Someone recently emailed me an interview with Moroccan Islamist Nadia Yassine, published in Speigel online on July 3, entitled 'our religion is friendly to women'.
Here are some recent examples of this 'friendliness':
Ali Khamenei, the Islamic regime of Iran’s ‘supreme spiritual leader’ said women's rights activists should not try to change Islamic laws relating to women's rights, two days after one campaigner was sentenced to 34 months in jail and ten lashes.
Saudi authorities ordered banks to separate female and male workers at their headquarters. Though women are already separated from male employees in branches, they have up to now worked together in bank headquarters. Under the new system, women employees in bank headquarters could now be obliged to work on separate floors and use different lifts, entrances and canteens from men.
The Kuwaiti parliament passed a law banning women from working at night, except those in the medical profession, and barring them from jobs considered ‘immoral.’
Two female journalists were murdered in Afghanistan in the space of a week. Both women received threats, warning them to stop reporting.
The 'Righteous Swords of Islam' warned that it would strike the women in Palestine with "an iron fist and swords" for refusing to wear a veil on camera.
A 13-year-old named Shukria and another girl were killed and 4 wounded at their school entrance as the Taleban and others use murder, shootings, beheadings, burnings and bombings to close down schools.
Mokarrameh Ebrahimi is languishing in prison, awaiting death by stoning in Iran, after her partner was recently stoned for their relationship. They have both been in prison for 11 years, including with their two children.
The Islamic regime of Iran has announced yet another "plan to increase security in society" by targeting women who are 'badly veiled'.
Yes, very friendly indeed... Maryam Namazie
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The Threat of Spamming and Trolling: Unite Against The Threat To Free Speech
For the last few years, this blog has several times been threatened with spamming. The threats have been coming from a group of rightist bloggers who are friends. The threats come in blackmail form as; unless you do 1, 2, and 3, I will spam you. Even if you have no control over 1, 2, 3 that doesn't matter to them. In anger I started making threats back. I was able to in time apologize before actually doing anything. I was turning into my enemy. I won't spam any blog. Despite what they will say, they know I apologized for making such remarks.
My blog was picked out to be spammed and threatened with spam, only because of its socialist and leftist views. If this was something as a Giuliani blog, it would have been left alone. This problem is a political problem. Some don't want an opinionated left blog, with vigorous discussions to exist.
Trolling is a different problem. A troll doesn't come to a forum for a respectful give and take. They come to elicit an emotional response, to attack personally and create a tone of hostility. I have been told by some they don't want to leave comments, because of the personal attacks. To stop that threat the blog owner has the right to ask a troll to leave.
I refuse to use the moderation features of blogspot. I think people enjoy seeing their comments instantly.
Spamming and trolling are a form of censorship and harassement in blogging. All spamming and trolling is wrong no matter who does it. They are political not personality issues. I call on all my friends of all opinions, to unite for free speech. This blog will not go down.RENEGADE EYE
My blog was picked out to be spammed and threatened with spam, only because of its socialist and leftist views. If this was something as a Giuliani blog, it would have been left alone. This problem is a political problem. Some don't want an opinionated left blog, with vigorous discussions to exist.
Trolling is a different problem. A troll doesn't come to a forum for a respectful give and take. They come to elicit an emotional response, to attack personally and create a tone of hostility. I have been told by some they don't want to leave comments, because of the personal attacks. To stop that threat the blog owner has the right to ask a troll to leave.
I refuse to use the moderation features of blogspot. I think people enjoy seeing their comments instantly.
Spamming and trolling are a form of censorship and harassement in blogging. All spamming and trolling is wrong no matter who does it. They are political not personality issues. I call on all my friends of all opinions, to unite for free speech. This blog will not go down.RENEGADE EYE
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Israeli Defense Forces Made of Terrorist Elements: Irgun and Stern
MFL notes: I will quote Dr. Fayez Sayegh as follows on the Irgun and the Stern Group, from his pamphlet The Arab-Israeli Conflict. The reference links I used to introduce those who are interested in such a topic to learn the truth... the truth of Israel. This section is important because it is a response on Ben-Gurion's claims that the butcheries of Christian/Muslim Palestinians were not planned by the Jewish Agency:
Dr. Sayegh's Writings:
These attacks on Arab Cities and the occupation of large numbers of Arab localities were not the work of irresponsible "terrorists" or uncontrollable "extremists". On the contrary, they were perpetual upon the instructions, and in accordance with the plans, of the official leadership of the would-be State of Israel.
a) Most of these attacks were launched by the Haganah, which was the official military arm of the Jewish Agency and the precursor of the Israeli Army.
b) Throughout the history of the Palestine Problem, there was collaboration between the terrorist organizations, such as the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Group, and the official armed forces of the Jewish Agency, the Haganah and the Palmach, whenever the Zionist community faced a crisis or a grave challenge. The best illustration of this pattern may be found in the Zionist revolt of 1945 – 1946, waged by the "Jewish Resistance Group", which compromised the four aforementioned groups and was inspired and directed by the Jewish Agency. In an authorative document published by the British Government on the subject, its findings were summarized in the following words:
" The information which was in possession of His Majesty's Government when they undertook their recent action in Palestine led them to draw the following conclusions:
1) That the Haganah and its associated force the Palmach (working under the political control of prominent members of the Jewish Agency) have been engaging in carefully planned movements of sabotage and violence under the guise of 'the Jewish resistance Movement';
2) That the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Group have worked since last Autumn in cooperation with the Haganah High Command on certain of these operations; and
3) That the broadcasting station 'Kol Israel', which was working under the general direction of the Jewish Agency has been supporting these organizations.
"The evidence on which these conclusions are based is derived in the main from three sources –
i) Information which has been obtained showing that between 23rd September 1945, and the 3rd November 1945, seven telegrams passed between London and Jerusalem, and a further telegram on 12th May 1946. Copies of these have been intercepted and are here set out;
ii) Various broadcast by 'Kol Israel' between 31st October, 1945, and the 23rd June, 1946, referring to specific acts of violence and sabortage; and
iii) Information on various dates derived from the pamphlet Hamaas (the publication of the Irgun Zvai Leumi) and from Eshnav (the publication of the 'Jewish Resistance Movement'). Examples from these pamphlets are set out in this Paper.
"This evidence related to the three widespread sabotage operations of the 31st October / 1st November, 1945; 20th – 25th February, 1946, and 16th – 18th June 1946. All three para-military organizations participated in these actions which not only caused very serious destruction but also loss of life."
"Of this White Paper, Menachem Begin – who, on this subject can speak with authority – says: "I must record that this particular White Paper on 'Violence in Palestine' was one of the few British documents on Palestine that I have read in which there were scarcely any distortions."
This pattern of behind-the scenes collaboration was followed again in 1948. Thus, as early as 3 February 1948, there was talk of coordination of operations betweenthe Haganah and the Irgun." By 7 May 1948 the agreement seems to have been concluded between the Haganah and the Irgun.
There are categorical assertions by the leader of the Irgun to the effect that the raid on Deir Yassin was made by the Irgun and the Stern Group "with the knowledge of the Haganah and the approval of its Commander." In a letter from the Haganah Regional Commander to the Irgun Commander in Jerusalem prior to the raid, the Haganah leader asserted that, "The capture of Deir Yasin and its holding… is one stage in our general plan. I have no objection to your carrying out the operation providing you are able to hold th village." In fact, Deir Yasin was handed over to the Haganah forces three days after its capture by the Irgun."
c) Israeli legislation, promulgated after the establishment of the State, proclaims that the military and para-military forces operations between 29 November 1947 and 15 May 1948 were acting on behalf of the then non-existing Sate, and affirms that their actions were retroactively "adopted" by the State authorities. Section I, Paragraph B, of Law No. 49 – "Fallen Soldiers' Family (Pension and Rehabilitation) Law of 1950" – states:
"In this law – 'military service' and 'service mean –
"(a) services in the Defence Army of Israel;
"(b) in respect of the period between 17th Kislev, 5708 (30th November, 1947) and 29th Kislev, 5709 (31st December 1948) – any other service declared by the Minister of Defence, by proclamation published in State Records, to be military service for the purposes of this Law,"
In fact, four Irgunists who had been wounded in the attack on Deir Yasin and had subsequently demanded "war veterans' pensions" for their "service" were granted heir demand by an Israeli court, in June 1953, on the basis of this law, according to a report which appeared in TIME Magazine of 15 June 1953.
(MFL notes more scandals exist in this pamphlet with full references whenever the author used such heavy information.)
RENEGADE EYE & MarxistFromLebanon
Dr. Sayegh's Writings:
These attacks on Arab Cities and the occupation of large numbers of Arab localities were not the work of irresponsible "terrorists" or uncontrollable "extremists". On the contrary, they were perpetual upon the instructions, and in accordance with the plans, of the official leadership of the would-be State of Israel.
a) Most of these attacks were launched by the Haganah, which was the official military arm of the Jewish Agency and the precursor of the Israeli Army.
b) Throughout the history of the Palestine Problem, there was collaboration between the terrorist organizations, such as the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Group, and the official armed forces of the Jewish Agency, the Haganah and the Palmach, whenever the Zionist community faced a crisis or a grave challenge. The best illustration of this pattern may be found in the Zionist revolt of 1945 – 1946, waged by the "Jewish Resistance Group", which compromised the four aforementioned groups and was inspired and directed by the Jewish Agency. In an authorative document published by the British Government on the subject, its findings were summarized in the following words:
" The information which was in possession of His Majesty's Government when they undertook their recent action in Palestine led them to draw the following conclusions:
1) That the Haganah and its associated force the Palmach (working under the political control of prominent members of the Jewish Agency) have been engaging in carefully planned movements of sabotage and violence under the guise of 'the Jewish resistance Movement';
2) That the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Group have worked since last Autumn in cooperation with the Haganah High Command on certain of these operations; and
3) That the broadcasting station 'Kol Israel', which was working under the general direction of the Jewish Agency has been supporting these organizations.
"The evidence on which these conclusions are based is derived in the main from three sources –
i) Information which has been obtained showing that between 23rd September 1945, and the 3rd November 1945, seven telegrams passed between London and Jerusalem, and a further telegram on 12th May 1946. Copies of these have been intercepted and are here set out;
ii) Various broadcast by 'Kol Israel' between 31st October, 1945, and the 23rd June, 1946, referring to specific acts of violence and sabortage; and
iii) Information on various dates derived from the pamphlet Hamaas (the publication of the Irgun Zvai Leumi) and from Eshnav (the publication of the 'Jewish Resistance Movement'). Examples from these pamphlets are set out in this Paper.
"This evidence related to the three widespread sabotage operations of the 31st October / 1st November, 1945; 20th – 25th February, 1946, and 16th – 18th June 1946. All three para-military organizations participated in these actions which not only caused very serious destruction but also loss of life."
"Of this White Paper, Menachem Begin – who, on this subject can speak with authority – says: "I must record that this particular White Paper on 'Violence in Palestine' was one of the few British documents on Palestine that I have read in which there were scarcely any distortions."
This pattern of behind-the scenes collaboration was followed again in 1948. Thus, as early as 3 February 1948, there was talk of coordination of operations betweenthe Haganah and the Irgun." By 7 May 1948 the agreement seems to have been concluded between the Haganah and the Irgun.
There are categorical assertions by the leader of the Irgun to the effect that the raid on Deir Yassin was made by the Irgun and the Stern Group "with the knowledge of the Haganah and the approval of its Commander." In a letter from the Haganah Regional Commander to the Irgun Commander in Jerusalem prior to the raid, the Haganah leader asserted that, "The capture of Deir Yasin and its holding… is one stage in our general plan. I have no objection to your carrying out the operation providing you are able to hold th village." In fact, Deir Yasin was handed over to the Haganah forces three days after its capture by the Irgun."
c) Israeli legislation, promulgated after the establishment of the State, proclaims that the military and para-military forces operations between 29 November 1947 and 15 May 1948 were acting on behalf of the then non-existing Sate, and affirms that their actions were retroactively "adopted" by the State authorities. Section I, Paragraph B, of Law No. 49 – "Fallen Soldiers' Family (Pension and Rehabilitation) Law of 1950" – states:
"In this law – 'military service' and 'service mean –
"(a) services in the Defence Army of Israel;
"(b) in respect of the period between 17th Kislev, 5708 (30th November, 1947) and 29th Kislev, 5709 (31st December 1948) – any other service declared by the Minister of Defence, by proclamation published in State Records, to be military service for the purposes of this Law,"
In fact, four Irgunists who had been wounded in the attack on Deir Yasin and had subsequently demanded "war veterans' pensions" for their "service" were granted heir demand by an Israeli court, in June 1953, on the basis of this law, according to a report which appeared in TIME Magazine of 15 June 1953.
(MFL notes more scandals exist in this pamphlet with full references whenever the author used such heavy information.)
RENEGADE EYE & MarxistFromLebanon
A comment on the situation in the Middle East by the Pakistani Marxists
This is reprinted from the Trotskyist In Defense of Marxism.
By Lal Khan
Monday, 23 July 2007
The insurrectionary take over of Gaza by Hamas marks a new tuning point in the bloody saga of the Palestinian movement - it marks a change that is spreading across a broad swathe of the Middle East. The internecine fighting between the main stream Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas has culminated in what some fear could be a schism in their putative state. The present conflagration has not only proved two-state solution to be a sheer utopia but it also sounds the death knell of bourgeois nationalism in the present epoch.
More than forty years ago, in a discussion in London comrade Ted Grant explained to the representatives of Al-Fatah and other left-wing factions that the only way out for the liberation of Palestine was through a revolutionary movement of the toilers on an irreconcilable class basis. He outlined the repercussions of individual terrorism in the name of armed struggle and emphasized that any negotiations with imperialism or the Zionist state would only reinforce the subjugation of the Palestinian masses and would be used to intensify their oppression.
Forty-four years, two regional wars and three Intifadas later, the plight of the Palestinians has gone from bad to worse. The flame of Palestinian nationalism has flickered and is on the verge of being extinguished. The pathetic state of Palestinian nationalism is reflected in the latest verses of the most celebrated poet of the nationalist movement of this tragic land.
O future: do not ask us: who are you?
And, what do you want from me?
For we too do not know.
The courageous and defiant movement of the masses for the liberation of Palestine with episodes of valour, innumerable sacrifices and dedication to the Palestinian cause by almost five generations has been the hallmark of mass resistance for half a century. Yet the ideology, methods and the character of leadership has brought the oppressed of Palestine to such a traumatic fate and a blind alley. The dreadful decline of Fatah is the cruel ramification of these policies of compromise.
The rise of Hamas is mainly due to the vacuum created by the degeneration and demise of the Stalinist/ nationalist left. Fatah under Mahmood Abbas has stooped so low that it is using Israeli and American supplied weaponry against their Palestinian brethren. Hamas is perhaps the first Islamic fundamentalist organization to take control of any territory in the Middle East. But like religious fundamentalists everywhere their honesty and piety are a mere veneer on the reality of lumpenised hordes drawn into violent and reactionary tendencies through the frustration of unemployment, poverty, misery and socio-political inaction of the leadership.
It is one thing to raise the aspirations and sentiments of an impoverished populace, but to establish order and bring to heel Gaza's tribal warlords, smugglers, criminal gangs and jihadists is beyond the capacity of Hamas. With 70% unemployment; despicable health and other social conditions, the raging poverty and violence cannot be resolved through the mythological dogmas and metaphysical rhetoric of Hamas. It has no scientific analysis, method, perspective or solution to the crisis.
Furthermore, there are such violent convulsions erupting that they are opening up cracks both in the Hamas and Fatah hierarchy. There is now an open split between Khalid Meshaal, the so-called supreme leader of Hamas, and Ismail Haniyah, the Hamas prime minister ousted by Abbas.
The followers of the left-wing Fatah leader Marwan Bargoughti (incarcerated in Israeli jails serving several life terms) are defiant against Abbas. The more he capitulates to imperialism and the more his stoogism is exposed, he will be confronted with an even bigger revolt from within the Fatah and the left organizations within the PLO.
The raging fires in Palestine will not be contained by so-called borders and the huge walls being put up by the Israeli reactionary state. The rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world are terrified. Linked with the ferocious resistance in Iraq, and the new wave of insurgency in Lebanon, the Palestinian inferno will not spare these reactionary, dictatorial Arab regimes.
Ironically this infighting amongst the Palestinians will send a very different and unprecedented message to the Israeli rulers. The demise of Palestinian nationalism will drastically dent the façade of Israeli nationhood.
The present rulers in the Arab world cannot and will not resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They have used this conflict as a source of connivance for their despotic rule for so long. But the rise of violence and contradictions in the Palestinian territories will ignite the seething discontent and anger amongst the Arab masses. As the curtain of Israeli national chauvinism falls, the reactionary, exploitive and brutal reality of the Israeli state and the ruling class shall be exposed to the Israeli proletariat.
The resurgence of the class struggle and revolutionary upheavals around the world, in the present epoch shall have a lightning effect upon the consciousness of the exploited workers and the masses in Palestine, Israel and the rest of the Middle East. The ruling classes have been discredited and exposed. Fundamentalism and nationalism have only brought misery, violence, bloodshed, deprivation and tyranny to the masses. As Hegel once said, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Mahmood Darvesh's verses are proclaiming the historical failure and obsoleteness of bourgeoisie nationalism. His pathos of Palestinian misery is painful yet announces the end of an era, an ideology. The only way forward for the genuine liberation of the Palestinian masses is through class struggle. Uniting the workers and the oppressed of all nations, religious, castes and races, this struggle can only succeed by overthrowing capitalism and imperialism through a Socialist Revolution. The Palestinians cannot achieve it on their own. Only through a collective and united class struggle with the Israeli workers and the oppressed masses of other countries of the region can a socialist victory be achieved. This victory is not only possible but the only way out of the wars, destruction, crusades, exploitation, hunger, misery, deprivation and bloodshed into which people of this region have been incarcerated for more than two millennia.
Lahore, July 33rd 2007
RENEGADE EYE
By Lal Khan
Monday, 23 July 2007
The insurrectionary take over of Gaza by Hamas marks a new tuning point in the bloody saga of the Palestinian movement - it marks a change that is spreading across a broad swathe of the Middle East. The internecine fighting between the main stream Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas has culminated in what some fear could be a schism in their putative state. The present conflagration has not only proved two-state solution to be a sheer utopia but it also sounds the death knell of bourgeois nationalism in the present epoch.
More than forty years ago, in a discussion in London comrade Ted Grant explained to the representatives of Al-Fatah and other left-wing factions that the only way out for the liberation of Palestine was through a revolutionary movement of the toilers on an irreconcilable class basis. He outlined the repercussions of individual terrorism in the name of armed struggle and emphasized that any negotiations with imperialism or the Zionist state would only reinforce the subjugation of the Palestinian masses and would be used to intensify their oppression.
Forty-four years, two regional wars and three Intifadas later, the plight of the Palestinians has gone from bad to worse. The flame of Palestinian nationalism has flickered and is on the verge of being extinguished. The pathetic state of Palestinian nationalism is reflected in the latest verses of the most celebrated poet of the nationalist movement of this tragic land.
O future: do not ask us: who are you?
And, what do you want from me?
For we too do not know.
The courageous and defiant movement of the masses for the liberation of Palestine with episodes of valour, innumerable sacrifices and dedication to the Palestinian cause by almost five generations has been the hallmark of mass resistance for half a century. Yet the ideology, methods and the character of leadership has brought the oppressed of Palestine to such a traumatic fate and a blind alley. The dreadful decline of Fatah is the cruel ramification of these policies of compromise.
The rise of Hamas is mainly due to the vacuum created by the degeneration and demise of the Stalinist/ nationalist left. Fatah under Mahmood Abbas has stooped so low that it is using Israeli and American supplied weaponry against their Palestinian brethren. Hamas is perhaps the first Islamic fundamentalist organization to take control of any territory in the Middle East. But like religious fundamentalists everywhere their honesty and piety are a mere veneer on the reality of lumpenised hordes drawn into violent and reactionary tendencies through the frustration of unemployment, poverty, misery and socio-political inaction of the leadership.
It is one thing to raise the aspirations and sentiments of an impoverished populace, but to establish order and bring to heel Gaza's tribal warlords, smugglers, criminal gangs and jihadists is beyond the capacity of Hamas. With 70% unemployment; despicable health and other social conditions, the raging poverty and violence cannot be resolved through the mythological dogmas and metaphysical rhetoric of Hamas. It has no scientific analysis, method, perspective or solution to the crisis.
Furthermore, there are such violent convulsions erupting that they are opening up cracks both in the Hamas and Fatah hierarchy. There is now an open split between Khalid Meshaal, the so-called supreme leader of Hamas, and Ismail Haniyah, the Hamas prime minister ousted by Abbas.
The followers of the left-wing Fatah leader Marwan Bargoughti (incarcerated in Israeli jails serving several life terms) are defiant against Abbas. The more he capitulates to imperialism and the more his stoogism is exposed, he will be confronted with an even bigger revolt from within the Fatah and the left organizations within the PLO.
The raging fires in Palestine will not be contained by so-called borders and the huge walls being put up by the Israeli reactionary state. The rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world are terrified. Linked with the ferocious resistance in Iraq, and the new wave of insurgency in Lebanon, the Palestinian inferno will not spare these reactionary, dictatorial Arab regimes.
Ironically this infighting amongst the Palestinians will send a very different and unprecedented message to the Israeli rulers. The demise of Palestinian nationalism will drastically dent the façade of Israeli nationhood.
The present rulers in the Arab world cannot and will not resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They have used this conflict as a source of connivance for their despotic rule for so long. But the rise of violence and contradictions in the Palestinian territories will ignite the seething discontent and anger amongst the Arab masses. As the curtain of Israeli national chauvinism falls, the reactionary, exploitive and brutal reality of the Israeli state and the ruling class shall be exposed to the Israeli proletariat.
The resurgence of the class struggle and revolutionary upheavals around the world, in the present epoch shall have a lightning effect upon the consciousness of the exploited workers and the masses in Palestine, Israel and the rest of the Middle East. The ruling classes have been discredited and exposed. Fundamentalism and nationalism have only brought misery, violence, bloodshed, deprivation and tyranny to the masses. As Hegel once said, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Mahmood Darvesh's verses are proclaiming the historical failure and obsoleteness of bourgeoisie nationalism. His pathos of Palestinian misery is painful yet announces the end of an era, an ideology. The only way forward for the genuine liberation of the Palestinian masses is through class struggle. Uniting the workers and the oppressed of all nations, religious, castes and races, this struggle can only succeed by overthrowing capitalism and imperialism through a Socialist Revolution. The Palestinians cannot achieve it on their own. Only through a collective and united class struggle with the Israeli workers and the oppressed masses of other countries of the region can a socialist victory be achieved. This victory is not only possible but the only way out of the wars, destruction, crusades, exploitation, hunger, misery, deprivation and bloodshed into which people of this region have been incarcerated for more than two millennia.
Lahore, July 33rd 2007
RENEGADE EYE
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
BY OIL WARS
07/20/2007
As anyone who listens to all the opposition propogandists knows Venezuela faces a major food crisis with there being chronic shortages of such staples as chickens and eggs.
Of course, they always seem to be in a rush and leave out the second part of the story, which is that consumption of these food items is WAY up, hence the shortages.
Fortunately, today some reporter from El Universal had a little more time on his hands and gave a more complete story:
The national market has in recent months reported shortcomings in the production and distribution of poultry products due to increases in consumption.
In spite of the fact that companies in that sector are working at maximum capacity, and production has gone up 15% this year, it is not sufficient to satisfy the demand of Venezuelan consumers which in turn necessitates imports to make up the shortcomings in the national market.
This year, the production of chicken will reach 900,000 metric tonns and yet still reports a deficit of 8%.
So stated the president of PYMI Poultry, Simon Leal Alfanzo....
Leal explained that this situation is the result of purchasing power, especially that of classes D and E, having gone up 130% in the last three years which has permitted them to increase their consumption of these products.
He also explained that consumption of chicken has gone from 25 kilograms per person per year to 42 kilograms while the demand for eggs has increased from 100 per person per year to 202.
So there you have it, peoples purchasing power and income are WAY up (we already knew that), which in turn leads to increased consumption, so much so that production can't keep up even though it too is growing rapidly.
Truth be told though, this is really something of a philisophical issue. With chicken and egg consumption way up how do you increase production of both? Do you increase the number of eggs for sale, pre-empting the number of chickens you can have, or do you restrict egg consumption for sake of letting people eat a few more kilos of chicken? You can have your chicken, but you can't eat all their eggs too.
Thank you Oil Wars RENEGADE EYE
07/20/2007
As anyone who listens to all the opposition propogandists knows Venezuela faces a major food crisis with there being chronic shortages of such staples as chickens and eggs.
Of course, they always seem to be in a rush and leave out the second part of the story, which is that consumption of these food items is WAY up, hence the shortages.
Fortunately, today some reporter from El Universal had a little more time on his hands and gave a more complete story:
The national market has in recent months reported shortcomings in the production and distribution of poultry products due to increases in consumption.
In spite of the fact that companies in that sector are working at maximum capacity, and production has gone up 15% this year, it is not sufficient to satisfy the demand of Venezuelan consumers which in turn necessitates imports to make up the shortcomings in the national market.
This year, the production of chicken will reach 900,000 metric tonns and yet still reports a deficit of 8%.
So stated the president of PYMI Poultry, Simon Leal Alfanzo....
Leal explained that this situation is the result of purchasing power, especially that of classes D and E, having gone up 130% in the last three years which has permitted them to increase their consumption of these products.
He also explained that consumption of chicken has gone from 25 kilograms per person per year to 42 kilograms while the demand for eggs has increased from 100 per person per year to 202.
So there you have it, peoples purchasing power and income are WAY up (we already knew that), which in turn leads to increased consumption, so much so that production can't keep up even though it too is growing rapidly.
Truth be told though, this is really something of a philisophical issue. With chicken and egg consumption way up how do you increase production of both? Do you increase the number of eggs for sale, pre-empting the number of chickens you can have, or do you restrict egg consumption for sake of letting people eat a few more kilos of chicken? You can have your chicken, but you can't eat all their eggs too.
Thank you Oil Wars RENEGADE EYE
Monday, July 16, 2007
Trial Against Accused Catholic Priest Torturer Begins in Argentina
A much awaited human rights abuse trial is underway in “The heads of the Catholic Church participated in the dictatorship. Many priests were chaplains inside the barracks of the concentration camps. We want to point out that there is a sector from the church that didn't have anything to do with the dictatorship, on the contrary they supported us and reported the crimes committed at the time. But most of the representatives from 
the church participated in the celebration of death and torture.”
Listen to interview on Uprising Radio: Clergyman on trial for human rights crimes
Marie Trigonahttp://mujereslibres.blogspot.com/
RENEGADE EYE
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Damn That Was Quick
This is from the Venezuelan based blog Oil Wars. This blog is based on ongoing analysis of events in Venezuela and Iraq.
It seems such a short time ago that we were hearing about Venezuelan democracy, liberty and freedom of speech going down the drain. With the "closing" of RCTV freedom of the press was supposedly dealth a mortal blow.
Yet now we have this:
No your eyes are not decieving you, that really is the RCTV signal appearing on Direct TV in Venezuela. RCTV has arisen from the ashes and is now starting to re-appear on sattelite and cable networks in Venezuela.
Actually, this just goes to show, it had never been shut down to begin with. It simply lost its little segment of the radio-electric spectrum that it got absolutely free for decades, courtesy the Venezuelan government.
So rest assured, RCTV is now back, better than ever. In fact, given that the Venezuelan media laws may not apply to it anymore it might even be able to broadcast soft porn at dinner time so people don't have to stay up late for it. And I am sure Miguel Angel Rodriguez will be back spewing his usual bile.
Of course, all of this makes you wonder what this past month of RCTV pretending to be "shut down" was really about. Was it all a big waste?
Were all those tires burnt in the street for nothing?
Were all those rocks thrown at the police for nothing?
Did all the little rich kids parading around with hands in the air and duck tape over their mouths simply waste time that could have been better spent flying out to Los Roques?
Did Fox News waste its money flying a correspondent down to Venezuela for a week?
Did the opposition students embarrass themselves in front of the National Assembly and the whole country for nothing?
Did Reporters Without Borders waste valuable NED money (and my tax dollars) complaining about media repression that doesn't exist?
Sure sounds like Mr Marcel - if I can't play by my rules I'm taking my marbles and going home; uh oh, you mean I am going to lose money?, ok, here are the marbles back again - Granier has a lot to answer for.
As for the rest of us, it is just one more sorry episode of opposition hysteronics that then turns out to all be about nothing. Hopefully you are all like me and are now immune to them.RENEGADE EYE
It seems such a short time ago that we were hearing about Venezuelan democracy, liberty and freedom of speech going down the drain. With the "closing" of RCTV freedom of the press was supposedly dealth a mortal blow.
Yet now we have this:
No your eyes are not decieving you, that really is the RCTV signal appearing on Direct TV in Venezuela. RCTV has arisen from the ashes and is now starting to re-appear on sattelite and cable networks in Venezuela.
Actually, this just goes to show, it had never been shut down to begin with. It simply lost its little segment of the radio-electric spectrum that it got absolutely free for decades, courtesy the Venezuelan government.
So rest assured, RCTV is now back, better than ever. In fact, given that the Venezuelan media laws may not apply to it anymore it might even be able to broadcast soft porn at dinner time so people don't have to stay up late for it. And I am sure Miguel Angel Rodriguez will be back spewing his usual bile.
Of course, all of this makes you wonder what this past month of RCTV pretending to be "shut down" was really about. Was it all a big waste?
Were all those tires burnt in the street for nothing?
Were all those rocks thrown at the police for nothing?
Did all the little rich kids parading around with hands in the air and duck tape over their mouths simply waste time that could have been better spent flying out to Los Roques?
Did Fox News waste its money flying a correspondent down to Venezuela for a week?
Did the opposition students embarrass themselves in front of the National Assembly and the whole country for nothing?
Did Reporters Without Borders waste valuable NED money (and my tax dollars) complaining about media repression that doesn't exist?
Sure sounds like Mr Marcel - if I can't play by my rules I'm taking my marbles and going home; uh oh, you mean I am going to lose money?, ok, here are the marbles back again - Granier has a lot to answer for.
As for the rest of us, it is just one more sorry episode of opposition hysteronics that then turns out to all be about nothing. Hopefully you are all like me and are now immune to them.RENEGADE EYE
Sunday, July 01, 2007
The Beatroot Presents: The End of Ideology
I surf blogs by keywords and countries. When I was reading blogs from Poland, I was lucky to find The Beatroot. His blog presents a lively critique of the political culture of post-Stalinist Poland.
Beatroot is often misunderstood. He has been called neoconservative and liberal both, and I always knew he was neither. The debates that have fired up this blog, and the blogs of his friends, he dismisses as old fashioned, in a world without left/right having meaning in the new world. I invited Beatroot to explain his position unedited except for making the title bold. Renegade Eye
Chavez – it’s not about ideology…
Two Fridays ago in Minsk Hugo Chavez met up, yet again, with ‘the last dictator in Europe’ and his Belarusian counterpart, Aleksander Lukashenko.
Chavez’s visit to Belarus was part of a tour including Iran and Russia to build up an alternative alliance of countries that he sees as opposed to US hegemony.
After the meeting between the Belarusian and Venezuelan presidents the Charlie Chaplin-esque Lukashenko said that the two countries shared:
(Critics, of course, would also point out other policy initiatives in common between Belarus and Venezuela, and for that matter Iran and Russia – the regimes’ liking for closing down TV stations and harassing media freedoms.)
For many on the right in the West, Chavez is the head of a dangerous new movement against US influence and capitalism in general.
Ironically, that view is shared by many on the Left in the West – Chavez is the new anti-imperialist, riding a wave of popularity among the oppressed in South and Central America against the satanic Uncle Sam and his allies.
Both Left and Right seem to believe we are heading for some kind of new Cold War, a regrouping of the old ideological battles.
But both sides are living in the past.
Chavez and Lukashenko are undoubtedly popular with some parts of the populations in their respective countries: for Chavez his popularity resides in the barios; Lukashenko draws his support from the old, the rural poor, the unemployed.
Putin and the current Iranian president can rely on support from similar sections in their own countries, too, alongside some in the new ruling elites backed by domestic Big Oil.
But if you scrape away some tough anti-Western rhetoric you won’t find much in the way of ideology to back it up.
Oil and hot air
Apart from Lukashenko (who has no natural resources at all), all the main regimes in this ‘new alliance’, in Venezuela, in Russia, in Iran, are built not on ideology, but on oil and the power of the rising price of oil. All four regimes are actually quite pragmatic, policy wise. It’s capitalism-lite, with a bit of nationalist rhetoric thrown into the mix.
While Chavez screams and shouts about America, he has been careful not to alienate its oil barons, too much.
America has painted Chavez as the new Castro, but 12 percent of US oil still comes from Chavez’s oil fields. Bush etc would quite liken to get rid of him, but as long as he doesn’t really challenge the basis of capitalism itself he is not that much threat to them at home.
In Venezuela, too, the real power of Colonel Chavez does not come from deep ideological roots within ‘the people’, but from the Venezuelan army.
So why do both the Left and Right in the West make him out to be the great new anti-imperialist? Why spend so much time discussing Chavez when he, like Lukashenko, Putin, are actually populist, nationalist pragmatists?
Quite simply, because Politics has lost its ideological bearings in the West. The old struggles at home – between organized labour and capital – have all but gone completely. And both sides are desperate to find some cause to reconnect with their own de-politicized populations. The western Left, particularly, finds itself without any meaningful ideological connection or cause in their own countries. Enter Chavez, stage ‘left’, to comes to the rescue.
The deal between the old socialist mayor of London – someone I voted for a longtime ago in another guise, Ken Livingstone – and Chavez, to bring ‘cheap oil’ to the ‘poor’ of London in return for technical advice and help in Venezuela, is a pathetic case in point. The poor of London have a standard of living that many middle class Venezuelans would feel comfortable with. That deal is just craven populism, with little meaning at all. It is a politico PR stunt. It shows the UK Left desperate for some radical gloss, which it thinks it can gain, not through meaningful struggle at home, but by rubbing shoulders with a not particularly ideologically committed South American ‘firebrand’.
That’s really just about as good as it gets for the western Left, these days.
The Cold War ideologies are no more; the old socialism and communism that provided the counter-weight to capitalism have become museum pieces.
And even the capitalists, without the Soviet bogey man, are not quite sure how to justify themselves any more. Watch how the rhetoric of environmentalism is the new dominant world view, popular not just with tree hugging Greenpeacers but with the UN, the EU, and many in national government. Capitalism can’t even defend its reason to be anymore – high growth, profit at all costs. Capitalists are even queuing up these days to put limits on themselves under the banner of ‘save the planet’.
It almost makes me nostalgic for the old free marketeers, when capitalists acted like capitalists and there was a real alternative among social institutions like the trade unions and labour clubs trying to create a real alternative. Now each side bows down to the god of environmentalism, to Gaia.
That a meeting between cocky little Chavez and a buffoon like Aleksander Lukashenko could be seen as significant shows that there is something pretty hollow about the politics of the old left and right in the West.
In reality the conflict is not about left or right, but between pro and anti Chavez. It’s not about politics but about a personality.
When are both sides in the West going to wake up (and smell the South American fair trade coffee) and try and win hearts and minds over to a new politics that has some roots at home, in London or Washington, Manchester or New York, and not in oil rich South America, ruled by a man playing to the gallery in parts of Venezuela and to the badge wearing left in the West? The Beatroot
Beatroot is often misunderstood. He has been called neoconservative and liberal both, and I always knew he was neither. The debates that have fired up this blog, and the blogs of his friends, he dismisses as old fashioned, in a world without left/right having meaning in the new world. I invited Beatroot to explain his position unedited except for making the title bold. Renegade Eye
Chavez – it’s not about ideology…
…it’s all about The Man
Two Fridays ago in Minsk Hugo Chavez met up, yet again, with ‘the last dictator in Europe’ and his Belarusian counterpart, Aleksander Lukashenko.
Chavez’s visit to Belarus was part of a tour including Iran and Russia to build up an alternative alliance of countries that he sees as opposed to US hegemony.
After the meeting between the Belarusian and Venezuelan presidents the Charlie Chaplin-esque Lukashenko said that the two countries shared:
" …absolutely identical" views on international affairs, which "is a reliable basis for close cooperation and mutual support in the international arena…”
(Critics, of course, would also point out other policy initiatives in common between Belarus and Venezuela, and for that matter Iran and Russia – the regimes’ liking for closing down TV stations and harassing media freedoms.)
For many on the right in the West, Chavez is the head of a dangerous new movement against US influence and capitalism in general.
Ironically, that view is shared by many on the Left in the West – Chavez is the new anti-imperialist, riding a wave of popularity among the oppressed in South and Central America against the satanic Uncle Sam and his allies.
Both Left and Right seem to believe we are heading for some kind of new Cold War, a regrouping of the old ideological battles.
But both sides are living in the past.
Chavez and Lukashenko are undoubtedly popular with some parts of the populations in their respective countries: for Chavez his popularity resides in the barios; Lukashenko draws his support from the old, the rural poor, the unemployed.
Putin and the current Iranian president can rely on support from similar sections in their own countries, too, alongside some in the new ruling elites backed by domestic Big Oil.
But if you scrape away some tough anti-Western rhetoric you won’t find much in the way of ideology to back it up.
Oil and hot air
Apart from Lukashenko (who has no natural resources at all), all the main regimes in this ‘new alliance’, in Venezuela, in Russia, in Iran, are built not on ideology, but on oil and the power of the rising price of oil. All four regimes are actually quite pragmatic, policy wise. It’s capitalism-lite, with a bit of nationalist rhetoric thrown into the mix.
While Chavez screams and shouts about America, he has been careful not to alienate its oil barons, too much.
America has painted Chavez as the new Castro, but 12 percent of US oil still comes from Chavez’s oil fields. Bush etc would quite liken to get rid of him, but as long as he doesn’t really challenge the basis of capitalism itself he is not that much threat to them at home.
In Venezuela, too, the real power of Colonel Chavez does not come from deep ideological roots within ‘the people’, but from the Venezuelan army.
So why do both the Left and Right in the West make him out to be the great new anti-imperialist? Why spend so much time discussing Chavez when he, like Lukashenko, Putin, are actually populist, nationalist pragmatists?
Quite simply, because Politics has lost its ideological bearings in the West. The old struggles at home – between organized labour and capital – have all but gone completely. And both sides are desperate to find some cause to reconnect with their own de-politicized populations. The western Left, particularly, finds itself without any meaningful ideological connection or cause in their own countries. Enter Chavez, stage ‘left’, to comes to the rescue.
The deal between the old socialist mayor of London – someone I voted for a longtime ago in another guise, Ken Livingstone – and Chavez, to bring ‘cheap oil’ to the ‘poor’ of London in return for technical advice and help in Venezuela, is a pathetic case in point. The poor of London have a standard of living that many middle class Venezuelans would feel comfortable with. That deal is just craven populism, with little meaning at all. It is a politico PR stunt. It shows the UK Left desperate for some radical gloss, which it thinks it can gain, not through meaningful struggle at home, but by rubbing shoulders with a not particularly ideologically committed South American ‘firebrand’.
That’s really just about as good as it gets for the western Left, these days.
The Cold War ideologies are no more; the old socialism and communism that provided the counter-weight to capitalism have become museum pieces.
And even the capitalists, without the Soviet bogey man, are not quite sure how to justify themselves any more. Watch how the rhetoric of environmentalism is the new dominant world view, popular not just with tree hugging Greenpeacers but with the UN, the EU, and many in national government. Capitalism can’t even defend its reason to be anymore – high growth, profit at all costs. Capitalists are even queuing up these days to put limits on themselves under the banner of ‘save the planet’.
It almost makes me nostalgic for the old free marketeers, when capitalists acted like capitalists and there was a real alternative among social institutions like the trade unions and labour clubs trying to create a real alternative. Now each side bows down to the god of environmentalism, to Gaia.
That a meeting between cocky little Chavez and a buffoon like Aleksander Lukashenko could be seen as significant shows that there is something pretty hollow about the politics of the old left and right in the West.
In reality the conflict is not about left or right, but between pro and anti Chavez. It’s not about politics but about a personality.
When are both sides in the West going to wake up (and smell the South American fair trade coffee) and try and win hearts and minds over to a new politics that has some roots at home, in London or Washington, Manchester or New York, and not in oil rich South America, ruled by a man playing to the gallery in parts of Venezuela and to the badge wearing left in the West? The Beatroot
Monday, June 25, 2007
Token Open Thread Excluding Spam: Blog Surf
Occasional poster here Sphinx at Morning Fire has a long post about the Palestinian situation. It is worth reading, with much to discuss, as the nature of Hamas, Fatah and the boycott of Israeli academics.
I have been having correspondance with a surrealist blogger at The Midlope, including talking about Trotsky's relationship with Andre Breton and Diego Rivera
One of my favorite blogs is Histologian. This Greek journalist has a story about agent provocateurs in large demonstrations including the anti-globalization movements. The Republican Party convention will be in St. Paul, MN, and I expect it to be a provocateurs gathering.
Louis Proyect The Unrepentant Marxist, has a story about the checkered history of "The Nation Magazine", initiated by after Cindy Sheehan quit the antiwar movement, she denounced the Democratic Party. "The Nation" and the MSM left out her attacks on the party. The magazine goes back to the days of the abolitionists. Even at that time, their politics was as sharp as a butter knife.
ADDENDUM
My friend wrestled Chris Benoit when he was a rookie, wrestling in Calgary. He was a loose cannon even then. My friend saw him hit a child in a wheelchair. That was a glimpse of things to come. Benoit didn't have a steroid problem, he always was a sociopath. The murders were not rage killings, they were ritualistic and planned.
|
Anything else on your mind?
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Launch of the Council of Ex-Muslims Britain
A British branch of a new Europe-wide phenomenon is to be launched on Thursday 21 June in London. The Council of ex-Muslims of Britain is building on the stunning success of other branches already operating in Germany, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The British Humanist Association and National Secular Society are sponsoring the launch and support the new organisation.
The Council will provide a voice for those labelled Muslim but who have renounced religion and do not want to be identified by religion.
Rights activist Maryam Namazie will be the voice of the organisation in this country. She said: “We are establishing the alternative to the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain because we don’t think people should be pigeonholed as Muslims or deemed to be represented by regressive organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain. Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law. By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism. We are quite certain we represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.”
Mina Ahadi who initiated the original Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany will be attending the launch. She spoke about the aims of the organisation in an interview to Der Spiegel.
Mina Ahadi, Mahin Alipour (spokesperson of the Scandinavian organisation), Maryam Namazie and others will be available for interviews at the launch.
Ends
The launch will be at 11am (until midday), Thursday 21 June
Wilson Room
Portcullis House
Westminster SW1A 2LW
A manifesto explaining the aims of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain follows.
For more information please contact:
Maryam Namazie
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
BM Box 1919
London WC1N 3XX, UK
e-mail: ex-muslimcouncil@ukonline.co.uk
telephone: 07719166731
Manifesto of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.
Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.
By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.
Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.
Taking the lead from the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, we demand:
1. Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.
2. Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'.
3. Freedom of religion and atheism.
4. Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.
5. Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or infringe people's rights and freedoms.
6. Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs which hinder and contradict woman's independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.
7. Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or relatives, or official authorities in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships and sexuality.
8. Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and religious institutions.
9. Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.
10. Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.
Maryam Namazie
The Council will provide a voice for those labelled Muslim but who have renounced religion and do not want to be identified by religion.
Rights activist Maryam Namazie will be the voice of the organisation in this country. She said: “We are establishing the alternative to the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain because we don’t think people should be pigeonholed as Muslims or deemed to be represented by regressive organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain. Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law. By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism. We are quite certain we represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.”
Mina Ahadi who initiated the original Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany will be attending the launch. She spoke about the aims of the organisation in an interview to Der Spiegel.
Mina Ahadi, Mahin Alipour (spokesperson of the Scandinavian organisation), Maryam Namazie and others will be available for interviews at the launch.
Ends
The launch will be at 11am (until midday), Thursday 21 June
Wilson Room
Portcullis House
Westminster SW1A 2LW
A manifesto explaining the aims of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain follows.
For more information please contact:
Maryam Namazie
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
BM Box 1919
London WC1N 3XX, UK
e-mail: ex-muslimcouncil@ukonline.co.uk
telephone: 07719166731
Manifesto of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.
Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.
By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.
Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.
Taking the lead from the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, we demand:
1. Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.
2. Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'.
3. Freedom of religion and atheism.
4. Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.
5. Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or infringe people's rights and freedoms.
6. Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs which hinder and contradict woman's independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.
7. Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or relatives, or official authorities in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships and sexuality.
8. Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and religious institutions.
9. Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.
10. Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.
Maryam Namazie
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Lebanon, towards UN Protectorate Mandate?
With the assassination of Walid Eido taking place, Lebanon has jumped to a new stage of complexity amongst war with Fatah Islam, the highly controversial Jund el Sham, Iranian and Syrian escalation versus US and Israeli hegemony over the Middle East, and of course the ongoing explosions (which the last made my house dance!)
Last year in August 2006, Lebanon for the first time almost in two decades witnessed the descent of the Lebanese Army to the South up to the borders. Lebanon’s army going to the South was highly controversial because those who supported the idea meant they were crippling the Resistance. With the Lebanese army, due to UN resolution 1701, over 10,000 UNIFIL soldiers came to South Lebanon to control arms flowing outside the Lebanese Army, primarily Hezbollah. I still insist why UNIFIL are not distributed on the Israeli side as well, since they are breaching UN 1701 on daily basis (bulldozers, shooting at civilians, aerial flights of the Israeli Air Force…etc). Syria threatened to close its borders in case UNIFIL soldiers monitored the Lebanese/Syrian borders, even if the UNIFIL soldiers were standing on the Lebanese side of the borders. Which is ironic judging how Syria excused Israel from rockets falling close to its borders, and raising its hands that “NO it wasn’t on our side!” then they took the credit as the victors of the July war (what gives?!).
This was the beginning of the end of Lebanese Sovereignty which was restored from the ruthless and corrupt Baathi system.
Eventually, with the reactionary Opposition having the Speaker of the Parliament, the Lebanese Parliament didn’t meet since December, ever since the Opposition began their open demonstration. Moving on, the Pro-West reactionary government succeeded, after heavy clashes with the Opposition, to get the UN to agree on establishing the International Tribunal to investigate Rafiq Harriri and others. With that, the government hopes to oust Syria permanently out of Lebanese affairs, or at least to strike a final blow against Hezbollah who publicly celebrate their good relations with Syria, and have financial and religious ties (Vilayat el Faqih) with Iran (both despised by the West).
With the Tribunal fully effective, that was part II of getting Lebanon into the arms of the International Community, while its people are gradually losing sovereignty because the government officials want to secure their interests and sources of income.
Third, with everything crippled on parliamentary and almost governmental level, three ministries have been fully active: Ministry of Interior who keep failing to provide security for the Lebanese. Actually, the Opposition hate the Ministry of Interior since during the July war, a commander of a certain Security Forces served tea to the Israelis. (The Joke goes: Fatah Islam demanded equality to the Israelis and requested that the Ministry of Interior serve tea to them). The Ministry of Interior (along with the Army) have been also behaving in several occasions racist to Palestinians living in the Urban side of Lebanon who are involved in relief work.
The scary part is the Ministry of Finance, which is the child ministry of the late Rafiq Hariri, whose plan to bury Lebanon in the WTO for different reasons. Currently, Minister Az’ur is still fully active with that plan, under 14th of March blessings (including the ‘leftist’ Elias Atallah), and the next couple of meetings, it is anticipated that the Lebanese Parliament would vote for adopting WTO procedures to attain membership and attempt to get rid, in another way, from Syrian Hegemony, while the US would increase their sphere of activity through out Lebanon.
Now, with the assassination of late MP Walid Eido, 14th of March, on the same day, made it clear they are going to ask for assistance from the International Community to monitor and control illegal activity on the Syrian Side, which Syria would react by closing borders. This is one messed up scenario, I sense we are almost close to become a UN protectorate while most of the Lebanese preach that a civil war is coming and take it for granted.
Meanwhile, social life has been as slow as ever. With Lebanon gradually becoming the next Iraq in terms of explosives, few people dare to go out of fear that this car parked or that car might carry explosives. Meanwhile Beqaa valley witnessed more arrests as suspected people with acquisition with arms. Now, everywhere is fire and Lebanon is more bi-polar as ever, specially yesterday Hezbollah captured three security forces in Dahhieh region (Beirut Suburbs) and released them later after interrogation. The North witnesses heavy confrontations between the army and Fatah Islam whereby Palestinian citizens, activist volunteers (such as the Red Cross), and Lebanese civilians are paying the price.
Worse, the South is on fire ever since the unknown militants launched two Katyoshas on Kiryat Shmona (Northern Israel). The reactionary government and opposition still clash each other to grab piecemeal profits. Seems that Lebanon would become the next target as a UN mandate protectorate. Personally I cant tell the difference between the government and the opposition.
Welcome to Lebanon, need a guide? Make sure that guide got militia contacts to really see the real Lebanon, and not only our splendid wonderful nightclubs.
MarxistFromLebanon
Last year in August 2006, Lebanon for the first time almost in two decades witnessed the descent of the Lebanese Army to the South up to the borders. Lebanon’s army going to the South was highly controversial because those who supported the idea meant they were crippling the Resistance. With the Lebanese army, due to UN resolution 1701, over 10,000 UNIFIL soldiers came to South Lebanon to control arms flowing outside the Lebanese Army, primarily Hezbollah. I still insist why UNIFIL are not distributed on the Israeli side as well, since they are breaching UN 1701 on daily basis (bulldozers, shooting at civilians, aerial flights of the Israeli Air Force…etc). Syria threatened to close its borders in case UNIFIL soldiers monitored the Lebanese/Syrian borders, even if the UNIFIL soldiers were standing on the Lebanese side of the borders. Which is ironic judging how Syria excused Israel from rockets falling close to its borders, and raising its hands that “NO it wasn’t on our side!” then they took the credit as the victors of the July war (what gives?!).
This was the beginning of the end of Lebanese Sovereignty which was restored from the ruthless and corrupt Baathi system.
Eventually, with the reactionary Opposition having the Speaker of the Parliament, the Lebanese Parliament didn’t meet since December, ever since the Opposition began their open demonstration. Moving on, the Pro-West reactionary government succeeded, after heavy clashes with the Opposition, to get the UN to agree on establishing the International Tribunal to investigate Rafiq Harriri and others. With that, the government hopes to oust Syria permanently out of Lebanese affairs, or at least to strike a final blow against Hezbollah who publicly celebrate their good relations with Syria, and have financial and religious ties (Vilayat el Faqih) with Iran (both despised by the West).
With the Tribunal fully effective, that was part II of getting Lebanon into the arms of the International Community, while its people are gradually losing sovereignty because the government officials want to secure their interests and sources of income.
Third, with everything crippled on parliamentary and almost governmental level, three ministries have been fully active: Ministry of Interior who keep failing to provide security for the Lebanese. Actually, the Opposition hate the Ministry of Interior since during the July war, a commander of a certain Security Forces served tea to the Israelis. (The Joke goes: Fatah Islam demanded equality to the Israelis and requested that the Ministry of Interior serve tea to them). The Ministry of Interior (along with the Army) have been also behaving in several occasions racist to Palestinians living in the Urban side of Lebanon who are involved in relief work.
The scary part is the Ministry of Finance, which is the child ministry of the late Rafiq Hariri, whose plan to bury Lebanon in the WTO for different reasons. Currently, Minister Az’ur is still fully active with that plan, under 14th of March blessings (including the ‘leftist’ Elias Atallah), and the next couple of meetings, it is anticipated that the Lebanese Parliament would vote for adopting WTO procedures to attain membership and attempt to get rid, in another way, from Syrian Hegemony, while the US would increase their sphere of activity through out Lebanon.
Now, with the assassination of late MP Walid Eido, 14th of March, on the same day, made it clear they are going to ask for assistance from the International Community to monitor and control illegal activity on the Syrian Side, which Syria would react by closing borders. This is one messed up scenario, I sense we are almost close to become a UN protectorate while most of the Lebanese preach that a civil war is coming and take it for granted.
Meanwhile, social life has been as slow as ever. With Lebanon gradually becoming the next Iraq in terms of explosives, few people dare to go out of fear that this car parked or that car might carry explosives. Meanwhile Beqaa valley witnessed more arrests as suspected people with acquisition with arms. Now, everywhere is fire and Lebanon is more bi-polar as ever, specially yesterday Hezbollah captured three security forces in Dahhieh region (Beirut Suburbs) and released them later after interrogation. The North witnesses heavy confrontations between the army and Fatah Islam whereby Palestinian citizens, activist volunteers (such as the Red Cross), and Lebanese civilians are paying the price.
Worse, the South is on fire ever since the unknown militants launched two Katyoshas on Kiryat Shmona (Northern Israel). The reactionary government and opposition still clash each other to grab piecemeal profits. Seems that Lebanon would become the next target as a UN mandate protectorate. Personally I cant tell the difference between the government and the opposition.
Welcome to Lebanon, need a guide? Make sure that guide got militia contacts to really see the real Lebanon, and not only our splendid wonderful nightclubs.
MarxistFromLebanon
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Worker's Power in Venezuela: Sanitarios Maracay
The fascinating story of one of the two bathroom ceramics making manufacturers in Venezuela, provides us with a vision of workers control. What makes something revolutionary is not protest, but utopian vision. This article from In Defense of Marxism gives an overview. The events in May, when workers were met by the National Guard, shows state governments in Venezuela have power. The repression was ordered by an anti-Chavez governor.
Venezuela National Assembly asks for the expropriation of Sanitarios Maracay
By Jorge Martin
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
A delegation of Sanitarios Maracay trade union representatives headed by Jose Villegas, organisation secretary and member of the Factory Committee, went to Caracas on Monday May 28, to meet with the Social Affairs commission of the National Assembly.
After meeting with the workers, the Permanent Commission on Social Affairs agreed to send a petition to the president of the Republic for the expropriation of Sanitarios Maracay.
The factory, which makes bathroom ceramics, has been occupied by the workers for more than six months, and they have maintained production and sales for the whole period, organised in regular mass workers’ assemblies and an elected and recallable Factory Committee. After a number of conflicts with the employer, coup-plotter Alvaro Pocaterra, over health and safety and trade union recognition, he decided to abandon the factory and it was at this point that the workers decided to occupy.
More than 550 of the Sanitarios Maracay workers, who are part of the Revolutionary Front of Occupied Factories FRETECO, have been struggling for the expropriation of the factory and that it be run under workers’ control.
On May 22 there was a region-wide day of action in Aragua, where Maracay is based, in which 3,000 workers from 120 different workplaces set up 19 road blocks from 5 am until 11 am, blockading the whole of the region. The action was organised by the regional UNT and the Sanitarios Maracay workers to demand nationalisation under workers’ control, but also to protest at the repression the workers had suffered at the hands of regional police and national guard forces when they were on their way to a national demonstration organised by FRETECO on April 23.
Undoubtedly, the action in Aragua served to put pressure on the National Assembly to pass this resolution which is also going to be sent to the Ministry of Light Industry and Commerce for endorsement. So far the position of the Ministry of Labour has not been favourable to the expropriation of the factory, and the minister, Ramon Rivero, publicly expressed his view that the factory is not “of national interest” and therefore should not be nationalised. To this the workers have replied that Sanitarios Maracay should be included in a national plan of housing projects to solve the housing crisis affecting millions of poor people. Sanitarios trade union leaders have also accused the Ministry of negotiating a settlement of the dispute only with a small group of administrative staff which are not part of the workers’ assembly.
The decision taken by the National Assembly is seen by the workers representatives as the first real step towards expropriation of the factory, their main demand. If this expropriation went ahead, this would be a further important step forward for the workers movement in Venezuela and would put the expropriation of other occupied factories (SelFex, Gotcha, INAF, etc) on the agenda. RENEGADE EYE
Venezuela National Assembly asks for the expropriation of Sanitarios Maracay
By Jorge Martin
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
A delegation of Sanitarios Maracay trade union representatives headed by Jose Villegas, organisation secretary and member of the Factory Committee, went to Caracas on Monday May 28, to meet with the Social Affairs commission of the National Assembly.
After meeting with the workers, the Permanent Commission on Social Affairs agreed to send a petition to the president of the Republic for the expropriation of Sanitarios Maracay.
The factory, which makes bathroom ceramics, has been occupied by the workers for more than six months, and they have maintained production and sales for the whole period, organised in regular mass workers’ assemblies and an elected and recallable Factory Committee. After a number of conflicts with the employer, coup-plotter Alvaro Pocaterra, over health and safety and trade union recognition, he decided to abandon the factory and it was at this point that the workers decided to occupy.
More than 550 of the Sanitarios Maracay workers, who are part of the Revolutionary Front of Occupied Factories FRETECO, have been struggling for the expropriation of the factory and that it be run under workers’ control.
On May 22 there was a region-wide day of action in Aragua, where Maracay is based, in which 3,000 workers from 120 different workplaces set up 19 road blocks from 5 am until 11 am, blockading the whole of the region. The action was organised by the regional UNT and the Sanitarios Maracay workers to demand nationalisation under workers’ control, but also to protest at the repression the workers had suffered at the hands of regional police and national guard forces when they were on their way to a national demonstration organised by FRETECO on April 23.
Undoubtedly, the action in Aragua served to put pressure on the National Assembly to pass this resolution which is also going to be sent to the Ministry of Light Industry and Commerce for endorsement. So far the position of the Ministry of Labour has not been favourable to the expropriation of the factory, and the minister, Ramon Rivero, publicly expressed his view that the factory is not “of national interest” and therefore should not be nationalised. To this the workers have replied that Sanitarios Maracay should be included in a national plan of housing projects to solve the housing crisis affecting millions of poor people. Sanitarios trade union leaders have also accused the Ministry of negotiating a settlement of the dispute only with a small group of administrative staff which are not part of the workers’ assembly.
The decision taken by the National Assembly is seen by the workers representatives as the first real step towards expropriation of the factory, their main demand. If this expropriation went ahead, this would be a further important step forward for the workers movement in Venezuela and would put the expropriation of other occupied factories (SelFex, Gotcha, INAF, etc) on the agenda. RENEGADE EYE
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Free Scooter Libby and Paris Hilton
I hope to make points with this post, bigger than the individuals involved. I get surprised looks from lefty friends, that I'm for freeing these two. I hope my friends can see my point. As for my support for Scooter Libby, it's as strong as a plank is, to someone caught by pirates. See Paris Hilton at WSWS
The left and liberals hate Bush in a manner as the right hates Hugo Chavez. Because you want to hurt your enemy, you rejoice when the enemy faces a dilemma. This hatred can be blinding.
Scooter Libby is indicted for false testimony, in an investigation I believe shouldn't have taken place. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, enacted by former CIA boss Bush41, is anti-left law. On October 30, 2005 I wrote in this blog, regarding the Valerie Plame affair and that law:
Phillip Agee, a retired CIA agent, developed a conscience. It was after the reality of the CIA's half-century-plus run through our world has been quite another matter though: the formation and funding of secret armies and death squads from Laos and El Salvador to Afghanistan; the corruption of democratic political parties; the assassination, or attempted assassination, of leaders of other countries; the investment of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in torture research, and then the teaching of new methods of torture (as well as time-tested ones) to allied police and military forces globally; the running of torture centers and secret prisons abroad; and the overthrow of democratically-elected governments from Guatemala and Chile to Iran. Through all these years, CIA agents have acted with impunity. The intricate tale of CIA "covert" operations is quite a grim little history, drenched in blood and pain -- and a history that finally blew back on Americans.
In 1975 Phillip Agee wrote the book "Inside the Company:CIA Diary". It revealed what the CIA was doing, particularly in Latin America. The book named all the spooks Agee knew. Agee was in the company for 12 years. He started as an idealist, and later became angry about covert activities, against justice. Welch was not mentioned in the book. His former comrades were angry, and felt betrayed.
In 1982 the congress under former CIA George Bush41 and Ronald Reagan, passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law was written in response to the 1975 killing of Greek division head Richard Welch. It was the anti-Philip Agee law. He was blamed for outing Welch, even though he didn't.
Now the phony leftists are singing the praises of Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Some even want to strengthen it. The law was written against the left. Now all of a sudden, the CIA is your friend. Progressives have to stop the CIA and people like Valerie Plame; blowing the cover of her fellow agents when they are found engaging in kidnappings, torture, or attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments.
Don't rejoice about seeing Libby or Rove against the wall. Granted Rove in particular, will use any tactic against you; be careful of who you think your friends are.
Paris Hilton is not a hotel heiress. Her great grandfather cut off all relatives from inheriting the hotel chain.
We follow her life, and her associates, through trials and trubulations, as a reflection of decreasing expectations of our own lives.
The bury Hilton cries processes are complex and don’t work themselves out as the result of any pre-arranged plan, but it’s worth noting that Hilton’s time in the limelight has coincided with the deepening of popular discontent with the war in Iraq, corporate corruption, official moves toward a police state and the destruction of secure jobs on a mass scale.
To help retard the development of a rational opposition to the current political and social state of affairs, the media cultivates an artificial hostility toward much easier targets. A seething but politically confused population is fed victims, sacrificial lambs, so to speak, while the real criminals go about their business.
In the last few years, some 200,000 nonviolent prisoners have been released from LA County jails. Because of Hilton's celebrity, she is getting a stiffer sentence than usual. If she wasn't Paris, her sentence would have been 1/10% of what she'll serve.
Free Paris Hilton and get a life. RENEGADE EYE
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Save Khaled Hardani and Kobra Najjar from execution in Iran
Khaled Hardani, and Kobra Najjar, who are about to be executed and stoned to death, have asked us to reach out to the international community in an attempt to save their lives. These two individuals are in grave danger of death. Their lawyers and families are desperately seeking help to save their lives.
Khaled Hardani is convicted of hijacking an airplane to escape Iran. On Saturday, June 2nd 2007, we were contacted and told that Khaled Hardani is being held in Rajaii-Shahr prison. He told us that he has been under intense pressure to sign his order of execution. The Islamic Republic of Iran is accusing Khaled of “Battling God”.
Kobra is the mother of 4 children from Sanandaj. After her marriage, she was forced by her drug-addicted husband into prostitution. Currently she is convicted of engaging in an ‘extra marital affair’. Cobra has written to the clemency committee in Iran 3 times and has been denied a stay of execution each and every time. Currently she and her lawyers believe that the only way of saving Kobra from a cruel fate is through pressure from the international community on the Islamic regime.
To hear the voices of those condemned calling from their prisons is truly a painful and life altering experience. Although clearly distressed, both were confident and hopeful that with our help they can be saved from certain death. This confidence is an indication that our organization is effective against the indiscriminate killing of the Islamic regime. Their confidence stems from our previous efforts through peaceful protests and meetings to bring the plight of people under similar circumstances to light. These efforts, which resulted in pressure of the international community has helped save the lives of other people in similar circumstances.
We, who live outside of Iran, and away from the oppressive regime and hellish jails, have to act immediately to save the lives of people who have been imprisoned for many years and fighting for their lives. The Committee against Executions and Stoning invites all humanitarian organizations, public figures, artists, and anyone interested in justice and human rights to help us fight the executions of Khaled Hardani and Kobra Najjar.
Anyone interested in helping must take quick and decisive action in the coming days.
Demonstrations to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran and spread the international movement against execution and stoning
On Friday and Saturday 15th and 16th of June we are asking people to demonstrate against the executions of Mr. Khaled Hardani and Mrs. Kobra Najjar at cities across the world. This could include locations close to Iranian embassies, or civic centers in your own towns. The Committee against Executions and the International Committee against Stoning will partner with other human right organizations to organize a large movement in an attempt to save these two lives.
Other things you can do to help:
· Write to the United Nations, European Union and members of parliaments to put pressure on the Islamic regime of Iran to stop these and other executions.
· Write about these atrocities in weblogs and websites to make as many people as possible aware the situation.
· Write to other human rights organizations asking them for help.
For further information, please don’t hesitate to contact Mina Ahadi at 00491775692413.
International Committee against Execution
International Committee against Stoning
June 2, 2007 Maryam Namazie
Khaled Hardani is convicted of hijacking an airplane to escape Iran. On Saturday, June 2nd 2007, we were contacted and told that Khaled Hardani is being held in Rajaii-Shahr prison. He told us that he has been under intense pressure to sign his order of execution. The Islamic Republic of Iran is accusing Khaled of “Battling God”.
Kobra is the mother of 4 children from Sanandaj. After her marriage, she was forced by her drug-addicted husband into prostitution. Currently she is convicted of engaging in an ‘extra marital affair’. Cobra has written to the clemency committee in Iran 3 times and has been denied a stay of execution each and every time. Currently she and her lawyers believe that the only way of saving Kobra from a cruel fate is through pressure from the international community on the Islamic regime.
To hear the voices of those condemned calling from their prisons is truly a painful and life altering experience. Although clearly distressed, both were confident and hopeful that with our help they can be saved from certain death. This confidence is an indication that our organization is effective against the indiscriminate killing of the Islamic regime. Their confidence stems from our previous efforts through peaceful protests and meetings to bring the plight of people under similar circumstances to light. These efforts, which resulted in pressure of the international community has helped save the lives of other people in similar circumstances.
We, who live outside of Iran, and away from the oppressive regime and hellish jails, have to act immediately to save the lives of people who have been imprisoned for many years and fighting for their lives. The Committee against Executions and Stoning invites all humanitarian organizations, public figures, artists, and anyone interested in justice and human rights to help us fight the executions of Khaled Hardani and Kobra Najjar.
Anyone interested in helping must take quick and decisive action in the coming days.
Demonstrations to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran and spread the international movement against execution and stoning
On Friday and Saturday 15th and 16th of June we are asking people to demonstrate against the executions of Mr. Khaled Hardani and Mrs. Kobra Najjar at cities across the world. This could include locations close to Iranian embassies, or civic centers in your own towns. The Committee against Executions and the International Committee against Stoning will partner with other human right organizations to organize a large movement in an attempt to save these two lives.
Other things you can do to help:
· Write to the United Nations, European Union and members of parliaments to put pressure on the Islamic regime of Iran to stop these and other executions.
· Write about these atrocities in weblogs and websites to make as many people as possible aware the situation.
· Write to other human rights organizations asking them for help.
For further information, please don’t hesitate to contact Mina Ahadi at 00491775692413.
International Committee against Execution
International Committee against Stoning
June 2, 2007 Maryam Namazie
Monday, June 04, 2007
Get Well Mike Ballard/UFC 75
A friend and comrade to many of the bloggers in this community, is seriously ill. Mike Ballard whose blog is Penguins in Bondage has been the source of both serious political foment particularly on labor's rights issues, as well as recent literary achievement. I think his friendly demeaner won him respect from political opponents as well. For more information about his condition read his wife Jennifer's blog.
Mike, Jennifer and myself are fans of mixed martial arts (MMA). It is a sport involving boxing, wrestling, judo, karate etc. This video is for Mike. Get well soon.
RENEGADE EYE
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Is Free Speech Really at Stake? Venezuela and RCTV?
This is from Venezuelanalysis.com. a balanced pro-Chavez site. There is confusion about this issue, because the American media is not telling the full story.
This article tells of the behavior of RCTV during the 2002 illegal coup attempt against President Chavez. RCTV didn't report in a biased manner, it played a participant role. The president of RCTV was in the palace, with the plotters. RCTV called on people to go into the streets, to overthrow Chavez. After the coup failed, RCTV stopped broadcasting news, and turned into a format showing cartoons.
The world learned about the pro-RCTV demonstrations this weekend, not the demos supporting Chavez.
Most Venezuelans who oppose the taking away of licensure, don't do it on free speech grounds. according to a recent poll. They like the "Who Wants To Be A Venezuelan Millionaire?" show, but have no sympathy for the news department. They want the diversity of the programs according to recent polling.
You don't hear about how RCTV, fired all pro-Chavez workers and talent from the station. Even Fox News has some liberals as Allen Coombs, Kiran Chetry, Geraldo Rivera etc. Some fired were with the station for as long as 30 years.
BY Patrick McElwee (Venezuelanalysis.com)
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has been the subject of many controversies. His critics often accuse him of laying the groundwork for dictatorship, despite the democratic credentials of his government. Chávez was democratically elected in 1998 and again in 2000 under a new constitution. He then won a recall election in 2004, which was certified by observers from the Carter Center and the Organization of American States. Chávez was re-elected last December by 63 percent of voters, a result again certified by international observers including the OAS and the European Union. Chávez has pledged to accelerate policies that have given poor Venezuelans vastly increased access to health care, education, and subsidized food, and in the last three and a half years of political stability, a remarkable 40 percent increase in the economy.
Throughout this process of increasing voter and citizen participation and electoral democracy, the Venezuelan opposition and their allies in the U.S. press have told us that authoritarianism was just around the corner. They now say it has arrived. The immediate focus of their concern is the president’s decision not to renew the broadcast license of a major television network that is openly opposed to the Chávez government. Their free speech concerns have been echoed by Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. On the other hand, the vice-chair of the European Parliament’s Freedom Commission, ruling out a resolution on the issue, has said the non-renewal has nothing to do with human rights.
Here are the basic facts. Rádio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) is one of the biggest television networks in Venezuela. It airs news and entertainment programs. It is also openly opposed to the government, including by supporting a military coup that briefly ousted Chávez in 2002. During the oil strike of 2002-2003, the station repeatedly called upon its viewers to come out into the street and help topple the government. As part of its continuing political campaign against the government, the station has also used false allegations, sometimes with gruesome and violent imagery, to convince its viewers that the government was responsible for such crimes as murders where there was no evidence of government involvement.
According to a law enacted in 1987, the licenses given to RCTV and other stations to use the public airwaves expire on May 27. President Chávez has publicly declared that RCTV’s license will not be renewed, citing its involvement in the coup. Although it will not be able to continue to use the public broadcast frequencies, the station will still be able to send its signal out over cable, satellite, and the Internet.
The U.S. media, much of which has been unsuccessfully predicting dictatorship under Chávez for years, has used this case to make accusations of censorship and the end of press freedom in Venezuela.
To understand the issue better, I decided to talk to the human rights and press freedom groups who have criticized the action.
José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch clarified for me that “broadcasting companies in any country in the world, especially in democratic countries, are not entitled to renewal of their licenses. The lack of renewal of the contract, per se, is not a free speech issue. Just per se.” A free speech issue arises if the non-renewal is to punish a certain editorial line.
Still, Benoît Hervieu of Reporters Without Borders in Paris said that, while he could not be certain, he thought US and European governments would stop short of non-renewal despite RCTV’s “support for the coup.”
“I think that there would be pressure to make a replacement at the head of the channel. But I don’t think that they would not renew the concession. There is a risk in that story. There are 3000 employees at RCTV. So I don’t think that even in a country like [the United States or France], a government would risk putting 3000 people in the streets,” he said.
Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it? In the United States, this may seem plausible, since broadcast licenses here seem to be forever. (Who could imagine life without ABC, CBS, or NBC?) Still, the government sometimes takes actions in other parts of the economy that result in a company going out of business.
Actually, in other democratic countries, broadcast companies sometimes do not get their licenses renewed. For example, in Britain in 1992, in a process based in part on a subjective assessment of “quality of service,” Thames Television lost its license after 24 years of service. Several British commentators speculated that the Thatcher government had influenced the result.
So democracies do occasionally find reasons not to renew a license. So what about this case in particular: Would RCTV have had its license renewed in the United States or Europe?
While the two US-based human rights advocates I spoke with declined to answer that question directly, they acknowledged that non-renewal would not be out of the question here.
Vivanco said, “I don’t know. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could decide that they’re not going to renew, for instance, Fox News or MSNBC because they’re in violation of the contract, according to the conditions of the contract. Normally you settle those things in court.”
Carlos Lauría of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke similarly: “I don’t think you can translate what’s going on there [in Venezuela] to the United States. That’s a very difficult question. I mean, if RCTV had violated the law, I assume they wouldn’t get the concession renewed.”
For Lauría, non-renewal itself is not the problem. His concern is the process by which the decision was reached. “I assume in the US there would be a process. The FCC would follow protocol. This is what hasn’t happened in Venezuela. We’re not arguing that the concession should be renewed, should be given to RCTV. We’re just saying that there’s no process to evaluate if it should be.”
Vivanco also complained about the process, saying that if the government argues there is a violation of the contract, “that would be settled normally in court. Second, if there’s some crimes committed, the individuals who were involved in those crimes should be prosecuted in a court of law.”
On process, they have a legitimate point. The government seems to have made the decision without any administrative or judicial hearings. Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made.
However, Vivanco’s critique goes beyond process to the government’s justification for non-renewal. “You have the president saying, forget it, the license is not going to be renewed, it’s a bunch of golpistas [coup-mongers] or fascists or whatever – which is clearly some sort of censorship. That sounds like an arbitrary decision made by the president on political grounds. And that is not acceptable.”
Lauría also told me that RCTV was “selectively chosen because of opposition views.”
But is support for the violent overthrow of an elected government really protected political speech? Vivanco acknowledges that RCTV “obviously probably sympathized with the coup.” But, he says, “it is a matter of free speech.”
Vivanco understates RCTV’s connection to the coup. RCTV encouraged viewers to attend a rally that was part of the coup strategy, invited coup leaders to address the country on their channel, and reported the false information that the president had resigned. After Pedro Carmona declared himself president and dissolved the National Assembly, Supreme Court, and other democratic institutions, the head of RCTV Marcel Granier met with him in the Presidential Palace. The following day, when mass protests and loyal army units brought back President Chávez, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news, showing movies and cartoons instead.
Such actions clearly go beyond protected free speech, at least in the United States. Imagine the consequences if NBC took such actions during a coup against Bush.
In fact, RCTV’s participation in the oil strike of 2002-2003, and even their joining in legal political campaigns would be grounds for revoking their broadcast license in the United States.
Consider this episode in the US. Two weeks before the 2004 presidential election, it was reported that the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates the largest number of local TV stations in the United States, planned to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry.
Democrats were outraged. The Democratic National Committee filed a case with the FCC arguing that such “partisan propaganda” was inappropriate. And, yes, at least one powerful Democratic politician swore that if the documentary was aired, there would be no Sinclair Broadcast Group by the 2008 election. A Kerry spokesman said, “You don't expect your local TV station to be pushing a political agenda two weeks before an election. It's un-American.” Couldn’t it be un-Venezuelan too? (The political pressures above led Sinclair to cancel the anti-Kerry broadcast).
If RCTV were the only major source of opposition to the government, the loss of its voice would be troubling. It would also be disturbing if the RCTV case forced others to tone down legitimate opposition. But Greg Wilpert, a sociologist living in Venezuela, declares, “It is the height of absurdity to say that there’s a lack of freedom of press in Venezuela.”
Of the top four private TV stations, three air mostly entertainment and one, Globovisión, is a 24-hours news channel. On Globovisión, Wilpert says, “the opposition is very present. They pretty much dominate it. And in the others, they certainly are very present in the news segments.”
Regarding the print media, Wilpert told me, “There are three main newspapers. Of those three, two are definitely very opposition. The other one is pretty neutral. I would say, [the opposition] certainly dominates the print media by far. There’s no doubt about that.”
“I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated [their opposition to the government] not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez . They’ve reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before.”
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.
Once again, it seems, the warnings of a move from democracy to dictatorship in Venezuela have been loud but lacking in evidence.
Patrick McElwee is a policy analyst with Just Foreign Policy (www.justforeignpolicy.org). He can be reached at patrick@justforeignpolicy.org.
RENEGADE EYE
This article tells of the behavior of RCTV during the 2002 illegal coup attempt against President Chavez. RCTV didn't report in a biased manner, it played a participant role. The president of RCTV was in the palace, with the plotters. RCTV called on people to go into the streets, to overthrow Chavez. After the coup failed, RCTV stopped broadcasting news, and turned into a format showing cartoons.
The world learned about the pro-RCTV demonstrations this weekend, not the demos supporting Chavez.
Most Venezuelans who oppose the taking away of licensure, don't do it on free speech grounds. according to a recent poll. They like the "Who Wants To Be A Venezuelan Millionaire?" show, but have no sympathy for the news department. They want the diversity of the programs according to recent polling.
You don't hear about how RCTV, fired all pro-Chavez workers and talent from the station. Even Fox News has some liberals as Allen Coombs, Kiran Chetry, Geraldo Rivera etc. Some fired were with the station for as long as 30 years.
BY Patrick McElwee (Venezuelanalysis.com)
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has been the subject of many controversies. His critics often accuse him of laying the groundwork for dictatorship, despite the democratic credentials of his government. Chávez was democratically elected in 1998 and again in 2000 under a new constitution. He then won a recall election in 2004, which was certified by observers from the Carter Center and the Organization of American States. Chávez was re-elected last December by 63 percent of voters, a result again certified by international observers including the OAS and the European Union. Chávez has pledged to accelerate policies that have given poor Venezuelans vastly increased access to health care, education, and subsidized food, and in the last three and a half years of political stability, a remarkable 40 percent increase in the economy.
Throughout this process of increasing voter and citizen participation and electoral democracy, the Venezuelan opposition and their allies in the U.S. press have told us that authoritarianism was just around the corner. They now say it has arrived. The immediate focus of their concern is the president’s decision not to renew the broadcast license of a major television network that is openly opposed to the Chávez government. Their free speech concerns have been echoed by Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. On the other hand, the vice-chair of the European Parliament’s Freedom Commission, ruling out a resolution on the issue, has said the non-renewal has nothing to do with human rights.
Here are the basic facts. Rádio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) is one of the biggest television networks in Venezuela. It airs news and entertainment programs. It is also openly opposed to the government, including by supporting a military coup that briefly ousted Chávez in 2002. During the oil strike of 2002-2003, the station repeatedly called upon its viewers to come out into the street and help topple the government. As part of its continuing political campaign against the government, the station has also used false allegations, sometimes with gruesome and violent imagery, to convince its viewers that the government was responsible for such crimes as murders where there was no evidence of government involvement.
According to a law enacted in 1987, the licenses given to RCTV and other stations to use the public airwaves expire on May 27. President Chávez has publicly declared that RCTV’s license will not be renewed, citing its involvement in the coup. Although it will not be able to continue to use the public broadcast frequencies, the station will still be able to send its signal out over cable, satellite, and the Internet.
The U.S. media, much of which has been unsuccessfully predicting dictatorship under Chávez for years, has used this case to make accusations of censorship and the end of press freedom in Venezuela.
To understand the issue better, I decided to talk to the human rights and press freedom groups who have criticized the action.
José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch clarified for me that “broadcasting companies in any country in the world, especially in democratic countries, are not entitled to renewal of their licenses. The lack of renewal of the contract, per se, is not a free speech issue. Just per se.” A free speech issue arises if the non-renewal is to punish a certain editorial line.
Still, Benoît Hervieu of Reporters Without Borders in Paris said that, while he could not be certain, he thought US and European governments would stop short of non-renewal despite RCTV’s “support for the coup.”
“I think that there would be pressure to make a replacement at the head of the channel. But I don’t think that they would not renew the concession. There is a risk in that story. There are 3000 employees at RCTV. So I don’t think that even in a country like [the United States or France], a government would risk putting 3000 people in the streets,” he said.
Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it? In the United States, this may seem plausible, since broadcast licenses here seem to be forever. (Who could imagine life without ABC, CBS, or NBC?) Still, the government sometimes takes actions in other parts of the economy that result in a company going out of business.
Actually, in other democratic countries, broadcast companies sometimes do not get their licenses renewed. For example, in Britain in 1992, in a process based in part on a subjective assessment of “quality of service,” Thames Television lost its license after 24 years of service. Several British commentators speculated that the Thatcher government had influenced the result.
So democracies do occasionally find reasons not to renew a license. So what about this case in particular: Would RCTV have had its license renewed in the United States or Europe?
While the two US-based human rights advocates I spoke with declined to answer that question directly, they acknowledged that non-renewal would not be out of the question here.
Vivanco said, “I don’t know. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could decide that they’re not going to renew, for instance, Fox News or MSNBC because they’re in violation of the contract, according to the conditions of the contract. Normally you settle those things in court.”
Carlos Lauría of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke similarly: “I don’t think you can translate what’s going on there [in Venezuela] to the United States. That’s a very difficult question. I mean, if RCTV had violated the law, I assume they wouldn’t get the concession renewed.”
For Lauría, non-renewal itself is not the problem. His concern is the process by which the decision was reached. “I assume in the US there would be a process. The FCC would follow protocol. This is what hasn’t happened in Venezuela. We’re not arguing that the concession should be renewed, should be given to RCTV. We’re just saying that there’s no process to evaluate if it should be.”
Vivanco also complained about the process, saying that if the government argues there is a violation of the contract, “that would be settled normally in court. Second, if there’s some crimes committed, the individuals who were involved in those crimes should be prosecuted in a court of law.”
On process, they have a legitimate point. The government seems to have made the decision without any administrative or judicial hearings. Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made.
However, Vivanco’s critique goes beyond process to the government’s justification for non-renewal. “You have the president saying, forget it, the license is not going to be renewed, it’s a bunch of golpistas [coup-mongers] or fascists or whatever – which is clearly some sort of censorship. That sounds like an arbitrary decision made by the president on political grounds. And that is not acceptable.”
Lauría also told me that RCTV was “selectively chosen because of opposition views.”
But is support for the violent overthrow of an elected government really protected political speech? Vivanco acknowledges that RCTV “obviously probably sympathized with the coup.” But, he says, “it is a matter of free speech.”
Vivanco understates RCTV’s connection to the coup. RCTV encouraged viewers to attend a rally that was part of the coup strategy, invited coup leaders to address the country on their channel, and reported the false information that the president had resigned. After Pedro Carmona declared himself president and dissolved the National Assembly, Supreme Court, and other democratic institutions, the head of RCTV Marcel Granier met with him in the Presidential Palace. The following day, when mass protests and loyal army units brought back President Chávez, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news, showing movies and cartoons instead.
Such actions clearly go beyond protected free speech, at least in the United States. Imagine the consequences if NBC took such actions during a coup against Bush.
In fact, RCTV’s participation in the oil strike of 2002-2003, and even their joining in legal political campaigns would be grounds for revoking their broadcast license in the United States.
Consider this episode in the US. Two weeks before the 2004 presidential election, it was reported that the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates the largest number of local TV stations in the United States, planned to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry.
Democrats were outraged. The Democratic National Committee filed a case with the FCC arguing that such “partisan propaganda” was inappropriate. And, yes, at least one powerful Democratic politician swore that if the documentary was aired, there would be no Sinclair Broadcast Group by the 2008 election. A Kerry spokesman said, “You don't expect your local TV station to be pushing a political agenda two weeks before an election. It's un-American.” Couldn’t it be un-Venezuelan too? (The political pressures above led Sinclair to cancel the anti-Kerry broadcast).
If RCTV were the only major source of opposition to the government, the loss of its voice would be troubling. It would also be disturbing if the RCTV case forced others to tone down legitimate opposition. But Greg Wilpert, a sociologist living in Venezuela, declares, “It is the height of absurdity to say that there’s a lack of freedom of press in Venezuela.”
Of the top four private TV stations, three air mostly entertainment and one, Globovisión, is a 24-hours news channel. On Globovisión, Wilpert says, “the opposition is very present. They pretty much dominate it. And in the others, they certainly are very present in the news segments.”
Regarding the print media, Wilpert told me, “There are three main newspapers. Of those three, two are definitely very opposition. The other one is pretty neutral. I would say, [the opposition] certainly dominates the print media by far. There’s no doubt about that.”
“I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated [their opposition to the government] not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez . They’ve reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before.”
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.
Once again, it seems, the warnings of a move from democracy to dictatorship in Venezuela have been loud but lacking in evidence.
Patrick McElwee is a policy analyst with Just Foreign Policy (www.justforeignpolicy.org). He can be reached at patrick@justforeignpolicy.org.
RENEGADE EYE
Saturday, May 19, 2007
News from Argentina
This past month in Argentina
http://mujereslibres.blogspot.com/
RENEGADE EYE
Enraged train commuters rioted in a major rail station in 
Mothers of Plaza de Mayo Commemorate 30th Anniversary
The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo commemorated the 30th anniversary of their movement on April 30 in 
while a key witness in these trials was disappeared in 2006.
http://mujereslibres.blogspot.com/
RENEGADE EYE
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Barack, Blair and Argentine Tango
This post is in the style of Thoughtstreaming and Sonia-Belle, of throwing out a few topics, and see what sticks.
Rush Limbaugh the American radio talk show host, has for a few months been playing a racist tune at the expense of Barack Obama. The tune has got notoriety when another talk show host asked for comments. The concept of the magic negro is based on the role of early Afro-American actors, who were heroes and not threatening to white people. Rush's racist tune is based on a comment made in the LA Times calling Obama the magic negro.
Obama was asked about the song on another talk show. He expressed he thought it was good humor, Rush is an entertainer, and being made fun of goes with the job. He was complimented by Rush for his mature response.
I'm opposed to Obama's reaction. The song is as racist as anything Don Imus ever did. What stinking pollster told Obama to give Rush a pass?
There are rumblings from afro-American employees, of radio stations that carry his show. The story is not over.
(sung by an Al Sharpton impersonator, I assume)
Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times they called him that
cause he's not authentic like me.
Yeah the guy from the L.A. paper
said he made guilty whites feel good
they'll vote for him and not for me
cause hes not from da hood.
See, real black men like snoop dogg
or me or Farrakhan
have talked the talk and walked the walk
not come and laid and won (not sure about this line).
Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times they called him that
cause he's not authentic like me
cause hes black but not authentically.
Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times they called him that
cause he's not authentic like me
cause hes black but not authentically.
Some say Barack's articulate
and bright and new and clean
the media sure love this guy
a white interloper's dream.
But when you vote for president
watch out and don't be fooled
don't vote the magic negro in
cause...
(background singing the first 3 lines, while the singer is saying)
Cause I wont have nothing after all these years of sacrifice and I wont get justice this is about justice this is about justice, buffet, I don't have no buffet there wont be any church contributions there'll be no cash in the collection plate, no cash money, no walkin' around money...
----------------------
Tony Blair is leaving, so he can now cash in on the speakers circuit, making tons of $$$, like Bill Clinton.
---------------------
This is the walking dance of Argentine tango danced by Fabian Salas & Cecilia Gonzalez, to the music Suite Lumiere by Astor Piazzolla. American tango is a marching dance invented for movies and expensive dance schools.
RENEGADE EYE
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Condemn the brutal stoning to death of Doa - a young girl whose only crime was to fall in love
To sign this petition, Click here.
Doa was stoned to death in the centre of the town of Bashiqa, Iraqi Kurdistan, in front of hundreds of people and the authorities did not prevent this crime from happening. On the contrary, they were present and paving the way for this horrific crime to be carried out.
Doa was a 17 year old girl from a family of Yazidi faith; she was snatched from her house by some Yazidi men who discovered that she was in love with a Muslim Arab man and had visited him. They stoned her to death in public on 7th April 2007 in the town of Bashiqa.
It is known that women in Kurdistan and Iraq are oppressed. The few rights they do have are very limited and in most cases they are treated as sub-humans.
Killings, suicide, and violence against women are an every day occurrence in this region. Although a crime of this nature is very new to Kurdistan, this is an indication that such crimes against women are now tolerated. Doa’s killers are still free.
The government’s failure to protect women, and enforce laws against criminals, has created a situation where thousands of women become victims of so called “honour killings”. Violence has risen as result of patriarchal and religious traditions.
We strongly condemn this barbaric act, and call upon all human rights and women’s rights organisations, political parties, and activists in Kurdistan and globally to condemn this crime.
In the 21st century, for such crimes to be carried out in broad daylight is not only a shame on society as whole, but most of all, it is a shame on a government that is unable to protect women from such inhumane and backward practices. The stoning of Doa sets a dangerous precedent for more women to become victims of stoning.
We hold the Kurdistan Regional Government responsible for the lives and protection of women in this region, and we believe that the brutalisation and victimisation of women must come to an end.
We the undersigned therefore demand:
That the Kurdistan Regional Government brings the killers to justice and punishes them.
The Kurdistan regional Government should set laws against terror, killings and oppression of women, and punish criminals.
To avoid this barbaric crime from becoming a norm and a practice in Kurdish society, the Kurdistan Regional Government should criminalise stoning to death.
The initiators of this campaign are:
Houzan Mahmoud: Representative abroad of Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq and campaign coordinator
Raga Rauf: Writer and women’s rights activist and campaign coordinator
Samera Mohammed: Editor of Rasan women’s newspaper in Kurdistan
Yanar Mohammed: President Of Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq
Aram Ali: Coordinator of the Kurdish website
Baker Ahmad: Writer and poet
Dler Colnadar: member of executive board of CHAK organisation
Omar Faris: coordinator of a Kurdish website
Dina Nammi: International Campaign against Honour Killings
Amal Almas: (Iraqi Women’s League) Gothenburg -Sweden
Federation of Workers councils and unions in Iraq/ Kurdistan representative
Chro Sabir: Director of Rasan women’s organisation in Kurdistan
Hana Shwan: Journalist and women’s rights activist in Kurdistan
Hamza Abd: The Iraqi Cultural House in Gothenburg-Sweden
To join this campaign or to show your support pleases contact: Campaign Coordinators: Houzan Mahmoud and Rega Rauf.
Maryam Namazie
Thursday, May 03, 2007
The Rule of Law or The Power of The President?
Noted conservative professor at harvard Univercity Harvey C. Mansfield, wrote an Op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled The Case for the Strong Executive, which lays the foundation for modern mainstream conservatism. The article was an honest account of the theory behind the Bush presidency and the larger conservative movement.
The Nixon Doctrine. "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Glenn Greenwald at salon.com summarized Mansfield's article: [R]eading Mansfield has real value for understanding the dominant right-wing movement in this country. Because he is an academic, and a quite intelligent one, he makes intellectually honest arguments, by which I mean that he does not disguise what he thinks in politically palatable slogans, but instead really describes the actual premises on which political beliefs are based.
And that is Mansfield's value; he is a clear and honest embodiment of what the Bush movement is. In particular, he makes crystal clear that the so-called devotion to a "strong executive" by the Bush administration and the movement which supports it is nothing more than a belief that the Leader has the power to disregard, violate, and remain above the rule of law. And that is clear because Mansfied explicitly says that. And that is not just Mansfield's idiosyncratic belief. He is simply stating -- honestly and clearly -- the necessary premises of the model of the Omnipotent Presidency which has taken root under the Bush presidency.
Could you imagine the furor that would occur, if this was written by Hugo Chavez?
RENEGADE EYE
The Nixon Doctrine. "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Glenn Greenwald at salon.com summarized Mansfield's article: [R]eading Mansfield has real value for understanding the dominant right-wing movement in this country. Because he is an academic, and a quite intelligent one, he makes intellectually honest arguments, by which I mean that he does not disguise what he thinks in politically palatable slogans, but instead really describes the actual premises on which political beliefs are based.
And that is Mansfield's value; he is a clear and honest embodiment of what the Bush movement is. In particular, he makes crystal clear that the so-called devotion to a "strong executive" by the Bush administration and the movement which supports it is nothing more than a belief that the Leader has the power to disregard, violate, and remain above the rule of law. And that is clear because Mansfied explicitly says that. And that is not just Mansfield's idiosyncratic belief. He is simply stating -- honestly and clearly -- the necessary premises of the model of the Omnipotent Presidency which has taken root under the Bush presidency.
Could you imagine the furor that would occur, if this was written by Hugo Chavez?
RENEGADE EYE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)