The Weekly Subversive

Weapons of mass deception

2010-05-30T21:55:00.003+01:00

You owe it to yourself to watch this documentary.

Bush was just being manipulated, we learn now...

2009-08-08T13:41:00.002+01:00

Everybody knew that Bush was a religious fanatic, right? Yeah. But he has an excuse! He was not intelligent enough to know he was being manipulated into what Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted him to do:

Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”

Read the whole article, it's scary!

If you haven't read this post yet, it's now time

2009-01-21T21:56:00.002+01:00

Much noise has been made about President Obama. Forget for a minute that he is black. The question is: will anything change in his foreign policy or treatment of under-served and exploited people in the US? The answer, Chomsky suggests and I agree, is NO!

For change to really happen we need more than a black, rock-star president, we need a president with BALLS! Can Barack show some BALLS and really change who benefits from the American system?

The last time a major western, pro-US country tried a rock star for a leader (Blair in UK) it was the people that lost, not the big earners or CEO's!

McCain is preparing a war with Russia should he be elected

2008-08-13T22:02:00.001+01:00

OK, that's just speculation, but you have to agree that this article really looks like McCain is seizing the opportunity for a shock therapy opening given to him by Putin, who also wants an opportunity to apply shock therapy on the Russian people!

Geeezz isn't the world depressing today...

When the shock therapists of the world were submitted to votes (without wars) they always lost the elections or at a minimum fared very poorly in the popularity polls (Pinochet, Thatcher, Yeltsin, etc.). The neoliberal reforms they wanted (which amount to a privatization of profits and socialization of costs), were not in favor with the people, they needed something to suspend democracy.

Pinochet repeatedly used state terror (the real terrorism!), killed thousands of people to avoid losing elections, Thatcher invented[2] a war[1] for a piece of rock that nobody really wants and then crushed the unions at home with the same arguments used in the war and Yeltsin just took power directly by surrounding the parliament with tanks and setting it on fire.

Whatever they use, they try to first shock people into obedience (remember the post-September 11 wimpy democrats?) and then unleash a set of policies that hijack all rights the people may have gained through the democratic process -- in the process making huge profits! (Remember Dick Cheney as a board member of Haliburton which got billions in payouts from the government? -- yes, because taxpayers would certainly not pay Halliburton, when the soldiers don't even get decent medical care!).

People of the world, be ware of your governments, if they shock you don't fall for it!
The Spanish people should be seen as the real heroes in the crisis of March 2004, when the government wanted to shock them, they said no and took democracy seriously!

[1] " The fact is this regime had no need to generate consensus among the Argentine population, for it was a highly repressive authoritarian regime. The dirty war had created a climate of fear so strong that civil society essentially fell apart. The press was censoring itself out of fear caused by the “disappearances” of several journalists who had criticized the regime." -- in http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/nov/mcclureNOV04.asp

[2] "From a political point of view, the war helped the reelection of Margaret Thatcher (who was losing popularity before the conflict started)" -- in http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html

Calling on Naomi Klein to set her book about Disaster Capitalism free (creative commons license)

2008-08-13T17:53:00.001+01:00

I urge Naomi Klein (Google cache in case the site is overloaded) to make her book, The Shock Doctrine, the Rise of disaster Capitalism (Google cache), free. Free for all to read and listen to (Audiobook).

This is a book too important to be kept under the shackle of the ' (one-dollar one vote) capitalist system. This book needs to go democratic (one-person one-vote), it needs to be available to all of the people in the world that need to read it in order to avoid the real catastrophe that Disaster Capitalism describes. Their very life is at stake, as illustrated by what happened in Chile on September 11th, 1973 and the subsequent years.

I urge you, Naomi to consider the benefit to the world that this book could bring.
I cannot ask you to rescind your copyright, nor do I want to. By all means continue to sell the paper book to sustain your writing efforts, we need you to continue investigating and writing.

But consider donating the copyright to the democratic populace of the world that needs to listen to your ideas, to read your accounts that make our heart bleed with rage against the so called (and self-titled) leaders of the world.

Why not make the text (and the text only) of your book free for reproduction in Wikibooks.org or a similar site? I'm sure that in no time you would receive a large ammount of volunteer work to translate your book into many languages (see wikipedia as an example), and to bring this important information to the people that will never pick up the paperback in english or any of the major languages in which it wil, no doubt, be published.

Request donations from your site to support your future book projects (maybe even non-fiction documentaries?), continue to request payment for the paperback book, but let your text free, the world needs to listen and to read this book!

Here's to hoping that his letter has an impact.

The "unpeople" want peace, says Chomsky

2008-08-11T19:53:00.001+01:00

Chomsky succeeds again in clearly stating that "We want peace, not war".

The government of Iran merits severe condemnation on many counts, but the Iranian threat remains a desperate construction of those who arrogate to themselves the right to rule the world, and consider any impediment to their just rule to be criminal aggression. That is the primary threat that should concern us, as it concerns saner minds in the West, and the unpeople of the rest of the world.

Iltasanomat continues its campaign to promote Stubb for the next Finnish presidential race

2008-08-11T19:16:00.001+01:00

Iltasanomat(IS) (which belongs to the same company as Helsingin Sanomat) continues its overt campaign for Alexander Stubb, perhaps in preparation for the next presidential campaign.

In this article IS exaggerates and falsifies the conditions in which Stubb landed in Tbilisi, Georgia, stating that he is "well, even if the airport was being bombed before he arrived".

Well, the reality is (according to Reuters), that there was one (yes, one) bomb dropped on a near-by military airport and it happened (same article) hours before Stubb and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner arrived at the airport.

Surely Finland has enough brave and corageous people, we don't really need to invent a false event to believe that Stubb (and all others that will run for president, I'm sure) is courageous. If you agree with this, then you must also agree that the conditions were falsified to give undeserved attention to one detail (the perilous arrival of courageous Stubb) as opposed to focusing on the issue, Stubb (as OCDE chairman) was traveling to represent Europe in the cease-fire efforts.

Maybe IS (just) did a pitiful journalistic job and took at face value the statement by Georgian's president that Russia had bombed the airport "just half-hour before they [Kouchner and Stubb] arrived".

Or maybe IS just "believed" the Interior Ministry spokes person that stated that the bomb fell only 200 meters away from a runway (yet no damage was caused).

Of course, they could have checked google to see the AFP release (here's another)

If the author of the IS article had spent some time checking the sources (as should be done), the "other side of the story" could also have been found. Turns out, of course, the "other side" is not that reliable either, which makes the journalist's difficult enough as to prevent it from making categoric affirmations of danger to our "beloved" Stubb. But such is life, and IS had no problem putting the news item in the first page of their paper version today.

I guess the SPD should wake up and start putting it's candidate on the press already. Stubb is not losing any time -- the race for the next president in Finland has started.

How propaganda works

2006-08-19T18:06:00.000+01:00

A friend of mine wrote in his shared blog (in Finnish) that in Finland the tax-populism works inversely to the rest of the world.

His argument is that in most countries parties promise lower taxes, and that is a form of populism. However in Finland, he argues, tax-populism works in the other direction. He states that when Kokoomus (right-wing, economically liberal and socially conservative party) proposed a tax-cut in the previous elections it did so with good faith and with an appropriate study into the governments expenses, so that the tax cuts would be compatible with the well-fare system so ingrained in the Finnish culture.

He then goes on to argue that, because SDP (center-left, economically socialist-leaning and socially liberal party) stated that the well-fare state could not be maintained with the Kokoomus-proposed tax cuts, SDP was using a tax-populism technique by exploiting the "fear" that people have to loose the well-fare state that is not prevalent in Finland.

His argument can be seen as fair as there is in fact a consensus well-fare state in Finland that people indeed fear to loose (with good reasons as Kokoomus has been trumpeting the end of the well-fair system as have most economically liberal parties all over Europe).

However he forgets to mention that offer to reduce taxes is also a form of tax-populism, especially when it is not followed by concrete proposals on what will be cut if the economy does not grow as expected by the tax-cut proponents.

This missing piece of information (where will the cost-cuts be?) has been many times used to indeed destroy what is left of the well-fare state in some countries. USA comes to mind where "saving Medicare" together with tax-cuts that "require us to cut costs" have been used over and over again to reduce the support given to the least protected in society.

I would suggest that, in Finland, people's resistance to tax-cuts is due to their view that you should always be able to pay your debts without "borrowing" money (in this case money borrowed from a future-growing economy). This "no-borrowing" practice is very ingrained in the Finnish culture where people feel uncomfortable to have even a 20 year bank loan to buy a house, unlike other countries (like UK) where house loans now extend beyond 50 years.

Indeed, Henrik Ruso uses the word/term tax-populism to create an interesting form of propaganda, he tries to turn the opposite side's message (tax cuts imply loss of well-fare state) into "populism", when in fact Kokoomus is the populist party when it defends tax-cuts without mentioning where the costs will be cut should the economy not grow as much as expected.

The democratic process in Iran needs peace not war

2006-05-13T19:46:00.000+01:00

There is a common belief that Iran's government is one that is unfair to it's people and the only way they can keep in power is because they have a fascist grip on their people.
This view is what the US is trying to push about Iran. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made the US's job even easier by stating that Israel should be "wiped off the map" [1].

The truth is that there are many people in Iran that are against their own government and want to find their way to a democratic society as soon as possible. Today, discussing with an Iranian, that message was delivered to me very clearly. He stated: "Iranians are fed up with this government", but they want a peaceful transition to democracy. Nobody - not even the Iranian opposition - wants the US to attack Iran. If the US attacks Iran the opposition in Iran will forget that they don't like the government and unite to fight the US. An attack from the US would only create a worse situation for those that want democracy in Iran".

The message is clear, even from those that oppose the current regime in Iran. Let the Iranian people find their way to democracy in their own time.

Attacking Iran is not the solution to solve the disagreement over nuclear energy.

[1] Iranian president's public call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Alain Minc has his story wrong about France's economic success

2006-05-08T20:01:00.000+01:00

Alain Minc, a French writer, businessman and French establishment insider was interviewed by the BBC World on Hardtalk today (08-05-2006). During the interview he made some interesting statements about France:

We are ending a very bad period

With this he meant that the Jacques Chirac government had been very bad for France economically. This is an interesting comment when put together with the quote about France being the second country in the world receiving foreign investment.

We don't change because we are not poor enough

In this context he stated that the United Kingdom was ripe for change in the beginning of the 90's when Thatcher reached power. He quotes his memories of 1979 in London to say "I remember London in 1979, the trash on the streets the lack of electricity..."

We will change because it is a fact of life that we need to change

We argues that France is a country that cannot avoid change into a much more market oriented economy. He further argues that the change to a market economy is a "natural" change that cannot be avoided.

France is number 2 in the foreign investment - that is a sign that we are changing.
France is schizophrenic country, on one side one of the best productivities rates in the world [but there is also a side that is unproductive]. We have a very dynamic side, that's why we are receiving foreign investment.

He argues that France is a very dynamic country despite the government's actions.

Interesting comments... He basically states that all the laws and interventions that were caused by strikes and demonstrations on the street could not together avoid the fact that France is a very dynamic country and is bound to be an economic success in the future.
Quite a strong statement wouldn't you think? Despite all interventions France has survived Jacques Chirac's "leftism".
One would say that all evidence suggests otherwise. I mean, in his own admission "France is the second biggest receiver of foreign investment in the world". At least part of that should be due to state intervention wouldn't you say? This is not so strange if you believe that businesses actually search for stability, not for risk. With the world's stock exchanges representing more than 95% of the world's wealth risk is not the first thing that businesses or investors want. Despite France's strikes and state intervention it is clear for businesses that the French government will do anything to keep a bad business going. That's why the foreign investment is going to France, not because of the "dynamism" of the economy.
If you think that the largest receiver of foreign investment is China you can start to draw a parallel.
State intervention is good for business, not bad. It happens that it is also good for the workers (avoiding the sudden impact of globalization on unemployment, for example).
Alain Minc is against intervention not because of it's negative economic impacts but because his clients (he is a business advisor) don't like the current government intervention in France because it has not gone their way (he stated in the show several times that he "ignores"/"hates" Jacques Chirac).

Alienating the Palestinian Authority is not the answer

2006-05-07T17:54:00.000+01:00

What do the European Union (EU) and the United States (USA) want to achieve by withdrawing all financial aid to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.)?
USA and EU withdrew their financial aid after Hamas' victory in this year's legitimate elections (they were supervised by the very same EU and USA).

It is quite clear that a position like that can only make the already tense relationship between Hamas and the West even worse (Hamas is listed by both EU and USA as a terrorist organization).

Today there were news of demonstrations in Indonesia with the objective of collecting donations to the P.A. I'm sure that other muslim countries will try help the P.A. as that in turn gives their governments increased popularity at home, as many Muslims see the Israel-Palestine conflict as a West-Muslim conflict.

By cutting aid to the P.A. the EU and USA are only contributing to the widening gap between the Palestinians - who now still trust the West due to their generous help - and the West.

We have to change this. The P.A. needs to be brought back to the International Community as a full member with legitimate concerns that need to be addressed just like Israel's concerns are being addressed.

The Palestinian people, just like the Israeli people deserve a solution, but alienating the P.A. is not the answer.

In response to a reader's comments

2006-05-07T12:06:00.000+01:00

In response to my post on Unemployment socrates comments:

the global market is too integrated for one government to be able to combat unemployment on it's own,
the current consumption levels are unsustainable, which will lead to a crash and social unrest
the only solutions to keep the current consumption levels are a)accept many low paid workers into the first-world economies, or b)buy as many goods as possible from low income countries (Vietnam, Singapore, China, India, etc.)
to control the social unrest that may be caused by point 2 governments are using the supposed "war on terror" as an excuse to have a tighter grip in society

I'd like to comment on the first statement:

the global market is too integrated for one government to be able to combat unemployment on it's own

Although it is true that the global market is very integrated - as witnessed by ripple effects caused by the Asian Tiger's crisis in the 90's - it is not totally true that a single government cannot do much against it.
Again I go back to the Asian crisis of the 90's. Joseph Stiglitz[1] argues in his book that the devaluation of the Thai Baht was worsened by the policies imposed by the IMF. Indeed those same policies caused the economic collapse in Argentina in 2002[2].
What this tells us is that the current global financial system is not ready to handle economic crisis on a local scale, the question is: if the we cannot attack this type of problems with a global approach why should we not use a local approach?
Indeed a local approach was what some of the Asian economies took with very positive results. And Poland and China are cited by Stiglitz as having taken a different approach than what the Washington consensus (IMF, World Bank, etc.) advocated and have had success in implementing important reforms in their economies without going through the same troubles as the Asian countries that followed the IMF's advice.

The global financial system is not ready to deal with one country's problems, its interests are far more on the side of conserving the wealth of those that already have it than protecting those that most require help, an example of that is what the IMF did in Argentina: trying to avoid Argentina's default on debt at the cost of famine and strife for the Argentinean peoples.

So, my point is: there is a solution to unemployment that will avoid social unrest and will not cause an economic crisis, but that solution requires more courage and action from local governments, not necessarily more IMF/World Bank intervention.

If you are interested in this "local approach" you can read more about "microcredit", just google for it. Microcredit initiatives have done a lot to reduce poverty in many countries, both rich and poor.

[1] Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its discontents, Penguin books, 2002
[2] for a comment on Argentina's economic collapse

Right and Left on unemployment.

2006-04-27T20:47:00.000+01:00

A few days ago I was talking to a friend about the differences between right and left. We were specifically talking about the jobless problem.
With a jobless rate of close to 10% in some European countries the problem really requires some sort of solution.

We both agreed that Right and Left want to reduce unemployment, but how do they want to do it?

The Right normally has the speech that no-one should make more money on unemployment benefits than working a low payed job.
The Left counters that unless the jobs pay good enough the unemployed should have the choice of not joining those jobs even though they keep the option to join.

The solution advocated by the Right tends to create a lot of low payed jobs through which people pass (or so the theory goes) on their way to a better job, never losing the motivation to work.

The solution advocated by the Left tends to increase the pressure on the job market to provide better jobs, therefore keeping the pressure on the companies to avoid depending on low-payed jobs for their viability, ultimately making them more competitive (or so the theory goes).

Both solutions have positive sides and negative sides:
Solution from the Left:
+ supports self-confidence of the person by not forcing them into a lower-payed job
+ increase pressure on the job market to provide better jobs with better pay
- allows people not to work for a limited period of time (2 years in many EU countries)
- causes a certain level of free-riding (not measured) of people that may not work for 2 years then work again, and then take 2 years off again, etc.

Solution from the Right:
+ supports the "work always" mentality never allowing anyone to "fall out" of the job market
+ supports lower salaries that allow to create a basis of cheap services
- underemployment: people that have a lot of knowledge that is not used in their lower-payed job
- affects a person's self-confidence with the possible consequence of that person not trying to find a better (higher-payed) job with the fear of being out of both the low-payed and the high-payed job. This is especially problematic for families that already have one of their income earners unemployed.

Which solution should one advocate?

I guess that depends on your background. If you have been taught that people have to be "pushed" to the right solution and that if they get money for nothing they will become lazy, in this case you would probably choose the solution from the Right.

If you believe that people should be protected from being degraded in their job-career (unless they want to - there is that option anyway), and that the pressure should be on the entrepreneurs to provide good enough jobs, in this case you would probably choose the solution from the Left.

I myself find the solution from the left more Humanistic, even if I do recognize it's deficiencies and agree that a Humanistic-biased balance should be found.

What do you think? Why would you choose either one of these solutions or even another one?

Iran and the Nuke

2006-01-22T21:02:00.000+01:00

It is a worrying fact that one more country has the technology to build an atomic bomb.

Some observers say that the fact that other countries have access to this technology brings back the deterrent effect of the atomic bomb, however this is not so simple. The more countries have the bomb the more possibilities there are that they will be used to destructive ends.

If we add to this the affirmation by US and France that they may use "non-conventional" weapons against "terrorists" and we start getting a pretty explosive cocktail.

What should the "five" nuclear powers do to avoid more problems? There's no easy solution to this, but one possibility would be to develop alternative sources of energy that would be as effective as nuclear energy so as to avoid the "temptation" to use energy production as an "excuse" to seek nuclear technology.

Another possibility would be the unilateral declaration that no nuclear weapons would be produced and the existing ones would be disabled -- but this I grant will not happen any time soon.

Evo Morales and South American the arrested development

2006-01-22T20:43:00.000+01:00

The election of Evo Morales, which follows those of Lula and Hugo Chavez are the start of the evolution for South America.

Many countries, mostly in Europe, were allowed to evolve from a left-wing heavy country to a more moderate country as the middle classes started to grow. In South America however the interventions by the United States led many countries to a state of Arrested Development.

The US used legal and illegal methods to force the peoples of those South American countries to elect right-wing officials when elsewhere (like Europe) others were choosing left-wing candidates.

By forcing the Right-wing candidates upon the South American peoples the US contributed for the retarded state of development of many of those countries which are rich in natural resources and would have developed to be big powers in the world (noticeably Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil and Argentina) had they been left to develop in a normal and harmonious way.

The recent election of Left-wing candidates is just the re-start of the development process that the US single-handedly stopped. However, it will still take many years for those countries to reach a state of development that would qualify them as "first-world" countries, and some of them may not even reach that level given the huge impact of corruption (Colombia comes to mind...).

Here's to hoping that the recent wave of left-wing candidates can deliver on their promises and slowly grow the size of the middle-class in those countries which will no doubt lead to more moderate governments, but especially to more social justice!

Sarkozy and de Villepin a winning team for the 2007 presidential?

2005-11-12T16:47:00.000+01:00

French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to embody today what Le Pen (Radical Nationalist and Anti-immigrant) was for the last years.

It is a very well known fact that Sarkozy intends to run for the post of French President against his own party's Dominique de Villepin (current French prime-minister). Sarkozy's comments in which he called immigrants "scum" put him in the extreme right-wing of his own party and probably closer to Le Pen's party, Le Front National, than to his own party mentor, current President Jacques Chirac.

Why is Sarkozy trying to please the extreme right electorate?

In the last presidential election the contenders for the second round were current President Jacques Chirac and Right-wing nationalist Le Pen. Le Pen ended the second turn with 20% of the votes cast in that election. By courting the right-wing electorate with this kind of language Sarkozy is trying to assemble enough votes from the right to effectively eliminate the "Le Pen" effect, by replacing it with the "Sarkozy effect".

This is how they expect it to work: If the President's and Sarkozy's own party (UMP) can maintain their votes (~20%) and assemble some votes from the right (mostly from Le Pen), they will have effectively eliminated Le Pen's chances of reaching the second round.

At the same time they will play de Villepin as a more humanist, left-leaning candidate to steal some votes from the left. If this works they will be able to have two of their candidates (de Villepin and Sarkozy) in the second round of the election and avoid a confrontation with the left, which is gaining votes in France.

For this to succeed they have to be able to portray de Villepin as a left-leaning humanist candidate and Sarkozy as a right-leaning candidate bordering on nationalist. Later, when the elections are closer (the election will be in 2007) they will of course have to fake a big fight between Sarkozy and de Villepin, which will probably enable de Villepin to leave the government at the same time as Chirac will promote Sarkozy to prime-minister. De Villepin will then start his own presidential campaign by saying: "I am left wing! Look at what the President did, he fired me and promoted a right-wing radical to prime-minister!".

This will give both de Villepin and Sarkozy an alibi to start their separate presidential campaigns and together try to get enough votes to prevent a left-wing candidate to reach the second turn.

All in all it is a good strategy that could easily work if the left in France is not capable of occupying the space that de Villepin will certainly try to fill.

Watch out for de Villepin or Sarkozy starting their own "party" for the presidential election!

Why did the violence start in Clichy sous Bois in October 27th?

RIGHTS-FRANCE: Where Immigrants are 'Scum': "The violence broke out after three children died of electrocution in a high-voltage electricity utility in Clichy sous Bois Oct. 27. Minister for the interior Nicolas Sarkozy first said the children were fleeing after a burglary, but the justice department later denied that any crime had taken place.

'The teenagers were fleeing apparently because they thought the police were following them, which was not the case,' a spokesperson at the justice department said.

Hundreds of residents of Clichy sous Bois demonstrated in protest. Later, youth gangs set automobiles, stores, and even school buildings on fire. They attacked the police with stones and at places also fired at them.

A statement by Sarkozy that people resorting to violence in the low-income districts surrounding Paris were 'racaille' meaning 'rabble' or 'scum', inflamed the already explosive situation. These areas are mostly inhabited by immigrants.

Sarkozy said he will clean these areas with a 'Kaercher' (high-pressure cleansing machinery mostly used in industry). "

Re-writing history

2005-11-05T09:50:00.001+01:00

A funny thing happened in my corner of the world lately.

Finland will have a presidential election in January 2006. The funny thing is that the right-wing conservative presidential candidate in a campaign starting event declared himself to be in defence of the "workers", which he classified as all people (including multimillionary CEO's that make more money when they fire the "other" workers [Helsingin Sanomat, 27/10/2005, 4/11/2005]).

This being the beggining of the campaign you can expect the candidates to still be trying to get the "hang" of the themes that will shape the campaign, on the other hand what the right-wing candidate is trying to do is pretty unheard of.

I mean we do have guys like Blair and Schröeder coming from the left and trying to go more to the center in order to get more right-wing votes, but this is the first time that hear of a right-wing candidate trying to get more votes from the hard-core left!

Why this happened we can only speculate, but one reason may be that because Tarja Halonen (the incumbent with about 58% vote intentions in the latest poll) is a person that has the trust of the left and pretty much of the center the only option to avoid Tarja's victory is to hijack her campaign themes.

By hijacking the campaign theme of "defending workers" the right-wing candidate tries to set himself apart from the third candidate (Center-right and current prime minister) and sets his only opponent to be the incumbent president.

As far as political strategies go this is not too difficult to follow. But the amazing circumstance - and harder to explain - is that he is trying to re-write history by turning Marx's theory on it's head.

Marx stated:
- there is a class strugle
- history is played out as a class strugle of those that don't have the wealth trying to obtain the wealth that has been "abused" by the rulling classes and the Bourgois at that time.

What our right-wing candidate is trying to say is:
- there is no class strugle
- history is not played as a class strugle because there are no classes anymore.

Of course there will not be many Doctoral thesis written on this subject, but the fact that a political candidate is trying to turn history on it's head to win a presidential election begs the question: Why is he doing this?

Can it be only to win an election (in which case he would forget about this outrageous claim after the election and go about his business).
Can it be a more profound reason: like really tring to hijack the political space on the center-left?

Beats me, but one thing is for sure: Marx must be turning in his grave (as so will the dead right-wing politicians in this small country called Finland! :)

France and the European constitutional treaty

2005-05-29T20:50:00.000+01:00

Today France votes in a referendum to accept or not the European constitutional treaty. It's a "rendezvous" that the French have with history as they've had many in their long history. The French people have always had a decisive influence in the rest of the world, especially Europe.

Today the history of Europe will change. Whatever the result of the referendum.

If the French say "NO" to the treaty, Europe (read Brussels) will have to stop and think. Whether they have or not the much discussed "plan B" they will have to put it in practice otherwise the European construction will stop in its rails.
It does not matter what the Dutch will say on Wednesday or the British in a few months, what matters is that Brussels cannot push the treaty (as it is now) forward without the consent of a major driver of European integration.
This will no doubt lead to a lot of quarreling in the many European political families, especially those that are divided pretty much 50/50 on the issue of the importance of this treaty. But this quarreling is a healthy sign of true democracy being built into Europe. The arguments that the "YES" camp have been using (like "a NO would mean that France is left out of Europe" or "a NO vote would be irresponsible" or even better "those who vote NO do not want a united Europe") are just a proof of the lack of imagination of those politicians that were unprepared for a true discussion about the future of Europe in the country that started the democratic process in Europe more than 200 years ago!

Sure, there is a measure of "anti-Chirac" in the "NO" vote (independently of whether it wins or not), but that is also healthy or is that not part of democracy? However, let's not forget that Chirac was completely behind this constitutional treaty in its present form. Certainly a "NO" vote has to take that into account.

In the end, and independently of the results of today's referendum what matters is that the French have shown that they can still be relied upon to critically analyze what comes from Brussels, even if their own government is one of it's major supporters, and that is a proof of democratic maturity that leaves this writer confident of Europe's future.

Kraut has the hammer and everything he sees is a nail!

2005-01-21T20:32:00.000+01:00

Mr Krauthammer(Op-Ed commentator for the Washington Post) apparently really sees the world as "pro" and "anti" american. This color-blindness so politically convenient (don't think it's naive!) serves one purpose: callaborate with the Bush administration in creating a "big bad wolf" outside the US borders.

This is the best way to convince all Americans that it is time to "bomb the hell out of them".

Krauthammer has transformed from a vegetal to a canibal and the world outside the US are his victims.

I suggest he changes his name to Krauthummer, that will undoubtedly be more suited to his positions and will from the start give his readers a notion of his true credibility: none!

Tomorrow's Threat (washingtonpost.com): "The great democratic crusade undertaken by this administration is going far better than most observers will admit. That's the good news. The bad news is a development more troubling than most observers recognize: signs of the emergence, for the first time since the fall of the Soviet empire, of an anti-American bloc anchored by Great Powers."

Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found

2005-01-17T20:29:00.000+01:00

This is a piece of news that does not seem to be very high in the radar of the "free" press:

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found: "he world little noted, but at some point late last year the American search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ended.

We will, however, long remember the doomsday warnings from the Bush administration about mushroom clouds and sinister aluminum tubes; the breathless reports from TV correspondents when the invasion began, speculating on when the 'smoking gun' would be unearthed; our own failures to deconstruct all the spin and faulty intelligence."

Some news outlets did report them, but this is such a monumental piece of news that it is amazing that not ALL main news outlets reported it as a major news.

After all it was because of this that we went into Iraq! Now that we know that GW lied to us (even though still about 40% of Americans believe that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction when the US went it).

What this finally proofs is that containment was working, as the NYTimes editorial puts it: "The fact that nothing was found does not absolutely, positively prove that there wasn't something there once, something that was disassembled and trucked over the border to Syria or buried in yet another Iraqi rose garden. But it's not the sort of possibility you'd want to fight a war over. What all our loss and pain and expense in the Iraqi invasion has actually proved is that the weapons inspections worked, that international sanctions - deeply, deeply messy as they turned out to be - worked, and that in the case of Saddam Hussein, the United Nations worked. Whatever the Hussein regime once had is gone because the international community insisted. It was all destroyed a decade ago, under world pressure.

This is not a lesson that many people in power in Washington are prepared to carry away, but it is what the national adventure in the reckless doctrine of preventive warfare has to teach us."

I hope that this is a lesson that all of us will understand and follow in the future.

Agribusiness hijacks agricultures thanks to patents

2005-01-16T14:05:00.000+01:00

Monsanto produces a seed that is supposed to be used only for one harvest. The first harvest comes, and the farmers use the fertile seeds of the plants they harvested. Then comes monsanto and steels their work away from them. Fantasy? No, reality:

: "Agribusiness giant Monsanto has sued more than 100 U.S. farmers, and its 'seed police' have investigated thousands of others, for what the company terms illegal use of its patented genetically engineered seeds, and activists charge is 'corporate extortion'. "

According to Joe Mendelson, legal director for Centre for Food Safety (CFS) "Monsanto's business plan for GE crops depends on suing farmers". This is far beyond a scandal this is a proof of how the patents as they are set in law today are harmful for businesses (farmers) and consumers, not better. We need a better patent system that protects also customers and users not just the producers which in a overwhelming number of situations is a big corporation, not "the little guy!"

"In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbour's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.

The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.

Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself. "

Who pays that? You pay when you go to the supermarket to buy your soy products you will have to pay for all the legal actions that are pursued against farmers. In the end we all pay for Monsanto's successfull lawsuits against farmers.

Ugly Truths About Guantanamo (washingtonpost.com)

2005-01-04T12:40:00.000+01:00

Ugly Truths About Guantanamo (washingtonpost.com): "The International Committee of the Red Cross has complained that some of what has been done at Guantanamo -- Guantanamo, not Abu Ghraib -- was 'tantamount to torture.' The American Civil Liberties Union has complained, but that you would expect. So, though, have the FBI and military lawyers, former and current."

It is also at Guantanamo that the awful face of torture is showing it's face.
The nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General of the US shows how high the knowledge and advocacy of torture is in the US Administration.
As Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post: "Gonzales found the Geneva Conventions themselves "obsolete." Such legal brilliance does not long go unrewarded. He has been nominated to become attorney general."

The US cannot claim moral highground and at the same time use the techniques that itself criticized in such regimes as the Soviet Union, Communist China or even Cuba!

Added to this are the plans by the CIA to commit terror-suspects to life imprisonment even if they have not been tried in a court of law (Seattle Times, Washington Post).

It is outrageous to see the a country like the US do exactly the opposite of what it defends publicly, and it requires a strong condemnation from all sides of the policital spectrum!

A line for Jobs and Growth

2005-01-01T21:24:00.000+01:00

Joseph Stiglitz: This can't go on forever - so it won't: "Europe, for its part, is finally beginning to recognise the problems with its macro-economic institutions, particularly a stability pact that restricts the use of fiscal policy and a central bank that focuses only on inflation, not on jobs or growth."

As Joseph Stiglitz (of Nobel fame) so well put it, Europe's problems with unemployment and economic growth is in part (how big part?) due to the restricted focus of Europe's Central Bank on inflation, which deprives Europe of an effective fical policy for growth. The Stability Pact must be revised, Europe needs growth, but it cannot continue to be restricted by what the former President of the Comission called a "stupid" treaty.

Maybe this is the "sign" that Durão Barroso - the current President of the Comission - had been waiting and a clear chance for him to make his term historical, by enabling Europe to regain the fiscal flexibility that it needs to combat recessions such as the one we saw in 1999-2003 and may be seeing again.

The Stability Pact must be changed. It is up to Europe's citizens to make their voices heard in their local elections so that this message does not go unnoticed in Brussels.

Washington Post ignores reality about Iran and lies in it's editorial

2004-12-30T14:16:00.000+01:00

We Need a Real Iran Policy (washingtonpost.com): "Consider what's at stake. Oil-rich Iran is arguably the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism"

The Washington Post (WP) which should be a newspaper of referrence has once again lied (even if an Op-Ed piece).

WP referred Iran as "the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism". The WP must ignore (or lies) that Saudi Arabia citizens are still the biggest contributor to the Al-Qaeda. Or even Yemen, according to the FBI! (Al-Moayad, a Yemeni national, [was arrested] on charges of conspiring to provide material support to Al Qaeda and Hamas. Al-Moayad was a significant financial contributor to Al Qaeda and Hamas and boasted that he provided over $20 million dollars to Usama bin Laden.).

The WP is deliberately supporting Bush's initial agenda of constituting a laughable "Axis of Evil" with a view to justify in the future possible military action against Iran like was done to justify War on Iraq by inventing a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, connection that even the CIA refused to corroborate.

This is another example of propaganda or misinformation that the WP has loaned it's name to.

The WP further ignores (or chooses to) that Iran is now governed by a moderate government that even after many difficulties has been able to provide much more "freedom" to it's citizens than USA's ally Saudi Arabia.

Washington Post takes Anti-European stand in it's editorial

2004-12-30T14:00:00.000+01:00

Europe and Turkey (washingtonpost.com): "There is reason to doubt whether most Europeans really understand the threat of Islamic extremism or agree with Americans that an overarching, generational commitment must be made to defeating it."

In this Editorial the Washington Post (WP) clearly takes an Anti-European stand by declaring that they (WP) know more about Terrorism than Europe (a continent with 1000s of years of experience iin dealing with Terrorism!). Not only that but WP disqualifies Europe from "[understanding] the threath of Islamic Terrorism", which has been on the doorstep of Europe for 1600 years (!) and has executed an attack on the core of one of Europe's capitals (Madrid, 11th March 2003) - not to mention the many religious wars that Europe and the Muslim world have fought against each other!

The WP shows itself as an Anti-European media and highly "submitted" to the "voice of the master" (Bush). This Editorial also shows that the "phantom menace" of Anti-Americanism has cretaed an adversarial position regarding Europe in the American media.

I believe that the American People is much smarter than the ignorant editorial writer in WP and will see through this propaganda understanding that even though Europe has a different way to deal with this threat, that different way is also valid!

Social Security is not dying! Don't you want to celebrate?

2004-12-29T19:15:00.000+01:00

According to this piece Social Security in the US is not dying. That should give us some positive feelings for the year ahead.

The campaign by George Bush II to "end" Medicaid and "save" (read: kill) Social Security has heavily searched arguments in the "slow death" of social security. Well, it seems that they are wrong!

According to Robert Gordon, a respected economist at Northwestern University the Social Security Trustees have repeatedly used unreasonably conservative estimates to predict the future of Social Security and they have been repeatedly wrong!

Are we ready for the truth now? Can we accept that Social Security is not dying a slow death?

That's the next challenge for those who believe in the current system and those who want to keep Social Security and make it work better.

Ethic behaviour gets you in Jail in the US

2004-11-10T20:18:00.000+01:00

There are many things wrong with the US (as any other country), but one thing that the US can be proud of (as other countries) is the freedom of the press and an effective legal system to protect that freedom.

The right of free-speech is itself protected in the constitution and is one of the pillars of US Democracy. Freedom of the press is another pillar of US Democracy, but once people become journalists their responsibilities increase. There is a well-working system in the US to protect responsible journalists. The same system also protects against unfounded accusations, as journalists can be prosecuted if they publish false information.

One of the pillars of the freedom of the press is the "protection" of anonymous sources. Why is this important? One good reason is that if the sources were not protected by the journalists people would certainly not line up to talk to them (even of-the-record) because their heads could roll (figuratively speaking of course ... at least in some countries). Thanks to this rule of protecting anonymous sources from exposure the journalists can obtain information that they can later confirm (if they are competent!) and publish in their newspapers or other news outlets.

Thanks to this rule we get important news that can be decisive in protecting and even improving Democracy. Now, in the US (the self-proclaimed freedom country) journalists are being persecuted for following that important rule of protecting their sources. If these journalists are sent to jail for not revealing the sources of the (relevant and true) information then Democracy will lose and the US will take one more step to become another Cuba or another China or another Russia or another Zimbabwe...(1)

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/opinion/10kris.html?oref=login

Are we fighting terrorism or are we creating terror?

2004-09-21T17:07:00.000+01:00

We are "fighting terrorism" but who is getting scared?
Up to March 2004 there had been 561 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act (1). Out of these only 6 led to convictions (1). If that would not be enough we have been warned that the "war on terror" could last up to 50 years (2), who is served by these alarmist affirmations? Us or the terrorists?
What's more, people in the UK are to receive a booklet on how to cope with a terror attack (3), now one should ask: Are all these actions for the reason that the government takes the threat of terrorism seriously? Or are there other reasons?
The fact is that people's rights have been trampled on, without any respect for the civil rights that should be afforded to citizens in the UK. Changes to the legal system are required to put a sock on the alarmist mouths - which include the government, by the way (4).
In the US the issue has even gone further. The names of the people arrested can be kept secret, which a dissenting judge called an "abuse [of] one of [the state's] most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail(...)" (5). In a report released earlier this month the Justice Department's inspector general found there had been "significant problems" in the way the US authorities had handled the round-up of suspects - mostly those of Pakistani origin - in the wake of the 11 September attacks. (5)
It starts to be clear that the British government as well as others are using a "dragnet" strategy which goal is more to scare than to have real results against terrorism(6) (out of the 561 arrests until March 2004 only 5 led to any conviction until April 2004(1)).
How does this affect us? Some people in credible media outlets (LA Times) are suggesting that this could have a significant impact on our health, mentally and otherwise (7).

Addendum:
That the US is better than the UK should come as no surprise, but that it is 10 times better is perhaps something that people would be expecting. Now we have the proof, as the US has actually imprisioned 5000 (yes five-thousand!) people under the "war on terrorism banner"! (8)

(1) "Hundreds arrested, handful convicted"
(2) The war on terror could last up to 50 years, a senior UK intelligence officer has warned.
(3) An instruction booklet on how to cope in a terror attack could be sent to every home in Britain in a plan being considered by the government.
(4) "We need to have a better system - someone else, perhaps the courts themselves, stopping this outrageous use of rumours, innuendos and links - which may lead to miscarriages of justice and innocent people going to prison."
(5) The names of hundreds of people detained since the 11 September attacks can be kept secret, a US federal appeals court has ruled.
(6) Defence lawyers claim that the authorities are operating a 'dragnet' policy with many charges based on slender evidence.
(7) Politicians of both parties who use fear to manipulate our votes contribute to the very harm from which they say they are trying to protect us.
(8) Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in anti-terrorism sweeps since 9/11.

Another Scandal made in "Aznar"

2004-07-30T16:02:00.000+01:00

Spain's previous prime-minister, Aznar - of previous lying and deceiving fame - pulled it again.

Aznar payed $2 million USD of public money to a Washington D.C. lawyer firm to lobby for him in Congress so that Aznar could receive the Congress Gold Medal. An honor previously awarded to Thomas Edison, Nelson Mandela or Winston Churchill.

The resolution was proposed by Rep Jim Gibbons. The resolution had trouble getting the needed signatures, but after what seems to be "effective lobbying" by the contracted firm, Jim got the missing signatures and passed the act on May 15th 2004, too late to have an effect on the Spanish elections (March 14th), but only because the signatures could not be gathered before.

The act was proposed by Jim Gibbons already before the end of the year 2003.

Money makes the world go round.... That medal honor will look so good in Aznar's CV when he starts working for some lobby firm!

(1) The law proposing the awarding of the gold medal to Aznar
(2)Report from the Spanish radio Cadena SER in their web-site
(3)BBC in Spanish, an article about the same subject

Why Michael Moore is important to Democracy!

2004-07-06T20:18:00.000+01:00

Boy! People are really worked up about Michael Moore's movie. Who would have thought? All because Cannes (remeber the Jury had Americans in it!) voted it the most important movie of the Festival.

There's a lot of noise about Michael's propagandist techinques, as if this was new. Michael has always used this technique and nobody complained about it before, now that it attacks the media as well as W. they are all worked up about it.

Michael's contribution to the political debate is itself already an achievement, let's not forget that. It is because of him that we are talking the important things.

Instead of trying to kill the messenger the media and the W. himself should start talking about the important things as well. Let's talk about the non-existent link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda! Let's talk about the non-existant Weapons of Mass Destruction! Let's talk about the fake president that didn't even have the courage to stand up and politely leave a room while the planes crashed into the Twin Towers!

1- The NON-EXISTANT link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq

The White House clearly tried to establish a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq in a letter sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on March 18, 2003 (1,3). This was only one of many attempts that were then spread through the media:
a) On June 2003, according to USA Today 70% of americans believed in that link.(2)
b) In a Knight Ridder poll from January 2003, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero. (3)

Since then it has been made clear that the link did not exist. Even before the USA Today poll, on February 5, 2003 the BBC already reported: "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News."(4)

2- Weapons of mass disappearance

Ostensibly the reason offered by the W. administration to their British allies to use for internal consumption was the hypothetical existence of "weapons of mass destruction".
These weapons, however, did not appear to exist at the time they were denounced to exist(5). Not only that, but it has since been proven that the Bush people lied (most notably Colin Powell) to the international community!(5,6)
The issue has not been free of trouble for Tony Blair either(7).
The conclusion is that there were no weapons in the country that would justify an invasion even in the false assumption that there would have been a link between Saddam and Osama.

Why Michael is important

Michael's movies are not journalistic pieces. Their are pieces of entertainment that talk about important issues in a light, yet important way. It is very important that he be faithful to the facts while making his case (his credibility depends on that), but it is also important that "the main-stream media" learn a lesson and start talking about thorny issues that Michael has raised.
Let him be the nasty controversial guy, complain about him, but for our own sake stop writing about him and start writing about the facts. Tell us the whole truth not just the lazy facts that you receive (already cooked up in fit-for-print press releases) from the White House and the Corporations!

We are adults and smart enough to know where Michael is lying if you just give us the FACTS, ALL THE FACTS so that we can also see where the White House and the Corporations are lying to us. Why don't you talk about those lies?

(1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
(3) http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
(5) Disarming Iraq: The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Hans Blix, Bloomsbury 18 Mar 2004
(6) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
(7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3351915.stm

Russia the new Wild-West, this time in the East

2004-07-03T06:57:00.000+01:00

One of the immediate consequences of Reagan's irresponsible policies towards the (at the time) USSR was the colapse of governemnt and other structures that maintained order (albeit corrupt) in that country.

Changes were needed in the USSR, no question about that. The question clearly was and is: what kind of changes?

The 90's colapse of USSR was - it is clear now - the worst option. Of course it served USA's interests by clearly declaring them the winning power in the cold war, but it did not help the people that most needed help: the citizens of the former USSR.

Another clear example of the chaos that was created is the banalization of Journalist assassinations, with 130 Journalists assassinated after 1991 (the date of the collapse of the USSR)(1).

This has created a climate where Journalists are afraid to do their work and bend easily to "unknown" interests in order to keep their jobs or even their lifes!

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3860299.stm

Michael Moore, the professional propagandist

2004-07-02T21:50:00.000+01:00

Michael's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened and became the first documentary to be the biggest grossing film on it's opening weekend with $21.8 million (1).

Michael has been called a "propagandist" among other (some more, some less) flatering names. You could actually agree on calling him a propagandist if he would tell us that he is trying to tell us "the un-biased truth" (Remember Fox's slogan?), but that is not what this movie (and his previous movies) is. This movie is stylistic exercise in exposing some (selected) true moments that will (hopefully) make people understand what Michael thinks about Bush and the current political situation.

Don't ever leave your critical mind at home when visiting a theater! Even when you see "F 9/11"! ;)

Whether you like Moore's style or not, and I do know people that agree with his views but don't like his style, don't loose this opportunity to see the movie that will kick you in the back of your brain and shake you into action.

All people have the duty to participate actively in their democracy, and this movie might just be the pill that will do that.

Counter Propaganda

Some people (like Newsweek and other non-free media) have been publishing lies to try and discredit the movie. If you read those don't stop there! Turn to Michael's site for the other side of the story, Michael's team has put up a page about the "F 9/11 facts", check it out here.

Happy movie going, and (especially) happy activism!

(1) http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2004/040627a_pr.html

US violates worker's internationally recognized rights

2004-06-09T18:38:00.000+01:00

The ICFTU has published today a survey where it criticizes the US for it's "anti-worker" policies and the wide-spread use of "Union-busting" techniques: "There is an entire industry in the United States of consultants and lawyers whose sole purpose is to suppress the freedom of workers to form unions and bargain collectively. During union organising campaigns, about 75 per cent of employers hire these people to run anti-union campaigns that are often based on mass psychology and distorting the law."(1)

This report further states that US's "own government doesn't do more to protect workers' basic rights" and that the US administration is "the most anti-worker government since Herbert Hoover. It has stripped 40,000 of its own employees of the freedom to bargain collectively, and threatened many more workers' freedom to form a union. It's outrageous in a nation where private sector employers block workers' organising efforts with near impunity".

Other countries

The US is not in good company. The report cites Burma, Colombia and China just to name a few. These countries however do not have real democratic structures in place(Burma and China) or are ravated by a "war on drugs" that is maintained at the expense of it's own people (Colombia).

Ohter "western" nations are cited also in this report. Check out the link below for the full report.

Dying for a cause

This report mentions many deaths of union activists. These deaths often follow nothing else than publishing an article about corrupt governments (like Burma).
Today, like in the past people are dying for the simple reason that they fight for their rights! Those people are giving their lifes for their fellow citizens and workers, they deserve more attention from the mass media than just a short article in the middle pages like the one that the Washington Post has published.

(1) ICFTU's annual survey of violations of trade union rights
(2) Washington Post article that compares US to dictatorial countries in it's labor practices

Reagan, Great or just greatly annoying?

2004-06-08T17:03:00.000+01:00

Some would say that Reagan is one of the great presidents of American history. I would say that those (mostly "W" and his friends) are just plain ignorant or gullible or (mostly corporation and their owners) interested in the policies that RR started in it's heyday.

The big lie

One of the things that Reagan was said to be was that he was for "small government", interesting however to see how his government budget grew, and grew, and grew.
Of course, the real people on the street really thought that he was for leaner government, since all the money went to corporations through the "secret" pentagon budget...(4) Not very different from what "W" is doing, come to think of it...

Russia

One argument is that Reagan was the reason why the USSR collapsed. That argument is not only false (the USSR was going under already for a long time, many European politicians predicted it) but if it would be true it would be the most negative contribution to the world that one USA president had made. If you don't believe me ask any Russian that did not get super rich through the corrupt privatisations of the oil giants.

Iran hostage drama

I've also heard on radio someone saying the it was a great moment when one minute after 12 in the day of his swearing in, RR announced the end of the hostage drama in Iran.
Unmentioned was the fact that it was Jimmy Carter was actually the president that got the hostages freed.
Worth mentioning was that RR slept late that day and when someone went it to call him he replied "Do I really have to?". There, now you know what he thought of his job! Makes you proud he was your president, right? Right...

Nicaragua

Well, maybe not in it's brightest moment, USA was condemned by the world court for "illegal use of force" against Nicaragua. Shortly after it withdrew acceptance for the court's jurisdiction (which was accepted in 1946, after the second world war). Another great moment of American history...
Nicaragua is not a big nation or a nation with a big army. It has about 5 million inhabitants and relies mostly on services and agriculture. It is also one of the hemisphere's poorest countries.
Still, the US did not hesitate in financing a local terrorist group (the Contras, hence the Iran-Contra scandal) against an elected government. And mining it's harbors!(1)
There you go, the US-administration as a financier of terrorism. This should not really be news for you, you've heard about Afghanistan, but that's only what is most known. US has sponsored terrorist groups in other countries (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador... the list goes on).

RR's Heritage

So, there you go. The heritage that Reagan leaves after him is a legacy of support for terrorism, arms race (remember Star Wars, the militarization of space project?), and a surging deficit in the US.
You may not remember the effects of the budget hole (aka deficit) because of the the 90's boom (that Clinton presided over), but don't worry, if George W. wins again, you will know.
Oh, and don't forget his biggest contribution to dialog and social peace: he fired all air-traffic controllers when they went on strike. "That'll show them", he must have thought. Go cowboy!

However, to be fair, Reagan did make one big contribution to American history. He was the first ignorant, absent and facade president in the US. He made George W. possible... That's a contribution you want to remember....

Oh yeah, and do you remember who was vice-president at the time: Yes, you got it, it was George Bush!

Reagan was a president to remember, yes, but mostly to know what to avoid in the future. Otherwise we will commit the same errors again, and again (we already did with George W.!!)

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1225283.stm
(2) http://www.wordiq.com/definition/International_Court_of_Justice
(3) http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c04-s03.html
(4) http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Military_Budget/FY2003_MilitaryBudget_CDI.html

A "moderate" article about RR's presidency:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/#ContinueArticle

A list of military interventions by the US abroad:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

See you soon,
Your news-digest-subversive

"Man U bomb plot probe ends in Farce"

2004-05-29T16:44:00.000+01:00

Hi everyone, here's a fresh drop of Subversive(tm)(R) thought for you! ;)

Certainly many of you remember the news about the (terror) arrests in Manchester, England. They were reported on April 20th. They were object of spectacular headlines in the news: "Manchester United bomb plot; Exclusive" titled the "Sun" (11).

You certainly remember also the described gruesome violence of the allegedly planned attacks, they were reported by the "Sun" like this:

"The paper quoted an unnamed police source as saying the suspects had bought tickets for seats around the club's 67,000-capacity stadium for their premier league match against Liverpool on Saturday.
"The plot involved several individual bombers in separate parts of the stadium," the source told the paper. "If successful, any such attack would have caused absolute carnage.""
(8)

Note the words "absolute carnage", these are designed to make an impression, to cause a distinct emotional response in the readers, which will boost "hate" for the "evildoers" or "our enemies".

The Police responded in the following manner:

"Assistant Chief Constable Dave Whatton, of Greater Manchester Police, said he was aware of "extensive speculation about possible targets".
"As with any counter-terrorist operation, we will not confirm or deny any targets," he said in a statement. "

Note that they specifically say: "we will not confirm or deny any targets". This of course is another way of saying: "we want you to believe that this is true, so we will not deny this speculation that is based on false leaks!"

"How can you say that?" you must be asking. Well, later on the police had to admit that the arrests were a mistake, by releasing all arrested(1). Turns out that the people arrested, happened to be Iraqi-Kurds(6 out of the 10, the others were of North-African origin). Which, if my memory serves me right should be pretty happy with Saddam's fall from grace! After all he did use Chemical Weapons against Kurds in 1998(2)...

Of course, the Police had to free the 10 "prisoners" without any charges or bail (since they had made a mistake, or was it really a mistake?). However this was not material for headlines... It does not serve the purpose of frightening the populace into accepting more and more restrictions to their liberties like the Patriot Act, Suspension of Habeas Corpus in the US and the Anti-Terrorism Act in the UK (3,4,5)

This crucial reversal to the "truth as portrayed in the headlines" does not deserve the same attention as the _false_ headlines, even when if it is the targeted entity (Manchester United) itself that denies the speculation based on "unnamed sources". Man U published a news-piece in their own web site: "Club Denies Stadium Terror Claims" (6).

Also not mentioned in the news is the fact that the people arrested are demanding an apology from the UK Police over the arrests and even considering suing them!!! (7,10)

I think "The Observer" sums it up quite nicely: "Man U bomb plot probe ends in farce "(10)
This arrest was described as a strategy "designed to unsettle terror cells working within immigrant communities in Britain by carrying out sweeps of arrests which are _not_ necessarily designed to lead to charges"(10,11).

The Police is watching you, but who is watching the Police?

The media are full of false news about alarming events, we already know. Those news sell newspapers. However, they are there for a reason! Don't let them fool you, read the Weekly Subversive or the quoted news sources below to find out what they don't want you to find out!!! ;)

Book recommendations of the week

A new section is born :) to help you find out other ways to interpret reality:

One theme for today, Propaganda, to help you deconstruct the messages you receive from news and advertisement:

Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq - this one I'm reading now, and it is indeed a very interesting read! ;)

Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq

Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future

References:
(1) "All 10 people arrested last month have been released without charge."

(2) http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/updates/kurds/
(3) "If new Anti-terrorism legislation is passed extending that passed after September 11 we risk wiping out within a matter of years rights of Habeas Corpus which took centuries of struggle and progress to secure"
(4) http://peaceworks.missouri.org/monitor/2002/augsep/habeas.html
(5) "The redefined Terrorism Act targets environmental activists as well as armed extremists and reverses the burden of proof, says Richard Norton-Taylor"
(6) Official denial from ManU itself!!!
(7) "Apology call over 'terror' arrest"
(8)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3561595&thesection=news&th
esubsection=world&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=62066
(9) "News reports at the time suggested those detained were Islamic fanatics. It turns out most were simply fanatical about Manchester United."
(10) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1208043,00.html
(11) http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=220190
(12) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3695825.stm

A Matematical Lesson about Democracy...

2004-05-15T16:50:00.000+01:00

Today we have a mathematical lesson.
It is a very easy lesson, as we will only (statistically) prove one equality. That is: Money = Electoral Win.

If you don't believe visit this site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
91%(397/434) house representatives in the US have won the election while outspending the second highest vote getter. On top of that some (36 or 8%) ran unopposed (sounds an awful lot like a single-party system...)

25/11 senators (that is 66%) were elected while outspending the second highest vote-getter.

There you go, statistics show that you have one sure way (91% for the house and 66% for the senate) to win an election. So, go out there and spend!!!
But wait, it is not enough that you have money! You have to convice your business friends to fund you... Sounds a lot like corporations actually define who wins, then... Yes, so it seems...
"Of the 29 candidates who spent $500,000 or more of their own money in 2002, only three were elected — and none of the three were political newcomers"

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/millionaires.asp?cycle=2002

There you go boys and gals. Now you know. What can you do? Spread the word, make your friends understand what is behind the news-headlines! Make them know, only knowledge can help you decide fully aware of your choice. Don't get dupped, get informed! ;)

See you soon,
Your news-digest-subversive.

What really happened in the Spanish elections on March 14th 2004?

2004-04-29T18:06:00.000+01:00

All that you ever wanted to know about the now famous Spanish elections of March 14th, 2004 and never had the courage to ask!!!

Some say the Spanish were cowards, some say the Spanish were not stupid enough to swallow their previous government's lies, I say whatever the reason was, nothing can hide anymore the astonishing bag of lies that the Spanish government dispatched upon the unprepared but sharp Spanish public!

If you don't believe me, read for yourself (see the end of the post for a full list of references):

Thursday 11th March

7:30 - Several bombs explode, one of which at Atocha station at 07:30 while the train was arriving at the Terminal, while other blasts went off on a train as it was passing Tellez street just outside the terminal.(1)

10:00 - The first government official to make a public statement, two hours after the attack, was Juan José Ibarretxe Markuartu, head of government in the Basque Country), blaming ETA and saying "those who commit these atrocities are not Basque" and "ETA writes its own ending with terrible actions". In another early public appearance, Interior Minister Acebes pointed in unambiguous terms to ETA, although by the end of the day he was forced to retract and admit that "no possibilities have been discarded" (26, 29).

13:30 - The Head of Government, José Maria Aznar, call the directors of the most important newspapers to assure them that ETA was the author of the bombings (31, in spanish).

13:32 - The interior Minister Ángel Acebes informs in a press conference: "I have no doubt" that ETA was behind the bombing of the trains. A journalist asks Acebes about the posibility that Al Qaeda would be behind the attacks, Acebes' answer is categorical "I have no doubt That ETA is responsible. We are witnessing a process of intoxication that Mr. Otegi [leader of the banned radical political party Batasuna] started to take attention away from ETA" (29, 31, 33).

10:00 - 14:00 - Spain was at the time serving a two-year term on the Security Council, and just hours after the blasts its 15 members unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the bombings "perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA." But as evidence mounted that Islamic extremists with links to al-Qaida were behind the bomb blasts, the Security Council was left in the embarrassing position of blaming the Basque separatists (25).

14:00 - Official press release by the President of the Spanish government, where Aznar does not attirubte direct responsiblity for the bombings and where ETA is not mentioned (31).

15:09 - Ángel Acebes appears again to assure the media that ETA is behind the attacks (29).

17:25 - A letter signed by the Foreign Minister (Ana Palacio) advises all ambassadors that they should, when contacted by the press and officials of other countries, defend the theory of the responsibility of ETA for the bombings in Madrid. The letter went further and accused an unnamed "political force" of trying to mislead public opinion about who was behind the bombings (31).

20:00 - Ángel Acebes appears in a press conference to inform that a van had been found in one the departure stations for one of the affected trains (Alcalá de Henares) containing a tape in Arabic with verses from the Koran. Still he does not discount ETA as the author of the bombings, he further states that previous hints "show ETA's intention to execute a large attack" (29, 31).

20:45 - Aznar calls again the directors of the most important written press to insist that despite the new information the bombings have been executed by ETA (31).

21:13 - The Arab daily in London "Al-Quds Al-Arabi" publishes an alleged letter from Al Qaeda where that organization claims responsibility for the bombings in Madrid (29).

00:00 - A spokesman for the Spanish government states in an interview with the state-owned television TVE that "everything points to ETA being the author of the bombings" (31).

Friday 12th March

11:00 - Aznar insists: "Anyone with any brain in Spain, after 30 years of terrorism must in all logic and reason think that ETA is responsible for the bombings". "What was ETA trying to do last week when it tried to smuggle 500 Kilos of explosives to Madrid" (31).

20:00 - Acebes, the interior minister reiterates "ETA is the main line of investigation" and that "at the moment there is not reason to think otherwise". In the meanwhile ETA published a press-release refusing any responsibility for the bombings. To this the interior minister stated: "we don't believe" (31).

Time unknown - During this day the Foreign Minister Ana Palacio re-stated the government's stance, saying: "Everything appears to indicate that this terrible carnage is the work of Eta." (6)

Time unknown - The Spanish ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, who said he believes ETA was responsible, said "in a way it is" Spain's September 11, referring to the 2001 terror attacks in New York and Washington (10).

Saturday 13th March

"El Mundo" morning edition - In an interview Mariano Rajoy, the government's party candidate says "I have the moral conviction that it was ETA!" (31)

14:00 - By this time it was already know that the bombs were in a rucksack and remotely detonated by mobile phone, which are not hallmarks of ETA's previous bombings (31). The interior minister however insits "No spanish person can find abnormal the priority since the terrorist organization [ETA] has acted for 30 years and caused almost 900 deaths". When the press conference ends Cadena SER a nation-wide private radio informs for the first time that the CNI is investigating 99% the Islamic connection (31)

15:00 - Minutes after Cadena SER's news the state-owned national news agency EFE director forces, against the protests of the newsroom journalists, the publishing of a news-item with the title "Leads show that ETA is responsible and not Al Qaeda" (31).

20:00 - Ángel Acebes confirms the detention of five suspects, three morrocans and two indians. He adds that "a very good line of investigation was found and being followed, but no other has been discarded" (31).

Time unknown during Saturday night - Ángel Acebes states in a press conference that the Spokesman for Al Qaeda in Europe has claimed responsibility for the bombings. (31)

Sunday 14th March

hours before the polls opened - Hours before the polls opened, people were already on the streets protesting against the government. Thousands gathered outside the headquarters of the ruling Popular Party shouting "liars, liars" and "we want the truth".(8)

Unknown time - The Norwegian government's Norwegian Defence Research Establishment said documents found on an Arabic-language Web site last year suggest Spain as a possible terror target because the country had been part of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

Wednesday 17th March

Time unknown (18, 19) - The head of one Catalan newspaper said Aznar had personally called editors to implicate ETA even when clues emerged suggesting Islamist involvement.

"The day of the massacre, Aznar told me personally, and the directors of other dailies, that ETA was the perpetrator without the slightest shred of doubt," Antonio Franco of the newspaper El Periodico said on the website of his publication.

Franco quoted Aznar as telling him: "It was ETA, there is not the slightest doubt."

Journalists at the state run news agency EFE have also demanded the resignation of their news director for swallowing the government line that ETA was behind Thursday's attacks on four commuter trains which left 200 people dead.

The association of foreign journalists also issued a formal protest that the government had deliberately misled them into thinking that the bombings had been carried out by the Basque separatist organisation ETA.

"On the evening of Thursday, March 11, some officially accredited correspondents received an appeal from the ministry of communication asking us to say explicitly in our articles that ETA was the author of the attacks," said the protest, signed by the association's president, Steven Adolf.

A statement from representatives of the journalists working at EFE said they were demanding news director Miguel Platon step down because he "imposed ... a regime of manipulation and censorship" aimed at helping Aznar's party in the elections.

Time unknown (28) - A group representing reporters and editors at Spain's state-run news agency, EFE, says the agency knew about evidence pointing to involvement by Islamic terrorists in the Mar. 11 train bombings in Madrid that very morning, but kept it under wraps due to pressure from the government of Prime Minister José María Aznar.

Time unknown (20) - The association of employees (APM) of the Madrid public TV station also complained of "outright manipulation", "censorship", "falsification of news", and the "concealing" of information.

Time unknown (23) - Spanish authorities intentionally withheld information and misled German officials into believing the Basque separatists ETA were responsible for the Madrid bombings, according to Germany's federal criminal bureau.

It wasn't until Monday, a day after Spain's conservative government suffered a surprising loss in the general election, that officials in Madrid admitted Goma 2 explosives were not a type previously used by the Basque separatists.

An unnamed high-ranking security official told ARD that such blatantly false information from an allied intelligence service was "beyond his imagination." For the German authorities, whose task it was to evaluate their own country's risk in the days following the attacks, the evidence about the explosives was the main reason why the BKA assumed ETA was behind the bombings.

German Interior Minister Otto Schily (photo) had already hinted on Sunday that Berlin was unhappy with Spain's lack of cooperation and withholding of information following the attacks.

There was a lot of discussion about the way the previous Spanish government lost the elections of March 14th 2004.
There was no shortage of speculation by the right-wing pundits in all countries about the "cowardness" of the Spanish people. However a different picture has emerged since.
Even though not one single reason can be pointed as the reason for the results of the election, some conclusions can be drawn from the way the events unfolded between March 11th (the Madrid bombing day) and the election day, March 14th.
If you don't believe me, read for yourself (see the end of the email for a full list of references):

References:
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3502218.stm

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_11,_2004_Madrid_attacks

(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3522184.stm
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3503676.stm
(5) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512748.stm
(6) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3501364.stm
(7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511886.stm
(8) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509426.stm
(9) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/12/spain.blasts.alqaeda/
(10) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/11/spain.blasts/
(11) http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_1139213,00.html
(12) http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11209340.htm
(13) http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/03/14/381892.html
(14) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1069629.htm
(15) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040312/SPAINETA12/TPInternational/Europe
(16) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52538-2004Mar12¬Found=true
(17) http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=474912§ion=news
(18) http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8991769%255E1702,00.html
(19) http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/850D8B3F-8C5C-4F46-BB18-A82188D9637C.htm
(20) http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18237
(21) http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=topNews&locale=es_ES&storyID=4572333
(22) http://www.bolivia.com/noticias/AutoNoticias/DetalleNoticia19365.asp
(23) http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_1145108_1_A,00.html
(24) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64804-2004Mar16.html
(25) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64689-2004Mar16.html
(26) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_11,_2004_Madrid_attacks
(27) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8022.doc.htm
(28) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0318-10.htm
(29) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/03/11/espana/1079010638.html
(30) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/03/17/enespecial/1079544681.html
(31) http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.html?xref=20040313csrcsrnac_16&type=Tes&anchor=
(32) http://acp.sindominio.net/article.pl?sid=04/03/24/1523208&mode=thread&threshold=0
(33) http://acp.sindominio.net/article.pl?sid=04/03/24/1348242&mode=thread
(34) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/11/spain.blasts/

See you soon,
Your news-digest-subversive