The Simultaneous Policy - Voting for Global Peace & Justice: "Use Your Vote to
Take Back the World!
Adopt the Simultaneous Policy.
If you're tired of being 'anti- anti- anti-'� anti-globalization, anti-unfair trade, anti-unilateralism, and anti-1001 other things that are wrong with the world today � adopt SP and exercise your ability to be for a new world order founded on international cooperation and goodwill.
The Simultaneous Policy has as its ultimate aim the transformation of the international economy such that it operates in harmony with the global natural environment and with the needs of human nature.
John Bunzl
Founder & Director, International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)"
I have signed up to SIMPOL and recommend it to readers of this blog. Press your MP to adopt it as part of his bid to be elected.
If we are to have an effect globally we must think and act locally.
Do it NOW!
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind
Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind: "Our most prodigious thinkers have seen us, humanity, as the culmination of creation, and this may be an acceptable view if we somehow fulfill our creative destiny. But there may be very little time, really, for growing up and reaching for the best we can be. The Earth, the beautifully balanced ecosystem, is badly damaged already from our point of view (whenever we look beyond the ends of our material noses to our future). Ironically and sadly, all the responsibility for the damage is ours -- we have grown too quickly capable and too slowly wise -- and rescue and repair are up to us, entirely.
We are not, thank goodness, utterly without insight. A small number of voices have always spoken out to teach, and to urge necessary actions. Here, a poignant and striking, terribly clear description of where we are and what we must now do, is presented as Four Prophecies given in 1920 by the American Indian medicine man, Stalking Wolf.
And here, a more recent note expressing a deeply felt dismay that we can hope will stimulate more and more of us to turn away from the Mauling of America that we have been teaching ourselves as if it were a good way of life. "
I have been agitating about how bad things are. The current solutions offered by our politicians will not save our planet. But just as our potential to destroy has increased remarkably, our potential to create has increased vastly also. Many of us felt dispirited when vast marches of the people of the planet could not stop the war crimes of Bush and Blair, and that 2 million of us marching through London nade no difference at all.
Take a look at the science of this project for Global Consciousness. We can make a difference, a creative difference.
We are not, thank goodness, utterly without insight. A small number of voices have always spoken out to teach, and to urge necessary actions. Here, a poignant and striking, terribly clear description of where we are and what we must now do, is presented as Four Prophecies given in 1920 by the American Indian medicine man, Stalking Wolf.
And here, a more recent note expressing a deeply felt dismay that we can hope will stimulate more and more of us to turn away from the Mauling of America that we have been teaching ourselves as if it were a good way of life. "
I have been agitating about how bad things are. The current solutions offered by our politicians will not save our planet. But just as our potential to destroy has increased remarkably, our potential to create has increased vastly also. Many of us felt dispirited when vast marches of the people of the planet could not stop the war crimes of Bush and Blair, and that 2 million of us marching through London nade no difference at all.
Take a look at the science of this project for Global Consciousness. We can make a difference, a creative difference.
DU Death Toll
DU Death TollIt was the sight of the unborn children of Iraq, turned into alien monsters by the depleted uranium used on them during the first Gulf War that shifted me from therapy to political activism.
But it was not just the children of a foreign country who suffered. The depleted uranium did not check out political affiliation before doing its obscene work.
America's own cannon fodder, its own troops are now dying too.
It is our leaders who have perpetrated this crime.
Do we want to destroy our world, or do we stop these unnecessary wars.
Right now we are destroying our world very rapidly.
But it was not just the children of a foreign country who suffered. The depleted uranium did not check out political affiliation before doing its obscene work.
America's own cannon fodder, its own troops are now dying too.
It is our leaders who have perpetrated this crime.
Do we want to destroy our world, or do we stop these unnecessary wars.
Right now we are destroying our world very rapidly.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Study highlights global decline
BBC NEWS Science/Nature Study highlights global decline
This is very fundamental news. It cannot get much more official or much more plain. If we do not make significant changes in how we live, there is no future for our children or our childrens' children. The changes that are undermining our core ecosystems are not reversible within a human time scale.
So lets exploit what is left and die happy, huh!
This is very fundamental news. It cannot get much more official or much more plain. If we do not make significant changes in how we live, there is no future for our children or our childrens' children. The changes that are undermining our core ecosystems are not reversible within a human time scale.
So lets exploit what is left and die happy, huh!
War Poem: John Bolton's limerick copied from the Independent
Enlightened by Dubya's epistle
Blair sexed up Iraq's old scud missile
And took us to war
On a page of A4
But never found anything fissile
This sums it up amazingly well!
Blair sexed up Iraq's old scud missile
And took us to war
On a page of A4
But never found anything fissile
This sums it up amazingly well!
Political science, as found on the web.
"A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of
the heaviest chemical yet known to science. This new element has been
tentatively named "Governmentium".
Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy
neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass
of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called
peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it
can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take
over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a
second.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of four years; it does not decay
but instead, it undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists
to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
certain quantity in concentration. This hypocritical quantity is
referred to as "Critical Morass." You will know it when you see it.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element which radiates just as much energy since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons."
the heaviest chemical yet known to science. This new element has been
tentatively named "Governmentium".
Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy
neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass
of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called
peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it
can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take
over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a
second.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of four years; it does not decay
but instead, it undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists
to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
certain quantity in concentration. This hypocritical quantity is
referred to as "Critical Morass." You will know it when you see it.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element which radiates just as much energy since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons."
Sunday, March 27, 2005
VIDEO: Watch Lecture last Tuesday by Noam Chomsky at University of Edinburgh (mparent7777.blog-city.com)
VIDEO: Watch Lecture last Tuesday by Noam Chomsky at University of Edinburgh (mparent7777.blog-city.com)Chomsky almost alone brought the world's attention to genocide in East Timor. Here he exposes the war crimes of NATO in invading Serbia. Did you know that in 1945 war crimes were fefined in terms of what the other guy did that we did not? Carpet bombing of cities is not a war crime because we did more of it than the Nazis.Ok! Cosovo set the presedent for Iraq. It was not justified. Watch this video. It is important, intellectually morally spiritually. Don't expect to find it easy to take. We are not the good guys. We never were.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Time to sacrifice yourself for the party Mr Blair!
BBC NEWS In Pictures In pictures: Good Friday
The net is closing in on Blair. But the man is an eel, rather than a good Christian fish. He may be able to squirm through a loop hole once again.
Rowan Williams had the “thought for the day” on the BBC this morning. Sadly this slot is often pretty mindless. But our local man, who follows in the footsteps of those other fisher men, spoke of the murdered Archbishop Romero, a man who dared to confront tyranny and oppression. It shocked the world and exposed corruption, lies and deceit. But only Christ’s death could redeem it, he assured us. So he was not offering to die himself in order to get rid of Blair then!
C….y has other important residents in the news, however. Malcolm Harper lives just down the road, and it was his turn on “Today” earlier this week. He is the United Nations Association spokesperson in this country, and was invited to discuss new plans for UN reform.
On air he was very amenable to U.S. needs, post 911. But at the meeting I went to in C….y yesterday, with David Cameron, our MP, his tone was very different. Vicious neo-con red necks, was his comment on Bush and company. Very true, very true.
Cameron bowed to Malcolm’s greater depth of knowledge and understanding of the UN, but also showed a remarkable breadth of knowledge himself. He said little about Iraq. But he hoped that the toppling of Saddam would be judged a good thing in the end as democracy spreads. One thing he said was curious; the last century was about the fight between Communism and Fascism. I asked him if the Fascists had won. It had him rephrasing himself very fast. He wanted to say ideology was dead. But the Fascists are winning. Both parties want to renege on parts of the European Convention on Human Rights before the signature is fully dry on the paper.
What really matters this week is the “smoking gun,” as the Independent calls it. Goldsmith definitely did not think the war was legal before March 7. He panicked when Wilmshurst’s opinion became public, and asked the other Foreign Office lawyers to go against her. They refused.
The opinion we do know about, that a combination of UN resolutions taken together added up to a legal case for war was always dubious. If the earlier ones sanctioned taking Bagdad, why did the old coalition draw back when they could have done it. If 1441 sanctioned war, why did Britain try so hard to get a resolution that would sanction war? It is almost universally accepted that “serious consequences” does not sanction full scale invasion. Other countries breech UN resolutions without having us invade them. The Generals say they were given just three lines to give legal sanction to their shock and awe.
The key requirement Goldsmith made on Blair was proof that Saddam was still in breech of the resolutions. Blair gave it to him and then he gave it to all of us.
Then Butler made it plain that Blair had no right to make those claims. The evidence was not there. It is surely because of the importance of this lie that Blair held onto the myth of Saddam’s WMD long after every other man and woman on the planet knew it was a lie.
Blair still hides behind others mistakes. The intelligence was faulty. He acted in Good Faith.
Then there is Kelly. It was so important to use Kelly against the BBC. He was bullied into being a weapon against Dyke and Gilligan. But then he turned out to be a bullet stuck in the barrel, blowing up in their faces. What other damage could he have done them had he lived? We will never know.
For some bizarre reason we are then allowed a public enquiry into his death that is rigged from the start. Hutton never even looked seriously into the means of his death, which the great majority of expert doctors in the field think cannot have been suicide.
Hutton killed off the threat from the BBC. But the WMD problem refused to die. So Butler was brought in. But the opposition refused to be wrapped up in this red tape apart from one fat bumbling Tory, who ended up representing no one but himself.
Butler did a devastating job. But his remit did not allow him to fire the gun he was holding up. Incredibly, no one else understood the firing mechanism either. The intelligence services took the wrap.
But the problem has still not gone away. Your own Governments top legal expert has judged your war a “Crime of Aggression”, Mr Blair. The secretary General of the UN has called your war “illegal.” You have only a tiny Goldsmithed fig leaf left covering the nakedness of your big lie to the people of this country.
Yes, and we all know now that Goldsmith was leaned on by the Americans very hard, when he went over there just before the war. He seems never to have made a full legal justification for the war, beyond the one page document.
Confessions, especially confessions of a change in legality of war, when made under torture, are not legal, are they, Mr Blair? But maybe they are if it is all part of the war on terror. It was only torture-light in Goldsmith’s case. He looks like a bit of a pushover, doesn't he?
The net is closing in on Blair. But the man is an eel, rather than a good Christian fish. He may be able to squirm through a loop hole once again.
Rowan Williams had the “thought for the day” on the BBC this morning. Sadly this slot is often pretty mindless. But our local man, who follows in the footsteps of those other fisher men, spoke of the murdered Archbishop Romero, a man who dared to confront tyranny and oppression. It shocked the world and exposed corruption, lies and deceit. But only Christ’s death could redeem it, he assured us. So he was not offering to die himself in order to get rid of Blair then!
C….y has other important residents in the news, however. Malcolm Harper lives just down the road, and it was his turn on “Today” earlier this week. He is the United Nations Association spokesperson in this country, and was invited to discuss new plans for UN reform.
On air he was very amenable to U.S. needs, post 911. But at the meeting I went to in C….y yesterday, with David Cameron, our MP, his tone was very different. Vicious neo-con red necks, was his comment on Bush and company. Very true, very true.
Cameron bowed to Malcolm’s greater depth of knowledge and understanding of the UN, but also showed a remarkable breadth of knowledge himself. He said little about Iraq. But he hoped that the toppling of Saddam would be judged a good thing in the end as democracy spreads. One thing he said was curious; the last century was about the fight between Communism and Fascism. I asked him if the Fascists had won. It had him rephrasing himself very fast. He wanted to say ideology was dead. But the Fascists are winning. Both parties want to renege on parts of the European Convention on Human Rights before the signature is fully dry on the paper.
What really matters this week is the “smoking gun,” as the Independent calls it. Goldsmith definitely did not think the war was legal before March 7. He panicked when Wilmshurst’s opinion became public, and asked the other Foreign Office lawyers to go against her. They refused.
The opinion we do know about, that a combination of UN resolutions taken together added up to a legal case for war was always dubious. If the earlier ones sanctioned taking Bagdad, why did the old coalition draw back when they could have done it. If 1441 sanctioned war, why did Britain try so hard to get a resolution that would sanction war? It is almost universally accepted that “serious consequences” does not sanction full scale invasion. Other countries breech UN resolutions without having us invade them. The Generals say they were given just three lines to give legal sanction to their shock and awe.
The key requirement Goldsmith made on Blair was proof that Saddam was still in breech of the resolutions. Blair gave it to him and then he gave it to all of us.
Then Butler made it plain that Blair had no right to make those claims. The evidence was not there. It is surely because of the importance of this lie that Blair held onto the myth of Saddam’s WMD long after every other man and woman on the planet knew it was a lie.
Blair still hides behind others mistakes. The intelligence was faulty. He acted in Good Faith.
Then there is Kelly. It was so important to use Kelly against the BBC. He was bullied into being a weapon against Dyke and Gilligan. But then he turned out to be a bullet stuck in the barrel, blowing up in their faces. What other damage could he have done them had he lived? We will never know.
For some bizarre reason we are then allowed a public enquiry into his death that is rigged from the start. Hutton never even looked seriously into the means of his death, which the great majority of expert doctors in the field think cannot have been suicide.
Hutton killed off the threat from the BBC. But the WMD problem refused to die. So Butler was brought in. But the opposition refused to be wrapped up in this red tape apart from one fat bumbling Tory, who ended up representing no one but himself.
Butler did a devastating job. But his remit did not allow him to fire the gun he was holding up. Incredibly, no one else understood the firing mechanism either. The intelligence services took the wrap.
But the problem has still not gone away. Your own Governments top legal expert has judged your war a “Crime of Aggression”, Mr Blair. The secretary General of the UN has called your war “illegal.” You have only a tiny Goldsmithed fig leaf left covering the nakedness of your big lie to the people of this country.
Yes, and we all know now that Goldsmith was leaned on by the Americans very hard, when he went over there just before the war. He seems never to have made a full legal justification for the war, beyond the one page document.
Confessions, especially confessions of a change in legality of war, when made under torture, are not legal, are they, Mr Blair? But maybe they are if it is all part of the war on terror. It was only torture-light in Goldsmith’s case. He looks like a bit of a pushover, doesn't he?
What the Butler saw! We must all see it now.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Iraq war haunts UK prime minister
An MP claimed that some middle class people would not vote Labour again till Blair resigns. The latest poll shows just one point between the parties.The Independent calls it the smoking gun. It may not be as significant as the Zinoviev letter, but the leak of Blair's attempt to censor Wilmshurst's resignation exposure of Goldsmiths' wandering mind is stirring the war agnda very hard as the run up to the election nears the starting gun. Butler saw the advice. Now the Information Commissioner will see it. But it is essential we all see it so we can decide for ourselves whether Blair can lead his party into another election. If the polls start to go wrong for Labour they might just ditch him now. He has already admitted he is a liablility rather than an asset.
An MP claimed that some middle class people would not vote Labour again till Blair resigns. The latest poll shows just one point between the parties.The Independent calls it the smoking gun. It may not be as significant as the Zinoviev letter, but the leak of Blair's attempt to censor Wilmshurst's resignation exposure of Goldsmiths' wandering mind is stirring the war agnda very hard as the run up to the election nears the starting gun. Butler saw the advice. Now the Information Commissioner will see it. But it is essential we all see it so we can decide for ourselves whether Blair can lead his party into another election. If the polls start to go wrong for Labour they might just ditch him now. He has already admitted he is a liablility rather than an asset.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Was the 45 minute lie used to convince the Attorney General?
BBC NEWS Politics Butler shows BBC was right - Dyke: "Lord Hutton cleared the government of inserting material it 'probably knew to be wrong' - including claims Iraq could launch WMD in 45 minutes - in the dossier. as claimed in a BBC report.
Mr Dyke said: 'Dr Kelly's allegation was that Downing Street had 'sexed up' the documents, i.e. that they had removed the caveats about the 45 minutes.
'We now know the caveats were removed. We are now told by Butler they should not have been removed.
'But nobody is telling us who removed them.' "
We all know who is responsible, but we don't know anyone who can hold him to account. The electorate don't seem to care at the moment. Blair still has an eight point lead in the latest polls.
Mr Dyke said: 'Dr Kelly's allegation was that Downing Street had 'sexed up' the documents, i.e. that they had removed the caveats about the 45 minutes.
'We now know the caveats were removed. We are now told by Butler they should not have been removed.
'But nobody is telling us who removed them.' "
We all know who is responsible, but we don't know anyone who can hold him to account. The electorate don't seem to care at the moment. Blair still has an eight point lead in the latest polls.
Where are the other Wilmshursts? What has happened to law under Blair?
BBC NEWS Politics Wilmshurst resignation letter: "I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law. "
This war was a crime of aggression.
The Foreign Office are the experts on International Law.
The attorney General is an expert in other things. He had to go far and wide to find an expert who would tell him that the old UN resolutions were enough to justify war.
The legal advice from all sides was very clear that the second resolution was needed. That is why even America tried to bully it's way to one.
Last night someone uncovered the blanked out part of this resignation letter where the Attorney General's change of mind is challenged.
How much longer will it take for someone to tell us the truth about the original advice on the legality of war, and more importantly why it changed at the point where it became clear there would be no second resolution?
The election is coming. It is time to start building irresistible pressure to be told the truth.
We know that Bush-Blair believe that you can go on telling an enormous lie till it is accepted as truth.
We need to go on confronting that lie till it has no more force than Saddam's weapons.
This war was a crime of aggression.
The Foreign Office are the experts on International Law.
The attorney General is an expert in other things. He had to go far and wide to find an expert who would tell him that the old UN resolutions were enough to justify war.
The legal advice from all sides was very clear that the second resolution was needed. That is why even America tried to bully it's way to one.
Last night someone uncovered the blanked out part of this resignation letter where the Attorney General's change of mind is challenged.
How much longer will it take for someone to tell us the truth about the original advice on the legality of war, and more importantly why it changed at the point where it became clear there would be no second resolution?
The election is coming. It is time to start building irresistible pressure to be told the truth.
We know that Bush-Blair believe that you can go on telling an enormous lie till it is accepted as truth.
We need to go on confronting that lie till it has no more force than Saddam's weapons.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
BBC NEWS | Politics | In quotes: Blair and Iraq weapons
Well done the BBC. Follow this link to the whole sorry story of Blair and WMD.
Sorry! Did I say sorry?
I never said that.
Well, yes, he did say he was sorry. He was sorry the story was not true. Sorry for taking us to war and killing thousands of people on a false premise? No chance!
Saddam had destroyed the bombs we sold to him to kill Iranians. But George and Tony still have depleted uranium shells to go and destroy or poison the land of whatever country has not yet found out how to rig an election properly.
And if China creates a problem they have an awful lot of bigtime WMD. Can we trust them with the future of the planet?
No!
Sorry! Did I say sorry?
I never said that.
Well, yes, he did say he was sorry. He was sorry the story was not true. Sorry for taking us to war and killing thousands of people on a false premise? No chance!
Saddam had destroyed the bombs we sold to him to kill Iranians. But George and Tony still have depleted uranium shells to go and destroy or poison the land of whatever country has not yet found out how to rig an election properly.
And if China creates a problem they have an awful lot of bigtime WMD. Can we trust them with the future of the planet?
No!
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Beware of political Christians! The Jesus Frekes are on the move
I quote from an egroup member who picked up this book the other day.
"In"Jesus and the Lost Goddess", by Freke and Gandy, very near the end this appears:
" Religion is the devil's greatest achievement. In the guise of religion he has pulled off his most audacious coup. He has flagrantly masqueraded as G-d. He has had us bow down and worship him. He has had us commit every type of evil in the name of holiness. He has passed off his bigotry as G-d's opinions. He has had us segregate humanity into the "ins" and the "outs" believers and unbelievers, the saved and the damned. He has convinced us that G-d likes us, but not them. And convinced them that G-d likes them and not us. And, in the stroke of dark brilliance, he warns his faithful flock of sheep to "be sure you do not heed to anyone but me, for the Devil is a wily wolf and he will surely trick you."
The original Christians exposed the Devil in disguise.....Not that the Devil was overly perturbed. He just did what he always does- he put into effect a takeover of the new spiritual tradition these radicals had founded., turning Christianity into the most authoritarian and barbaric religion of all time."
With even Rowan Williams entering the debate on abortion, we may be on the verge of the religious right invading this country on the back of the red neck burning Bush.
Having raised the abortion issue, however, Howard wants to drop it again.
Well, we don't want a serious debate on anything, now do we?
"In"Jesus and the Lost Goddess", by Freke and Gandy, very near the end this appears:
" Religion is the devil's greatest achievement. In the guise of religion he has pulled off his most audacious coup. He has flagrantly masqueraded as G-d. He has had us bow down and worship him. He has had us commit every type of evil in the name of holiness. He has passed off his bigotry as G-d's opinions. He has had us segregate humanity into the "ins" and the "outs" believers and unbelievers, the saved and the damned. He has convinced us that G-d likes us, but not them. And convinced them that G-d likes them and not us. And, in the stroke of dark brilliance, he warns his faithful flock of sheep to "be sure you do not heed to anyone but me, for the Devil is a wily wolf and he will surely trick you."
The original Christians exposed the Devil in disguise.....Not that the Devil was overly perturbed. He just did what he always does- he put into effect a takeover of the new spiritual tradition these radicals had founded., turning Christianity into the most authoritarian and barbaric religion of all time."
With even Rowan Williams entering the debate on abortion, we may be on the verge of the religious right invading this country on the back of the red neck burning Bush.
Having raised the abortion issue, however, Howard wants to drop it again.
Well, we don't want a serious debate on anything, now do we?
Monday, March 21, 2005
MI6 chief told PM: Americans �fixed� case for war - Sunday Times - Times Online
The evidence is extensive, detailed and authoritative, Blair lied to us all about WMD and the reasons for going to war.
Today another BBC documentary will cover the old ground with new information from M16. what baffles me is why Blair was not forced to resign when he plagiarised a ten year old PhD thesis from a student's dissertation on the internet for his other dodgy dossier, when people like Kelly had to die to cover the lies in the other one.
Plagiarising is a very serious crime for a student these days. You get kicked off your course. But if you are prime minister we just shrug and move on.
It is time to move on to another Prime Minister, one who is not a lier.
Today another BBC documentary will cover the old ground with new information from M16. what baffles me is why Blair was not forced to resign when he plagiarised a ten year old PhD thesis from a student's dissertation on the internet for his other dodgy dossier, when people like Kelly had to die to cover the lies in the other one.
Plagiarising is a very serious crime for a student these days. You get kicked off your course. But if you are prime minister we just shrug and move on.
It is time to move on to another Prime Minister, one who is not a lier.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Bush stole the election again
If even Fox is following the story of electoral fraud in the US then maybe Bush should start to worry about election robbery. (see below) With all sorts of worries about New Labours plans for postal voting we need to be very vigilant here!
VOTING RIGHTS HEROINES BEV HARRIS & DONNA FRYE JOIN FORCES IN SAN DIEGO
When Beverly Harris of Black Box Voting (BBV) came to town recently, even our local Fox TV station carried the story. Fox’s local station actually broadcast film footage of a chimpanzee hacking into a Diebold GEMS central tabulating system—the same system used here n San Diego County. “Has there been monkeying around with our votes?” a reporter asked, as the chimp trained by Harris demonstrated just how easily votes can be changed electronically—without leaving a trace of evidence.
Donna Frye served as the warm-up act for Harris at San Diego’s Unitarian Universalist Church. “Even though we have the right to vote, we do not have the right to have our vote counted,” the Democratic write-in mayoral candidate said.
VOTING RIGHTS HEROINES BEV HARRIS & DONNA FRYE JOIN FORCES IN SAN DIEGO
When Beverly Harris of Black Box Voting (BBV) came to town recently, even our local Fox TV station carried the story. Fox’s local station actually broadcast film footage of a chimpanzee hacking into a Diebold GEMS central tabulating system—the same system used here n San Diego County. “Has there been monkeying around with our votes?” a reporter asked, as the chimp trained by Harris demonstrated just how easily votes can be changed electronically—without leaving a trace of evidence.
Donna Frye served as the warm-up act for Harris at San Diego’s Unitarian Universalist Church. “Even though we have the right to vote, we do not have the right to have our vote counted,” the Democratic write-in mayoral candidate said.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
SocietyGuardian.co.uk | Society | Childhood betrayed
SocietyGuardian.co.uk Society Childhood betrayed: "Universal childcare, a project even more overdue than Mrs Hodge's resignation, is the big idea, but the detail remains unclear. The Chancellor, the prime mover in trying to stamp out child poverty by 2020, is likely to want to target money at the worst-off, while Blairites are said to favour more paid maternity leave and tax breaks for parents employing nannies.
The largesse, however it is shared out, masks the tiny significance still accorded to rights and needs. Despite UN censure, children lack protections adults regard as sacrosanct. Smacking is, disgracefully, still legal (quite rightly in Mrs Hodge's view), 10-year-olds are tried in adult courts and asylum-seekers' children are treated shockingly. The focus, after Victoria Climbie, is on reducing risk, but new laws, as well as old ones, are designed to shepherd children into the cold world of the forgotten.
Mrs Hodge's reign as the first Children's Minister has been disastrous. As this paper argued months ago, she should go. But if she is the wrong person, then the job, with its sparse powers, is also the wrong job. If children are to benefit from the spotlight suddenly turned on them, they need a better champion than any minor political figure, buffeted by self-interest and in thrall to others.
Young people must have an independent commissioner, as recommended in the Green Paper, plus a Cabinet Minister who can drive a series of reforms, from children's centres to a reshaped youth justice system to a human- rights revolution.
Otherwise, an even wider gulf will open between the spoiled and the deprived. For many Christmases to come, creative directors will dream up catchy advertising campaigns featuring child torture. And the culpable will rest in peace as more children die like like Joseph Scholes, their passing marked only by the epitaph of caring, joined-up governance: he was someone else's error.
mary.riddell@observer.co.uk"
Strong stuff here from Mary Riddell and the GUARDIAN. I can add an inside story from Islington in the 1970's. My first wife was a social worker in Islington then. She worked in a small patch as part of a good small team of dedicated competent social workers. Then along came Margaret Hodge with her New Labour Ideology. It was not enough to have small social work teams. Housing and social care had to be integrated. The social work teams were broken up, and the good staff left. The new integrated teams presided over a lot of abused children in care, whose plight was utterly ignored by Margaret Hodge.
She recently compounded her sins of the time by condemning one of those children, now an adult adviser to John Prescott, as very disturbed. She was forced to make a public apology. But Did Blair sack her as minister for children. No. She is one of his things. She stays and decides to spend our money on databases instead of quality child care services. As I have written in my last post, it is not the syatems that are faulty, it is the quality and competence of the people who are employed in them, and the lack of resources to make them work properly. Go on Margaret Hodge, lets have a universal database to track the development of people like us who don't want or need it, while the poor slip through the net as they always do.
Human Rights! lets smack it out of them.
The largesse, however it is shared out, masks the tiny significance still accorded to rights and needs. Despite UN censure, children lack protections adults regard as sacrosanct. Smacking is, disgracefully, still legal (quite rightly in Mrs Hodge's view), 10-year-olds are tried in adult courts and asylum-seekers' children are treated shockingly. The focus, after Victoria Climbie, is on reducing risk, but new laws, as well as old ones, are designed to shepherd children into the cold world of the forgotten.
Mrs Hodge's reign as the first Children's Minister has been disastrous. As this paper argued months ago, she should go. But if she is the wrong person, then the job, with its sparse powers, is also the wrong job. If children are to benefit from the spotlight suddenly turned on them, they need a better champion than any minor political figure, buffeted by self-interest and in thrall to others.
Young people must have an independent commissioner, as recommended in the Green Paper, plus a Cabinet Minister who can drive a series of reforms, from children's centres to a reshaped youth justice system to a human- rights revolution.
Otherwise, an even wider gulf will open between the spoiled and the deprived. For many Christmases to come, creative directors will dream up catchy advertising campaigns featuring child torture. And the culpable will rest in peace as more children die like like Joseph Scholes, their passing marked only by the epitaph of caring, joined-up governance: he was someone else's error.
mary.riddell@observer.co.uk"
Strong stuff here from Mary Riddell and the GUARDIAN. I can add an inside story from Islington in the 1970's. My first wife was a social worker in Islington then. She worked in a small patch as part of a good small team of dedicated competent social workers. Then along came Margaret Hodge with her New Labour Ideology. It was not enough to have small social work teams. Housing and social care had to be integrated. The social work teams were broken up, and the good staff left. The new integrated teams presided over a lot of abused children in care, whose plight was utterly ignored by Margaret Hodge.
She recently compounded her sins of the time by condemning one of those children, now an adult adviser to John Prescott, as very disturbed. She was forced to make a public apology. But Did Blair sack her as minister for children. No. She is one of his things. She stays and decides to spend our money on databases instead of quality child care services. As I have written in my last post, it is not the syatems that are faulty, it is the quality and competence of the people who are employed in them, and the lack of resources to make them work properly. Go on Margaret Hodge, lets have a universal database to track the development of people like us who don't want or need it, while the poor slip through the net as they always do.
Human Rights! lets smack it out of them.
The Observer | UK News | Child database 'will breach human rights'
The Observer | UK News | Child database 'will breach human rights' It is not only Blair and the new Home Secretary who are a threat to our Human Rights. The dreadful Margaret Hodge is on the attack too.
The Government wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on creating a database with every child’s details on it. I suspected that the Government was likely to try something like this, following our ordeal with the primary school. Not content to take away our political freedoms making every one of us a possible terrorist threat, they want to be free to intrude into our private lives at home. If every child matters, why tax parents of poor children more of their wealth than parents of rich children?
“Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has said that the plans, outlined in Every Child Matters, the government's green paper on improving child welfare, are in danger of being ruled illegal under European law and may not work in practice.
The government wants the database - which Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has said will cost several hundred million pounds to implement - to list the name, age, address, and educational and health backgrounds of every child in England and Wales. But in a highly detailed, 11-page submission to the education and skills select committee, Thomas has expressed technical and legal concerns which threaten the database's creation.
His chief fear is that the database breaches Article 8 of the convention, which states that somebody's personal information should be subject to strict rules governing their privacy and confidentiality.
In addition, Thomas said the government's decision to put the names of every child in England and Wales on the database was 'difficult to justify as a proportionate response'. As such, the size and scope of the government's plans for the database makes it likely they will breach the convention. “
It is Article 8 which has been violated in referring us to Social care without permission. Now everyone is going to be put in the same boat.
What is wrong with this idea, recommended by the judge in the Climbie case? Would it not solve all the child protection problems, if a database automatically shared all information between agencies relating to every child. It seems so sensible.
Those of us with longer memories will know that there have been many reports based on a string of Climbie’s. Each time proposals were made for better systems to ensure it never happened again. Each time it happens again, but worse. You cannot improve human relations with databases or any other systems.
Let us move back from the general to the particular. A teacher has concerns about the behaviour of our child. This is a serious matter. She thinks the child’s behaviour indicates lack of care, neglect or even abuse. “It was my duty to report it, and I would do it again,” says the teacher. The concerns are relayed to the parents, but they do not see that they are being challenged, because they are not challenged. Even when the behaviour support teacher is brought into the picture, there is no suggestion that the parents are at fault. It is never mentioned that we might be causing emotional problems for J. The head, the designated child protection officer is informed. She collects information and then pounces. She informs the parents that she has made the referral to Social Care. Her responsibility is fulfilled. After Climbie, you cannot be too careful.
The parents are angry. But everything is all right because the child is now protected. Except that there is no medical or social evidence that this child and this family require the state to interfere in their lives in this intrusive way. Even if they know it would be politically incorrect to say it publicly, the medical and social care staff know what abuse and neglect look like and this is not it. Their time has been wasted, and they are itching to say so. But they can’t. Under the new regulations it must be acceptable. But scarce precious resources are being wasted. Worse than that, the parents are falsely accused. They begin to show severe signs of distress. The doctor is more worried for the parents than for the child. But the child is protected. Well, no! The children are now under more stress, because the stress on their parents inevitably disturbs the peace of the household.
We come back to the data base issue. The costs of setting it up are vast, without even considering the problems of keeping it up to date and relevant. Putting money there would take it away from front line services; teachers, medical staff, social care staff. Both main political parties have promised to cut this kind of back room work to protect the face to face workers. Promises, promises!
Victoria Climbie did not die because agencies did not share information. There were failings in this respect, but they did not cause her death. Each of the agencies involved, police, medics, social care, all had seen enough to know she was not safe with her carers. There were several opportunities to intervene that were ignored. The Local Authority was culpable and has continued to fail its children as a more recent case shows. The scape-goated social worker should have acted on the information she had. She failed to do so. The new data base would not remedy this failure. Her supervisors were culpable, but all bar one continued in their posts. The case worker was under qualified to do such demanding case work, but had almost twice as many such cases as a well qualified worker should have done. If you spend the money on a data base you will have even less staff to do the real work.
We are a typical middle England middle class family. We provide better food than the school provides, better accommodation, better supervision, a higher ratio of adults to children. But expensive social work time is wasted on us. Why? Because of Victoria Climbie. No. She suffered horrendous violence, abuse and neglect and was left to die because child protection staff did not do their jobs. They were overworked and incompetent. They should have had better resourcing. The systems were there. The child would be alive today if those systems had been resourced and operated properly. It was the people who failed. In our case, the head lacks human relationship skills and her judgement is poor. She is the laughing stock of the town for her decision to close the school over non existent snow.
Instead of positive, helpful, parents she has a fight on to save her job, which she may well lose. I believe it is possible to train staff to deal with these sensitive issues for a lot less money than it will cost to set up and run this data base.
But New Labour prefers investing in technology to people. It is unwilling to learn from the failings of its other computer systems, as in the CSA.
Margaret Hodge, New Labour’s first Children’s Minister failed dismally to protect the children in her care in Islington, when she was in charge of early new labour there. We cannot expect any better from her here. She chose systems over people then. We should expect her to do the same again. (Please se separate Blog on Hodge).
The Government wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on creating a database with every child’s details on it. I suspected that the Government was likely to try something like this, following our ordeal with the primary school. Not content to take away our political freedoms making every one of us a possible terrorist threat, they want to be free to intrude into our private lives at home. If every child matters, why tax parents of poor children more of their wealth than parents of rich children?
“Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has said that the plans, outlined in Every Child Matters, the government's green paper on improving child welfare, are in danger of being ruled illegal under European law and may not work in practice.
The government wants the database - which Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has said will cost several hundred million pounds to implement - to list the name, age, address, and educational and health backgrounds of every child in England and Wales. But in a highly detailed, 11-page submission to the education and skills select committee, Thomas has expressed technical and legal concerns which threaten the database's creation.
His chief fear is that the database breaches Article 8 of the convention, which states that somebody's personal information should be subject to strict rules governing their privacy and confidentiality.
In addition, Thomas said the government's decision to put the names of every child in England and Wales on the database was 'difficult to justify as a proportionate response'. As such, the size and scope of the government's plans for the database makes it likely they will breach the convention. “
It is Article 8 which has been violated in referring us to Social care without permission. Now everyone is going to be put in the same boat.
What is wrong with this idea, recommended by the judge in the Climbie case? Would it not solve all the child protection problems, if a database automatically shared all information between agencies relating to every child. It seems so sensible.
Those of us with longer memories will know that there have been many reports based on a string of Climbie’s. Each time proposals were made for better systems to ensure it never happened again. Each time it happens again, but worse. You cannot improve human relations with databases or any other systems.
Let us move back from the general to the particular. A teacher has concerns about the behaviour of our child. This is a serious matter. She thinks the child’s behaviour indicates lack of care, neglect or even abuse. “It was my duty to report it, and I would do it again,” says the teacher. The concerns are relayed to the parents, but they do not see that they are being challenged, because they are not challenged. Even when the behaviour support teacher is brought into the picture, there is no suggestion that the parents are at fault. It is never mentioned that we might be causing emotional problems for J. The head, the designated child protection officer is informed. She collects information and then pounces. She informs the parents that she has made the referral to Social Care. Her responsibility is fulfilled. After Climbie, you cannot be too careful.
The parents are angry. But everything is all right because the child is now protected. Except that there is no medical or social evidence that this child and this family require the state to interfere in their lives in this intrusive way. Even if they know it would be politically incorrect to say it publicly, the medical and social care staff know what abuse and neglect look like and this is not it. Their time has been wasted, and they are itching to say so. But they can’t. Under the new regulations it must be acceptable. But scarce precious resources are being wasted. Worse than that, the parents are falsely accused. They begin to show severe signs of distress. The doctor is more worried for the parents than for the child. But the child is protected. Well, no! The children are now under more stress, because the stress on their parents inevitably disturbs the peace of the household.
We come back to the data base issue. The costs of setting it up are vast, without even considering the problems of keeping it up to date and relevant. Putting money there would take it away from front line services; teachers, medical staff, social care staff. Both main political parties have promised to cut this kind of back room work to protect the face to face workers. Promises, promises!
Victoria Climbie did not die because agencies did not share information. There were failings in this respect, but they did not cause her death. Each of the agencies involved, police, medics, social care, all had seen enough to know she was not safe with her carers. There were several opportunities to intervene that were ignored. The Local Authority was culpable and has continued to fail its children as a more recent case shows. The scape-goated social worker should have acted on the information she had. She failed to do so. The new data base would not remedy this failure. Her supervisors were culpable, but all bar one continued in their posts. The case worker was under qualified to do such demanding case work, but had almost twice as many such cases as a well qualified worker should have done. If you spend the money on a data base you will have even less staff to do the real work.
We are a typical middle England middle class family. We provide better food than the school provides, better accommodation, better supervision, a higher ratio of adults to children. But expensive social work time is wasted on us. Why? Because of Victoria Climbie. No. She suffered horrendous violence, abuse and neglect and was left to die because child protection staff did not do their jobs. They were overworked and incompetent. They should have had better resourcing. The systems were there. The child would be alive today if those systems had been resourced and operated properly. It was the people who failed. In our case, the head lacks human relationship skills and her judgement is poor. She is the laughing stock of the town for her decision to close the school over non existent snow.
Instead of positive, helpful, parents she has a fight on to save her job, which she may well lose. I believe it is possible to train staff to deal with these sensitive issues for a lot less money than it will cost to set up and run this data base.
But New Labour prefers investing in technology to people. It is unwilling to learn from the failings of its other computer systems, as in the CSA.
Margaret Hodge, New Labour’s first Children’s Minister failed dismally to protect the children in her care in Islington, when she was in charge of early new labour there. We cannot expect any better from her here. She chose systems over people then. We should expect her to do the same again. (Please se separate Blog on Hodge).
Lords vote against Blair's terror law - Yahoo! UK & Ireland News
Lords vote against Blair's terror law - Yahoo! UK & Ireland News: "'They have to be better than the awfulness of what is in this bill,' Helena Kennedy, a senior lawyer and peer in Blair's Labour party, said of the amendments.
Ministers must now decide whether to accept the changes or risk losing the bill entirely.
Blair is seeking to push the legislation through parliament by March 14, when current anti-terrorism powers allowing indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects expire.
The High court ruled late last year that those measures infringed basic rights and should be scrapped." helena Kennedy is a labour law lord who has been strongly opposed to this Blair Government on many issues. This time Blair's own mentor, the ex-Lord Chancellor Lord Irving came out against him. I had half expected the Tories to buckle in face of being seen as soft on terror. But this gross assault on Liberty has been beaten by over two to one. Parliament still works for us! But for how much longer?
Ministers must now decide whether to accept the changes or risk losing the bill entirely.
Blair is seeking to push the legislation through parliament by March 14, when current anti-terrorism powers allowing indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects expire.
The High court ruled late last year that those measures infringed basic rights and should be scrapped." helena Kennedy is a labour law lord who has been strongly opposed to this Blair Government on many issues. This time Blair's own mentor, the ex-Lord Chancellor Lord Irving came out against him. I had half expected the Tories to buckle in face of being seen as soft on terror. But this gross assault on Liberty has been beaten by over two to one. Parliament still works for us! But for how much longer?
The Observer | UK News | Child database 'will breach human rights'
The Observer | UK News | Child database 'will breach human rights': "The government wants the database - which Children's Minister Margaret Hodge has said will cost several hundred million pounds to implement - to list the name, age, address, and educational and health backgrounds of every child in England and Wales. But in a highly detailed, 11-page submission to the education and skills select committee, Thomas has expressed technical and legal concerns which threaten the database's creation.
His chief fear is that the database breaches Article 8 of the convention, which states that somebody's personal information should be subject to strict rules governing their privacy and confidentiality"
His chief fear is that the database breaches Article 8 of the convention, which states that somebody's personal information should be subject to strict rules governing their privacy and confidentiality"
Aljazeera.Net - Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair
Aljazeera.Net - Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair: "US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair deserve life sentences, with the possibility of parole after 25 years, for the war crimes and genocide in Iraq, according to a lawyers' panel.
Speaking on Monday at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, Kohki Abe, a professor of law at Kanagawa University, said they should face the 'maximum penalty available'." This may only be the first judgement made by a lawyers panel on Bush and Blair. It is unlikely to be the last. The Germans are already chasing Rumpsfeldt, who avoided going there recently. Groups are forming in Britain aimed at toppling Blair. He has acknowledged that he is already a liability to his party at the election. I would like to recommend the reader to visit stategicvoter.org.uk to see how it is possible to oppose Blair at the next election.
Speaking on Monday at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, Kohki Abe, a professor of law at Kanagawa University, said they should face the 'maximum penalty available'." This may only be the first judgement made by a lawyers panel on Bush and Blair. It is unlikely to be the last. The Germans are already chasing Rumpsfeldt, who avoided going there recently. Groups are forming in Britain aimed at toppling Blair. He has acknowledged that he is already a liability to his party at the election. I would like to recommend the reader to visit stategicvoter.org.uk to see how it is possible to oppose Blair at the next election.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Social and Educational Care UK
We went to view our file at Oxon Social Care yesterday.
The page-full of initial notes on possible neglect and abuse, based on the school's assessment has disappeared and been replaced by an almost empty one. We did not object. There are limits to my energy. My observations are recorded here publicly, at least. Hopefully, the offending notes have been destroyed. I still have an audio-file based on those notes, though. They were all things the social worker felt he needed to check out, based on a worse case scenario from the schools referral form. I will never forget the outrage this caused us.
All the reports from the three social care staff are very positive about us.
However, the school's original report is still there on file. I want the outcome of my complaints against the school put onto this file, which is due for closure now.
Social Care judge us to provide "good diet, clothing, and accommodation, a loving home, affectionate parenting, excellent access to books, toys and good social contacts. The children have a good social situation".
I must repeat that this was an inappropriate referral.
If these facts are now established, and they are, on what basis could the head claim a lack of even basic care and potential neglect? She left blank the section on absences from school, the key criterion for social exclusion. It would have looked very odd putting the truth there, that attendance was over 99%
There is a very serious case for the school to answer. If a head can seek to denigrate people as capable as we are, what has she been able to do with poor young inarticulate parents?
How much snow does she imagine on other peoples roof tops?
I met an ex-parent and member of staff at the school who had left the school and taken her children away to another local school after finding this head impossible. "If you displeased her she would not speak to you for days," she said. I also spoke to her children, who are very pleased with the move.
It was open day at school for C last night. He was assessed as level 5 in everything, and now he has become the social centre of the class. Pity the teacher is unwilling to set any more home work. G is covering that.
It is nine days since I submitted my complaint. I have not heard anything, officially, in response to it yet.
The page-full of initial notes on possible neglect and abuse, based on the school's assessment has disappeared and been replaced by an almost empty one. We did not object. There are limits to my energy. My observations are recorded here publicly, at least. Hopefully, the offending notes have been destroyed. I still have an audio-file based on those notes, though. They were all things the social worker felt he needed to check out, based on a worse case scenario from the schools referral form. I will never forget the outrage this caused us.
All the reports from the three social care staff are very positive about us.
However, the school's original report is still there on file. I want the outcome of my complaints against the school put onto this file, which is due for closure now.
Social Care judge us to provide "good diet, clothing, and accommodation, a loving home, affectionate parenting, excellent access to books, toys and good social contacts. The children have a good social situation".
I must repeat that this was an inappropriate referral.
If these facts are now established, and they are, on what basis could the head claim a lack of even basic care and potential neglect? She left blank the section on absences from school, the key criterion for social exclusion. It would have looked very odd putting the truth there, that attendance was over 99%
There is a very serious case for the school to answer. If a head can seek to denigrate people as capable as we are, what has she been able to do with poor young inarticulate parents?
How much snow does she imagine on other peoples roof tops?
I met an ex-parent and member of staff at the school who had left the school and taken her children away to another local school after finding this head impossible. "If you displeased her she would not speak to you for days," she said. I also spoke to her children, who are very pleased with the move.
It was open day at school for C last night. He was assessed as level 5 in everything, and now he has become the social centre of the class. Pity the teacher is unwilling to set any more home work. G is covering that.
It is nine days since I submitted my complaint. I have not heard anything, officially, in response to it yet.
a very christian country, a handy friend.
"The following countries (listed alphabetically) have been bombed by
the U.S. since the end of WW II: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia,
China, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Marshall Islands,
Nicaragua, North Korea, North Vietnam, Panama, Peru, Somalia, South
Korea, South Vietnam, Sudan,, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.
I think these twenty-eight are easily verifiable. There are
probably others, since there are many covert operations going on all
the time. Does anyone know of other countries that should be on
this list to make it more complete?"
George Desnoyers
Who will be next; Syria? Iran? There has been no evidence to show that Iraq was any kind of military threat to the US and the UK but we felt free to invade that country. It was opposed by the Archbishop of canterbury and the Pope. But who cares, the Christain God is a yankee God or a Tommy. Go on dump your depleted uranium on the children of Iraq.
When will people unite to stop these wars of agression?
If we do not do that the future looks very bleak for humanity.
the U.S. since the end of WW II: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia,
China, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Marshall Islands,
Nicaragua, North Korea, North Vietnam, Panama, Peru, Somalia, South
Korea, South Vietnam, Sudan,, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.
I think these twenty-eight are easily verifiable. There are
probably others, since there are many covert operations going on all
the time. Does anyone know of other countries that should be on
this list to make it more complete?"
George Desnoyers
Who will be next; Syria? Iran? There has been no evidence to show that Iraq was any kind of military threat to the US and the UK but we felt free to invade that country. It was opposed by the Archbishop of canterbury and the Pope. But who cares, the Christain God is a yankee God or a Tommy. Go on dump your depleted uranium on the children of Iraq.
When will people unite to stop these wars of agression?
If we do not do that the future looks very bleak for humanity.
http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/MichaelMeacher.htm
Many readers will not have understood about the Project for a New American Century. You may be inclined to think I am a nut case. Read below the observations of Mr Blair's Environment Minister. Meacher has become very radical since he jumped ship, on seeing how Blair was trying to impose GM crops on us. The BBc documentary in three parts was really good in exposing how the neo-cons invented the global terror threat. Now we are losing our civil liberties pandering to scam.
This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael MeacherSaturday September 6, 2003The Guardian
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
meacherm@parliament.uk
This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael MeacherSaturday September 6, 2003The Guardian
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
meacherm@parliament.uk
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Freedom under (law) Blair
After the berlin wall fell ... "For the first time in history since the apex of Roman rule, one nation and one government and one military ruled supreme over the known world. The movement conservatives, having lost communism as the main target for their energies and ire, turned inward and laid siege to their fellow citizens. The ultimate goal of this was to purge from debate and consideration anyone who did not approve of empire, and anyone who did not fit the Christian Reconstructionist mold they wished to build American society around.
The rise of George W. Bush, leader of the evangelical/political wing of American Christianity since 1996, to the office of the president has been the fulfillment of the dreams of movement conservatives. September 11 cemented their ascendancy. Now, permanent war and rule by fear are accepted without question. Now, the news media owned by the combine opens the public dialogue to these radicals while painting them as moderate, rational Americans. Now, the dominance of the military/industrial/petroleum combine is unquestioned. Now, the idea that America is engaged in a holy war has been widely disseminated." Rivers Pitt. Perhaps I should call this blog Bleary England today in honour of Hazel Blears, Blair's mouth piece of the moment. Our eyes and ears are being fogged up. We can no longer see simple truths clearly. Bare face lying can be shoved before us as fact. She is right when she says most people are behind the governements fear campaign, though. They are sleepwalkers. The junior Home office (Interior) Minister has been put up to defend the Government's decision to use the House of Commons as a rubber stamp for their bill to end Freedom under Law. I will not try to compete with many more skilled comentators than I, who have all pointed out that it is a gross insult to our political system to rush through a motion that ends our most essential political freedom in a few hours of debate. This is the ultimate proof that we, the electorate, need not consider ourselves as part of the political process. New Labour has a commons majority. Why bother with debate? It is the biggest turn off you could think of, in terms of political debate, when it should be the biggest wake up call. "No", says Blears, "Not rushed and ill thought through. It is swift!" Is this what happens to a woman when she moves ahead in Blairy England. I call it "mindless macha". If the Lords cannot turn the tide on this issue, we are all Blair's creatures. We will all be a part of the New American Century. The BBC no longer offers strong resistence. How long will it be before all the media loses independence here too?
The rise of George W. Bush, leader of the evangelical/political wing of American Christianity since 1996, to the office of the president has been the fulfillment of the dreams of movement conservatives. September 11 cemented their ascendancy. Now, permanent war and rule by fear are accepted without question. Now, the news media owned by the combine opens the public dialogue to these radicals while painting them as moderate, rational Americans. Now, the dominance of the military/industrial/petroleum combine is unquestioned. Now, the idea that America is engaged in a holy war has been widely disseminated." Rivers Pitt. Perhaps I should call this blog Bleary England today in honour of Hazel Blears, Blair's mouth piece of the moment. Our eyes and ears are being fogged up. We can no longer see simple truths clearly. Bare face lying can be shoved before us as fact. She is right when she says most people are behind the governements fear campaign, though. They are sleepwalkers. The junior Home office (Interior) Minister has been put up to defend the Government's decision to use the House of Commons as a rubber stamp for their bill to end Freedom under Law. I will not try to compete with many more skilled comentators than I, who have all pointed out that it is a gross insult to our political system to rush through a motion that ends our most essential political freedom in a few hours of debate. This is the ultimate proof that we, the electorate, need not consider ourselves as part of the political process. New Labour has a commons majority. Why bother with debate? It is the biggest turn off you could think of, in terms of political debate, when it should be the biggest wake up call. "No", says Blears, "Not rushed and ill thought through. It is swift!" Is this what happens to a woman when she moves ahead in Blairy England. I call it "mindless macha". If the Lords cannot turn the tide on this issue, we are all Blair's creatures. We will all be a part of the New American Century. The BBC no longer offers strong resistence. How long will it be before all the media loses independence here too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)