Democrats Abroad New Zealand
5.31.2006
Why It's Over for America (Independent.co.uk)
An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming. In an exclusive extract from his devastating new book, America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way
Published: 30 May 2006
The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. But there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. It is important to stress the government, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree.
That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that, as Gar Alperowitz puts it in America Beyond Capitalism, "the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy".
The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognised to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise", some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.
(More ... Independent Online Edition > Americas ¶ 08:10 0 comments
Published: 30 May 2006
The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. But there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. It is important to stress the government, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree.
That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that, as Gar Alperowitz puts it in America Beyond Capitalism, "the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy".
The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognised to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise", some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.
(More ... Independent Online Edition > Americas ¶ 08:10 0 comments
5.30.2006
Gore's Plea on Climate Change Wins Ovation (Guardian.co.uk)
James Randerson, science correspondent
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Guardian
"We're running the planet like a company in liquidation," the former US vice-president Al Gore told an audience at the Hay festival, in an impassioned plea to act on climate change before it is too late. "For some reason we have now convinced ourselves, too many of us, that we don't have to care about the future," he said.
His lecture - part promotion of his new film, An Inconvenient Truth, part environmental rallying cry and part self-deprecating stand-up routine - earned him a standing ovation from the sell-out crowd.
Referring to the urgency of the "planetary emergency", he urged his audience to take their own action to combat climate change. "I want you to arm yourselves with knowledge. I want you to learn it in your own words. I want you to make the changes in your own lives," he said. "Become an activist as a consumer, as a voter, as a citizen."
Describing the threat posed by global warming, he said there had been "an utter transformation in the relationship between the human species and our planet", which gave humankind the capacity to do lasting damage. "We now have the capacity to literally change the relationship between the Earth and the sun."
He warned that action or inaction would be judged by future generations. They would ask, he said: "What were they thinking? Didn't they see this coming? Were they too distracted? Were they too busy? Didn't they care?"
(More ... Guardian Unlimited Books | Special Reports | Gore's plea on climate change wins ovation) ¶ 19:43 0 comments
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Guardian
"We're running the planet like a company in liquidation," the former US vice-president Al Gore told an audience at the Hay festival, in an impassioned plea to act on climate change before it is too late. "For some reason we have now convinced ourselves, too many of us, that we don't have to care about the future," he said.
His lecture - part promotion of his new film, An Inconvenient Truth, part environmental rallying cry and part self-deprecating stand-up routine - earned him a standing ovation from the sell-out crowd.
Referring to the urgency of the "planetary emergency", he urged his audience to take their own action to combat climate change. "I want you to arm yourselves with knowledge. I want you to learn it in your own words. I want you to make the changes in your own lives," he said. "Become an activist as a consumer, as a voter, as a citizen."
Describing the threat posed by global warming, he said there had been "an utter transformation in the relationship between the human species and our planet", which gave humankind the capacity to do lasting damage. "We now have the capacity to literally change the relationship between the Earth and the sun."
He warned that action or inaction would be judged by future generations. They would ask, he said: "What were they thinking? Didn't they see this coming? Were they too distracted? Were they too busy? Didn't they care?"
(More ... Guardian Unlimited Books | Special Reports | Gore's plea on climate change wins ovation) ¶ 19:43 0 comments
Talk of Pelosi as Speaker Delights Both Parties (NYTimes.com)
By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: May 30, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 29 — Hoping to win a Congressional majority in November, some optimistic Democratic lawmakers have taken to referring to Representative Nancy Pelosi as "speaker," as in speaker of the House. So have some optimistic Republicans.
"She ought to be a big component of the fall campaign," said Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and lobbyist. "There are some Democrats who make really good bad guys."
Ms. Pelosi, the California Democrat and House minority leader, lends herself to easy caricature by Republicans. She is an unapologetic liberal, with a voting record to match (the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, said she was neither a "New Democrat" nor an "Old Democrat" but a "prehistoric Democrat"). She is wealthy (married to an investment banker, she has assets listed at more than $16 million). She represents San Francisco, which Republicans love to invoke as a hotbed of counterculture decadence and extremism.
"Is America ready for Nancy Pelosi's Contract With San Francisco?" asked Representative Ric Keller, Republican of Florida, posing a question that, one imagines, could form the basis of many Republican advertisements this fall.
Democrats may have some reservations about Ms. Pelosi, but they are largely loyal, seeing her as an earnest champion of the party's beliefs and as an effective leader.
(More ... Talk of Pelosi as Speaker Delights Both Parties - New York Times) ¶ 19:33 0 comments
Published: May 30, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 29 — Hoping to win a Congressional majority in November, some optimistic Democratic lawmakers have taken to referring to Representative Nancy Pelosi as "speaker," as in speaker of the House. So have some optimistic Republicans.
"She ought to be a big component of the fall campaign," said Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and lobbyist. "There are some Democrats who make really good bad guys."
Ms. Pelosi, the California Democrat and House minority leader, lends herself to easy caricature by Republicans. She is an unapologetic liberal, with a voting record to match (the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, said she was neither a "New Democrat" nor an "Old Democrat" but a "prehistoric Democrat"). She is wealthy (married to an investment banker, she has assets listed at more than $16 million). She represents San Francisco, which Republicans love to invoke as a hotbed of counterculture decadence and extremism.
"Is America ready for Nancy Pelosi's Contract With San Francisco?" asked Representative Ric Keller, Republican of Florida, posing a question that, one imagines, could form the basis of many Republican advertisements this fall.
Democrats may have some reservations about Ms. Pelosi, but they are largely loyal, seeing her as an earnest champion of the party's beliefs and as an effective leader.
(More ... Talk of Pelosi as Speaker Delights Both Parties - New York Times) ¶ 19:33 0 comments
Out of Eden (Guardian.co.nz)
The Indian Ocean paradise of Diego Garcia was once home to more than a thousand contented British subjects. In 1966, Harold Wilson's government sold it to the US in a secret, illegal deal and terrorised the population into leaving. John Pilger reports on the islanders' long battle for justice
Monday May 29, 2006
The Guardian
In long-forgotten archives in London and Mauritius is rare film of a community of contented people. The grainy, flickering images, full of movement of children playing on sandy beaches, and proud young women presenting their newborn for christening, and men setting out to fish, their dogs swimming alongside, are glimpses of a true paradise. There are thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a light railway, set in a phenomenon of natural beauty: strings of coral atolls, floating in the turquoise of the Indian Ocean.
These were some of the 2,000 people who once lived on the Chagos archipelago, the majority on Diego Garcia, an atoll the shape of a tiny Italy, 14 miles long and six miles wide. Their ancestry went back to the 18th century, when the French brought slaves from Mozambique and Madagascar to work a coconut plantation. After Napoleon's defeat in 1815, the islands passed from French to British rule; about 20 years later, slavery was abolished.
Chagossian society continued to grow with the arrival of indentured labourers from India in the mid-19th century. By the 20th century they had developed a distinct language that was a lilting variation of French Creole. There were now three copra factories, supplying the coconut oil that lit street lamps in London, and a coaling station for ships en route to and from Australia; by the 1960s, there were plans for tourism. The workers received a small wage or payment in kind with commodities such as rice, oil and milk. They supplemented this by fishing in the abundantly stocked coastal waters, growing tomatoes, chilli, pumpkins and aubergines, and rearing chicken and ducks. As if celebrating a perfect vision of empire in such a place, a Colonial Office film from the 1950s describes the population as "born and brought up ... in conditions most tranquil and benign". The camera pans across a laughing woman hanging out clothes to dry in a coconut grove while her children play around her. This is Charlesia Alexis.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Out of Eden) ¶ 08:32 0 comments
Monday May 29, 2006
The Guardian
In long-forgotten archives in London and Mauritius is rare film of a community of contented people. The grainy, flickering images, full of movement of children playing on sandy beaches, and proud young women presenting their newborn for christening, and men setting out to fish, their dogs swimming alongside, are glimpses of a true paradise. There are thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a light railway, set in a phenomenon of natural beauty: strings of coral atolls, floating in the turquoise of the Indian Ocean.
These were some of the 2,000 people who once lived on the Chagos archipelago, the majority on Diego Garcia, an atoll the shape of a tiny Italy, 14 miles long and six miles wide. Their ancestry went back to the 18th century, when the French brought slaves from Mozambique and Madagascar to work a coconut plantation. After Napoleon's defeat in 1815, the islands passed from French to British rule; about 20 years later, slavery was abolished.
Chagossian society continued to grow with the arrival of indentured labourers from India in the mid-19th century. By the 20th century they had developed a distinct language that was a lilting variation of French Creole. There were now three copra factories, supplying the coconut oil that lit street lamps in London, and a coaling station for ships en route to and from Australia; by the 1960s, there were plans for tourism. The workers received a small wage or payment in kind with commodities such as rice, oil and milk. They supplemented this by fishing in the abundantly stocked coastal waters, growing tomatoes, chilli, pumpkins and aubergines, and rearing chicken and ducks. As if celebrating a perfect vision of empire in such a place, a Colonial Office film from the 1950s describes the population as "born and brought up ... in conditions most tranquil and benign". The camera pans across a laughing woman hanging out clothes to dry in a coconut grove while her children play around her. This is Charlesia Alexis.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Out of Eden) ¶ 08:32 0 comments
5.29.2006
Toepfer Warns Climate Change Could Destabilise World (Reuters.com)
Fri May 26, 2006 3:46pm
By Erik Kirschbaum
BERLIN (Reuters) - Global warming is hitting the poor the hardest and climate change could cause worldwide destabilization if solutions are not found, one of the world's leading environmentalists said on Friday.
Klaus Toepfer, a tireless promoter of the Kyoto Protocol as head of the U.N. environment agency for the last eight years, said in an interview he believed its 2012 goals could still be reached even though he said it was still "not enough."
Toepfer, a driving force behind using the World Cup tournament next month to project an environmental message and a former German environment minister, also said he sensed growing support for Kyoto in cities across the United States.
"I know Kyoto is by far not enough," said Toepfer, who last month stepped down from the U.N. agency in Nairobi since 1998. "We have to do more because climate change is not a forecast for the long-term future but it is happening now.
"The poorest of the poor are suffering most. Our world will be destabilised if we are not able to solve this problem. It is not something on the margins. Our children and their children will suffer the most and it's our obligation to do it now."
(More ... Toepfer warns climate change could destabilise world | Reuters.com ¶ 18:11 0 comments
By Erik Kirschbaum
BERLIN (Reuters) - Global warming is hitting the poor the hardest and climate change could cause worldwide destabilization if solutions are not found, one of the world's leading environmentalists said on Friday.
Klaus Toepfer, a tireless promoter of the Kyoto Protocol as head of the U.N. environment agency for the last eight years, said in an interview he believed its 2012 goals could still be reached even though he said it was still "not enough."
Toepfer, a driving force behind using the World Cup tournament next month to project an environmental message and a former German environment minister, also said he sensed growing support for Kyoto in cities across the United States.
"I know Kyoto is by far not enough," said Toepfer, who last month stepped down from the U.N. agency in Nairobi since 1998. "We have to do more because climate change is not a forecast for the long-term future but it is happening now.
"The poorest of the poor are suffering most. Our world will be destabilised if we are not able to solve this problem. It is not something on the margins. Our children and their children will suffer the most and it's our obligation to do it now."
(More ... Toepfer warns climate change could destabilise world | Reuters.com ¶ 18:11 0 comments
Swift Boating the Planet (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 29, 2006
A brief segment in "An Inconvenient Truth" shows Senator Al Gore questioning James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989 hearing. But the movie doesn't give you much context, or tell you what happened to Dr. Hansen later.
And that's a story worth telling, for two reasons. It's a good illustration of the way interest groups can create the appearance of doubt even when the facts are clear and cloud the reputations of people who should be regarded as heroes. And it's a warning for Mr. Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue: you're going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules.
Dr. Hansen was one of the first climate scientists to say publicly that global warming was under way. In 1988, he made headlines with Senate testimony in which he declared that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." When he testified again the following year, officials in the first Bush administration altered his prepared statement to downplay the threat. Mr. Gore's movie shows the moment when the administration's tampering was revealed.
In 1988, Dr. Hansen was well out in front of his scientific colleagues, but over the years that followed he was vindicated by a growing body of evidence. By rights, Dr. Hansen should have been universally acclaimed for both his prescience and his courage.
But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.
(More ... Swift Boating the Planet - New York Times) ¶ 18:01 0 comments
Published: May 29, 2006
A brief segment in "An Inconvenient Truth" shows Senator Al Gore questioning James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989 hearing. But the movie doesn't give you much context, or tell you what happened to Dr. Hansen later.
And that's a story worth telling, for two reasons. It's a good illustration of the way interest groups can create the appearance of doubt even when the facts are clear and cloud the reputations of people who should be regarded as heroes. And it's a warning for Mr. Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue: you're going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules.
Dr. Hansen was one of the first climate scientists to say publicly that global warming was under way. In 1988, he made headlines with Senate testimony in which he declared that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." When he testified again the following year, officials in the first Bush administration altered his prepared statement to downplay the threat. Mr. Gore's movie shows the moment when the administration's tampering was revealed.
In 1988, Dr. Hansen was well out in front of his scientific colleagues, but over the years that followed he was vindicated by a growing body of evidence. By rights, Dr. Hansen should have been universally acclaimed for both his prescience and his courage.
But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.
(More ... Swift Boating the Planet - New York Times) ¶ 18:01 0 comments
5.26.2006
Bush and Blair Concede Errors, but Defend War (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID E. SANGER and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 26, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 25 — President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, two leaders badly weakened by the continuing violence in Iraq, acknowledged major misjudgments in the execution of the Iraq war on Thursday night even while insisting that the election of a constitutional government in Baghdad justified their decision to go to war three years ago.
Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room, the two leaders steadfastly refused to talk about a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq — a pressure both men are feeling intently. They stuck to a common formulation that they would pull troops out only as properly trained Iraqi troops progressively took control over more and more territory in the country.
But in an unusual admission of a personal mistake, Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on" in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Those two statements quickly came to reinforce his image around the world as a cowboy commander in chief. "Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people," Mr. Bush said. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner." He went on to say that the American military's biggest mistake was the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs of detainees showed them in degrading and abusive conditions. "We've been paying for that for a long period of time," Mr. Bush said, his voice heavy with regret.
Mr. Blair, whose approval levels have sunk even lower than Mr. Bush's, said he particularly regretted the broad decision to strip most members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party of their positions in government and civic life in 2003, leaving most institutions in Iraq shorn of expertise and leadership.
(More ... Bush and Blair Concede Errors, but Defend War - New York Times) ¶ 19:21 0 comments
Published: May 26, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 25 — President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, two leaders badly weakened by the continuing violence in Iraq, acknowledged major misjudgments in the execution of the Iraq war on Thursday night even while insisting that the election of a constitutional government in Baghdad justified their decision to go to war three years ago.
Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room, the two leaders steadfastly refused to talk about a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq — a pressure both men are feeling intently. They stuck to a common formulation that they would pull troops out only as properly trained Iraqi troops progressively took control over more and more territory in the country.
But in an unusual admission of a personal mistake, Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on" in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Those two statements quickly came to reinforce his image around the world as a cowboy commander in chief. "Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people," Mr. Bush said. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner." He went on to say that the American military's biggest mistake was the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs of detainees showed them in degrading and abusive conditions. "We've been paying for that for a long period of time," Mr. Bush said, his voice heavy with regret.
Mr. Blair, whose approval levels have sunk even lower than Mr. Bush's, said he particularly regretted the broad decision to strip most members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party of their positions in government and civic life in 2003, leaving most institutions in Iraq shorn of expertise and leadership.
(More ... Bush and Blair Concede Errors, but Defend War - New York Times) ¶ 19:21 0 comments
TV Ads That Doubt Climate Change Are 'Misleading' (Independent.co.uk)
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 25 May 2006
A senior scientist has condemned as "a deliberate effort to mislead" a series of television adverts produced by an oil industry-funded lobbying group that seeks to portray concern over global warming as alarmism.
The adverts, produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), seek to argue that despite widespread agreement about the growing evidence of climate change, other evidence suggests the opposite. The adverts catchphrase says: "Carbon dioxide - they call it pollution, we call it life."
But a scientist whose report about the Antarctic ice-sheet is featured in the adverts has denounced the CEI and said they have quoted his study out of context. Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia, said: "I think they are confusing and misleading the public."
Asked if he doubted the evidence of global warming, he replied: "Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever." Mr Davis's June 2005 study examined the ice-sheets of east Antarctic which showed an increase in mass. However, he said his study did not look at coastal areas which are known to be losing ice and said the "fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global warming".
Green campaigners have long accused the CEI of producing misleading and inaccurate claims about global warming and the role of mankind's use of fossil fuels. In reality, there is a broad scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activity is an important factor in this change. Last year, the national academies of science from the UK, US, Japan and other nations cited "strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
Kert Davies, a Washington-based campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "The bottom line is that we are seeing a series of last gasps from the sceptics. They are losing ground so quickly. They are so laughable they do not need to be parodied."
David Doniger, the climate policy director with the Natural Resources Defence Council, said climate change sceptics did not even represent "the minority ... they're the fringe". He added: "It's the same as with tobacco. To claim that fossil fuel emissions don't cause global warming is like saying cigarettes don't cause cancer."
The CEI has powerful friends. The organisation has received more than $1.5m (£800,000) in funding from ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, to help fund its efforts to question the evidence of climate change.
(More ... Independent Online Edition > Environment) ¶ 18:59 0 comments
Published: 25 May 2006
A senior scientist has condemned as "a deliberate effort to mislead" a series of television adverts produced by an oil industry-funded lobbying group that seeks to portray concern over global warming as alarmism.
The adverts, produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), seek to argue that despite widespread agreement about the growing evidence of climate change, other evidence suggests the opposite. The adverts catchphrase says: "Carbon dioxide - they call it pollution, we call it life."
But a scientist whose report about the Antarctic ice-sheet is featured in the adverts has denounced the CEI and said they have quoted his study out of context. Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia, said: "I think they are confusing and misleading the public."
Asked if he doubted the evidence of global warming, he replied: "Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever." Mr Davis's June 2005 study examined the ice-sheets of east Antarctic which showed an increase in mass. However, he said his study did not look at coastal areas which are known to be losing ice and said the "fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global warming".
Green campaigners have long accused the CEI of producing misleading and inaccurate claims about global warming and the role of mankind's use of fossil fuels. In reality, there is a broad scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activity is an important factor in this change. Last year, the national academies of science from the UK, US, Japan and other nations cited "strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
Kert Davies, a Washington-based campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "The bottom line is that we are seeing a series of last gasps from the sceptics. They are losing ground so quickly. They are so laughable they do not need to be parodied."
David Doniger, the climate policy director with the Natural Resources Defence Council, said climate change sceptics did not even represent "the minority ... they're the fringe". He added: "It's the same as with tobacco. To claim that fossil fuel emissions don't cause global warming is like saying cigarettes don't cause cancer."
The CEI has powerful friends. The organisation has received more than $1.5m (£800,000) in funding from ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, to help fund its efforts to question the evidence of climate change.
(More ... Independent Online Edition > Environment) ¶ 18:59 0 comments
5.24.2006
Rights Group Faults U.S. for 'War Outsourcing' (NYTimes.com)
By ALAN COWELL
Published: May 23, 2006
LONDON, May 23 — Amnesty International today assailed the United States' use of military contractors in Iraq as "war outsourcing" and said the behavior of some contractors had diminished America's moral standing.
"War outsourcing is creating the corporate equivalent of Guantánamo Bay — a virtual rules-free zone in which perpetrators are not likely to be held accountable for breaking the law," Larry Cox, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in Washington as the human rights body presented its annual report in London.
Amnesty International is a leading, private human rights group that has traditionally highlighted false imprisonment and torture.
"It is difficult to believe that the United States government, which once considered itself as an exemplar of human rights, has sacrificed its most fundamental principle by abusing prisoners as a matter of policy, by 'disappearing' detainees into a network of secret prisons and by abducting and sending people for interrogation to countries that practice torture such as Egypt, Syria and Morocco," Mr. Cox said.
(More ... Rights Group Faults U.S. for 'War Outsourcing' - New York Times) ¶ 08:08 0 comments
Published: May 23, 2006
LONDON, May 23 — Amnesty International today assailed the United States' use of military contractors in Iraq as "war outsourcing" and said the behavior of some contractors had diminished America's moral standing.
"War outsourcing is creating the corporate equivalent of Guantánamo Bay — a virtual rules-free zone in which perpetrators are not likely to be held accountable for breaking the law," Larry Cox, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in Washington as the human rights body presented its annual report in London.
Amnesty International is a leading, private human rights group that has traditionally highlighted false imprisonment and torture.
"It is difficult to believe that the United States government, which once considered itself as an exemplar of human rights, has sacrificed its most fundamental principle by abusing prisoners as a matter of policy, by 'disappearing' detainees into a network of secret prisons and by abducting and sending people for interrogation to countries that practice torture such as Egypt, Syria and Morocco," Mr. Cox said.
(More ... Rights Group Faults U.S. for 'War Outsourcing' - New York Times) ¶ 08:08 0 comments
Lloyd Bentsen, Senator Who Ran With Dukakis, Dies at 85 (NYTimes.com)
Published: May 23, 2006
Lloyd Bentsen, who represented Texas in Congress for 28 years, was the 1988 Democratic vice presidential nominee and served as President Bill Clinton's first treasury secretary, died this morning, his family said, according to The Associated Press. He was 85.
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM,
Written in February 1999.
Lloyd Bentsen, the former congressman and senator from Texas, secretary of the treasury and the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president in 1988, was involved in some of the most important legislative battles of the second half of the 20th century. But he is probably best remembered for one devastating riposte he delivered an hour into a deadly dull debate between the vice presidential candidates in Omaha in October 1988.
Almost as an aside, his youthful Republican opponent, Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, remarked, "I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."
Mr. Bentsen pounced. "Senator," he declared, contempt in his voice and admonition in his eyes, "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
In the election a month later, Mr. Bentsen and Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee, were trounced by George Bush and Mr. Quayle. But that one moment on stage in a generally lackluster election campaign propelled Mr. Bentsen's national image from that of an unexceptional Texas Senator beholden to the oil and gas industry to that of a major national figure.
(More ... Lloyd Bentsen, Senator Who Ran With Dukakis, Dies at 85 - New York Times) ¶ 08:05 0 comments
Lloyd Bentsen, who represented Texas in Congress for 28 years, was the 1988 Democratic vice presidential nominee and served as President Bill Clinton's first treasury secretary, died this morning, his family said, according to The Associated Press. He was 85.
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM,
Written in February 1999.
Lloyd Bentsen, the former congressman and senator from Texas, secretary of the treasury and the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president in 1988, was involved in some of the most important legislative battles of the second half of the 20th century. But he is probably best remembered for one devastating riposte he delivered an hour into a deadly dull debate between the vice presidential candidates in Omaha in October 1988.
Almost as an aside, his youthful Republican opponent, Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, remarked, "I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."
Mr. Bentsen pounced. "Senator," he declared, contempt in his voice and admonition in his eyes, "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
In the election a month later, Mr. Bentsen and Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee, were trounced by George Bush and Mr. Quayle. But that one moment on stage in a generally lackluster election campaign propelled Mr. Bentsen's national image from that of an unexceptional Texas Senator beholden to the oil and gas industry to that of a major national figure.
(More ... Lloyd Bentsen, Senator Who Ran With Dukakis, Dies at 85 - New York Times) ¶ 08:05 0 comments
5.23.2006
Albright Critical of Bush's Religious Absolutism (Reuters.com)
Mon May 22, 2006 9:40am ET
By Gideon Long
LONDON (Reuters) - President Bush has alienated Muslims around the world by using absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss foreign policy issues, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says.
"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians.
"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us."
Bush, a Republican, has openly acknowledged his Christian faith informs his decisions as president. He says, for example, that he prayed to God for guidance before invading Iraq.
Some Muslims have accused him of waging a crusade against Islam, comparable with those of the Middle Ages. The White House says it has nothing against Islam, but against those who commit terrorist atrocities in its name.
(More ... Albright critical of Bush's religious absolutism | Reuters.com) ¶ 08:11 0 comments
By Gideon Long
LONDON (Reuters) - President Bush has alienated Muslims around the world by using absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss foreign policy issues, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says.
"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians.
"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us."
Bush, a Republican, has openly acknowledged his Christian faith informs his decisions as president. He says, for example, that he prayed to God for guidance before invading Iraq.
Some Muslims have accused him of waging a crusade against Islam, comparable with those of the Middle Ages. The White House says it has nothing against Islam, but against those who commit terrorist atrocities in its name.
(More ... Albright critical of Bush's religious absolutism | Reuters.com) ¶ 08:11 0 comments
Bush Doubts He'll See Al Gore's Movie (Reuters.com)
Mon May 22, 2006 3:27pm ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Former oilman President George W. Bush sounds like a changed man when it comes to urging Americans to end their addiction to oil. But will he see Al Gore's new movie about global warming?
"Doubt it," Bush said on Monday when asked by a member of the audience during remarks in Chicago. "An Inconvenient Truth," the movie by Gore, who lost to Bush in the 2000 presidential election, opens in U.S. theaters this week.
Bush has this year been emphasizing a need to wean America off imported oil and devote more resources to developing alternative fuels, but environmentalists have slammed his performance during most of his six years in the White House.
(More ... Bush doubts he'll see Al Gore's movie | Reuters.com) ¶ 08:09 0 comments
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Former oilman President George W. Bush sounds like a changed man when it comes to urging Americans to end their addiction to oil. But will he see Al Gore's new movie about global warming?
"Doubt it," Bush said on Monday when asked by a member of the audience during remarks in Chicago. "An Inconvenient Truth," the movie by Gore, who lost to Bush in the 2000 presidential election, opens in U.S. theaters this week.
Bush has this year been emphasizing a need to wean America off imported oil and devote more resources to developing alternative fuels, but environmentalists have slammed his performance during most of his six years in the White House.
(More ... Bush doubts he'll see Al Gore's movie | Reuters.com) ¶ 08:09 0 comments
Al Gore's Coming Back, But How Far? (USATODAY.com)
Updated 5/22/2006 12:47 AM ET
By Anthony Breznican and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In a parallel universe, President Al Gore reports that his administration has stopped global warming. Gas costs 19 cents a gallon, and oil companies warrant a federal bailout. "If it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us," Gore deadpans.
OK, so that was on NBC's Saturday Night Live on May 13, and Gore isn't president. But the reality is, Gore is back and he's hot.
Six years after his agonizing election loss to George W. Bush, the former vice president is basking in the limelight generated by the national release this week of An Inconvenient Truth, an independent film that documents his crusade against global warming.
Gore says he's trying to get people to lead their leaders. A groundswell of political will from regular citizens, he says, will pressure politicians and automobile, fuel and chemical corporations to embrace green technology.
"There are a few irresponsible companies, making billions of dollars by dumping massive qualities of global warming pollution into the Earth's atmosphere," Gore, 58, told USA TODAY. "When 50.1% of the American people are passionate and committed and feel the sense of urgency that's appropriate here, then the political system will flip. I think we're close to a tipping point."
Gore's re-emergence has fueled speculation that he still wants to be one of those leaders. He has fun with the idea even as he bats it away. Asked where he'd like to be in 21/2 years, he strokes his chin, stares ahead and says dreamily, "Standing on the steps of the Capitol — " before buckling with laughter.
(More ... USATODAY.com - Al Gore's coming back but how far?) ¶ 08:06 0 comments
By Anthony Breznican and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In a parallel universe, President Al Gore reports that his administration has stopped global warming. Gas costs 19 cents a gallon, and oil companies warrant a federal bailout. "If it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us," Gore deadpans.
OK, so that was on NBC's Saturday Night Live on May 13, and Gore isn't president. But the reality is, Gore is back and he's hot.
Six years after his agonizing election loss to George W. Bush, the former vice president is basking in the limelight generated by the national release this week of An Inconvenient Truth, an independent film that documents his crusade against global warming.
Gore says he's trying to get people to lead their leaders. A groundswell of political will from regular citizens, he says, will pressure politicians and automobile, fuel and chemical corporations to embrace green technology.
"There are a few irresponsible companies, making billions of dollars by dumping massive qualities of global warming pollution into the Earth's atmosphere," Gore, 58, told USA TODAY. "When 50.1% of the American people are passionate and committed and feel the sense of urgency that's appropriate here, then the political system will flip. I think we're close to a tipping point."
Gore's re-emergence has fueled speculation that he still wants to be one of those leaders. He has fun with the idea even as he bats it away. Asked where he'd like to be in 21/2 years, he strokes his chin, stares ahead and says dreamily, "Standing on the steps of the Capitol — " before buckling with laughter.
(More ... USATODAY.com - Al Gore's coming back but how far?) ¶ 08:06 0 comments
Americans Don't Like President Bush Personally Much Anymore, Either (CommonDreams.org)
Published Sunay, 21 May 2006 by Knight-Ridder
by Steven Thomma
WASHINGTON - It's not just the way he's doing his job. Americans apparently don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either.
A drop in his personal popularity, as measured by several public polls, has shadowed the decline in Bush's job-approval ratings and weakened his political armor when he and his party need it most.
Losing that political protection - dubbed "Teflon" when Ronald Reagan had it - is costing Bush what the late political scientist Richard Neustadt called the "leeway" to survive hard times and maintain his grip on the nation's agenda. Without it, Bush is a more tempting target for political enemies. And members of his party in Congress are less inclined to stand with him.
"When he loses likeability, the president loses the benefit of the doubt," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. "That makes it much harder for him to steer."
Aides in the president's circle say Bush still has it. They suggest that his likeability will serve as a get-out-of-trouble card no matter how mad people get about the war in Iraq or other woes.
"The American people like this president," White House political guru Karl Rove said last week. "People like him. They respect him. He's somebody they feel a connection with. But they're just sour right now on the war. And that's the way it's going to be. And we will fight our way through."
(More ... Americans Don't Like President Bush Personally Much Anymore, Either) ¶ 08:01 0 comments
by Steven Thomma
WASHINGTON - It's not just the way he's doing his job. Americans apparently don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either.
A drop in his personal popularity, as measured by several public polls, has shadowed the decline in Bush's job-approval ratings and weakened his political armor when he and his party need it most.
Losing that political protection - dubbed "Teflon" when Ronald Reagan had it - is costing Bush what the late political scientist Richard Neustadt called the "leeway" to survive hard times and maintain his grip on the nation's agenda. Without it, Bush is a more tempting target for political enemies. And members of his party in Congress are less inclined to stand with him.
"When he loses likeability, the president loses the benefit of the doubt," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. "That makes it much harder for him to steer."
Aides in the president's circle say Bush still has it. They suggest that his likeability will serve as a get-out-of-trouble card no matter how mad people get about the war in Iraq or other woes.
"The American people like this president," White House political guru Karl Rove said last week. "People like him. They respect him. He's somebody they feel a connection with. But they're just sour right now on the war. And that's the way it's going to be. And we will fight our way through."
(More ... Americans Don't Like President Bush Personally Much Anymore, Either) ¶ 08:01 0 comments
5.14.2006
Cheney Pushed U.S. to Widen Eavesdropping (NYTimes.com)
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: May 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 13 — In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.
But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.
The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed. But just how Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the agency at the time, designed the program, persuaded wary N.S.A. officers to accept it and sold the White House on its limits is not yet fully clear.
As the program's overseer and chief salesman, General Hayden is certain to face questions about his role when he appears at a Senate hearing next week on his nomination as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Criticism of the surveillance program, which some lawmakers say is illegal, flared again this week with the disclosure that the N.S.A. had collected the phone records of millions of Americans in an effort to track terror suspects.
By several accounts, including those of the two officials, General Hayden, a 61-year-old Air Force officer who left the agency last year to become principal deputy director of national intelligence, was the man in the middle as President Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act urgently to stop future attacks.
On one side was a strong-willed vice president and his longtime legal adviser, David S. Addington, who believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country. Later, Mr. Cheney would personally arrange tightly controlled briefings on the program for select members of Congress.
(More ... Cheney Pushed U.S. to Widen Eavesdropping - New York Times) ¶ 12:47 0 comments
Published: May 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 13 — In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.
But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.
The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed. But just how Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the agency at the time, designed the program, persuaded wary N.S.A. officers to accept it and sold the White House on its limits is not yet fully clear.
As the program's overseer and chief salesman, General Hayden is certain to face questions about his role when he appears at a Senate hearing next week on his nomination as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Criticism of the surveillance program, which some lawmakers say is illegal, flared again this week with the disclosure that the N.S.A. had collected the phone records of millions of Americans in an effort to track terror suspects.
By several accounts, including those of the two officials, General Hayden, a 61-year-old Air Force officer who left the agency last year to become principal deputy director of national intelligence, was the man in the middle as President Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act urgently to stop future attacks.
On one side was a strong-willed vice president and his longtime legal adviser, David S. Addington, who believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country. Later, Mr. Cheney would personally arrange tightly controlled briefings on the program for select members of Congress.
(More ... Cheney Pushed U.S. to Widen Eavesdropping - New York Times) ¶ 12:47 0 comments
5.11.2006
Brazil Officially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facility (ENS-newswire.com)
RIO DE JANIERO, Brazil, May 8, 2006 (ENS)--Brazil has inaugurated its first uranium enrichment facility to produce the tyoe of fuel for nuclear power plants that Iran is running into trouble for attempting to produce. There are strong suspocions that the objective of the Iranian nuclear program is to eventually build a bomb, but Brazil has managed to assure the international community its intentions are industrial and commercial, not military.
At the inauguration ceremony Brazilian Science and Technology Minister Sergio Rezende told the assembled officials and media of Brazil's commitment to the peacful use of nuclear power.
The Brazilian Constitution bans the military use of nuclear energy and the country has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. No objections to Brazil's uranium enrichment progam have been heard from the United States.
In April 2004 the Brazilian government denied access for teh IAEA inspectors to the Resende facility and refused to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant.l Citing a need to protect proprietary information the government had built walls around parts of he facility and draped covers over equipment.
By November 2004, the IAEA was able to reach an agreement in principle with the Brazilian government on a safeguards approach to verify the enrichment facilities in Brazil at the Resende facility: This approach enables the IAEA to do credible inspections but at the same time addresses Brazil's need to shield properitary designs inside the facility.
Built at a cost of US$172 million, the plant will be capable of enriching uranium to less than five percent uranium-235, an isotope needed to fuel nuclea reactors. In order to amke a bomb, natural uranium must be enriched to 95 percent uranium-235.
Brazil Officially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facility ¶ 18:38 0 comments
At the inauguration ceremony Brazilian Science and Technology Minister Sergio Rezende told the assembled officials and media of Brazil's commitment to the peacful use of nuclear power.
The Brazilian Constitution bans the military use of nuclear energy and the country has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. No objections to Brazil's uranium enrichment progam have been heard from the United States.
In April 2004 the Brazilian government denied access for teh IAEA inspectors to the Resende facility and refused to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant.l Citing a need to protect proprietary information the government had built walls around parts of he facility and draped covers over equipment.
By November 2004, the IAEA was able to reach an agreement in principle with the Brazilian government on a safeguards approach to verify the enrichment facilities in Brazil at the Resende facility: This approach enables the IAEA to do credible inspections but at the same time addresses Brazil's need to shield properitary designs inside the facility.
Built at a cost of US$172 million, the plant will be capable of enriching uranium to less than five percent uranium-235, an isotope needed to fuel nuclea reactors. In order to amke a bomb, natural uranium must be enriched to 95 percent uranium-235.
Brazil Officially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facility ¶ 18:38 0 comments
Arms Trade Out of Control (Amnesty.org)
10 May 2006
Chronically weak and outdated arms controls urgently need strengthening to stop an ever-expanding chain of arms brokers, logistic firms and transporters from fuelling massive human rights abuse around the world, according to a new report issued today.
The report from Amnesty International and TransArms shows how increasingly sophisticated freight transport and brokering operations now deliver hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons around the world with an ever-greater proportion going to developing countries where they have fed some of the most brutal of conflicts.
The report, Dead on Time - arms transportation, brokering and the threat to human rights,reveals the involvement of arms brokers and transporters from the Balkans, China, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and the USA. It also shows how this network of middlemen has made it easier for the major arms suppliers to target developing countries, which now absorb over two-thirds of world defence imports, compared to just over half in the 1990s.
"Arms brokers and transport agents have helped deliver many of the weapons used in the ongoing killing, rape and displacement of civilians in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet customs controls are often weak and, even now, only about 35 states have bothered to enact arms brokerage laws, making further human rights catastrophes all but inevitable," said Brian Wood, Amnesty International’s research manager for the arms and security trade.
(More ... Growing network of arms brokers and transporters fuelling killings, rape, and torture - Amnesty International) ¶ 18:22 0 comments
Chronically weak and outdated arms controls urgently need strengthening to stop an ever-expanding chain of arms brokers, logistic firms and transporters from fuelling massive human rights abuse around the world, according to a new report issued today.
The report from Amnesty International and TransArms shows how increasingly sophisticated freight transport and brokering operations now deliver hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons around the world with an ever-greater proportion going to developing countries where they have fed some of the most brutal of conflicts.
The report, Dead on Time - arms transportation, brokering and the threat to human rights,reveals the involvement of arms brokers and transporters from the Balkans, China, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and the USA. It also shows how this network of middlemen has made it easier for the major arms suppliers to target developing countries, which now absorb over two-thirds of world defence imports, compared to just over half in the 1990s.
"Arms brokers and transport agents have helped deliver many of the weapons used in the ongoing killing, rape and displacement of civilians in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet customs controls are often weak and, even now, only about 35 states have bothered to enact arms brokerage laws, making further human rights catastrophes all but inevitable," said Brian Wood, Amnesty International’s research manager for the arms and security trade.
(More ... Growing network of arms brokers and transporters fuelling killings, rape, and torture - Amnesty International) ¶ 18:22 0 comments
5.10.2006
National Says Winston Peters Should Resign as Foreign Affairs Minister (RadioNZ.co.nz)
Posted at 6:47am on 10 May 2006
National says Winston Peters should resign as Foreign Affairs Minister, accusing him of damaging New Zealand's interests for the sake of point scoring.
The New Zealand First leader has released a leaked email in which National's leader raises the possibility of using US strategists in its election campaign.
The email - written in July 2004 - came after Don Brash was hosted at a lunch in the US, by the American billionaire Julian Roberston.
Following that, two of the guests - experienced Republican campaigners - contacted Dr Brash offering their help. Dr Brash then emailed key National Party strategists; asking whether the Republicans should be brought on board.
Dr Brash yesterday reiterated denials he made last year that Americans were involved in developing National party strategy or policy. He said two Americans worked on the campaign, sending out leaflets; but they were not the people referred to in the e-mail and did not determine strategy or policy.
National's campaign manager at the general election, Stephen Joyce, says the Americans were a father and son team who were employed to mobilise volunteers.
Dr Brash accused Mr Peters of whipping up anti-American sentiment to score political points.
(More ... Radio New Zealand - National says Winston Peters should resign as Foreign Affairs Minister) ¶ 07:47 0 comments
National says Winston Peters should resign as Foreign Affairs Minister, accusing him of damaging New Zealand's interests for the sake of point scoring.
The New Zealand First leader has released a leaked email in which National's leader raises the possibility of using US strategists in its election campaign.
The email - written in July 2004 - came after Don Brash was hosted at a lunch in the US, by the American billionaire Julian Roberston.
Following that, two of the guests - experienced Republican campaigners - contacted Dr Brash offering their help. Dr Brash then emailed key National Party strategists; asking whether the Republicans should be brought on board.
Dr Brash yesterday reiterated denials he made last year that Americans were involved in developing National party strategy or policy. He said two Americans worked on the campaign, sending out leaflets; but they were not the people referred to in the e-mail and did not determine strategy or policy.
National's campaign manager at the general election, Stephen Joyce, says the Americans were a father and son team who were employed to mobilise volunteers.
Dr Brash accused Mr Peters of whipping up anti-American sentiment to score political points.
(More ... Radio New Zealand - National says Winston Peters should resign as Foreign Affairs Minister) ¶ 07:47 0 comments
Cover Story: Upping the Anti (Listener.co.nz)
by Joanne Black
When British PM Tony Blair said recently that the Americans are sometimes difficult friends to have, he was not telling New Zealand anything new. The invasion of Iraq and now warmongering over Iran are the latest subjects to fuel anti-Americanism here.
The full text of this column appeared in the NZ Listener (May 6-12 2006).
When she was an 18-year-old student at the University of Victoria, Mele Wendt remembers wondering why her new American friend was being relentlessly harassed by New Zealand students.
Wendt had met Janine, an exchange student from Montana, in the university hostel where both lived. “She was the sweetest, quietest, most polite person you could meet and she got a lot of flak for being American. This lovely woman did bear the brunt of quite a lot of crap from students,” says Wendt. It was 1986, the nuclear-ships row with the US was fresh, “and it very much influenced people’s attitudes towards Americans”, she says. “I remember writing home to my parents, being really upset by it, but also questioning it and asking them to explain why.”
(More ... Cover Story: Upping the anti by Joanne Black | New Zealand Listener) ¶ 07:45 0 comments
When British PM Tony Blair said recently that the Americans are sometimes difficult friends to have, he was not telling New Zealand anything new. The invasion of Iraq and now warmongering over Iran are the latest subjects to fuel anti-Americanism here.
The full text of this column appeared in the NZ Listener (May 6-12 2006).
When she was an 18-year-old student at the University of Victoria, Mele Wendt remembers wondering why her new American friend was being relentlessly harassed by New Zealand students.
Wendt had met Janine, an exchange student from Montana, in the university hostel where both lived. “She was the sweetest, quietest, most polite person you could meet and she got a lot of flak for being American. This lovely woman did bear the brunt of quite a lot of crap from students,” says Wendt. It was 1986, the nuclear-ships row with the US was fresh, “and it very much influenced people’s attitudes towards Americans”, she says. “I remember writing home to my parents, being really upset by it, but also questioning it and asking them to explain why.”
(More ... Cover Story: Upping the anti by Joanne Black | New Zealand Listener) ¶ 07:45 0 comments
Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party's Vision (NYTimes.com)
By ROBIN TONER
Published: May 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 8 — With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation.
Liberal of the 'Lost Generation' Senses a Shift (May 9, 2006) Many of these analysts, both liberals and moderates, are convinced that the Democrats face a moment of historic opportunity. They say that the country is weary of war and division and ready — if given a compelling choice — to reject the Republicans and change the country's direction. They argue that the Democratic Party is showing signs of new health — intense party discipline on Capitol Hill, a host of policy proposals and an energized base.
But some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche of policy proposals. It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return to power and govern effectively — what some describe as an unapologetic appeal to the "common good," to big goals like expanding affordable health coverage and to occasional sacrifice for the sake of the nation as a whole.
This emerging critique reflects, for many, a hunger to move beyond the carefully calibrated centrism that marked the Clinton years, which was itself the product of the last big effort to redefine the Democratic Party.
This analysis is also, in large part, a rejection of the more tactical, consultant-driven politics that dominated the party's presidential and Congressional campaigns of the last six years — the emphasis on targeted issues like prescription drugs for retirees and careful, constituent-based appeals.
(More ... Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party's Vision - New York Times) ¶ 07:41 0 comments
Published: May 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 8 — With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation.
Liberal of the 'Lost Generation' Senses a Shift (May 9, 2006) Many of these analysts, both liberals and moderates, are convinced that the Democrats face a moment of historic opportunity. They say that the country is weary of war and division and ready — if given a compelling choice — to reject the Republicans and change the country's direction. They argue that the Democratic Party is showing signs of new health — intense party discipline on Capitol Hill, a host of policy proposals and an energized base.
But some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche of policy proposals. It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return to power and govern effectively — what some describe as an unapologetic appeal to the "common good," to big goals like expanding affordable health coverage and to occasional sacrifice for the sake of the nation as a whole.
This emerging critique reflects, for many, a hunger to move beyond the carefully calibrated centrism that marked the Clinton years, which was itself the product of the last big effort to redefine the Democratic Party.
This analysis is also, in large part, a rejection of the more tactical, consultant-driven politics that dominated the party's presidential and Congressional campaigns of the last six years — the emphasis on targeted issues like prescription drugs for retirees and careful, constituent-based appeals.
(More ... Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party's Vision - New York Times) ¶ 07:41 0 comments
5.08.2006
Who's Crazy Now? (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 8, 2006
Some people say that bizarre conspiracy theories play a disturbingly large role in current American political discourse. And they're right.
For example, many conservative politicians and pundits seem to agree with James Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who has declared that "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Of more immediate political relevance is the claim that the reason we hear mainly bad news from Iraq is that the media, for political reasons, are conspiring to suppress the good news. As Bill O'Reilly put it a few months ago, "a good part of the American media wants to undermine the Bush administration."
But these examples, of course, aren't what people are usually referring to when they denounce crazy conspiracy theories. For the last few years, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used primarily to belittle critics of the Bush administration — in particular, anyone suggesting that the Bush administration used 9/11 as an excuse to fight an unrelated war in Iraq.
Now here's the thing: suppose that we didn't have abundant evidence that senior officials in the Bush administration wanted a war, cherry-picked intelligence to make a case for that war, and in some cases suppressed inconvenient evidence contradicting that case. Even so, it would be an abuse of the English language to call the claim that the administration misled us into war a conspiracy theory.
(More ... Who's Crazy Now? - New York Times) ¶ 20:59 0 comments
Published: May 8, 2006
Some people say that bizarre conspiracy theories play a disturbingly large role in current American political discourse. And they're right.
For example, many conservative politicians and pundits seem to agree with James Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who has declared that "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Of more immediate political relevance is the claim that the reason we hear mainly bad news from Iraq is that the media, for political reasons, are conspiring to suppress the good news. As Bill O'Reilly put it a few months ago, "a good part of the American media wants to undermine the Bush administration."
But these examples, of course, aren't what people are usually referring to when they denounce crazy conspiracy theories. For the last few years, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used primarily to belittle critics of the Bush administration — in particular, anyone suggesting that the Bush administration used 9/11 as an excuse to fight an unrelated war in Iraq.
Now here's the thing: suppose that we didn't have abundant evidence that senior officials in the Bush administration wanted a war, cherry-picked intelligence to make a case for that war, and in some cases suppressed inconvenient evidence contradicting that case. Even so, it would be an abuse of the English language to call the claim that the administration misled us into war a conspiracy theory.
(More ... Who's Crazy Now? - New York Times) ¶ 20:59 0 comments
5.06.2006
C.I.A. Director Goss Resigns (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID STOUT
Published: May 5, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 5 — Porter J. Goss abruptly resigned today as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a post that had been diminished in the restructuring of the intelligence bureaucracy after the Sept. 11 attacks.
With Mr. Goss sitting next to him in the Oval Office, President Bush said the director had offered his resignation this morning. "I've accepted it," Mr. Bush said, praising the retiring director for his "candid advice" and his integrity.
The president said Mr. Goss had led the C.I.A. "ably" through a period of transition, and that he had "helped make this country a safer place." Mr. Bush did not mention a successor, but The Associated Press reported that a senior administration official said one could be chosen as soon as Monday.
Mr. Goss said it had been "a very distinct honor and privilege" to lead the C.I.A. "I would like to report to you that the agency is back on a very even keel and sailing well," Mr. Goss said. He did not explain his decision, and both he and Mr. Bush ignored questions after making their statements.
But it was no secret in Washington that Mr. Goss and John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence whose position came into existence as the result of the Sept. 11 attacks, had engaged in turf battles. Mr. Negroponte was at the Oval Office announcement, but said nothing.
(More ... C.I.A. Director Goss Resigns - New York Times) ¶ 10:51 0 comments
Published: May 5, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 5 — Porter J. Goss abruptly resigned today as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a post that had been diminished in the restructuring of the intelligence bureaucracy after the Sept. 11 attacks.
With Mr. Goss sitting next to him in the Oval Office, President Bush said the director had offered his resignation this morning. "I've accepted it," Mr. Bush said, praising the retiring director for his "candid advice" and his integrity.
The president said Mr. Goss had led the C.I.A. "ably" through a period of transition, and that he had "helped make this country a safer place." Mr. Bush did not mention a successor, but The Associated Press reported that a senior administration official said one could be chosen as soon as Monday.
Mr. Goss said it had been "a very distinct honor and privilege" to lead the C.I.A. "I would like to report to you that the agency is back on a very even keel and sailing well," Mr. Goss said. He did not explain his decision, and both he and Mr. Bush ignored questions after making their statements.
But it was no secret in Washington that Mr. Goss and John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence whose position came into existence as the result of the Sept. 11 attacks, had engaged in turf battles. Mr. Negroponte was at the Oval Office announcement, but said nothing.
(More ... C.I.A. Director Goss Resigns - New York Times) ¶ 10:51 0 comments
5.05.2006
Ex-official Guilty of Spying from Cheney's Office (Reuters.com)
By Christine Kearney
NEWARK, New Jersey (Reuters) - A Philippine-born former White House official pleaded guilty on Thursday to charges that he took top secret documents from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and turned them over to Philippine opposition figures.
Leandro Aragoncillo, 47, faces 15 to 20 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines for his plea on conspiracy, transmission and retention of national defense information and unauthorized use of a computer.
Aragoncillo, a U.S. citizen and former Marine, worked in the White House as administration chief of the security detail assigned to the Vice President from 1999 to 2002 where he held a top security clearance. He later took a job as an intelligence analyst with the FBI in New Jersey.
He admitted in court to passing on documents classified as top secret, secret and confidential that included information relating to terrorist threats against U.S. government interests and military personnel in the Philippines.
Prosecutors called his guilty admission a "plea agreement" but refused to say if he would testify against another defendant in the case, Michael Ray Aquino, a former senior Philippine police intelligence officer accused of taking documents from Aragoncillo.
The case has caused a political scandal in the Philippines because the stolen documents were used by opponents of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to try to oust her.
(More ... Ex-official guilty of spying from Cheney's office | Reuters.com) ¶ 20:28 0 comments
NEWARK, New Jersey (Reuters) - A Philippine-born former White House official pleaded guilty on Thursday to charges that he took top secret documents from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and turned them over to Philippine opposition figures.
Leandro Aragoncillo, 47, faces 15 to 20 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines for his plea on conspiracy, transmission and retention of national defense information and unauthorized use of a computer.
Aragoncillo, a U.S. citizen and former Marine, worked in the White House as administration chief of the security detail assigned to the Vice President from 1999 to 2002 where he held a top security clearance. He later took a job as an intelligence analyst with the FBI in New Jersey.
He admitted in court to passing on documents classified as top secret, secret and confidential that included information relating to terrorist threats against U.S. government interests and military personnel in the Philippines.
Prosecutors called his guilty admission a "plea agreement" but refused to say if he would testify against another defendant in the case, Michael Ray Aquino, a former senior Philippine police intelligence officer accused of taking documents from Aragoncillo.
The case has caused a political scandal in the Philippines because the stolen documents were used by opponents of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to try to oust her.
(More ... Ex-official guilty of spying from Cheney's office | Reuters.com) ¶ 20:28 0 comments
UN to Quiz Washington on Torture (news.BBC.co.uk)
Last Updated: Friday, 5 May 2006, 05:51 GMT 06:51 UK
The US is due to appear before the UN Committee on Torture for the first time since launching its war on terror after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Thirty senior officials from the departments of state, defence, justice and homeland security will testify in public at the hearing in Geneva.
They are likely to face tough questions about practices used in the anti-terror drive, correspondents say.
Rights groups accuse the US of flouting the UN Convention against Torture.
They accuse the US of allowing the torture and inhumane treatment of foreign terror suspects at their detention centres in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Americas | UN to quiz Washington on torture) ¶ 20:18 0 comments
The US is due to appear before the UN Committee on Torture for the first time since launching its war on terror after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Thirty senior officials from the departments of state, defence, justice and homeland security will testify in public at the hearing in Geneva.
They are likely to face tough questions about practices used in the anti-terror drive, correspondents say.
Rights groups accuse the US of flouting the UN Convention against Torture.
They accuse the US of allowing the torture and inhumane treatment of foreign terror suspects at their detention centres in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Americas | UN to quiz Washington on torture) ¶ 20:18 0 comments
Our Sick Society (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 5, 2006
Is being an American bad for your health? That's the apparent implication of a study just published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
It's not news that something is very wrong with the state of America's health. International comparisons show that the United States has achieved a sort of inverse miracle: we spend much more per person on health care than any other nation, yet we have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, Japan and most of Europe.
But it isn't clear exactly what causes this stunningly poor performance. How much of America's poor health is the result of our failure, unique among wealthy nations, to guarantee health insurance to all? How much is the result of racial and class divisions? How much is the result of other aspects of the American way of life?
The new study, "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England," doesn't resolve all of these questions. Yet it offers strong evidence that there's something about American society that makes us sicker than we should be.
The authors of the study compared the prevalence of such diseases as diabetes and hypertension in Americans 55 to 64 years old with the prevalence of the same diseases in a comparable group in England. Comparing us with the English isn't a choice designed to highlight American problems: Britain spends only about 40 percent as much per person on health care as the United States, and its health care system is generally considered inferior to those of neighboring countries, especially France. Moreover, England isn't noted either for healthy eating or for a healthy lifestyle.
Nonetheless, the study concludes that "Americans are much sicker than the English." For example, middle-age Americans are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes as their English counterparts. That's a striking finding in itself.
What's even more striking is that being American seems to damage your health regardless of your race and social class.
(More ... Our Sick Society - New York Times) ¶ 20:15 0 comments
Published: May 5, 2006
Is being an American bad for your health? That's the apparent implication of a study just published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
It's not news that something is very wrong with the state of America's health. International comparisons show that the United States has achieved a sort of inverse miracle: we spend much more per person on health care than any other nation, yet we have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, Japan and most of Europe.
But it isn't clear exactly what causes this stunningly poor performance. How much of America's poor health is the result of our failure, unique among wealthy nations, to guarantee health insurance to all? How much is the result of racial and class divisions? How much is the result of other aspects of the American way of life?
The new study, "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England," doesn't resolve all of these questions. Yet it offers strong evidence that there's something about American society that makes us sicker than we should be.
The authors of the study compared the prevalence of such diseases as diabetes and hypertension in Americans 55 to 64 years old with the prevalence of the same diseases in a comparable group in England. Comparing us with the English isn't a choice designed to highlight American problems: Britain spends only about 40 percent as much per person on health care as the United States, and its health care system is generally considered inferior to those of neighboring countries, especially France. Moreover, England isn't noted either for healthy eating or for a healthy lifestyle.
Nonetheless, the study concludes that "Americans are much sicker than the English." For example, middle-age Americans are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes as their English counterparts. That's a striking finding in itself.
What's even more striking is that being American seems to damage your health regardless of your race and social class.
(More ... Our Sick Society - New York Times) ¶ 20:15 0 comments
5.03.2006
La Bandera de Las Estrellas (ThinkProgress.org)
The right wing is up in arms over a new version of the Star-Spangled Banner written in Spanish. Last week President Bush stated that “the national anthem ought to be sung in English.” Yesterday Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced a resolution requiring the Star-Spangled banner to be sung only in English:
That flag and that song are a part of our history and our national identity. … That’s why in 1931 Congress declared the Star-Spangled Banner our national anthem. That’s why we should always sing it in our common language, English.
In his press release, Alexander said the Star-Spangled Banner has “never before…been rendered in another language.”
But in 1919, the U.S. Bureau of Education commissioned a Spanish-language version of “The Star Spangled Banner.” The State Department’s website also features four-separate versions of the anthem in Spanish.
It appears xenophobia isn’t part of the American tradition.
