I expect we'll be treated to TV reruns for years.

Daniel Pearl was a reporter for the “Wall Street Journal”. In Pakistan in 2002, on his way to interview a sheik, he was kidnapped by a group which claimed that Pearl was a CIA agent. They sent the United States a range of demands. When the demands were snubbed, Pearl was then killed in a grisly fashion recorded on videotape. On the Pearl video, pictures of dead Muslims and similar scenes are superimposed around the image of the captive, including pictures of President G.W. Bush shaking hands with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Arabic text reads: ‘”My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish-American .” The relevancy to his captors of his being Jewish was hatred of Israel, and the belief that US aggressions in the Middle East can be blamed on Zionist influence. Pearl’s final words on the video were "My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish," after which he added that a street in Israel's Bene Barak is named after his grandfather.

The point of this post is the disproportionate attention and glorification devoted to one newspaper reporter – not a famous one – when a number of other journalists and Americans killed in the Middle East, including Israel, have quickly sunk into obscurity. The movie has failed, but the mighty machinery that brought it into existence and promoted it also produced a fantastic amount of post-mortem glorification for Daniel Pearl.

Pearl's widow wrote the published memoir, A Mighty Heart , on which the movie was based.

In 2003, a book titled Who Killed Daniel Pearl? was published, authored by Bernard-Henri Lévy.

HBO produced a film titled “The Journalist and The Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl”, which is still being shown.

Daniel Pearl Music Days have been held worldwide since 2002.

American composer Steve Reich wrote 'The Daniel Variations' in response to Pearl's murder.

In April 2007 Pearl was added to the Holocaust Memorial on Miami Beach as the first non-Holocaust victim.

In May 2007, the Communications Technology Magnet School at Birmingham High School was renamed the Daniel Pearl Journalism and Communications Magnet.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has created a “prestigious” (of course) ADL Daniel Pearl Award.

The Daniel Pearl Foundation was formed by Pearl's parents, Judea Pearl (B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the Technion, Israel) and Ruth. It is understandable that the distressed mother and father would wish to honor and commemorate their son, but the scale of the commemoration is beyond belief, and far beyond the reach of most mothers and fathers. The honorary board of the Daniel Pearl Foundation includes among others, no less than a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, among many other notables such as Christiane Amanpour, Ted Koppel, and Elie Wiesel. The Foundation appears to have very generous funding.

Pearl's parents published a collection of responses sent to them from around the globe, entitled "I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl..” Respondents in the “I Am Jewish” collection include Theodore Bikel, Alan Dershowitz, Kirk Douglas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Larry King, Shimon Peres, Daniel Schorr, Elie Wiesel, and many more.

The purpose of this post will become more dramatically clear in Part 2, when the extravagant glorification of Daniel Pearl will be contrasted with the deliberate neglect of other persons, such as Rachel Corrie, who deserved more fame and commemoration and yet, in contrast to Pearl’s towering pedestal, were deliberately shut away in the dark storerooms of history.

Playing with Words and Clues

2007-07-09T11:42:00.000-05:00

I started playing this game long ago when I noticed how often journalists refer to something as “controversial” when they (their masters, that is) want to make it look undesirable. In some contexts – such as religion or sociology or historical studies -- certain words, such as “controversial”, were almost sure to be followed with references to what might be described as Jewish concerns. Also, when the “news” repeatedly reports something which seems oddly out of proportion to its importance – for example when a movie in the making gets tremendously more coverage than other films, or a celebrity’s DUI arrest is headlined repeatedly (e.g. Mel Gibson) -- there will very often be something of “Jewish concern” under the surface. When I saw the incredible amount of coverage being given to filmmaker Gibson’s drunk driving offense and something unspecified he said to a law officer, my antennae went up and in a couple of days I saw for the first time a reference to his “antisemitic rant”. There were even complaints that the sheriff's office had not publicized the ever so important anti-Jewish remarks earlier!

An early example: While I was living in England in the early 1970’s, it was impossible to overlook that the British government was harassing and persecuting Scientologists, who had an international campus in the south of England. I knew enough about Scientology that I could see no reason why they should be singled out for such blatantly unfair treatment. And so I played my word game, watching for clues in the newspapers, and soon found, “Accusations of Anti-Semitism: Scientology Teaches Power of International Bankers.” The item went on to explain that “international bankers” is a code word for “Jews”. Huh? What if you’re really talking about international bankers?

In the article which follows, as soon as I saw the word “controversial” in the first paragraph I guessed correctly that some reference to Jews would ensue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-07-latin-mass_N.htm?csp=15

‘VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday formally made the majestic, complex and controversial millennial-old Latin Mass more accessible to Catholics, who have said the Mass in their modern local languages for four decades.

‘ . . . many church leaders are opposed to restoring and expanding a Mass they say . . . includes an offensive Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, asking God to lift their "blindness." . . . Criticism also came from Jewish leaders, unhappy with the restoration of a prayer for their conversion, which is spoken once a year during Easter Week. The Anti-Defamation League called the move a "body blow to Catholic Jewish relations."’

For 2000 years the Latin Mass was the only Catholic Mass. Then in the 1960s, “Vatican II's efforts to modernize the church replaced it" with a version to be spoken in the local vernacular.

The traditional Latin Mass is being brought back because so many Catholics want it, even to the point of staging sit-ins to demand it. ‘A growing number of Catholics of all ages have sought out the elaborate Mass with its sonorous Latin prayers, Gregorian chants and formal choreography of gestures.’

‘"Anyone who seeks religion seeks a sacred moment with God, and that requires a certain reverence that comes with the old mass and its other worldliness," said South Carolina resident Brian Mershon.’
‘Historian and linguist Eric Hewitt . . . regularly attending Latin masses, finds it "more symbolic, which I think makes it more difficult but also more powerful" than the modern Mass.’

I wrote the above on Saturday, and on Sunday the following headline was conspicuous. Note that by now the Pope’s decision is not just “controversial” but “highly controversial”.

Pope's move on Latin mass 'a blow to Jews'

Jason Burke in Paris
Sunday July 8, 2007
The Observer
‘Jewish leaders and community groups criticised Pope Benedict XVI strongly yesterday after the head of the Roman Catholic Church formally removed restrictions on celebrating an old form of the Latin mass which includes prayers calling for the Jews to 'be delivered from their darkness' and converted to Catholicism.
‘In a highly controversial concession to traditionalist Catholics, Pope Benedict said that he had decided to allow parish priests to celebrate the Latin Tridentine mass if a 'stable group of faithful' request it.

The Latin Mass was the keystone of Catholic worship for almost 2000 years and was effectively replaced (partly due to Jewish pressure) only 40 years ago at Vatican Council II, but, “The Observer” continues, ‘the older rite's prayers calling on God to “lift the veil from the eyes” of the Jews and to end “the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ” - used just once a year during the Good Friday service - have sparked outrage.’

‘Yesterday the Anti-Defamation League, the American-based Jewish advocacy group, called the papal decision a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations". ”We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted," said Abraham Foxman, the group's national director, in Rome. “It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.”

The reporter’s use of the word “bewilderment” in the next paragraph is akin to “controversial”. It is designed to form a certain opinion in the reader. Exactly who was bewildered, and why?

‘The Pope also sparked bewilderment when he made no mention of anti-Semitism . . . in a speech last year at Auschwitz. He also failed to acknowledge that there might be some degree of collective responsibility of the German people.’

My feeling about the whole thing is, “Tend to your own religion and don’t meddle in other people’s . . . and that includes not telling the Pope what he should put in his speeches."

Play my little word game. It’s fun and educational.

2007-07-06T10:13:00.000-05:00

UPDATE JULY 7: ADORED BY HORDES has been attacked, warned, and threatened by "Anonymous" for linking to this blog
.
I request that those who value freedom of speech and sincere debate of facts follow the link to ADORED BY HORDES and post comments in support of MarcLord. Thank you!

The original part of this post follows.

_________

I’m taking the unusual step of prominently posting this link to ADORED BY HORDES instead of just adding it to my Links list.

Why splash it all over the top of the page?

Because the blogger is a friend of mine? (No, I don’t know him except through a couple of recent Comments.)

Because ADORED BY HORDES is a very creatively written blog, and Prozac the Clown is a colorful character? (Not quite. It is creatively written, and Prozac the Clown’s visits are a lot of fun, but that’s not the reason for this fanfare.)

What is the reason?

Ego, ego, ego! My vulnerability to praise and flattery! ADORED BY HORDES has just published the best review I’ve ever had in my life.

An Atrocity Within an Atrocity. Who ARE the “Terrorists”?

2007-07-05T18:25:00.000-05:00

Israel is attacking Gaza without provocation again.

What Is a Militant?

Judging from this report, a “militant” is a person you kill when you invade his land, and if people fight back against your aggression, they are “gunmen”:

‘GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops and armor crossed into the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing seven Palestinian militants, including six from the Islamist Hamas group that controls the coastal territory.’

Why Are Israel’s Gunmen “Forces” while Their Victims Are “Gunmen”?

‘Israeli forces exchanged fire with gunmen in al-Maghazi refugee camp. . .’In addition, 13 people, including children, were wounded. The Israeli army did not disclose whether the children were “militants”, but an unarmed Hamas cameraman apparently was: He ‘was injured by what witnesses said was a tank shell and was seen later being shot in the legs from afar as he lay on the ground.’ Swissinfo reported that television footage showed gunfire aimed in his direction as he was lying on the ground, and that later, hospital officials said both of his legs were amputated.
(Lest we forget, the refugee camps exist because people driven earlier from their homes by the Zionists have to live somewhere.)

Why is that atrocity not treated as news in America even though it was funded there? Especially in light of other things reported by Swissinfo and other sources: ‘Israeli soldiers fired on a rooftop where several journalists, including a Reuters camera crew, were filming.’ In addition, Israeli soldiers violated the rules of war by grabbing Palestinian ambulance workers and using them as human shields in order to escape from the area. As always, the familiar refrain after Israel atrocities: ‘An Israeli military spokesman said: "After conducting a preliminary examination, we know nothing about such an incident".’

Hamas Gains BBC Journalist’s Freedom, but No Thanks Except from the Journalist

This latest unprovoked Israeli aggression on Gaza comes only a day after Hamas, the legitimate Palestinian government which is trying to survive the Israeli onslaught, arranged the release of a BBC correspondent who had been held captive by another group for almost four months. Hamas representatives ‘whisked him and the media off for breakfast at the home of the Hamas leader and former prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh.’

‘The 45-year-old reporter showed his gratitude towards Hamas, saying the heat was on his kidnappers when the group took control of Gaza after fierce factional fighting with the western-backed Fatah faction. "Until the Hamas takeover, I felt that the kidnappers were completely relaxed and secure, but the game completely changed when Hamas took over," Mr Johnston said.’

So Hamas is a Hero, Right? Wrong.

The US/Israeli media have fallen all over themselves to be sure that Hamas should receive no appreciation, much less praise, because of its feat. ABC news trumpeted, ‘Hamas Takes Advantage of Johnston Release’. Apparently one “takes advantage of” arranging the release of a kidnapped person by virtue of having arranged the release.

The Chicago Tribune, instead of headlining credit for Hamas, complained:
‘Hamas seeks political gain from hostage's release
Faction touts freeing of Briton as evidence that it's a credible political and diplomatic partner
By Joel Greenberg

(“Touts”, in case anybody didn’t notice, is not a nice word. It is a negatively loaded word.)

The Tribune quickly lets us know that in spite bringing about the freedom of the journalist, ‘Hamas did not appear to win new credibility among its opponents. A U.S. official said Hamas "still has a number of obligations to meet before it can be a partner that can be counted on and worked with.”’

The Jerusalem Post likewise reports, “The United States said Thursday that Hamas's role in freeing British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Alan Johnston has not changed the world's opinion of the Islamic group. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, "I don't think the world views Hamas any differently as a result of this." (The “world’s opinion” is a really big opinion. Are you sure about that, Spokesman McCormack?)

So, Hamas is still “bad” no matter how much good it does, and Israel, always “good”, is once more doing what it does best, murdering people on their own land.

And speaking of kidnapping, why is it that Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit is always described as “kidnapped” even though he was captured in a war situation, while people unlawfully hauled away by Israeli invaders are described as “arrested"?

Libby and Law

2007-07-03T19:04:00.000-05:00

I imagine that the blogosphere is lit up like a Fourth of July night sky with posts about Libby, and so here I’m going to comment strictly on the legal aspects. This might be helpful to some people. I remember how little I knew about such things when I entered law school.

(I’ve been writing about Libby for some time; please look at my Labels.)

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

A “reprieve” reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt. In constitutional language, President Bush has granted Libby a reprieve.

The Constitution gives the President almost unlimited power to pardon or reprieve in the case of federal crimes. Certainly, however, the framers of the Constitution never foresaw that a president would himself break the law and then promise an underling such as Libby that the underling would be pardoned if he would lie under oath to protect the president.

My analysis is that while President Bush unarguably had the constitutional right to commute Libby’s sentence, he did not have the constitutional or legal right to engage in a deception in which he used the pardon power to hide his own crimes or those of his vice president by, in effect, bribing a witness before the witness testified. It seems obvious that Libby was informed by Bush and Cheney from the beginning that he could lie as much he pleased under oath because the commutation of any prison sentence was guaranteed. It’s worth noting that if the promised commutation had not been forthcoming, Libby could have done serious damage by belatedly telling all.

A legal act may be part of the evidence of a criminal offense, even though not in itself illegal. A legal act may, for example, be essential to the success of a criminal conspiracy.

A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to achieve an illegal goal through legal and/or illegal actions, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) in order to raise money for charity (a legal end) is a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the goal. On the other hand, conspiring to set up a charitable organization (a legal act) in order to unlawfully launder money (an illegal end), is also a criminal conspiracy. Likewise a presidential pardon of a felon (a legal act) in order to hide crimes and obstruct justice (an illegal end), may also be considered a criminal conspiracy.

The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. Obstruction of justice in the United States refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist #74” concerning a constitutional provision for a presidential pardon: ‘The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.’

Alexander Hamilton didn’t know What-Me-Worry Bush did he? “Dread of being accused of weakness or connivance” for pardoning Libby? Bush considers all accusers so far beneath him that their outcries could never beget circumspection in that blockhead.

The Impeachment of Jehovah

2007-07-02T08:45:00.001-05:00

The Pan-Dimensional Court of Truth for the 5,000th Galactic District has convened on Earth’s Moon to consider Articles of Impeachment against “Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh.”

The Articles accuse “Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh” of falsely claiming to have created the Earth and all the living creatures on it in a single week, to have established laws which human creatures must obey if they are to escape unjustly hideous consequences, and to have chosen a certain small group of humans as his favorites to be exalted above all others and to subjugate all others.

‘Said chosen group, known as Hebrews, Jews, or the Children of Israel, are the authors of certain books collectively known as the Tanakh or “Old Testament” of the Bible which set out the purported words and acts of Jehovah. Because it appears that the accused, Jehovah, has either fled the jurisdiction or never existed in the first place, and because all witnesses in the case are dead, the evidence which will be placed before the Court consists solely of said Tanakh, and so it is in fact the Old Testament which is under judicial scrutiny.'

‘It might appear pointless to impeach a possibly nonexistent deity based on documents whose authors have been dead for thousands of years, but among not only Jews but also the much greater multitude of Christians on Earth the Old Testament is still held out as holy scripture, “the word of God”, and is influential today in shaping the minds of many humans, as well as relied upon by certain of the “Children of Israel” for fraudulent claims to ownership of real estate which have resulted in prolonged bloodshed.'

The allegations supporting the articles of impeachment are:

1. Incompetence

Although claimed to be perfect, all good, omnipotent and omniscient, Jehovah created a world into which evil could repeatedly come. To wit:

Creating a first man and woman so defective that they quickly did the one thing he told them not to do and as a consequence were subjected to permanent punishment rather than wisely taught.

Creating a first family so dysfunctional that one sibling murdered the other.

Selecting as his “chosen people” a whining tribe which again and again ignored his commandments.

Creating angels which could and did rebel against him.

Demonstrating a lack of confidence in himself by cruelly testing loyal Hebrews like Abraham and Job to see if or prove that they would function according to his blueprint.

2. Favoritism and Lack of Proper Judicial Temperament

In spite of claiming to be the creator of the Earth and heavens and all the creatures on Earth, making an exclusive contract with a small tribe and promising to exalt them above all others. “I am the God who created heaven and earth. [T]he kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit if forever.” Book of Jubilees 32

Making promises to his “chosen people” which would inevitably lead to strife, war, and usury: "The LORD has today declared you to be His people, a treasured possession. . . Then he will place you high above all the other nations he has made. He will give you praise, fame, and honor, and you will be a people holy to the LORD your God. . ." Deut 26:18-19 "All the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of Yahweh; and they shall be afraid of you. Deut 28:10 You shall lend to many nations, and you shall not borrow. The LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you only will be above, and you will not be underneath." Deut 28:12-13

Using terror tactics even against his favorites:

But if you do not give ear to the voice of the Lord your God, and take care to do all his orders and his laws which I give you today, then all these curses will come on you and overtake you: A curse will be on your basket and on your bread-basin. You will have few children. Your land will have few crops. Your cattle will be cursed with few calves, and your flocks will have few lambs and kids Yahweh will strike you with consumption, and with fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with the sword, and with blight, and with mildew; and they shall pursue you until you perish. Yahweh will send on you the disease of Egypt, and other sorts of skin diseases which nothing will make well. Yahweh will strike you with madness, blindness, and panic. Yahweh will strike you in the knees, and in the legs, with sore boils, of which you can not be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. You will become a thing of horror. All the nations where the LORD will send you will make an example of you and ridicule you. Deut. 28:12-45

The LORD said to [an angel], “Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst.” 5 But to the others He said in my hearing, “Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity and do not spare. 6 “Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark.” Ezekiel 9

A jealous and avenging God is Jehovah; Jehovah is avenging and wrathful. Jehovah takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He maintains wrath against his enemies. Nahum 1:2

3. Excessive force

When displeased with his chosen Israelites, drowning every human on Earth except Noah and his passengers.

Destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when offended by the actions of some of their inhabitants without even specifying what they had done to incur his wrath. “Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” Gen 19:24

I, Jehovah thy God, am a jealous God. I punish children for their parents' sins to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. Ex 20:5

32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Numbers 15

4. Emotional Instability; Arbitrary and Capricious Behavior

Punishing Moses by preventing him from entering the promised land because instead of “ordering” water to pour from a rock to satisfy the thirsty Jews as Jehovah had told him to do, Moses struck the rock with his rod to bring forth the water.

Commanding Abraham to kill his own son and then telling him not to at the last moment.

Making the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the Jews living among them, and making Moses, the Jews' leader, highly regarded in Egypt, but in spite of the divine power to influence Egyptian public opinion, murdering all of the Egyptians’ first-born sons in order to encourage the Egyptians let the Jews leave Egypt.

Turning a woman to salt because of a trivial infraction: “But Lot’s wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.” Gen 19-26

“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.” Gen 17:10-11

5. Cruelty Unbefitting a Deity

Allowing Satan to horribly torture his most devoted servant, Job, and kill Job’s servants and children, in order to win a bet with Satan.

Inventing the concept of eternal damnation.

Creating the plagues of Egypt. ‘Then the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Take handfuls of soot from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land.” So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on men and animals.’ Exodus 9:8-10.

Passing over all homes in Egypt and killing every first-born son (except sons of Jews), even while predicting, “loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.” Exodus 11.

6. Racism

Commanding his chosen tribe to avoid mixing with other peoples through intermarriage or otherwise.

“I am Jehovah your God, who have set you apart from the peoples.” Lev. 20:24

In Ezra 9, the abhorrent racial mixing of the Jews with other peoples was reported to some Jewish leaders: “So that the holy race [holy seed] has intermingled with the peoples of the lands.” The Hebrew listeners were appalled, and Ezra was so upset that he ripped his clothes and pulled out tufts of his hair and beard.

On that day they read aloud from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people. . . So when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the alien mixture. Neh. 13:3

Jehovah’s policy toward people displaced or captured by Jewish invasion – as Jehovah “clears away many nations before them” -- is that the Children of Israel “shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them. . . For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Deut. 7 "If you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you” there will be terrible consequences for Israel. . . “a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish. . .” Joshua 23

7. Substandard Skills in Personnel Management

Placing his newly minted humans, Adam and Eve, in a garden with an attractive fruit tree from which he ordered them not to eat even though he knew or should have known that they were sure to eat from it.

Putting the Ark in charge of an alcoholic captain even though it contained the only survivors of Jehovah’s genocide.

Selecting as his chosen people, and Earth’s rulers, a stiff-necked Semitic tribe which proved so erratic and disobedient that he chastised, threatened and punished them repeatedly over centuries.

8. Suppression of Arts

“Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Ex 20:4

9. War Crimes and Genocide

Jehovah said to Moses, “Send out for yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I am going to give to the sons of Israel. See what the land is like, and whether the people who live in it are strong or weak, whether they are few or many.” The spies reported: “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey. . . Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large.” 30 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel and took some of them captive. 2 So Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, “If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.” 3 The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Numbers 13

33 Then Israel turned and went up by the way of Bashan, and Og the king of Bashan went out with all his people, for battle. . . 34 But the LORD said to Moses, “Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, and all his people and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon, king of the Amorites.” 35 So they killed him and his sons and all his people, until there was no remnant left him; and they possessed his land. Numbers 21

After Israel conquered Jericho, “They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.” Joshua 6:21

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites. . .” ‘And the Jews warred against Midian, as Jehovah commanded Moses; and they slew every male. They killed the kings of Midian. The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little children; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they took as loot. They burned all the cities where the Midianites lived and all their settlements .’ When the Israeli army returned from battle Moses was angry at its officers and asked, "Why did you let all the women live? Put every male child to death, and every woman who has had sex relations with a man. But all the female children who have had no sex relations with men, you may keep for yourselves.” Numbers 31

New Signs of US Decline

2007-06-29T18:04:00.000-05:00

World Opinion

"In one measure of Bush's unpopularity," a new Pew poll shows "he is less trusted on foreign policy than Russian President Vladimir Putin by allies Britain, Germany and Canada, even as faith in Putin has plummeted."

The poll also found that majorities in 26 countries now have a less favorable view of the United States than they did in 2002. Also, "opinions of the American people have declined over the past five years in 23 of 33 countries where trends are available."

Successful Competition

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The main challengers to U.S. economic power — Brazil, Russia, India and China — have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry, according to a new study by Goldman Sachs. The rising power of the four countries — nicknamed the BRICs — is already evident in the metals and mining sector and is starting to be felt in insurance and consumer-related industries . . .

At the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, 55 percent of the 20 largest companies in the energy industry by market capitalization were American. But in 2007, 35 percent of the 20 largest energy companies are from BRIC countries and about 30 percent are American. "The U.S. is now lagging with the smallest percentage number of energy companies worldwide."

In many cases "it really does look like the attitude of European and also the BRIC countries' oil companies has been very different to the more traditional-based players in the Anglo-American world — much less colonialist, much more inclusive, really working together to come up with solutions in a way that seems to have been beyond the traditional competitors."

"We're starting to see this replicated in the mining industry, where 20 percent of the top 20 companies are now from BRIC countries. We believe this sort of pattern will be repeated industry by industry."

It is already evident in the insurance business, where BRICs account for about 10 percent of the top 20 companies, and in the global beverage industry, where the new economic powers are just starting to show with about 5 percent. The BRICs will soon be moving into the food and pharmaceutical sectors.

Hurry, Tony Blair, and Stop Israel!

2007-06-27T09:46:00.000-05:00

It is being widely reported in most parts of the world other than the US that the military forces of Israel have invaded Gaza without provocation and killed at least 11 people, including a 12 year old child. Israel calls its unprovoked attacks “preventive measures.”

Israel supposedly withdrew from the Gaza Strip and returned it to the Palestinians about two years ago, although retaining control of the airspace and maritime access. The legitimate elected Palestinian government remains in control of Gaza in spite of US/Israel efforts, and the Israeli attacks are undoubtedly part of a campaign to destroy the lawful government and replace it with a puppet theatre agreeable to Israel.

Even Palestinian President Abbas, who has tried and failed to overthrow the lawful Hamas government with US and Israeli backing, struck a pose of condemning the deadly Israeli aggressions. He said, "This bloody escalation, which was initiated by the Israeli government, is a distinct violation of the tahadiyeh [truce], and will lead to a chain of retaliations and the prolongation of violence." His office went on to say that "this aggression comes only a single day after the Sharm e-Sheikh summit and calls into question whether Israel really intends to seal an agreement and negotiate to end the occupation."

Bye Bye Blair? We Should Be So Lucky!

2007-06-25T10:19:00.000-05:00

Showdown in the Vatican

I recently watched “The Trial of Tony Blair” on the BBC, a film in which Blair resigns, converts to Roman Catholicism, and is whisked away on a plane to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Court.

Would that real life were so satisfying. But those of us who despised the Blair-Bush warmaking coalition do have the satisfaction of knowing the former prime minister must have felt like a naughty schoolboy being hauled into the principal’s office when he made a much-heralded visit to the Pope at the Vatican. Instead giving Blair his blessing, the Pope blessed Blair out. (If that’s an unfamiliar colloquialism, it means “The Pope cussed Blair out,” or “The Pope severely chastised Blair.”) That black smoke seen angrily billowing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel had nothing to do with the election of a new pope! The Vatican described the exchanges between the Pope and Blair as a "frank confrontation," which in diplomatic language translates as a “profound disagreement”, or, some say, “complete disaster”.
There had been strong rumors that Tony Blair was going to visit the Pope as a step toward his acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church, but instead of welcoming a new convert the Pope criticized Blair for having pushed policies directly contrary to some of the strongest policies of the Church.

A spokesman for Blair had said last week he would discuss with the Pope not only interfaith questions but also world issues such as peace in the Middle East. As it turned out, the discussion apparently consisted mostly of the Pope blasting Blair for his “best supporting actor” role in starting the Iraq War.

Very shortly before Blair’s audience with the Pope, Blair’s spokespersons – aware of looming trouble – toned down the conversion process and said that Blair was going to talk mostly about spreading harmony between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If he did indeed dare present himself to the Vatican as a man qualified to talk about that subject, he must have increased the papal disapproval tenfold. If Jesus made one thing clear, it was that he hated hypocrites.

A New Job for Tony?

It has been reported that not only President Bush but also Europe's most senior officials have given their support to a plan to make Tony Blair a Middle East envoy. Bush is pressing Blair to become a representative of the Quartet of powers that supposedly are to implement the “road map to peace” between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors.

“Nevertheless some European diplomats are worried that Blair's participation in the U.S.-led war in Iraq make him too controversial a figure in the Arab world.” How understated can an understatement be? Next to George Bush and Vice President Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who could be more hated in the Arab world than Tony Blair, and who could be less likely to lead the way on a “road map to peace” – already the least heeded piece of paper in the world next to last year’s grocery ads? Under Blair, Britain was as responsible as the United States for fabricating false evidence and stories designed to justify the invasion of Iraq.

As I was preparing to write about Blair’s conspicuous lack of qualification as an envoy to the Middle East, I found that The Guardian had already done a clever job of it.

This is the great opening statement from The Guardian:

'Many jobs have been touted for the outgoing prime minister. It's hard to say which of them he's most unqualified for.'

Excerpts:

‘Special envoy to the Middle East is the most ridiculous of all these touted jobs. The idea that Blair should become a peace envoy in the Middle East, in what the New York Times calls a "visible attempt at laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state", is in a class of its own for sheer absurdity. That is not less so for President Bush's support, nor for the fact that Blair has already applied for the job.’

‘After Iraq, the culminating events came last summer. With Israel bombarding Lebanon, with most Labour MPs wanting an immediate ceasefire, and with barely a fifth of British voters thinking the Israeli action justified, Blair would not budge an inch from his support for Bush and Ehud Olmert.’

It was reported elsewhere that Blair said to Bush last year while Israel’s American-equipped jets were razing Lebanon, and Blair was joining in delaying a ceasefire so that even more Lebanese could be murdered, that he could go to the Middle East ahead of Condoleezza Rice "if she needs the ground prepared as it were ... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can go out and just talk".

A fine admission for a future envoy to the area: “I can go out and just talk.” Just what Israel wants in an envoy.

Marc Sirois, of the Beirut Daily Star, wrote that the prime minister had "sacrificed what credibility he ever had in this part of the world" by abdicating any responsibility he had toward the conflict. Blair couldn't possibly act as an honest broker, since "he is identified so strongly by Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular as somebody who supports the policies of the Bush administration. George Bush might be hated here but at least he's respected. Tony Blair doesn't even have respect."

Less respected than G.W. Bush! Tony Blair’s niche in history is assured.

Tony Blair Update, June 28: Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said in Gaza that Blair's appointment as envoy 'is not acceptable to Hamas nor to the Palestinians. He will not
do anything to support the Palestinian interests but will do everything to
support the Israeli occupation.'

LIFE IS GOOD IN THE GREEN ZONE

2007-06-21T09:45:00.001-05:00

OR IS IT?

More missing news. I never read or heard this anywhere until today. It refers the U.S. fortified “Green Zone” in Baghdad, which is supposed to be the “safe” area for U.S. personnel, U.S.-protected foreigners, and the puppet Iraqi government:

‘A June 5 U.N. report said insurgents had bombarded the Green Zone with rockets and mortar fire more than 80 times since March, reportedly killing at least 26 people.’

That’s 26 “safe zone” inhabitants killed in two months. I might have missed seeing that number in the news earlier, but I don’t believe we were told about it.

Here’s more of the June 21 article that contained the information:

‘Blasts rattle Baghdad's Green Zone’

‘BAGHDAD (AP) — A series of mortars or rockets slammed into the U.S.-controlled Green Zone on Thursday, and an official said at least one round struck a parking lot used by the Iraqi prime minister and his security detail.
The barrage occurred a day after the U.S. military acknowledged "an increasing pattern of attacks" against the sprawling complex on the west bank of the Tigris River despite a security crackdown now in its fifth month.

'The U.S. Embassy confirmed there were rounds of indirect fire, the military term for rockets or mortars, but said it could not immediately provide details such as where they struck.' [COMMENT: Of course not. That would be very difficult to determine. Duh.]

'Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, declined to provide details on the number of attacks against the Green Zone, which is also known as the International Zone, but said they were increasing.’

Confirmation from Carter

2007-06-20T07:32:00.001-05:00

This article about a speech by Jimmy Carter on June 19 contains one paragraph which is definitely NOT by Carter, and which is an outrageous editorial effort to contradict the point Carter is making. I’ve marked that paragraph and commented there.

Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

-----------------------------------
‘DUBLIN, Ireland -- Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and
the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by
reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while
denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

‘Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference
in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006
election victory was "criminal." Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' corrupt Fatah movement.

‘Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid
to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the
Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."

‘****In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to
shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example
that would bring along Gaza.****’ (MY COMMENT: What the hell is this supposed to mean? The West Bank “a democratic example”? Hamas candidates, not the Fatah rebels who now control the West Bank, were elected to run the government. The Hamas government is the result of democracy and puts democracy into practice. Due to US and Israeli interference Hamas retains its rightful power only in Gaza. The West Bank is presently the world’s most conspicuous example of anti-democracy in action.)

‘Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the
U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome
by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military
power.

‘"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.

‘"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and
did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he
said.

‘Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in
Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" -
but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills
and discipline."’

Lies, Lies, Lies!

2007-06-18T17:50:00.000-05:00

I almost took out my rage on the television set last night when I listened to some of the most outrageous lies I’ve ever heard. Here in the US we think of Fox News as the ultimate in dishonesty, but the disgrace last night was on MSNBC. In Keith Olbermann’s absence, his smirking substitute interviewed one of the show’s regular Jewish “experts” about the current struggle between the Hamas and Fatah parties in Palestine.

'ALISON STEWART: And before we let you go, Jonathan, we want to ask you about another conflict the White House has to consider. Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip for [from? This woman rarely seems to understand what she’s reading.] moderates backed by the Bush administration. What does this do to President Bush‘s vision for that region?
JONATHAN ALTER: Well, you know, it‘s just really—it‘s so awful. I mean, here the Israelis unilaterally handed over Gaza. They did what they‘ve been urged to do in the West Bank. Everybody said, Yes, give the Palestinians their territory. So they did that. How were they rewarded? With missiles fired into Israel from Gaza, and now, with a takeover by Hamas, which is committed to the destruction of Israel.'

The truth is that Hamas won the freely held Palestinian elections early this year and assumed leadership of the government fair and square, just as the Democrats did in the US. But Hamas was – to Israeli and American tastes – too popular and too effective in promoting the welfare of the Palestinian people. The US had branded Hamas a “terrorist” organization because it had refused to accept Israeli occupation rather than, like the losing party, Fatah, obediently bowing to foreign bribes. (Incidentally, Fatah is recognized to be extraordinarily corrupt and indifferent to the people’s needs, while Hamas has just the opposite reputation – integrity and great social welfare work on behalf of the people.)

So the US, despite having insisted on the elections which brought Hamas to power, set out to undermine the legitimate government of Palestine and encourage the violent overthrow of Hamas by the losing party. The financial and other methods used were flagrant efforts to destroy a popularly elected legal government. Fatah gunmen (some trained by the US) began to physically attack Hamas people. Israel kidnapped Hamas mayors and other officials. The violent rebellion instigated by “USrael” reached the point of civil war, and the American media cheered not the elected government but the rebels.

But Newsweek acknowledged what was really going on: “As long as Hamas refused to recognize Israel, the United States refused to deal with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. The hope was not that ordinary Palestinians would suffer, but that they would realize such a government was not in their best interests. At the same time Washington tried to bolster Abbas and his Fatah movement.” [Isn’t it commendable of the US to starve the people who elected a government so that they will “realize such a government was not in their best interests”] Newsweek: “Hamas, under pressure, built up its own paramilitary forces to counter those controlled by Abbas (and trained by the United States). Then, last week, as tit-for-tat killings in Gaza spiraled out of control, those Hamas fighters in Gaza turned out to be far more fierce than their better-funded opponents. The result: the radicals are now in charge of Gaza.” [Note that “radicals” are not nice. Memo to Newsweek: Why not say, “The elected government is now in charge of Gaza.”]

So, good news – in Gaza (the smaller of the two bits of Palestine not officially incorporated into “Greater Israel”) Hamas defeated the armed Fatah uprising. Hoorah, right? Wrong.

PLEASE CLICK AND ENLARGE. GAZA ON THE LEFT, WEST BANK ON THE RIGHT.

MSNBC told the exact opposite of the truth. Their story implied that Fatah was the legitimate government, which was defeated by some sort of Hamas rebellion while poor deceived Israel stood by wringing its hands.

Alison Stewart said, “Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip [from] moderates” . Her words not only reversed the fact that it was the Hamas government which prevented Fatah from seizing control, but also instructed Americans how to feel about Hamas by calling it a “terror” organization and distorting its nature with the scare words, “Islamic fundamentalists”.

Jonathan Alter joined in the “ain’t it awful” dialogue by saying that poor Israel, which has done so much for the Palestinians (sarcasm!), even being so generous as to give back a small piece of the territory it stole from them, has been “rewarded” with “a takeover” by Hamas. How can you take over a government you were elected to run?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (hand picked for that position by US/Israel, who appreciate his handy-dandy cooperative attitude) swore in an emergency Cabinet on Sunday and purportedly outlawed the militia forces of Hamas. Abbas has no legal power to outlaw anything, least of all the elected government.

Newsweek wrote: “The hurried swearing-in ceremony of the new Cabinet left the Palestinians effectively with two governments — the Hamas leadership in Gaza and the new Cabinet in the West Bank led by respected economist Salam Fayyad. [Notice that the usurper is “respected”, which may be translated into Israelspeak as "easily bent".] Abbas issued decrees Sunday annulling a law requiring the new government to be approved by parliament, which is dominated by Hamas, and outlawing the Islamic group's militias. “ Hmmm. I seem to recall that annulling a country’s laws by decree has been labeled “dictatorship” by the US. Well, yes, but that was last month. Now it is probably something that G.W. Bush admires and envies.

Newsweek sums up with an uncharacteristically candid statement admitting that the US has lost all credibility:
‘Citizens of countries where Washington has called for greater democracy—Iran, say, or Syria—now have three less-than-inspiring examples close to home. In Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hizbullah reigns as a power unto itself [having booted out the most recent Israeli invasion]. In Iraq, the sect-based parties that came to power in the 2005 elections have created a bloody nightmare, and stymied any attempts to forge a truly national consensus. And in the Palestinian territories, Washington simply rejected the election results.’

Another Sign of US Decline

2007-06-18T10:52:00.000-05:00

Boeing, once unchallengeable, loses out to rival, European Airbus.

Could it be that the hatred which the US has brought upon itself in the Middle East is reflected in these aircraft orders? Or is it just that once an imperialist nation goes into a nosedive everything seems to start falling apart?

June 18, 2007
‘LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Airbus on Monday announced a host of orders for its airplanes to usher in the Paris Air Show, including key deals with US Airways Group and Qatar Airways.
US Airways said it would order 60 single-aisle aircrafts from the A320 family and another 32 wide-body aircraft. US Airways said it will gradually eliminate its fleet of Boeing 737-300s and 737-400s.
Also backing the Airbus A350 XWB program was Qatar Airways, which ordered 80 of that aircraft. The Middle Eastern airline also increased its orders for the A380 superjumbo to five from two.
Kuwait's Jazeera Airways, meanwhile, ordered 30 Airbus A320s.
Emirates Airlines said it was ordering eight more of the A380 superjumbo, bring its order for the aircraft -- which has encountered multiple production and rollout delays -- to 55.’

Disgrace at De Paul

2007-06-18T06:26:00.000-05:00

Bad news. Professor Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure by De Paul University.

A professor and scholar as widely published and famous as Finkelstein would ordinarily have achieved tenure without a ripple on the sea of academe. In this case, however, a routine tenure proceeding was transformed into a cause celebre by Zionists -- in particular the infamous Alan Dershowitz -- who hate Prof. Finkelstein because he, although a Jew, has been openly critical of Israel and of the misuse of the "holocaust industry". What makes the thing even more appelling is that neither Derschowitz nor his confederates, if any, were connected with De Paul University!

The tenure proceeding became, pure and simple, an ideological battleground between a fanatically pro-Israel propagandist and the voices of truth and reason. It is astonishing that although the advocates of truth and reason far outnumbered the intruding Zionists, and the Zionists blatantly mischaracterized Prof. Finkelstein's writings, the Derschowitz pressure, or extortion, or whatever it was, caused a top man or two at De Paul to cave in and deny Prof. Finkelstein a permanent position.

The result is a total defeat of academic freedom. Shame on those at De Paul University who brought this disgrace on their institution!

Below I re-post my explanation of the case:

'Alan Dershowitz, the fanatically pro-Israel Zionist activist operating out of Harvard, has been outrageously intervening to prevent Professor Norman Finkelstein from successfully obtaining tenure at De Paul University.

'Dershowitz has no connection with De Paul, just as he had no connection with Brandeis University when he undertook to sabotage former President Jimmy Carters’ scheduled speech there. Dershowitz’s motivation in both cases was the same: Prof. Finkelstein and Carter wrote books criticizing Israel.

'I can say from reading both Dershowitz and Finkelstein that Finkelstein is far more honest and scholarly than Dershowitz. Indeed the words "honest" and "scholarly" do not apply to Dershowitz at all. The libelous things which Dershowitz has been saying about Finkelstein in his campaign to prevent the professor's tenure make me smile because they are all applicable to Dershowitz himself!

'Unfortunately, although the whole acadamic world (except Zionists) seems to be expressing support for Finkelstein and disgust with Dershowitz, my impression is that the only person at De Paul University who is opposed to the tenure is one of the two individuals who can prevent it.'

Lewis Libby: "Pardon me."

2007-06-15T07:58:00.000-05:00

Lewis Libby, who helped Vice President Cheney and others betray an American CIA agent in order to punish her husband for telling truths that should have undermined a US invasion of Iraq, and who has been convicted and sentenced for lying under oath, is back in the news because the trial judge has refused to let Libby remain free until his appeal is decided . . . there being no chance that his appeal could succeed.

It is notable that now, as when Libby was convicted and sentenced, his name is invariably mentioned in conjunction with the possibility of a presidential pardon, almost as if the natural procedure for all convicted felons is sentencing, appeal, pardon . . . rather than sentencing, appeal, jail. As we all know, pardons are even rarer than honest politicians, almost unheard of. It is also rare for a convicted criminal to be freed pending appeal.

Last night on MSNBC’s “Countdown” a guest expert said something which supported my earlier assertions that there was almost no support among the general public for a presidential pardon. I argued that the instant clamor for a pardon arose from the fact that Libby is Jewish. In accord, the “Countdown” expert stated last night that there was very little support for a Libby pardon outside the Washington beltway, and that the support was primarily from neocons . . . the word “neocons” pertaining to a category of Jews who moved into “conservatism”. (I will write about the meaning of “neocon” soon.)

Below I copy some of my earlier comments, but first I want to suggest that perhaps the constant babble about a pardon is part of a campaign to give the impression – which may not be true – that President Bush can hardly wait to pardon Libby, and to give Bush an excuse to “bend to the public will”. Perhaps the neocons hope to pressure Bush by making it seem that a pardon for Libby is a foregone conclusion. But it is questionable whether any such pressure ever influences G.W. Bush, who, once set in motion, is about as responsive to public opinion as Godzilla demolishing a city.

The real danger that there might be a pardon comes from Libby’s now being able to make a deal with the prosecutor to avoid all or some of his prison term by telling everything that he knows and covered up with lies . . . which means putting Vice President Cheney on the skewer and bringing the fire a bit too close to G.W. Bush for comfort. But only a Godzilla completely immune to all opinion, including the judgments of history, would grant a pardon under such circumstances:

1. The Godfather (Bush/Cheney) does bad things. 2. Subordinate (Libby) lies in court to protect his boss, The Godfather. 3. Subordinate sentenced to jail. 4. Subordinate may avoid jail by spilling the beans about The Godfather. 5. Godfather – the only person with power to keep subordinate out of jail – grants presidential pardon in order to keep subordinate from squealing.

A little too obvious even for President Bush? We’ll see. The Godfather’s favorite method – simply rubbing subordinate out – would be a lot easier.

The rest of this post contains things I wrote about Libby earlier. If you didn’t read them before, let me guarantee you that they really are fabulously important and interesting.

I wrote on March 8, "Let’s Hear It for Libby, Folks”:

‘As one who thinks that I. Lewis Libby got what he deserved, I was surprised that last evening’s television news discussions were virtual pep rallies for Libby’s pardon. Guests had been selected to promote the idea that Libby was a wonderful guy who should be pardoned. Almost all of the Libby-related discussions centered on his prospects for a pardon. Yet no one suggested that Libby was not guilty of the serious crimes for which he was convicted; no one questioned that he consciously, deliberately committed those crimes over a long period.

‘That leads to my final observation on why Libby is being treated like a hero instead of a criminal. When I saw how he was being boosted by the media I checked this morning and found out that he is Jewish. I noticed years ago that whenever an individual somewhere in the world was accused of a crime and there was a great international media outcry in support of the accused and against the accuser, the accused was usually Jewish. It became a kind of game with me to notice the phenomenon of “worldwide outrage” and see if the individual the protest supported was a Jew.’

Soon after that I wrote:

‘Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.

‘According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.’

How Inconvenient!

2007-06-14T17:48:00.000-05:00

On June 12, in ”How Convenient?, I published a followup to Senator Joe Lieberman’s call for the US to bomb Iran. Indirectly seconding Lieberman’s motion within hours was a US Undersecretary of State.

“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.” ‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”'

Today comes an assertion which is as inconvenient for the Washington warmongers as Burns’ statement was convenient:

‘Afghan official says Iran is not arming Taliban.
Defense minister dismisses claim by top U.S. State Department official’

‘BRUSSELS, Belgium - Afghanistan’s defense minister on Thursday dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was “irrefutable evidence” that the Iranian government was providing arms to Taliban rebels.

‘“Actually, throughout we have had good relations with Iran and we believe that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of Iran,” Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press. “There has been evidence of weapons, but it is difficult to link it to Iran. (They) might be from al-Qaida, from the drug mafia or from other sources,” Wardak said.’

Putting Burns’ words alongside the flagrant lies based on equally “irrefutable evidence” which were used to push America into the Iraq war, the word “irrefutable” now has a new meaning in Washington: “Nonexistent”.

We apparently have truly arrived at the totalitarian world of George Orwell’s “1984”, albeit a few years late, where the Party’s slogan is, “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

We can now add, “Lies are Truth. Truth is Treason.”

Religious Fanaticism and Middle Eastern Wars

2007-06-14T10:48:00.000-05:00

I was checking for new stories about Paul Wolfowitz as he prepares to walk the plank from his presidency of the World Bank, and I came across this article by Christopher Vasillopulos, a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University. I especially admire the article because it says so many things I’ve written here on VIEW FROM THE MOON.

I quote parts of the article. My comments are in [brackets].

‘WOLFOWITZ AND PODHORETZ: JEWISH NEOCONS AND THE IDEA OF ENTITLEMENT

‘Two Jewish neocons have been in the news . . . Paul Wolfowitz, soon to be the ex-president of the World Bank, and Norman Podhoretz, the long-time editor of “Commentary”.

‘Wolfowitz has been forced to resign due to corruption and Podhoretz has made headlines by saying that he is praying that the US bombs Iran. I see these stories as pieces of a larger whole, united by the Jewish idea of entitlement, which in its neocon version has a violent expression.

[So, Podhoretz asks Jehovah to make US bombs rain on Iran while Senator Joe Lieberman takes the low road and calls on television for the US to bomb Iran (see my “a Joe Lieberman note”, June 10) -- a religious and a political double whammy designed to get Americans to kill and die once more for Israel.]

‘A series of recent books which describe the inner workings of the Bush administration agree that Paul Wolfowitz was one of the most important, if not the most important advocate of the Iraq war. As undersecretary for defense, he was the highest ranking of the Jewish neocons, who were unrelenting in their efforts to reshape the Middle East.

‘Long before 9/11, Wolfowitz and other neocons [including I. Lewis Libby and Richard Perle] authored the doctrine of pre-emptive war. As is well known, the fundamental purpose of the doctrine was to create regimes friendly to Israel. Failing that, regimes hostile to Israel would be weakened. What is not so well-known is how Jewish neocons convinced non-Jewish neocons that eliminating Saddam Hussein was essential. Their assertion was simply that Saddam Hussein was an Iraqi Hitler and that failure to remove him would lead to another Holocaust.

[I started to say, “Who would be stupid enough to believe that?”. Then I remembered G.W. Bush.]

‘One would expect the neoconservatives, who almost always default to military rather than diplomatic activity, to use the word, “appeasement” regularly. Instead, they use the word “Holocaust.” This equivalency is based on the implicit allegation that appeasement implies Holocaust. When the Holocaust model is invoked to justify war against the Middle Eastern enemies of Israel, it amounts to a Jewish jihad. An analysis of Wolfowitz’s zeal to invade Iraq, no less than Podhoretz’s obsession with Iran, however, will demonstrate [this claim’s] truth.

‘One need not be Jewish to employ the Old Testament’s perspective that the world is divided between good and evil, an idea that is, in fact, the premise of Christian fundamentalism. Jewish jihadism is a state of mind, one which takes its cue from the Old Testament’s penchant for Armageddon. . . . Paul Wolfowitz and other Jews in the Bush administration, including among others, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, have most often played the Holocaust card to shame those who were reluctant to confront Saddam.

[I am soon going to post on FLIGHTS OF PEGASUS more of my own thoughts on the Old Testament and its pernicious influence, “The Impeachment of Jehovah: Introduction” and “The Impeachment of Jehovah.”]

‘To place morality or idealism or any other absolute value in the forefront of foreign policy is to make policy formation an offshoot of a religious commitment. . . All absolutes are religious, for they make a direct appeal to authority that is not tested by reason or evidence. There are countless references by associates of Wolfowitz and other Jewish jihadists that they were dedicated zealots impervious to reason and evidence which tended to erode their absolute conviction that they and only they were right. Realists, like Halper and Clarke and I, believe that international politics are largely determined by national self-interest and that its chief instrument is military power. Realists also believe that this state of affairs, as awful as its can sometimes be, is preferable to international politics driven by any absolute, moral or religious value. Such values are the breeding grounds of fanatics, of those who believe that their actions, regardless how horrific, are ordained by God or some other form of the Absolute. Jewish jihadists, like other jihadists, are ready to destroy the world rather than let it persist in sin.

‘This is how the Iraq war was summed up by Gen. Zinni: “I don’t think the neocons really give a shit what happened in Iraq and the aftermath. … They said: Look if it works out, let’s say we get Chalabi in, he’s our boy, great. We don’t and maybe there is some half-ass government out there, maybe a strong man emerges, it fractures, and there’s basically a loose federation and there’s really a Kurdish state. Who cares? There’s some bloodshed and it’s messy. Who cares? I mean, we’ve taken out Saddam. We’ve asserted our strength in the Middle East. We’re changing the dynamic. We’re off the peace process as the centerpiece and we’re not putting pressure on Israel.”’

[I have previously written that the Israel-first Jews who are responsible for the Iraq war did not and do not care what happens to Iraq now that it is reduced to bloody chaos and rendered incapable of challenging Israel. While American politicians pretend that their war aim was and is “democracy and freedom” for a stable and peaceful Iraq, the neocons will rejoice all the more if Iraq remains in anarchy and American soldiers fight there forever.]

How Convenient!

2007-06-12T18:06:00.000-05:00

In my last post I included some comments on Senator Joe Lieberman’s recent public statements advocating that the U.S. bomb Iran. One of his angles was that the U.S. should bomb Iran “to stop them from killing Americans” – referring to the American military in the Middle East.

Isn’t it wonderful timing that we now read, so conveniently soon, an MSNBC headline:

“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.”
‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”’

I wonder how Burns defines “insurrections” and which ones he has in mind. In any case, Lieberman has put the bullet in the gun, an American envoy has cocked the trigger, and . . . Israel stands expectantly by, calling the plays and quietly applauding the work of its loyalists in cooking up yet another phony excuse for an American war.

I originally read about Lieberman’s statements in an excellent article by Tim King in Salem-News.com. I see that Mr. King has published a most interesting followup article, “Lieberman’s Suggestion to Bomb Iran Draws Fire and Support”. Judging from that article, those who write in support of Lieberman’s new war seem out of touch with reality, as well as ignorant of basic facts. One reader refers to Iran as “our deadly enemy”, while another says that the president of Iran has “openly stated” that Iran will attack America. What nonsense.

Congratulations to Mr. King for his good work.

Why Can't the Tail Deliver the Dog? Also, a Joe Lieberman note.

2007-06-10T18:26:00.000-05:00

JIMMY CARTER'S IMPRESSIVE REMARK

I’ve been reading Jimmy Carter’s book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid”, and one of his comments on his many personal conversations with Arab and Israeli leaders stands out above all others. Carter is writing about the Saudi Arabian viewpoint in the context of U.S. failure to cause Israel to comply with various peace-making agreements in which Israel has made promises and then broken them, as well as to cause Israel to comply with numerous United Nations resolutions.

Carter wrote:

“I might add that the Saudis and many others greatly overestimate the influence of the United States, and they never understand why we cannot ‘deliver’ our own friends [i.e., the Israelis] in the Middle East when it suits our purposes.”

That sentence speaks loudly about who has the controlling hand in the U.S./Israel axis. I’ve repeatedly written in this blog about the Israel Lobby’s dominant and destructive influence on U.S. policies. Some have disagreed, arguing that Israel is a chess piece in a U.S. plan for domination of the Middle East. Historically, there may be truth in the idea that Zionism was used by “Western nations” to serve their own purposes, but today it is quite clear who holds the leash that leads the obedient American mastiff. Israeli leaders have openly boasted for years that they can bring U.S. politicians to heel whenever they please.

It is fascinating that Carter says that others “greatly overestimate” the influence of the United States on a tiny state which the Americans made possible, which the U.S. keeps alive and stronger militarily than its neighbors through massive financing and armaments, and whose foreign policy aims are dutifully supported and echoed by the U.S. in the U.N. and elsewhere. Any reasonable person would think that the United States of America would be, in power relative to Israel, the organ grinder in relation to his little monkey, and not the other way around.

I recommend Jimmy Carter’s book because of its sincerity and the unique first-hand personal experiences recounted there, even though from my point of view it is far too accepting of Israel.

JOE LIEBERMAN'S WARMONGERING

As I was writing this, I read for the first time of Senator Joe Lieberman’s loud call for the United States to bomb Iran – which, if done, would fulfill one of Israel’s most fervently expressed wishes. This is an excellent example of how the Zionist tail wags the American dog. Senator Lieberman is strictly religious Jew with open loyalty to Israel, “one of the Senate's most consistent supporters of Israel, and an advocate of the Iraq War.” (Wikipedia.) His wife is named Hadassah after "Hadassah", the Women's Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1912. Zionism, in case anyone doesn’t know, is the Jewish movement which resulted in the creation of Israel in Palestine and which continues to promote Israel's interests. Need I say more?

Interlude?

2007-06-09T09:29:00.000-05:00

I’ve been mulling over a post for VIEW FROM THE MOON for several days, unsure why I haven’t written anything. For awhile I was asking, “What’s the use?” Maybe I’ll take Cindy Sheehan’s cue. Maybe I’ll just say, “The show is cancelled because of lack of interest.”

I picture those who look at this blog as falling into three groups: 1. A small group who agree with me on Zionism and other things, and who probably know more about them than I do, and who can read the same opinions a thousandfold on other websites. 2. A small group who regularly scan the Internet for anti-Zionist and “anti-Semitic” opinions and leave canned comments lifted from “talking points” distributed by the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center – lifted verbatim, spelling mistakes and all. 3. A very large proportion, a huge proportion, who have no idea what I’m talking about and couldn’t care less. To the latter crowd belong those who think that Iraq attacked the United States in New York, who believe that some nations are “evil” and some “good”, who have absorbed two generations of teachings that Arabs are sinister and cruel while Jews are noble victims, and who have no idea where Palestine and Israel and Iraq and Iran are, much less what Zionism is or how Israel came into being. If I could believe that VIEW FROM THE MOON had influenced even one of this latter group to become informed and to escape the conventional thinking about American foreign policy, I would feel successful and would never consider quitting. . . but I have no reason to be that optimistic.

Viewed from the Moon, the Earth still looks beautiful. . . silent, blue, seductively veiled in swirls of white clouds. But then it always looks that way. From the Moon you can’t see the explosions in Iraq or Palestine. You can’t hear the tortured screams of prisoners of the Americans and Israelis. If you had just arrived on the Moon, in fact, you would have the impression that you were looking across black space at a luminous cosmic paradise.

Paradise lost, perhaps, but not because of a heavenly Old Testament disciplinarian. Paradise lost, rather, because of the nature of humankind and its inability to organize itself so that its most wise, kind, generous and peaceful members are in charge of its nations. When the Earth is viewed from the Earth, where for the most part the greedy and selfish and brutal rule, the peaceful lunar view seems a sad mockery.

And yet lately Americans (those few paying any attention) could get the impression that we are going through a slight lull in the steady rise of violence and insanity. Here are some of the positive events that have created this intermezzo:

1. Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief Iraq war criminals, booted out by the World Bank because of brazen misconduct and incompetence as President of the bank.

2. I. Lewis Libby, Wolfowitz’ protégé and co-planner of wars in the Middle East, given a reasonably hefty prison sentence for his crimes, although for some reason still walking around a free man.

3. Representatives of the United States sitting down and talking with Iranian representatives in the first public diplomatic discussions between the two nations in many years. This accompanied by a decrease in American anti-Iranian oratory and in what were almost daily Israeli threats to bomb Iran.

4. Some signs that even Republicans are finally starting to join in pressuring Bush to do something about ending (or at least altering) the American military presence in Iraq.

5. An increase in lip service to curbing global warming.

6. An upset tummy for G.W. Bush which kept him from embarrassing the United States overseas for at least a few hours.

7. That great American national icon (who may replace the Statue of Liberty as the symbol of American ideals and aspirations), Paris Hilton, put into jail for a series of flagrant violations of law, then let out by a strangely compassionate sheriff, and then put back again. Which of that is positive news and which is negative news depends on whether you are Paris Hilton or almost everybody else, but in general it gives the impression that justice is being done, or at least attempted, in a country where there is a blatant double system of incarceration for the rich and famous on the one hand everybody else on the other hand.

Of course I know that there have been negative as well as soothing developments in the past couple of weeks, and that the sewer of horrors gushes unabated in occupied Palestine and Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that those who scheme for war have not stopped their scheming, and that any apparent improvements in U.S. policies will probably prove illusory and shortlived. Nevertheless, being able to write a few positive things has provided a pleasant interlude.

Pay Attention, America

2007-05-30T07:40:00.000-05:00

I avoid posting reports that are easy to find in the mainstream media, but today there are two items that I think should be noticed as widely as possible. In any case, it took me some digging to find Cindy Sheehan’s resignation statement, and many of the published accounts leave out her most devastating comments.

I’m publishing the other item, the al-Qaida statement, to illustrate once more how different the actual goals of al-Qaida are from ludicrous Bushisms like, “They attacked us because they hate freedom”, and “If we don’t stay in Iraq and fight them there they’ll follow us here.” I’ve always written, listen to what they’re saying and not to what Bush & Co. and the Zionists tell us they’re saying. . . for example, the truth that the destruction of the twin towers was directly because of U.S. support of Israel and had nothing to do with “hatred of freedom”. It was, in fact, a cry for freedom for the Palestinians.

AL-QAIDA

Here’s the statement by an American al-Qaida member, which essentially says, “Leave Islamic countries alone and stop supporting Israel in its murderous, unlawful oppressions and rampages.” It says nothing about Americans giving up anything of their own – especially our freedoms. G.W. Bush is depriving us of those without any help.

‘CAIRO, Egypt - An American member of al-Qaida warned President Bush on Tuesday to end U.S. involvement in all Muslim lands or face an attack worse than the Sept. 11 suicide assault, according to a new videotape.
Gadahn demanded that Bush remove all U.S. military and spies from Islamic countries, free all Muslims from U.S. prisons and end support for Israel. He said a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq alone would not satisfy al-Qaida.’

CINDY SHEEHAN

Here are what I feel are the most important parts of the resignation statement by the great antiwar leader, Cindy Sheehan. To me, this sentence is the heart of it: ‘CASEY DIED FOR A COUNTRY WHICH CARES MORE ABOUT WHO WILL BE THE NEXT AMERICAN IDOL THAN HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WHILE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS PLAY POLITICS WITH HUMAN LIVES.’

Mon May 28, 2007 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/28/12530/1525

CindySheehan's diary

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike.

I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. . . . I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

Dishonest Terms

2007-05-25T10:32:00.000-05:00

I’m quoting the following not just because the President of Iran routinely speaks more truth in one sentence that G.W. Bush does in a year, but primarily to point out the Associated Press article's choice of words used create bias in favor of Israel. Please see my comments at the end.

USAToday May 25, 2007

‘TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday warned Israel it would be uprooted if the Jewish state attacked Lebanon in the coming summer.
‘"If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong."
‘‘"If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will cut the root of the Zionist regime from its stem," added Ahmadinejad, speaking live on state television.
‘Referring to the history of Israel, Ahmadinejad said that "60 years of invasion and assassination is enough. If you do not cease invasion and massacre, soon the hand of power of the nations of the region will rub you criminals with earth."’
‘Ahmadinejad's comments came as Israeli troops in the West Bank arrested more than 30 senior Hamas members early Thursday, including a Cabinet minister, legislators and mayors.’

First, why “hard-line”? That term not only gives the impression of one who is unwholesomely inflexible and intractable, but also implies one who clings to an erroneous belief. President Ahmadinejad is “hard-line” because he doesn’t hop when Israel or Bush say “frog”, while some other Middle Eastern leaders are “moderate” because they submit to Zionist/U.S. orders and bribes and keep their servile heads in the sand.

Next, the word “arrest” is misused in order to create the false impression that the Zionist Jews have some legal right to snatch and lock up people whose land they choose to occupy (all expenses paid by the U.S.A.). “Arrest” means “to take or keep in custody by authority of law.” Repeat: “by authority of law”. Thus the word “arrest” is often wrongly used by American writers to lend a phony air of legitimacy to Israel’s kidnappings. Here the dishonesty is magnified because the cabinet ministers, legislators, and mayors whom Israel has snatched and unlawfully imprisoned were legitimately elected to govern the land where they were kidnapped!

It was the United States which most loudly supported democracy and free elections in Palestine – and then, with Israel, promptly tried to reverse the results of the election when it didn’t like the results.

Borrowing Your Way to World Domination

2007-05-22T17:33:00.000-05:00

I wonder if the United States is the first country in history to pay for the weapons it uses to dominate the world by borrowing the funds from the rest of the world?

The Roman Empire and the British Empire just marched around the planet grabbing things and enriching themselves by wringing taxes from the subject lands. The United States is different: It gets the money to bomb you by selling you bits of paper. People! Have you noticed that you're financing your own subjugation?

Yet Another Sign of Decline

2007-05-21T18:37:00.001-05:00

BYE, BYE DOLLAR

The following story by Wanfeng Zhou illustrates the erosion of the importance of the United States dollar in the world economy discussed in my previous post – a symptom and harbinger of U.S. decline generally. To me events of this kind are the advance rumblings of the real avalanche – the refusal of nations to lend America more and more money through purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds, etc., which are nothing more than IOUs repayable in dollars. In view of Bush’s inflationary policies, buying Treasury IOUs from the U.S. is like accepting an IOU from someone promising to repay $1000 in five years when you know that $1000 will be worth $500 in buying power by the time it’s repaid. I’m not an economist by any means, but I understand that when a debtor nation like the U.S. loses its sources for borrowing, it tends simply to print more and more money in order to preserve its previous status and avoid a depression, with the result that inflation impoverishes its citizens. . . in particular those who have retired.

‘NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Central Bank of Kuwait's decision over the weekend to untie its currency from the U.S. dollar might signal a growing trend among global central banks, especially those with large foreign-exchange reserves, to more actively manage their currencies.
‘And such a shift is likely to put the U.S. dollar under increasing pressure, analysts said.
‘The significant drop in the exchange rate of the American dollar against most other major currencies had a negative impact on the Kuwaiti economy over the past two years," Sheikh Salem Abdel Aziz Al Sabah, governor of the central bank, told the official Kuwait news agency.
‘"In the Middle East, it's a story of dollar-concentration risk," said Stephen Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley. Kuwait's just-announced decision "may well be the first step in a regional diversification strategy that attempts to temper such risks," he said.
‘Global central banks' ongoing reserve diversification has been a main factor weighing on the U.S. currency and Treasury market in recent years. Many people argue because foreign central banks have played a vital role in financing U.S. borrowing by buying U.S. debt, a diminished appetite for dollar-denominated reserves could have a significantly negative impact on the dollar and the U.S. economy.’

More Signs of Decline

2007-05-17T16:24:00.000-05:00

THE U.S. IS PROVOKING OTHER COUNTRIES AND REGIONS TO FORM ALLIANCES AGAINST IT

I’ve written before about the certainty that the bellicose U.S./Israel axis and the U.S. “Grand Imperial Strategy”, which induces perpetual war, will cause a drawing together of other nations in protective alliances.

In February I wrote in “Defending Against a Supertyrant”, ‘Nations which feel threatened will increase their strength not only by adding muscle to their own military, but also by forming alliances. The main area of alliances which I see in the making is that part of the Earth which includes Russia, China, and Iran. Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the same geographical area, which includes the potential power of the “Heartland” of Geopolitical theory.

‘Another area for natural alliances for defense against U.S. abuse of power is Latin America. The seeds are visibly sprouting now.’

I’ve also warned that the arrogant U.S. policies and aggressions will hasten the decline of the U.S. from “last remaining superpower”. Already the U.S. has lost the respect of most nations and is considered more a threat than a potential ally. As a result, U.S. political influence is dwindling. Its economic strength is also shrinking, and when creditor nations decide to stop supporting America by lending it money, the beggar nation will be revealed in its true rags. The only “superpower” attribute which the U.S. has left is its military might – which is the major factor in causing other nations and regions to pull together in self-defense . . . protecting themselves until the day U.S. military superiority vanishes along with its other former strengths. All can see that the foundations are rotten; it is only a matter of time before the colossus collapses into mediocrity.

Here are a few indications of the way the world is responding in various ways to the American bully:

CHINA AND LATIN AMERICA

From the BBC a year ago: ‘ Chinese influence in Brazil worries US’

‘Under the slogan of "peaceful rising", China is selling itself to the developing world as an alternative model for ending poverty. The spectre of an encroaching China is made worse by a string of elections which has produced populist and US-sceptic, left-wing leaders. In Brazil itself, the view is very different. It is about two developing countries, the giants of their regions, forming a natural alliance.
‘The flurry of China-Brazil business began less than two years ago after an exchange of visits between Brazilian President Lula da Silva and Chinese President Hu Jintao.
‘Since then China's influence can be seen everywhere in Latin America: oil, gas, railways, ports, steel and - worryingly for the US - defence.
‘"Everything I do is with China now," says one student Priscila Marques, who runs a Brazilian freight forwarding company. "It's Brazil-China; nowhere else."‘

CHINA AND AFRICA

AP, May 17, 2007:
‘BEIJING - A Chinese rocket blasted a Nigerian communications satellite into orbit on Monday, marking an expansion of China's commercial launching services for foreign space hardware, state media said.
‘The official Xinhua News Agency said it was the first time a foreign buyer has purchased a Chinese satellite and its launching service.
‘The launch coincides with the opening of the African Development Bank's annual board meeting in Shanghai this week, reflecting growing African-Chinese ties.’

WOLFOWITZ DOWNFALL A SIGN OF WORLD REBELLION AGAINST U.S. ARROGANCE

‘The end of empire: Wolfowitz on the ropes’
By Andrew Leonard (Salon)
‘[Wolfowitz’] ouster will symbolize far more than just the gotcha of Wolfowitz's personal misdeeds as contrasted with his campaign to fight corruption in the developing world. There's far more at stake here: The presumably successful effort by Europe, Latin America and other regions to dislodge Wolfowitz represents a profound recalibration of global realpolitik.
‘Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has reigned alone as the supreme superpower. The absence of any countervailing force enabled and encouraged the Bush administration to pursue its spectacularly self-destructive foreign policies. The very appointment of Paul Wolfowitz, key architect of the Iraq war, as president of the World Bank, reeked of imperial arrogance.
‘But for every action there is a counterreaction. The rest of the world is fed up. As economic power in the world becomes more diffused across the globe, the ability of any one nation to call all the shots will progressively weaken. Understanding that fact will be a key prerequisite to successfully negotiating future global challenges.

THE "MIDDLE EAST" BECOMES "WEST ASIA"

The following article from the Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2007, shows how American support of Israel and consequent alienation of Muslim countries are driving the Muslim countries (“West Asia” rather than “Middle East” in their terminology) into closer ties with East Asian economic powerhouses. The catastrophic consequences of U.S. pro-Zionism are hinted at in euphemistic statements like these: The ties between East and West Asian countries stand “in potential contrast to tensions that have flared occasionally between the Middle East and Western consuming nations.”

‘RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- A gathering here of Asian and Middle East energy ministers has cast a fresh spotlight on how rapidly the petroleum-rich Persian Gulf and energy-hungry East Asia are intertwining their economies, with potentially significant consequences for the international balance of power.
‘The 16 ministers at the meeting -- jointly hosted by Saudi Arabia and Japan -- represent the huge oil exporters of the Persian Gulf region, dubbed West Asia by the group, and such major consumers from East Asia as China, South Korea and India.
‘The growing ties have broad implications for Western nations as the Mideast and East Asia gain oil-market clout. State-controlled oil companies, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, have taken the lead in developing major new reserves, while major Western oil producers find access to new supplies increasingly limited. Where companies and decision makers once focused on events in Western energy capitals such as Houston, New York and London, these same players are increasingly concentrating their efforts in places like Dubai.
‘Rising East Asian investment in the Middle East could prompt burgeoning powers China and India to take a more active interest in trying to stabilize the region, while also encouraging Middle Eastern leaders to look East, not just to traditional powers such as Washington and Moscow, as players in the volatile region's diplomacy. In Middle Eastern capitals, decisions made in Beijing and New Delhi could ultimately gain the same heft as decisions made in Washington.
‘The meeting yesterday paves the way for more conciliatory ties between the nations on either end of the Asian continent. That stands in potential contrast to tensions that have flared occasionally between the Middle East and Western consuming nations.
‘The increasing links between the Gulf and Asia could have deep geopolitical ramifications. The Middle East-Asian romancing at these roundtable conferences . . . contrasts with the hostility and suspicion between OPEC and the West in the oil-crisis-ridden 1970s.’

HOW THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE SUGAR COATS THE PILL: WHY "WEST ASIAN" OIL PRODUCERS HATE AMERICA

I'll close with a comment on the WSJ article: “The oil-crisis-ridden 1970s” is verbiage designed to obscure the facts: In 1973 the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) announced that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations (primarily the United States) that had supported Israel in its "Yom Kippur War" with Syria and Egypt. The oil embargo caused inflation and economic hardship in the U.S.

The U.S. had unquestionably earned the OPEC retaliation through actions such as “Operation Nickel Grass”:

‘Operation Nickel Grass was a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 12 and November 14, 1973. This rapid supply mission was critical to Israel's ability to recover from early losses in the war, and the operation is sometimes called "the airlift that saved Israel."’ Wikipedia.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. government and communications media did not explain to Americans waiting in long lines for high-priced gas that that situation was due entirely to U.S. support for Israel, any more than the media have explained that the same cause brought about the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Inside Iraq

2007-05-14T06:36:00.000-05:00

I recommend that anyone interested in what the United States has done to Iraq read this article, ’Iraq; A Hell on Earth Made in Washington D.C.’, by Marshall Adame. According to his biography Mr. Adame is a retired U.S. Marine who became an aviation management/logistics consultant who has had considerable experience in Iraq. He “personally attended and participated in many high level Coalition, State Department and DoD meetings and briefings in Iraq from 2003 until late 2006.”

The theme of his article is summarized in its second paragraph:

“From my personal experiences of living in Iraq for three years, I have concluded Americas leadership is solely responsible for the entire country of Iraq becoming a living hell of suffering, poverty, starvation and depravation, unimaginable to either Iraqi or U.S. citizens just prior to our arrival in Iraq in 2003.“

While I do not agree with all of his views, I found his article full of unique and fascinating “insider” facts about the disgraceful situation in Iraq.

I wish that I could draw well enough to create this cartoon that I imagined, and which would be a fitting illustration for Mr. Adame's article:

A vast,dark landscape of smoking ruins, populated only by distant dead bodies and emaciated children, stretches as far as we can see from left to right. Above the jagged horizon looms the huge head of G.W. Bush filling most of the sky, reminiscent of the screen images of Big Brother and the Wizard of Oz. He is saying, "Where can we bring democracy next?"

A Real Opportunity to Influence U.S. War Policy

2007-05-11T11:39:00.001-05:00

Readers from outside the U.S. often ask why we Americans don’t do more to influence our government. One reason is that we don’t know what to do that will have any effect. A few days ago I came across a useful article in the New York Times which reveals some contacts for Americans who want to make their opposition to the Iraq war felt by Congress, and particularly by the Democrats who were elected with a demand to end the war:
‘Antiwar Groups Use New Clout to Influence Democrats on Iraq’

The article points out that the failure of the Democrats in Congress to take genuine action to end the Iraq war – primarily from fear of being accused of failing “to support our troops” when they run for reelection – has brought about great frustration among those who voted the current herd of Democratic sheep into office. That frustration has resulted in the formation of numerous antiwar groups, many of which have now banded together under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

On the “Americans Against Escalation in Iraq” website you will find listed the organizations which have banded together. If you click on “Learn more” on the first page, you’ll be taken to a list of links which will give you the particulars about each group. Two of the best known groups are VoteVets.org and MoveOn.org.

The NYT states there there is considerable tension between the Democratic “leadership” and the antiwar groups. It relates that leaders of MoveOn.org, “including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.”

‘‘“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

‘‘The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”’

There is no reason for me to list in this blog all of the antiwar activist groups you can find on the links given above, nor to describe the actions and inactions of politicians which are reported in the daily news. If you are on the antiwar side, please have a look at the antiwar coalition and take action.

It’s obvious that individual citizens have little influence on politicians, but if enough individuals gather together in coalitions (for example the NRA and AARP), they will be listened to. If we can swell the ranks of the antiwar groups sufficiently – under Americans Against Escalation in Iraq – we can make a real difference.

Invisible Deaths?

2007-05-07T07:47:00.000-05:00

I’m still puzzled by the U.S. news media’s smokescreen over the deaths of American troops in Iraq. In the past 24 hours eight U.S. soldiers were killed, six by a single bomb. That is a lot of deaths, and a very dramatic addition to the recent escalations in group military deaths. It is also a lot of bad news for the Bush administration and the members of Congress who are wiggle waggling over taking real action to end the war as mandated in the November elections. Yet not one of the wire services I follow online -- New York Times, MSNBC, AP, USAToday – or any of the headlines prominently displayed on Google News – mentioned those U.S. deaths this morning. I learned about them by skimming reports under headlines on the deaths of Iraqis, and then reading paragraphs two or three or four. I’m willing to predict that the eight (or possibly more by tonight) military deaths will also get sparse coverage on the evening television news.

We have to assume that the downplaying of military deaths is to the advantage of those Americans who support the war and consider bad news unpatriotic. Is part of “supporting our troops” not only paying the costs of getting them killed but also hiding the fact that they are getting killed? Why not report big news as big news? For one thing, we know that it is not to the advantage of a news service to alienate Congress and the administration. For another, we can be sure that the reporting of U.S. deaths brings a storm of complaints from the Unintelligent Majority.

The worst underlying general assumption in all of this is that war and support of war are patriotic, and that patriotism is not only a virtue but a virtue worth killing and dying for. This mindless human attitude is not so much a form of species-wide insanity as an evolutionary product of the hairless ape’s insatiable lust for fighting and killing, demonstrated from its earliest times. Group cohesion is necessary to survival, but in the case of humans it has taken a bizarre, proudly murderous twist which will not only breed continual war but also an early end to the species as a whole.

Wolfowitz Track Record

2007-05-04T10:33:00.000-05:00

We can see from this May 4 AP report on Paul Wolfowitz that the man chiefly responsible for lying the United States into war with Iraq, and for cheating the World Bank by grossly inflating his girlfriend's salary, is only running true to form.

'JAKARTA, Indonesia - The controversy surrounding World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz spotlights a lack of ethics that was apparent two decades ago when he was U.S. ambassador to Indonesia.

Jeffrey Winters, a professor of political economy at Northwestern University, said that Wolfowitz's past career already showed he was ill fit to run the World Bank.

'"From the very beginning, I felt this was the wrong person for the job," said Winters. He pointed to the radical deregulation of Indonesia's banking sector in 1988, promoted by Wolfowitz's economic team and international lenders. It "opened the floodgates for local crony conglomerates to set up private banks and take in deposits from a trusting public."

'With no rule of law, there was no oversight and no supervision, he said.
"The foxes were running wild in the financial chicken coop and no one, including Wolfowitz, pressured the Indonesians to design safeguards to protect the public's deposits," he said. One result was the 1997-98 financial crisis "that plunged tens of millions into abject poverty."

'Wolfowitz has been arguing that corruption is crippling the world's poorest nations. But that was "the very thing he closed his eyes to" when he served as ambassador from 1986 to 1989 during the regime of the dictator Suharto, said pro-democracy activist Binny Buchori.

'"He's a hypocrite," she said. "He should quit."'

Back Again to More of the Same

2007-05-02T10:58:00.000-05:00

After an unplanned and unintended leave of absence from VIEW FROM THE MOON, I find that nothing has really changed in the Wonderland of U.S. news except that, since my last report, Paul Wolfowitz has attained a few headlines on wire services and has even been mentioned on at least one evening television report. Of course he is still a great guy as far as the United States government is concerned, in spite of his having engineered a disastrous U.S. war, for which he was rewarded with promotion to the presidency of the World Bank. I get the impression that although his popularity with the Zionists and the mass of Israel supporters (and therefore most of the American press) is undiluted, the great reservoir of enmity toward him has reached the overflow point. Along with case histories of Jewish malefactors who have been supported by influential Jews, it would be interesting to analyze the rare cases in which someone like Wolfowitz begins to be abandoned by his tribe and the communications media. Has something made Paul Wolfowitz less immune to public criticism than other Jewish men in comparable cases? Whatever the answer, I predict that if Wolfowitz is forced to leave the World Bank he will be provided with a well-feathered nest in another place.

The question of Paul Finkelstein’s tenure is still up in the air as far as I can tell. As I reported, the fanatically Zionist showboater Alan Dershowitz has made every effort to interfere in the affairs of a university with which he has no connection by opposing Professor Finkelstein’s tenure in the most outrageous and inappropriate ways. The reason, of course, is that Finkelstein, even though Jewish, has written books criticizing Israel. If he is refused tenure, he faces – because of his defiance of Jewish causes – the possibility of being fired . . . an avenue down which Dershowitz is sure to lead a loud parade. Meanwhile, Alan Dershowitz himself, far from suffering job insecurity, will in addition to his Harvard law professorship be rewarded with a job at an Israeli educational institution. Dershowitz will be joining The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya during the 2007-2008) academic year. (Herzliya is a town in Israel near Tel Aviv.) Dershowitz will teach a special class entitled "Law & Terrorism" at IDC Herzliya's Radzyner School of Law. He will, according to an Israeli newspaper, join some of “the greatest legal minds in Israel”, while the U.S., I venture to add, will lose one of its more feeble legal minds.

I will try to attune myself again to world events and write something interesting for this blog, but meanwhile it does seem that we are in a slow period in which the U.S. news simply repeats the same predictable tales every day: Democrats too cowardly to stop Iraq war funding; Republican administration too dastardly to allow a law which might end the war next year. Court Jester and titular Attorney General Alberto Gonzales still clowning, taking his act to the Senate Judiciary Committee where laughter at his performance could be heard even in the corridors outside the hearing room. Israel continuing to murder, kidnap, and torture Palestinians every day without American publicity or protest. An Iranian diplomat released after being kidnapped by American force in Iraq bearing clear marks of torture, including holes drilled into his feet, but dropping from the U.S. news in about twenty minutes. Iran for some reason being allowed a quiet period, but the Wolfowitz/Bush war in Iraq unfailingly killing large numbers of people every day – including more and more of those American troops we are supposed to “support” by keeping them there to be killed.

Speaking of stopping funding of the Iraq war, which the American voters have said they want ended immediately, how much money can it take to carry out the order, “Turn around the tanks and trucks and head for the nearest border”?

BUFFY

2007-04-19T06:36:00.000-05:00

IN TRIBUTE

BUFFY

Always loving, gentle, patient, brave, enduring.

If his soul were the human soul, we would live in paradise.

Darth Dershowitz Returns

2007-04-16T11:54:00.000-05:00

I just learned when I looked at the blog Filasteen that Alan Dershowitz, the fanatically pro-Israel Zionist activist operating out of Harvard, has been outrageously intervening to prevent Professor Norman Finkelstein from successfully obtaining tenure at De Paul University.

Dershowitz has no connection with De Paul, just as he had no connection with Brandeis University when he undertook to sabotage former President Jimmy Carters’ scheduled speech there. Dershowitz’s motivation in both cases was the same: Prof. Finkelstein and Carter wrote books criticizing Israel. (Please click on "Finkelstein" and "Dershowitz" in this blog's Labels to see all that I've already written on Dershowitz.)

If you are interested in academic freedom and freedom of speech generally, please look at this story and support Prof. Finkelstein in any way you can. I can say from reading both Dershowitz and Finkelstein that Finkelstein is far more honest and scholarly than Dershowitz. Indeed the words "honest" and "scholarly" do not apply to Dershowitz at all. The libelous things which Dershowitz has been saying about Finkelstein in his campaign to prevent the professor's tenure make me smile because they are all applicable to Dershowitz himself!

Unfortunately, although the whole acadamic world (except Zionists) seems to be expressing support for Finkelstein and disgust with Dershowitz, my impression is that the only person at De Paul University who is opposed to the tenure is one of the two individuals who can prevent it. The decision may already have been made. Let's hope that it is a favorable one.

Here is a >link to a relevant portion of Prof. Finkelstein’s website. There’s also a link to his webpage on my blogroll.

A Solidarity Campaign” “in favor of Professor Finkelstein is online with links to a lot of information.

Another informative article

More Missing from the News

2007-04-15T18:06:00.000-05:00

Jolly Paul Wolfowitz

For me the biggest news in recent days was the death of Kurt Vonnegut, but for U.S. television's prime time news and commentary shows, the big news was the firing of a particularly repulsive “talk show host”, Don Imus, because of his insulting racial comments about a women’s basketball team. Imus deserved to be fired and exiled to an especially small, cold island in the Atlantic, but did his idiocy deserve more than half of hour-long news programs for several nights?

The rest of the evening TV “news” centered on the stale tale of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who oversaw the mass firing of U.S. Attorneys seen as unsupportive of the Bush-Republican political machine.

A more important story about a more important person was never mentioned at all. There was not a hint that Paul Wolfowitz, “the architect of the Iraq war” who was kicked upstairs by Bush to the presidency of the World Bank when criticism of the war became hot, was in trouble for having engineered the transfer of his girlfriend from the World Bank to the U.S. State Department with a huge salary rise to a bloated salary of almost $200,000 a year. There was no justification for the pay raise. Wolfowitz tried to cover his tracks and at first denied the charges, but recently “apologized” for poor judgment.

World Bank personnel are literally shouting for Wolfowitz to resign. Last Thursday, World Bank staffers heckled Wolfowitz by shouting "resign" as he spoke about the issue. Wolfowitz has “declined to address any details of the controversy.” He has been very unpopular at the World Bank not only for his rude manner but for trying to engineer special privileges for himself.

President Bush, of course, of course, “has confidence” in Wolfowitz. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury has made public expressions of support.

The “New York Times” wire service mentioned the Wolfowitz scandal online a few days ago, and later I found the story on Google news. Today the wire service headlines are to the effect that Wolfowitz intends to “weather the storm” and remain president of the World Bank in spite of demands for his resignation.

My point, of course, is that the U.S. news media are protecting Wolfowitz by not featuring his story – and generally not mentioning it at all on television -- for the same reason that the media screamed for I. Lewis Libby to be pardoned after his conviction for perjury. ”Let’s Hear it for Libby, Folks!”

In the case of Wolfowitz’ s misdeeds, still being debated, silence is the best protection while support is being organized (and paid for) behind the scenes. In Libby’s case, the object is to keep him out of jail after he was convicted, and so the best course was a loud public outcry about “injustice”.

Those two men are being supported and protected in one way or another because they are Jewish. (The publicly whipped Alberto Gonzales, by the way, is Catholic.) I’ve discussed this phenomenon and will discuss it in future posts. Again and again we’ve seen Jews receiving news media support in situations where gentiles have not. In financial scandals and frauds where several guilty parties are involved, it is mostly the non-Jewish miscreants whose names appear in the headlines, while the Jewish participants are hardly mentioned even if they had the leading roles. At the least, the volume is turned down when Jews are mentioned. There is a history in financial and corporate crime of gentile “front men” going down amid loud publicity while the Jewish co-criminals somehow fade away with no or little punishment.

Wolfowitz earned notoriety and condemnation long before he committed misdeeds as head of the World Bank. He is more responsible than any other single individual for engineering the invasion of Iraq. It was he who jumped in front of a camera shortly after 9/11 and said that it would be necessary to "end states that support terrorism." I was shocked at the ominous words “end states”, which were soon translated into, “Attack Iraq.” Wolfowitz and his fellow “neocons” such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, and Lewis Libby did everything possible to boost arguments and manufacture false evidence to justify a United States war on Iraq. Of course Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were also involved. Interesting, is it not, that Rumsfeld was forced to resign in disgrace, while Wolfowitz – who bears much more responsibility for the Iraq debacle than Rumsfeld – escaped to a plush job as head of the World Bank.

The Perfect Solution

2007-04-11T07:31:00.000-05:00

The following news item suggests the perfect solution for Bush’s Iraq war. Not only is it the perfect solution, but probably the only scheme that would resemble a solution more than a debacle.

G.W. Bush needs merely to supplement his delusional assertions that all is going well in Iraq with the kind of substitute satellite imagery described in the article below.

The U.S. government and Google need only replace current images of Iraq with images of Iraq before the American invasion. Instead of piles of dead bodies, screaming children, weeping men and women, smoldering U.S. vehicles, bomb craters in streets, and buildings in ruins, the replacement imagery would show bustling outdoor markets, tidy neighborhoods, green parks, gleaming palaces, well maintained streets, well fed people, and smiling Iraqis relaxing at streetside cafes. Best of all, there would be no American troops in the images – allowing Bush to say that because he has turned Iraq into a paradise the U.S. no longer needs to “support our troops” by keeping them in Iraq where they can be killed every day.

By CAIN BURDEAU March 31, 2007
‘NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Google's replacement of post-Hurricane Katrina satellite imagery on its map portal with images of the region before the storm does a "great injustice" to the storm's victims, a congressional subcommittee said.
‘The House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight on Friday asked Google Inc. (GOOG) Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt to explain why his company is using the outdated imagery.
‘"Google's use of old imagery appears to be doing the victims of Hurricane Katrina a great injustice by airbrushing history," subcommittee chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., wrote in a letter to Schmidt.
‘Swapping the post-Katrina images and the ruin they revealed for others showing an idyllic city dumbfounded many locals and even sparked suspicions that the company and civic leaders were conspiring to portray the area's recovery progressing better than it is.’

Before

After

Voila!

"ISRAELI GI"?

2007-04-07T19:19:00.000-05:00

MSNBC and Associated Press share the credit for this online abomination of a headline,

“CAPTORS OF ISRAELI GI ISSUE LATEST DEMANDS.”

What the heck is an “Israeli GI”? This may be the first time “GI” has been applied to anything but an American soldier. Gee, could there be a subtle message intended?

Part of the AP/MSNBC “Israeli GI” article:

‘RAMALLAH, West Bank - After months of deadlock, the captors of an Israeli soldier handed over the names of Palestinian prisoners they want freed in exchange for the hostage, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.
‘The release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is seen as a precondition for any possible progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. A swap could also help the new Palestinian unity government, a coalition of the Islamic militant Hamas and the moderate Fatah movement, in its quest for international acceptance.’

Questions:

1. Why is the “Israeli GI” a “hostage” rather than a “prisoner” like all the Arabs Israel has kidnapped and held?

2. Why is the release of one Israeli soldier a precondition for “peace efforts”, rather than Israeli release of its thousands of Palestinian prisoners?

2007-04-04T13:08:00.000-05:00

This illustrates Joice's comment on "Futile Gesture?" that she has the impression that the Democratic and Republican Parties are actually just one party. (That must be Joice on the left.)

Tweedledum and Tweedledee, from "Through the Looking Glass"

Futile Gesture?

2007-04-03T06:35:00.000-05:00

Here is the text of an email I've sent to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. People from other countries have asked me why we Americans don't do something about our government's policies and bring about a real change. Well, we U.S. citizens are told we can control our government by voting, but that isn't true, as this letter complains. We're also told that writing to politicians will make a difference, but that's not true either. I predict that my email to Nancy Pelosi, if it isn't automatically deleted, will be classified by a 17 year old staff member as "Favorable" or "Unfavorable" in some category which may come in handy for planning lies for the next election as that time approaches. Most likely I'll receive an automated reply which tells what a wonderful job the Democrats are doing, a reply which will have little to do with the subject of my email or with reality. The reply may even thank me for my encouragement. I worked in Washington for 8 years, ghost-wrote an autobiography for a congressman, and I've seen from the inside how the machinery works. Additionally, I've had the experience of sending many letters of protest and warning to politicians before the invasion of Iraq . . . letters which all received the kinds of inattention I've just described.

Dear Speaker of the House Pelosi,

I and everyone I know personally who voted for Democrats in November because we wanted a swift end to the war in Iraq and a strong barrier against an attack on Iran are more disappointed than polite words can express.

We have seen the Democrats as incredibly weak, waffling, and preoccupied with fear that someone will accuse them of "not supporting the troops" or of not sufficiently supporting Israel come November 2008. We are so sick of hearing "support the troops" as a euphemism for "continue war funding" that we actually boo Democrats on the television screen.

A malleable provision to "begin withdrawal" or to "withdraw" from Iraq by sometime in 2008 is not why we voted you into office. You have failed us by passing a bill fully funding the war! You are not ending Bush's illegal and futile war by giving him everything he wants.

Some people I know think that even worse than your funding the war is your cowardly removal of the legislative provision which would have required the president to get congressional approval for any attack on Iran. Your quick capitulation to the Israel Lobby is the equivalent of giving Bush a congressional green light to attack Israel's target and removing any political obstacle to a new war. An attack on innocent Iran could make the Iraq war look like a warmup exercise. If there is a attack on Iran the Democrats haven't even left themselves whining room. You have clearly opened the gate and invited the next war just as most of you did for the Iraq war. . . with the difference that this time you don't have the transparently false excuse, "But we thought there were weapons of mass destruction."

On various blogs I've seen people from all over the world ask, "Why don't you Americans do something? What's happened to the American spirit? How can you let your government do these things to you?" I answer that U.S. citizens are told we can influence events at the ballot box, but that is untrue, as the Democrats have proved in three embarrassing months. One can only conclude that you Democrats, along with the Republicans, are much more interested in holding your jobs in future elections than in rescuing this country from Iraq or preventing a war on Iran.

Sincerely,

Fleming Lee
Florida

Please Look!

2007-03-31T10:58:00.000-05:00

Joice of Brazil has posted a video on her IMPLICANTE blog, March 30, which I urge you to watch. It is pictures from the Balata Palestinian refugee camp which carry a bigger message than I could write in a 3 foot long column.

http://implicantepornatureza.blogspot.com/

Joice often writes in English as well as Portugese, and I recommend her blog, which deals with a great variety of subjects.

Brain Envy?

2007-03-30T18:09:00.000-05:00

Could there be a secret motivation behind President G.W. Bush’s condemnation of various other national leaders as “evil”?

Could it be brain envy?

George II is stupid, as sensitive as a fencepost, and as articulate as a hog. If given a choice he would no doubt prefer to see himself in the role of the fraudulent wizard in “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” who thrived on lies and special effects, than in the role of the scarecrow who begged the wizard to supply him with a brain, but I see Bush in both characters – the fraud and the brainless scarecrow.

It occurred to me that Bush, like the scarecrow of Oz, might envy those who actually have brains. I asked myself if he comes up with ridiculous slanders like “evildoers” and “Axis of Evil” because he lies awake at night wishing he had the brains and creativity of the men he makes his enemies?

I looked up the intellectual achievements of the leaders whom Bush loves to hate as best I could in a short time, and I offer you the results today. Meanwhile, I tried to find comparable information about Bush: He was a cheerleader at Philips Academy. At Yale (entry courtesy of his super rich father), he was “an average student” at best. His known writing consists of a letter to his father from Yale: “Dear Dad, can you spere another $1000 to get me through the month?” His presidential speeches are written by other people, and he has demonstrated that he has difficulties even reading the words and sentences aloud correctly. If he attempts to make a statement extemporaneously he produces a frightening impression of an open-mouthed bullfrog staring at a car’s headlights.

By comparison, here are those he envies:

HUGO CHAZEZ, President of Venezuela

Hugo Chavez, before becoming President of Venezuela, had a professional military career in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel; he held a series of teaching and staff positions at the Military Academy of Venezuela, where he was praised for his fiery lecturing style.

He is the author of several short stories and poems: "Vuelvan Caras" (published in “El Nacional” newspaper, to which many of the recognized Venezuelan writers have contributed written works), "Mauricio", and "El Genio y el Centauro" (theatrical work which won third place on the National Historical Theater prize in Cañafístola, in 1987.) He wrote a famous poem dedicated to the late Lieutenant Colonel Felipe Acosta Carles, who was one of the founders of Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200. In addition to his writing, Chávez has also sculpted, producing such works as the 1980 “Sombra de Guerra en el Golfo” ("Shadows of War in the Gulf").

I think there is more wit, intelligence, and sincerity in one of his speeches – for which he is himself responsible -- than in all of Bush’s mechanical utterances since he went into politics. One of my favorites is Chavez’s address to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2006, from which this is taken:

‘Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals . . . this is one of his most recent books, “Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States." [Holds up the book and waves it. Here already is a striking contrast to G.W. Bush, who has never voluntarily picked up a book.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet. . . .

‘I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

‘The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

‘And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [Crosses himself.] "And it smells of sulfur still today." Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.’

KIM JONG-IL, National Leader of North Korea

G.W. Bush made Kim Jong-il a charter member of the Bush “Axis of Evil” -- a ludicrous bit of verbiage which in itself is a glaring revelation of childish stupidity. Some say that Kim Jong-il was given the honor simply because Bush’s puppetmasters wanted to distract attention from the obvious fact that the other two members of the Axis – Iraq and Iran --were named because Israel wanted them destroyed.

Although he has been routinely smeared by Bush and the U.S. propaganda machine, Kim Jong-il has in real life shown himself to be infinitely more intelligent and creative person than the American president.

Kim Jong-il has always had more than a mere viewer’s interest in films. He is the author of book titled “On the Art of the Cinema”. It is alleged – but disputed -- that in 1978 he ordered the "kidnapping" of famous South Korean film director Shin Sang-ok and his actress wife Choe Eun-hui in order to build a North Korean film industry. Whether the couple came voluntarily or were “kidnapped”, one might say that Kim Jong-il’s heart was in the right place – a promoter of the arts who would go to great lengths to realize his dreams.

In 2006 he was personally involved in the production of the movie “Diary of a Girl Student”, depicting the life of a girl whose parents are scientists. Kim "improved its script and guided its production".

Additionally, Kim Jong-il has written a book on the “Art of Opera”, and has written an opera himself, “The FlowerGirl”, the tale of a saintly peasant girl. Early in the film her family is beaten up by a greedy landlord. In what Kim describes as his favorite moment, peasants look toward the nighttime sky and reflect on how the moon, though seen by everyone, might find some people miserable and others happy.

I’m going to quote passages from a published book, and I will leave it to you to decide whether G.W. Bush or Kim Jong-Il wrote it:

"Language is extremely important in literature. Words must be filled with meaning and should always be clear and easy to understand. A lengthy crude or intricate jumble of difficult words which lack real meaning is quite useless."

"Just as form is inconceivable to content, so is content without form. The content determines and restricts the form and the form follows and expresses the content. The content can only be expressed correctly thru an appropriate form and a good form that suits the content positively reacts back on the latter by expressing it clearly."

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, President of Iran

Ahmadinejad is another leader in the “Axis of Evil”. The son of a blacksmith, he took Iran's national university entrance exams to gain admission into one of Iran's top universities. His test score ranked him 132nd among more than 400,000 participants that year. He studied engineering and received his doctorate in engineering and traffic transportation planning. He has taught engineering at a university where he studied. Someone wrote in a blog, “He was the teacher everybody likes--friendly, laid back, cheerful, and an easy grader! He taught my cousin's traffic engineering course, while his bodyguard would sit outside.” Ahmadinejad has taught Ph.D. candidates as well as undergraduates, thus showing, unlike Bush, that he actually learned something in school.

Ahmadinejad’s attitude toward his personal safety and comfort also contrasts strongly with that of George W. Bush. When Iraq attacked Iran, Ahmadinejad rushed off to fight on the western front rather than seeking safety at home. Even after he was elected president, Ahmadinejad continued living in a simple apartment flat and ate meals in his office which were brought from home.

In spite of his engineering orientation, President Ahmadinejad has shown an interest in poetry, saying that poetry is the emotional expression of justice-seeking, God-worshiping, and love as the three divine and human exalted values. He discussed the importance of poetry and exalted values in addressing a group of scholars attending a seminar in Tehran to honor Iranian classical poet Beedel Dehlavi.

The impressive display of honesty and articulate reasoning in Ahmadinejad’s speeches, as well as in the long essay-letters he has sent to Bush pleading the cause of peace and cultural understanding, greatly outdoes anything even Bush’s speechwriters have been able to come up with. Indeed, they couldn't even come up with a reply to Ahmadinejad's historic letters.

SADDAM HUSSEIN, former president of Iraq, murdered by G.W. Bush.

The third, and now departed, member of the “Axis of Evil”, Saddam Hussein, wrote four novels, the best known of which are “Zabibah and the King” (2000) and “The Fortified Castle” (2002). “Begone, Demons” was his fourth and last novel, finished the day before U.S forces invaded his country on false pretenses, One of his daughters managed to get the manuscript out of Iraq, and it was published in Japan in 2006 under the title, “Devil’s Dance”. In case you wonder why it hasn’t been published in the United States, “Begone, Demons” revolves around a Zionist-Christian conspiracy against Arabs and Muslims.

“Saddam appreciates and promotes Iraqi poetry, art and literature,” according to Abdul Wahid, a famous Iraqi poet, who believes that had Saddam not become a politician, he could have been a professional literary critic or a writer.

Even while in American captivity, Saddam wrote poetry. In these short excerpts he was addressing the people of Iraq:

“Unbind your soul. It is my soul mate and you are my soul's beloved.
No house could have sheltered my heart as you have.
. . . .
We never kneel or bend when attacking
But we even treat our enemy with honor. “

George Bush certainly couldn’t have written that, especially the last line.

2007-03-28T09:51:00.000-05:00

Apologia

I’ve burrowed deep into my den preparing that report I promised on the Russian “oligarchs”, who have something in common with I. Lewis Libby in addition to the fact that all but one oligarch is running around free in spite of being a criminal.

I thought it would take me a morning to research and write the oligarch post, but it became so intriguing – like a mystery story in which new clues and connections keep turning up – that I’ve been holed up with it for three days. The sad side is that although I’m thoroughly entertained, most other people may find the twisted tale thoroughly boring.

Meanwhile, as I try to make the story shorter, it keeps getting longer.
----------

News

Today’s News:

My Comment on Today’s News:
There isn’t any. At least there’s nothing of importance new since yesterday, although the News Behemoth is belching forth the same amount of smoke as usual.

Interesting . . . fewer significant events don’t result in fewer words, but significant events may not be put into words at all.
-----------

Poll Results

I’ve taken a highly scientific poll of 1000 people, and here are the answers:

‘How many believe that G.W. Bush is a great leader and military strategist?’
2

‘How many believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the Twin Towers?’
3 (the same two, plus one Fox News commentator)

‘How many believe that Iran has atomic bombs which it can launch to Israel or the United States at any time?’
2 (the original two)

‘How many believe that Israel is an asset to the United States?’
2 (guess which 2)

‘What are your three main reasons for thinking that Israel is a great asset to the United States?’
1 (Reasons: a. All the U.S. bases that Israel has let us build in Israel. b. All the Israeli troops that are fighting alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. c. “Duh, dunno. Doesn't Israel give us lots of money?”)

Oh, all right. It was a fantasy poll, but it was highly scientific.

The Perfect Solution

2007-03-26T06:25:00.000-05:00

“UN Imposes Iran Sanctions”

“Iran Retaliates by Reducing Cooperation”

“Defiant Iran Roils Oil Markets”

“Israel Equips Planes to Bomb Iran”

“Iran Vows to Proceed with Civilian Nuclear Power Program”

“Congress Removes Iran War Restriction from Legislation”

“Bush Warns. . . “ “Bush Threatens. . .” “Bush sends. . .”

“Iran Military Warns U.S. Against Any Attack”

I have the perfect solution. It’s easy. It’s legal. It’s foolproof.

Leave Iran alone!

Isn’t it nice when the perfect solution to a problem is to do nothing?

Leave Iran alone!

Congress and the Greased Pig Contest

2007-03-24T09:54:00.000-05:00

I’ve been railing against the Democrats (and, it goes without saying, against the Republicans) for being so pusillanimous about defunding and stopping the war in Iraq. “Oh,” the Democrats whimper with quivering lips, “I know I was elected to stop the war, but now what if I’m accused of not supporting the troops?” Translated: “What gives me that best chance of being re-elected?”

I’ve said that politics in the United States is a competition for jobs, with no higher principles involved. It’s like watching a crowd of grimy contestants try to catch the greased pig at the county fair.

Here’s an excellent comment on the shallowness of it all. I recommend the entire article.

From “A Measure of Morality in Congress”, by David Swanson . . . who says that members of Congress most often vote as they do “in order to keep their committee chairmanships, or in order to receive funding for projects in their districts, or in order to receive assistance or not face opposition in their next reelection campaigns.”

“What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070322_a_measure_of_moralit.htm

The Next Shackle? Blogs and Big Brother.

2007-03-21T16:59:00.000-05:00

As I surfed the television “news” last night, I couldn’t get away from rantings about the Hillary Clinton “Big Sister” video. The familiar talking heads, like images from recurrent nightmares, jawed pointless noises designed, like the interminable blather about Attorney General Gonzalez and Britney Spears, to distract the populace from really important things like government expenditures, Iraq, and the daily maiming and slaughter of Palestinians by Israel.

That anonymous, ubiquitous video of Ms. Clinton, who takes the place of “Big Brother” in what was originally an Apple commercial, prompted several comments about the revolutionary role of free circulation of videos and opinions on the Web . . . blogging included. I got the impression that complaints about “too much freedom” were being murmured in certain quarters.

Up to now there have been ominous rumblings about the dangers of freedom on the Internet but, as far as I know, little actual interference. We hear about the most obvious targets first – child molestation, child pornography – but then also about “hate speech” (i.e., any speech you don’t like), “racism”, and “antisemitism”. All manner of evils are supposedly sweeping the globe by way of blogs and other websites, but up to now those offended by all freedom except their own have not found a way to do much about it.

What concerns me is that the people who are actually able to impose control, the politicians in Washington, are now feeling personally stung and threatened by bloggers and others who have unrestricted run of the Internet. I foresee a new shackle on what is left of liberty – a powerful, persistent assault of regulation and restriction aimed at bloggers and other free Internet spirits. It is inherent in most who hold political power, or who seek power to further their special interests, to want to suppress dissent and control what the public hears – even if they pay lip service to “freedom of opinion". They have managed to restrict the print and broadcast media to narrow confines without appearing to do so, but the freedom of the Internet is a different matter.

I can imagine some of the arguments we’ll hear: “As political leaders who love fairness, how can we possibly tolerate anonymous postings? A person who hides behind anonymity obviously has something to hide. He's a danger to society. What harm is there in requiring someone to take responsibility for a video that attacks others? Wouldn’t identification, and registration (with appropriate penalties for noncompliance, of course), be a good idea? We are not trying to restrict, we are trying to protect. (And while we're at it, shouldn't we collect a tax to pay for our protection?) Think of the poor vulnerable victims whose feelings and even political careers are hurt by criticism or debates; aren’t their rights as important as those of the hate-filled people who are criticizing them?”

My point is simple: I’m afraid that the next great attack on freedom will be an assault on the Internet, and especially on free and anonymous video posting and blogging. If Canada and European countries can already throw scholars into prisons for merely questioning “established historical fact” or criticizing certain groups, why can’t the United States take “minimal” steps to “reasonably” control bloggers and video creators?

Of course in my country there’s that inconvenient U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, but if the politicians and watchdogs against “hate” work hard enough and long enough – a small wedge here and there, constant pounding on a crack in the foundation -- they’ll eventually find ways to bring freedom down and make Internet censorship sound like newfound liberty.

It’s ironic that this post was prompted by Hillary Clinton in the role of “Big Brother”. In George Orwell’s “1984” (if you’re too young to have read it, you’d better read it before it ALL comes true), “Big Brother” (a personification of the dictatorship, modeled on Josef Stalin) was everywhere in everyone’s life by means of television and other devices, constantly watching everything and everybody, even in the most private moments and places. As in the world of G.W. Bush, war was perpetual and essential to the maintenance of Big Brother’s power and the national economy. People, pumped full of fear of the enemy (call that “terrorism”), had accepted the reduction of their freedoms until they were, in effect, slaves even as to their very thoughts – although of course Big Brother assured them they were the freest, happiest, most blessed people in history. Through constant propaganda, surveillance, and the use of police force and torture, a small, anonymous, securely protected group ruled an entire population behind a mask of, “Big Brother wants what’s best for you.” It is that anonymous group we need to defend ourselves against, and not free bloggers or video creators. If we fail, those small children I see playing across the street may not even have an Internet by the time they're my age.

"Israel: American Ally or Liability?", by William C. Hall

2007-03-17T17:06:00.000-05:00

I was amazed to read the following column in a local area newspaper, the “DeLand-Deltona Beacon”, of March 15-18, 2007.

William C. Hall wrote the article for his “Veritas” newspaper column. He is obviously a brave man. I was so impressed that I sent him an email and received his kind permission to reprint the column here. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

‘ISRAEL: AMERICAN ALLY OR LIABILITY?

‘At midnight on May 14, 1948 Israel declared its independence. Eleven minutes later, on orders from President Truman, the United States officially recognized the new nation and in doing so inextricably linked the United States with the fate of a new nation the size of New Jersey. Without American recognition, arms and financial aid, Israel would not have survived. Though unintended, President Truman’s gesture lit the fuse of 9/11.

‘Forty-eight years later, Richard Perle, a Reagan-era official who served under Dick Cheney at the Defense Department and would later serve as an adviser to Donald Rumsfeld in the Bush Defense Department, co-authored a foreign-policy advisory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The report, titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” advised: “[Israel to] break off ongoing peace initiatives” while characterizing the “removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq [as] an important Israeli strategic objective.” Thus Richard Perle and other influential neocons in the current administration urged us to war in Iraq while not one Israeli soldier went in harm’s way for Israel’s “strategic objective.”

‘When one considers that the fundamental axiom of diplomacy is “nations do not have friends, merely interests,” it is imperative to ask, What compelling interest of the United States is served by a relationship that has led us to war in Iraq as Israel’s surrogate?

‘Even as we distance ourselves from “old Europe” (and they from us) and align our commercial interests more and more with China and India, Israel remains a tiny but disproportionately influential trading partner as well as a significant foreign-policy liability.

‘Our trade balance with Israel favors the United States by $8.1 billion, but it should be noted Israel’s imports are primarily subsidized American arms – an incendiary commerce in the Middle East. Furthermore, Israel is only 19th among our trading partners with a GDP of $114 billion. To put that into perspective, Florida’s GDP is $500 billion. Israel is therefore as economically significant (to us) as Switzerland. It is difficult to imagine a scenario whereby we would go to war on behalf of Switzerland’s interests!

‘In geopolitical terms, Israel is frequently characterized as an important ally, but she is an ally that has not come to our aid in a war in Israel’s front yard. By contrast, the Bush administration has heaped scorn on the French for their refusal to join in our nightmare of holy war with the fanatics who control much of the world’s energy supply.

‘The reason usually given for Israel’s conspicuous absence from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan is the alleged risk of inflaming the Islamic world. Considering current events, it is hard to imagine how much more inflamed Islam could become, and therefore the question remains: Why aren’t Israeli troops fighting alongside Americans – or – why are we still in Iraq?

‘Our foreign policy has been, and continues to be, influenced by a large and well-financed Israel lobby. While we should not disregard our Judeo-Christian heritage and the soil from which it springs, we need to recall Jefferson’s foreign-policy dictum: “Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”’

‘Copyright 2007 All rights reserved. Carder Hall Media LLC. Send e-mail to carderw@cfl.rr.com.’

Olbermann and MSNBC Flunk Backbone Test

2007-03-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

BULLETIN: MSNBC TV NEWS MANAGERS AND KEITH OLBERMANN CLASSIFIED INVERTEBRATES.

I watched all of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” last night, and quite a bit of “Scarborough Country”. Not one word was said about the big story of the day, which I quoted and discussed in my previous post.

Yesterday MSNBC online reported that the Democrats had eliminated from proposed legislation the requirement that Congress approve an attack on Iran before Bush could launch such a war. Politicians said that the reason for the elimination of any restraint on Bush was Israel’s fear of Iran. What could be a bigger story than that? “Democrats Clear Way for Bush Attack on Iran Due to Israeli Concerns”.

Please read the full story I posted yesterday if you haven’t. The big point now is that last night Olbermann/MSNBC TV avoided the most important story altogether and found the US Attorney General scandal so fascinating (even though no laws were broken) that virtually the entire hour-long program was filled with Attorney General Gonzales and the usual “celebrity” sewage.

It seems that every time I stray from my original announced aim in VIEW FROM THE MOON – to provide important facts that are missing from mainstream news coverage in the United States – events bring me back on track. It also seems that those events are almost always related to Israel and its supporters – whether it’s a Zionist Harvard law professor attacking Jimmy Carter for supporting Palestinian rights or the present case, in which the United States Congress, incredibly, has abdicated all responsibility for preventing Bush & Co. from starting a war with Iran.

If you think about it, this is one of the worst things that has happened in a long time. If our politicians are going to throw us to the war dogs for Israel’s sake, isn’t it time to analyze and ask questions?

First, why should “Israel’s fears of Iran” have any impact on the U.S. Congress at all? In case you haven’t looked lately, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, Iowa, and Arizona are on the North American continent, not in Palestine.

Second, Israeli concerns about Iran are childish anyway. Even if Iran does try to develop atomic weapons it would take at least ten and probably fifteen years to do so. Besides, Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal, as well as a much more powerful military than Iran, courtesy of the U.S.A. It's as if the United States were quaking and wringing its hands today because Gautemala began a nuclear power program.

Third, why would the Israeli Lobby strive so hard to eliminate the requirement of a congressional green light for a Bush attack on Iran if it weren’t to guarantee that widespread American public opposition to such an attack could find no expression in Washington? Bush can be trusted to start any war that Israel wants, but if congressional approval were required, there would be just a tiny chance that Congress would flash a red light. A tiny chance indeed, considering the Israel Lobby’s power over Congress, but perhaps a chance.

Democrats are still trying to lie their way out of the quicksand of their advance approval of the Iraq war. What possible excuse will they invent for having let Bush know that he has a free hand to attack Iran?

If There Was Ever Any Doubt. . .

2007-03-13T18:09:00.000-05:00

BULLETIN: UNITED STATES NO LONGER MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH

If there was ever any doubt about whether a tiny Jewish colony in Palestine can control the foreign policy of “the most powerful nation on earth”, this story should put the doubt to rest.

Next to getting the U.S. troops out of Iraq, the most important demand on most voters' minds last November was that the Democrats do something to prevent Bush from starting a new war – specifically, against Iran. We now hear that the ever-heroic Democrats are dropping legislation which would require that Bush get approval from Congress before moving against Iran!

What could be worse for the Dems than once more, as they did before the invasion of Iraq, to give an irresponsible megalomaniac carte blanche to invade a Middle Eastern country? This time they can’t hide behind the “we didn’t know any better” lie over which they’re still rending their garments. They don’t even have that feeble an excuse for ignoring their people’s and their country’s interests.

Their reason for abdicating the right of Congress to veto a Bush attack on Iran: “There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran.”

Is that any reason to give a green light to a new war for the United States? Is there “widespread fear in California about Iran”? Is there “widespread fear about Iran in Minnesota or Michigan”? Not likely. What could there be to fear?

We see in this AP article a blood-chilling example of the power of the Israel Lobby over the Congress. Ironically, while the Democrats suffered dissolving spines, Cheney was giving a speech to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, probably the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby.

How much hard-biting analysis of the Israel influence on the junking of the Iran legislation will we hear on MSNBC tonight? I’ll wait to judge the status of Keith Olbermann’s spine until I see what he does with the story on his show.

Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
‘WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
‘The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
‘Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.’

Even from here I can hear the squeak of the twisting of congressional arms by AIPAC.
--------------

And Now,
Good News:

Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.

According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.

Antidote to "Pardon Libby" Headlines

2007-03-12T11:23:00.000-05:00

If the concerted pleas for a presidential pardon for poor little “Scooter” Libby tug at your heartstrings, you need an antidote quickly. Read these interviews immediately and see your mental health care professional the next morning if you continue to feel any sympathy for Libby.

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 6, 2007

FORMER ACTING U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ, JOSEPH WILSON

‘I think that the idea of a senior White House official [I. Lewis Libby] being convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury is something that ought to sadden everybody who believes in public service. The responsibility of a public servant to uphold and defend the Constitution is besmirched when they‘re convicted of crimes like this.

‘On the other hand, of course, I think it reconfirms that this is, in fact, a nation of laws, and that no man is above the law. And I think we can take some satisfaction that the Constitution has been defended by the prosecution, by the system of justice, and by the jury of peers that decided Mr. Libby‘s guilt today.

‘I think there‘s an implicit and explicit conflict of interest in the president exercising his pardon authority on behalf of somebody who worked for him.’
‘Whatever the last four or five years have been like for us [Ambassador Wilson and his wife, whose secret CIA status was exposed by her own government, primarily by Libby and Cheney] it‘s been mere inconvenience compared to what this administration has done to our service people and their families in the prosecution of a war that was justified on misinformation and lies, and was really undertaken not for the national security of the United States, but to prove an academic theory, which wasn‘t a very good academic theory at that.

[Comment by Fleming: Libby had a hand in creating the neocon “academic theory” of which Wilson speaks and Olbermann ignores. More about that in another post.]

WILSON CONTINUES: ‘And I would have appreciated the president acknowledging some sadness for the fate of his covert CIA officer [Ms. Wilson], who spent 20 years serving her country, many of those overseas, many of those in what‘s known as nonofficial cover, where she didn‘t even have the benefit of diplomatic protections if she‘d been picked up for espionage.

‘Yes, I would have welcomed that. But I would also welcome from the president of the United States some acknowledgement of what he‘s put our military through in the prosecution of this war in Iraq.

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 9

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR.
(Professor of Constitutional Law at The George Washington University Law School --
a nationally renowned legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory.}

‘Lying under oath is the same creature, no matter what the subject is. As you know, I testified in Congress in support of the Clinton impeachment, even though I voted for him. I thought he should be impeached because he lied under oath. He wasn‘t impeached because he had an affair.

‘The same could be said about Scooter Libby. And it‘s very distressing to see some of the people that, frankly, were on that same side during impeachment coming to a different view.

‘You know, perjury, you lift your hand and you take an oath to God. When you go into a courtroom and you lie, and you‘re a high-level official, who either makes the laws or enforces them, our system treats that very, very harshly, because we must. You cannot have that, you can‘t tolerate that, in a system committed to the rule of law.

‘Well, I‘m not too sure how honorable a pardon would be for Scooter Libby. First of all, he doesn‘t meet the criteria and the guidelines for a pardon. This is a president who‘s always said he‘s gone by the book. Well, the book [the U.S. Justice Department pardon guidelines] says that you should wait five years after a conviction. It says it‘s much harder to get a pardon if you‘re a high-ranking official. And you have to accept guilt. All three of those go against Scooter Libby.

INTERVIEWER: . . . list of things that people have been pardoned for, everything from bank fraud to submitting false statements to federal housing administration, to one guy‘s sentence in ‘47 for possessing an unregistered whiskey still.

TURLEY: I agree with that one. But there are some offenses that are a lot more sort of dangerous for society than a whiskey still. And while people in this country seem to think perjury is a minor crime, it‘s not. In my view, it‘s one of the most serious crimes, because it undermines the entire legal system. That‘s why prosecutors hate it, because you can‘t have a legal system, particularly with high officials who engage in that conduct.

‘You can live with a few more whiskey stills, but it‘s much, much more difficult to live with high-ranking officials who lie under oath and get away with it. Prominent officials, public officials, generally get longer sentences, because they betray a public trust. And it‘s important to tell the public that we don‘t have two systems. There aren‘t untouchables in our system, even if you are Scooter Libby, and the next guy above you in the pay grade is the vice president of the United States.

INTERVIEWER: The pardon guidelines also say that for serious crimes such as breach of public trust, a, quote, “suitable length of time should elapse before granting the pardon in order to avoid undermining the conviction‘s deterrent effect.”

TURLEY: Well, you know, because this is a real problem with Scooter Libby, because if he waits the five years, he‘ll be out of jail, simply because he‘s likely to get, under the sentencing guidelines, between one and a half and three years. You‘re supposed to go to jail for some time to taste the penalty. But for Scooter Libby, he‘d have to be pardoned at some point before the president leaves office. And there are many people that say he should (INAUDIBLE) be pardoned right after sentencing. That would be almost unprecedented in our system, and it would send a very clear message.

‘In my view, it would be an great abuse of the pardon power, because he‘s accused of covering up, obstructing justice, to protect the administration. For the president to use his unique authority to give a pardon to such a person before jail, in my view, would be disgraceful.’

2007-03-09T08:27:00.000-05:00

Update on yesterday’s VIEW FROM THE MOON.

If these quotes don’t show the kind of orchestrated campaign whose basis I suggested yesterday, I don’t know what could. I said when I started this blog that I was going to publish the significant things which are missing from the U.S. news, and so I am going to repeat: Irving Lewis Libby is getting this incredibly high degree of media support because he is Jewish. By now Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (hmmm, could he be Irish, or is it anti-Irish to ask?), is being painted as the villain in the Libby melodrama, while Libby, though undeniably a criminal, has been elevated to something just short of superhero.

Editor and Publisher:

'Law and Order Newspapers Urge Pardon for Libby
‘NEW YORK A number of newspapers normally tough on "law and order" issues have come out editorially for the immediate freeing of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted on Tuesday in a federal court of four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.’

The New York Post:

‘President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.

‘Free Scooter Libby.’

Wall Street Journal:

‘The conviction is certainly a travesty of justice, though that is not the jury's fault. The 11 men and women were faced with confusing evidence of conflicting memories in a case that never should have been brought....’

Wall Street Journal March 7, 2007:
‘The Libby Travesty
Mr. Bush owes the former aide a pardon, and an apology. . . . The time for a pardon is now.’

New York Sun:

‘The president's best move would be to exercise his absolute and unfettered bedrock constitutional prerogative of a pardon.’

NRO Online:

‘The Time for a Pardon Is Now. A lot of Republicans seem to be nervous about a pre-2008 election pardon, and John Podhoretz argues . . . that as the leader of his party President Bush should wait until his last days in office to issue a pardon. I think Bush could pardon Libby tomorrow without its affecting the election one way or the other.’

Washington Post March 9, 2007

‘Fitzgerald's Folly
‘A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon

‘By Charles Krauthammer

‘A presidential pardon . . . should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.’
letters@ charleskrauthammer.com

Let’s Hear it for Libby, Folks!

2007-03-08T11:58:00.000-05:00

Boston Globe: “Pressure on Bush for a Libby Pardon”
Pat Buchanan: Libby is a “Martyr of the War Party”

As one who thinks that I. Lewis Libby got what he deserved, I was surprised that last evening’s television news discussions were virtual pep rallies for Libby’s pardon. Guests had been selected to promote the idea that Libby was a wonderful guy who should be pardoned. Almost all of the Libby-related discussions centered on his prospects for a pardon. Yet no one suggested that Libby was not guilty of the serious crimes for which he was convicted; no one questioned that he consciously, deliberately committed those crimes over a long period.

By the time Bush pardons Libby, Bush he will be hailed as “bending to the public will” rather than cursed for letting one of his minions escape punishment for his crimes.

What are the arguments I heard favoring a pardon of this particular felon?

First, Libby is being painted as a “nice guy” who would be unhappy in prison, with a wife who would be unhappy because he was in prison and would also (teardrops) suffer if her husband isn’t pardoned because his obituary would mention that he was a convicted felon. There has long been an answer to that attitude: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” Most con men and political criminals come across as “nice guys” or they wouldn’t have succeeded in their crimes. Shouldn’t the "nice" facade be irrelevant?

Second phony argument: Instead of being a bad person for committing his crimes, Libby was actually an exceptionally good person because he committed his crimes in order to protect his bosses. We should all admire him because he stood strong and bravely lied in order to protect Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, and others. We should reward him instead of punishing him because he was loyal to people who committed worse crimes. I’ve never heard this exonerative argument applied to an Al Capone associate or a Mafia member who committed perjury or obstructed justice in order to protect a higher-up in the mob. The idea that someone should be considered innocent because he committed crimes in order to protect a higher-up who committed worse crimes is moral and legal perversion.

Third false argument: Libby was small fry. Why aren’t the really important criminals on trial? The jury was forced to make a decision about the wrong man. Sure Libby was guilty, the argument goes, but his guilt was not on the scale of, say, Cheney’s guilt. Why should the little guy suffer if the big crooks aren’t going to be charged and brought to trial? Well, first, Lewis Libby was not a little guy in the Bush gang. He played an important role compared to most people in the administration, and he was significantly instrumental in more costly deceptions than lying to protect himself and his bosses. (On another day soon I am going to write about Libby’s active role in the neocon plan which led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq as well as Libby becoming Cheney’s right hand man.) Second, in any rational system of justice, the fact that one person committed more serious crimes than an accomplice or co-conspirator does not exonerate the accomplice. The driver of the getaway car who waits outside the bank for the armed robbers is not spared prison time because he wasn’t pointing a gun at a cashier. He is punished appropriately to the degree of his own crime, just as Libby will be if the law is allowed to function. In fact the tendency in criminal law is sometimes to hold all the participants in a crime responsible for the most serious consequences of the crime even if those consequences are caused by only one individual among the participants.

The idea that a criminal like Libby should not be punished because his bosses committed worse crimes, and because he lied in order to protect the higher-ups, undermines the entire idea of a rational legal system.

But I smell something even worse here. Look at how it works. The prosecutor (who is part of the System, regardless of his proclaimed independence) can persuade a grand jury to indict almost anyone he wants, but he chooses only “Nice Little Lewis Libby” and leaves out Rove, Cheney, and other perpetrators of the “underlying crime”. Libby is easily convicted amid clear evidence of the crimes of the higher-ups. But the prosecutor says he’s not going after anybody except Libby regardless of the evidence, and the System cranks up the “Pardon Libby!” campaign . . . which means that not only will Libby not be punished, but that NO ONE will be punished for revealing the CIA status of Valerie Wilson because her husband told the truth about the lack of evidence to support an attack on Iraq. It also means that Bush won’t be a villain for pardoning Libby, but instead a loyal leader responding to the will of the people.

I realize that the prosecutor could have more than one reason for not indicting certain individuals, but regardless of his personal reasons, I smell a cover-up. This is just too neat. Very serious crimes are committed in relation to promoting a lie-based war, the evidence becomes as clear as the morning sun, and yet in the end no one at all is punished. Well, no one except the Wilsons, who are already being tacitly criticized in some quarters for getting a nice Jewish boy into trouble.

Yes, and that leads to my final observation on why Libby is being treated like a hero instead of a criminal. When I saw how he was being boosted by the media I checked this morning and found out that he is Jewish. I noticed years ago that whenever an individual somewhere in the world was accused of a crime and there was a great international media outcry in support of the accused and against the accuser, the accused was usually Jewish. It became a kind of game with me to notice the phenomenon of “worldwide outrage” and see if the individual the protest supported was a Jew. I recall specifically the cases of the Russian “oligarchs” Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Yukos) and Vladimir Gusinsky (media mogul), when they were challenged by the Russian justice system and President Vladimir Putin. I don’t exaggerate: ALL the press coverage I saw which was available in the United States at the time made Khodorkovsky and Gusinsky look like heroic victims (just like Lewis Libby) and Putin look like a monster. That led to my discovering that the accused are Jewish.

In order to show that neither Khodorkovsky nor Gusinsky were admirable figures, and that Putin was not just politically motivated in approving their prosecution in the Russian court system, I am going to publish information about the “oligarchs” on this blog as soon as this post has had time to be noticed. I will also plan to give other examples of accused Jews being supported by communications media and politicians despite their guilt. The support may be quite overt, as in Libby’s case, or it may consist more of failing to publicize the guilty party and diverting attention to non-Jewish culprits. In any case, we see it at work before our eyes this very day. I think that if Libby were a Baptist or Roman Catholic he would not be getting the widespread support he's getting.

Two Questions With No Answers

2007-03-06T11:34:00.000-05:00

1. The U.S. in Iraq: What does “win” mean?

Recently a number of American officials and self-styled savants have used the word “win” with reference to the future course of the U.S. war in Iraq. “We either win within six months or we’re facing a Viet Nam collapse.” “If we win in Iraq. . .” “If we don’t win in Iraq. . .” “We must win in Iraq or else. . .”

None of those people bothered to explain what “win” means. To win a war usually means to accept the surrender of the enemy, or it may mean erasing the enemy from existence. Sometimes it might mean simply occupying and holding certain territory.

The Bush gang began the war with the single declared intention of eliminating “weapons of mass destruction”. Well, that was either very easy or impossible, depending on how you look at it, because there were no weapons of mass destruction. So, by one way of reckoning, the U.S. had won the war before it started it.

Then came “regime change”. This idea was related to Paul Wolfowitz’ declaration that the U.S. would “end states” that supported terrorism. Sadaam was such a bad man that he must have supported “terrorism”, and it was a good thing to invade his country even if it did not have weapons of mass destruction. As it predictably turned out, there was no Iraqi support for “terrorism” and never had been. Nevertheless, the U.S. government said that the president of Iraq was really, really bad, and so must be caught and killed . . . which he was.

War won? Apparently not. Now the kaleidoscopic rationales for the war had shifted to the bringing of “freedom” and “democracy” to Iraq. An election was held. A puppet government was sheltered in the fortified Green Zone. War won? Not yet. For some reason a lot of Iraqi people are still killing Americans as well as one another. Does this mean that to “win”, the U.S. must stay until no gunshot is heard anywhere in Iraq, and a democratically elected government is in routine operation without special protection, and the people of Iraq are once more peacefully engaged in the daily pursuit of prosperity and happiness?

I can imagine no possible sequence of events in Iraq which would enable the U.S. to honestly declare a “win”. Anyway, how do you know you’ve won if you don’t know what winning means? If “win” isn’t defined, then you can simply say you’ve won no matter what happens. Another advantage of the confusion is that if you can’t win, you also can’t lose. All of which is of course insane . . . like the whole war from its inception.

2. The Usraeli-manufactured Iran “crisis”: What is the point?

The following excerpts from USAToday, "Iran's Military Poses Little Threat", make a good case that Iran is in actuality a weak military power rather than a strong military power which could be “a threat to the region”. In addition, Iran has shown no expansionist tendencies, and any possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon is more than a decade away.

If the report below is true, then the U.S. and Israel must know it is true, and that Iran is weak militarily (very weak compared to Israel and the U.S.). My question is: That being the case, what is the motivation of Washington and Israel to portray Iran as a strong power and a threat to Israel (which is what “threat to its neighbors” means in Zionese and Washingtonspeak)? If you know that Iran is nothing to fear, then why depict it as something to fear?

I don’t know the answer.

Here’s the gist of the report:

‘ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran's outdated military presents little current threat to its neighbors, despite the fierce rhetoric from its hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, military analysts said Monday at a security conference here in the Persian Gulf.
‘Iran has exaggerated its military capabilities, while U.S. and Israeli leaders have engaged in "provocative rhetoric" that overstates the Iranian threat, said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. In reality, Iran is more focused on national defense than using military power to boost its influence in the region, he said.
‘Iran represents "a force that has to be taken seriously in the defense of its country, but it has very little capacity to project outside the country,"
‘For Iran to obtain an effective [nuclear] arsenal, a nuclear weapon development program “ would have to be pushed by multiple Iranian regimes for as long as 15 years, he said.”’