Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
polly7
polly7's Journal
polly7's Journal
December 2, 2015
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/were-all-paying-for-the-unaccountability-of-so-called-experts-who-screwed-up-the-world-economy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weisbrot
We’re All Paying for the Unaccountability of So-Called ‘Experts’ Who Screwed Up the World Economy
By Mark Weisbrot
Source: Alternet
December 2, 2015
It is necessary to say “previously well-developed” democratic institutions because the eurozone countries surrendered their sovereign rights to control their most important macroeconomic policies: first monetary and exchange rate policy, and then increasingly fiscal policy for the so-called PIIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain). As we will see, this was a profound loss of democratic governance, and one for which tens of millions of eurozone residents would pay dearly in the years following the world financial crisis and recession of 2008–2009, and for as yet untold years to come.
Most citizens of the euro area did not understand what they were losing when the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992, and the euro was introduced in 1999. You couldn’t see it until there was a serious recession—when the government really needed to use expansionary macroeconomic policies to restore growth and employment. Then we discovered that not only was the fate of most Europeans in the hands of people who were almost completely unaccountable to the electorate; it was worse than that. Power was now in the hands of people who had their own political and economic agenda, and who, as we shall demonstrate, saw the crisis as an opportunity to implement changes that could never be won at the ballot box.
To see the world of difference between unaccountable and partially accountable economic authorities, we need only compare the economic performance of the eurozone with that of the United States in the six years following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October 2008. The United States, which was the epicenter of what would become a world recession, had a downturn that lasted officially 18 months; its recession was declared over in June of 2009. To be sure, it was the worst US recession since the Great Depression, and more than four years after the recession ended, employment levels were almost the same as they were at the depth of the recession. The US recovery was nothing to brag about; only the vastly worse results in the eurozone could make it look good. By February 2014, the eurozone was still close to record unemployment of 12 percent (as compared with 6.7 percent in the US); and GDP had fallen in both 2012 and 2013. And in the harder hit countries like Greece and Spain, unemployment had passed 27 and 26 percent, respectively, while youth unemployment surpassed 58 and 53 percent.1
Most citizens of the euro area did not understand what they were losing when the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992, and the euro was introduced in 1999. You couldn’t see it until there was a serious recession—when the government really needed to use expansionary macroeconomic policies to restore growth and employment. Then we discovered that not only was the fate of most Europeans in the hands of people who were almost completely unaccountable to the electorate; it was worse than that. Power was now in the hands of people who had their own political and economic agenda, and who, as we shall demonstrate, saw the crisis as an opportunity to implement changes that could never be won at the ballot box.
To see the world of difference between unaccountable and partially accountable economic authorities, we need only compare the economic performance of the eurozone with that of the United States in the six years following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October 2008. The United States, which was the epicenter of what would become a world recession, had a downturn that lasted officially 18 months; its recession was declared over in June of 2009. To be sure, it was the worst US recession since the Great Depression, and more than four years after the recession ended, employment levels were almost the same as they were at the depth of the recession. The US recovery was nothing to brag about; only the vastly worse results in the eurozone could make it look good. By February 2014, the eurozone was still close to record unemployment of 12 percent (as compared with 6.7 percent in the US); and GDP had fallen in both 2012 and 2013. And in the harder hit countries like Greece and Spain, unemployment had passed 27 and 26 percent, respectively, while youth unemployment surpassed 58 and 53 percent.1
And public education is a big part of this story. It is a story in which most of the public—in Europe, the United States, and much of the world—has been continually misled as to the nature and causes of a festering economic problem. How else to explain how a crisis that originated from over-borrowing by the private sector was sold to the public as a problem caused by governments refusing to live within their means? It was then exacerbated by fiscal tightening, to the point of pushing the regional economy into years of recession and stagnation. The worsening crisis was then used to justify still more neoliberal policies—including cutting public pensions, shrinking the public sector, privatizations, and making it easier for employees to be fired. This sequence of escalating misery caused by government policy—accompanied by regressive structural reforms—can only happen if a broad swath of the public, including many journalists and politicians, is seriously confused as to what has gone wrong and what feasible economic alternatives are available.
But to understand how it happened we must also look at how the decision-makers—in this case the so-called troika—made their decisions, in large part independently of the citizenry’s views of what is right and wrong. For that we must turn to the financial crisis that began in early 2010.
But to understand how it happened we must also look at how the decision-makers—in this case the so-called troika—made their decisions, in large part independently of the citizenry’s views of what is right and wrong. For that we must turn to the financial crisis that began in early 2010.
At this point, even the bond markets, which traditionally rally when governments commit to budget tightening, started to become strangely Keynesian: bond prices would sometimes fall on news that Greece, for example, would implement further austerity. In November 2010, the Irish government became the second eurozone economy to sign an agreement with the IMF and the European authorities, after their 10-year bond yield had passed 8 percent. Portugal would be third, in May 2011. The dreaded agree- ments that had been, in past decades, the punishment meted out to low- and middle-income countries with balance of payments prob- lems, had now become the fate of high-income European nations. It was an artificial and unprecedented kind of “balance of payments” crisis: these were, after all, governments with a hard currency that could be created by “their” central bank. But the central bank wasn’t really theirs, unfortunately, and it wasn’t going to do what the central bank of the United States or even the United Kingdom was willing to do in order to contain the crisis: most importantly, contain the sovereign borrowing costs of the vulnerable countries. The crisis scenario that began in July 2011 went like this. The austerity, in combination with the slowing regional economy, was causing the Italian economy to grow slower or even shrink.
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/were-all-paying-for-the-unaccountability-of-so-called-experts-who-screwed-up-the-world-economy/
Mark Weisbrot is an American economist, columnist and co-director, with Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, D.C. As a pundit, he contributes to publications such as New York Times, the UK's The Guardian, and Brazil's largest newspaper, Folha de S. Paulo.
As an economist, Weisbrot has opposed privatization of the United States Social Security system and has been critical of globalization and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He has supported efforts by South American governments to create a Bank of the South, in order to make them more independent of the IMF. Weisbrot's work on Latin American countries (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela) has attracted national and international attention, and in 2008 was cited by Brazilian Foreign Secretary Celso Amorim.[1] In early 2010 Weisbrot's work on Latvia's economic crisis attracted national and international attention.
Weisbrot has several times contributed testimony to Congressional hearings, in 2002 to a House of Representatives committee, on Argentina's 1999–2002 economic crisis[2] and in 2004 to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the state of democracy in Venezuela, and on media representation of Hugo Chávez and of Chávez's Venezuela.[3]
Economist
Weisbrot received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan.[4][5] His 1993 thesis, Ideology And Method In the History of Development Economics[6] explains how the mainstream neoclassical economics model set boundaries for development economics and is presented in the perspective where "development economics can be seen as an attempt to break out of the boundaries delineated by the neoclassical project in order to understand the problems of underdeveloped countries".[4] The doctoral committee overlooking the thesis included political-economists W. H. Locke Anderson as the chair, Daniel R. Fusfeld and Thomas E. Weisskopf and historian Terrence J. McDonald.[4][5]
In 1999, he co-founded, together with economist Dean Baker, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives".[7] Weisbrot is co-author, with Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 1999). In the book, Weisbrot and Baker argue that much of the United States Social Security debate has been based on misconceptions, that privatization would be unlikely to improve the system, and that the system in fact performs satisfactorily and does not need fixing.[8]
Commenting on international matters, Weisbrot argues that globalization, as understood by the United States government and American lending institutions, has failed to live up to its promise of making poorer countries grow rich, stating that "no nation has ever pulled itself out of poverty under the conditions that Washington currently imposes on underdeveloped countries."[9][10] He has criticized the role played by the IMF[11] and has taken an active role in developing the Bank of the South, a joint project by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela spearheaded by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez and designed to make South America financially less dependent on the IMF and World Bank.[12][13] Weisbrot has been described as the intellectual architect behind the bank, and has provided some advice to countries seeking to take part in it.[14][15]
Weisbrot's work on Latin American countries (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela) has attracted national and international attention,[16][17][18][19][20][21] and in 2008 was cited by Brazilian Foreign Secretary Celso Amorim.[1] In early 2010 Weisbrot's work on Latvia's economic crisis attracted national[22][23][24] and international attention.[25][26][27]
Weisbrot is also the President of Just Foreign Policy, a non-governmental organization dedicated to reforming United States foreign policy.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weisbrot
December 2, 2015
Full artcile: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/do-war-makers-believe-their-own-propaganda/
Do War Makers Believe Their Own Propaganda?
By David Swanson
Source: Davidswanson.org
December 2, 2015
Pick up Rubenstein’s book if you want to read his elaboration on this list of reasons why people are brought around to supporting wars: 1. It’s self-defense; 2. The enemy is evil; 3. Not fighting will make us weak, humiliated, dishonored; 4. Patriotism; 5. Humanitarian duty; 6. Exceptionalism; 7. It’s a last resort.
Now, of course, most war supporters never put themselves within 10,000 miles of harm’s way, but certainly they believe a war is noble and just, either because the evil Muslims must be eradicated, or because the poor oppressed peoples must be liberated and rescued, or some combination. It is to the credit of war supporters that increasingly they have to believe wars are acts of philanthropy before they’ll support them. But why do they believe such bunk? They’re sold it by the propagandists, of course. Yes, scaremongering propagandists. In 2014 many people supported a war they had opposed in 2013, as a direct result of watching and hearing about beheading videos, not as a result of hearing a more coherent moral justification. In fact the story made even less sense in 2014 and involved either switching sides or taking both sides in the same war that had been pitched unsuccessfully the year before.
Rubenstein argues, rightly I think, that support for war arises not just out of a proximate incident (the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, the babies out of incubators fraud, the Spanish sinking the Maine fraud, etc.) but also out of a broader narrative that depicts an enemy as evil and threatening or an ally as in need. The famous WMD of 2003 really did exist in many countries, including the United States, but belief in the evil of Iraq meant not only that WMD were unacceptable there but also that Iraq itself was unacceptable whether or not the WMD existed. Bush was asked after the invasion why he’d made the claims he’d made about weapons, and he replied, “What’s the difference?” Saddam Hussein was evil, he said. End of story. Rubenstein is right, I think, that we should look at the underlying motivations, such as the belief in Iraq’s evil rather than in the WMDs. But the underlying motivation is even uglier than the surface justification, especially when the b elief is that the whole nation is evil. And recognizing the underlying motivation allows us to understand, for example, Colin Powell’s use of fabricated dialogue and false information in his UN presentation as dishonest. He didn’t believe his own propaganda; he wanted to keep his job.
According to Rubenstein, Bush and Cheney “clearly believed their own public statements.” Bush, remember, proposed to Tony Blair that they paint a U.S. plane with UN colors, fly it low, and try to get it shot. He then walked out to the press, with Blair, and said he was trying to avoid war. But he no doubt did partially believe some of his statements, and he shared with much of the U.S. public the idea that war is an acceptable tool of foreign policy. He shared in widespread xenophobia, bigotry, and belief in the redemptive power of mass murder. He shared faith in war technology. He shared the desire to disbelieve in the causation of anti-U.S. sentiment by past U.S. actions. In those senses, we cannot say that a propagandist reversed the public’s beliefs. People were manipulated by the multiplication of the terror of 9/11 into months of terrorizing in the media. They were deprived of basic facts by their schools and newspapers. But to suggest actual honesty on the part of war makers is going too far.
Rubenstein argues, rightly I think, that support for war arises not just out of a proximate incident (the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, the babies out of incubators fraud, the Spanish sinking the Maine fraud, etc.) but also out of a broader narrative that depicts an enemy as evil and threatening or an ally as in need. The famous WMD of 2003 really did exist in many countries, including the United States, but belief in the evil of Iraq meant not only that WMD were unacceptable there but also that Iraq itself was unacceptable whether or not the WMD existed. Bush was asked after the invasion why he’d made the claims he’d made about weapons, and he replied, “What’s the difference?” Saddam Hussein was evil, he said. End of story. Rubenstein is right, I think, that we should look at the underlying motivations, such as the belief in Iraq’s evil rather than in the WMDs. But the underlying motivation is even uglier than the surface justification, especially when the b elief is that the whole nation is evil. And recognizing the underlying motivation allows us to understand, for example, Colin Powell’s use of fabricated dialogue and false information in his UN presentation as dishonest. He didn’t believe his own propaganda; he wanted to keep his job.
According to Rubenstein, Bush and Cheney “clearly believed their own public statements.” Bush, remember, proposed to Tony Blair that they paint a U.S. plane with UN colors, fly it low, and try to get it shot. He then walked out to the press, with Blair, and said he was trying to avoid war. But he no doubt did partially believe some of his statements, and he shared with much of the U.S. public the idea that war is an acceptable tool of foreign policy. He shared in widespread xenophobia, bigotry, and belief in the redemptive power of mass murder. He shared faith in war technology. He shared the desire to disbelieve in the causation of anti-U.S. sentiment by past U.S. actions. In those senses, we cannot say that a propagandist reversed the public’s beliefs. People were manipulated by the multiplication of the terror of 9/11 into months of terrorizing in the media. They were deprived of basic facts by their schools and newspapers. But to suggest actual honesty on the part of war makers is going too far.
Rubenstein describes the Cold War thus: “While fulminating against Communist dictatorships, American leaders supported brutal pro-Western dictatorships in scores of Third World nations. This is sometimes considered hypocrisy, but it really represented a misguided form of sincerity. Backing anti-democratic elites reflected the conviction that if the enemy is wholly evil, one must use ‘all means necessary’ to defeat him.” Of course a lot of people believed that. They also believed that if the Soviet Union ever collapsed, U.S. imperialism and backing for nasty anti-communist dictators would come to a screeching halt. They were proved 100% wrong in their analysis. The Soviet threat was replaced by the terrorism threat, and the behavior remained virtually unchanged. And it remained virtually unchanged even before the terrorism threat could be properly developed — although it of course has never been developed into anything resembling the Soviet Union. In addition, if you accept Rubenstein’s notion of sincere belief in the greater good of doing evil in the Cold War, you still have to acknowledge that the evil done included massive piles of lies, dishonesty, misrepresentations, secrecy, deception, and completely disingenuous horseshit, all in the name of stopping the commies. Calling lying (about the Gulf of Tonkin or the missile gap or the Contras or whatever) “really … sincerity” leaves one wondering what insincerity would look like and what an example would be of someone lying without any belief that something justified it.
Full artcile: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/do-war-makers-believe-their-own-propaganda/
December 2, 2015
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/venezuela-elections-a-battle-to-defend-revolution/
Venezuela elections, a battle to defend Revolution
By Gloria La Riva
Source: Liberation
December 2, 2015
Venezuela’s upcoming Dec. 6 elections for all 167 National Assembly seats could be critical for the future of the Bolivarian Revolution.
The Bolivarian Revolution is the process launched by Hugo Chávez in 1999. It includes great economic and social gains, a progressive Constitution and legislation, national control of Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves, and a declared goal of building socialism.
Threatening these gains and aims is an intensifying economic and political war waged by the right-wing opposition and the U.S. government in the lead-up to the elections. The campaign of aggression shows no signs of easing after Dec. 6.
The right-wing politicians—part of Venezuela’s capitalist class—hope to derail the revolutionary government by winning a majority of seats in the National Assembly.
Ominous detailed plans by the opposition to dismantle revolutionary laws and institutions were published in El Nacional, on Nov. 23, one of the main opposition newspapers.
A “non-governmental organization” called “Un Estado de Derecho,” made up of right-wing lawyers, has prepared a 40-page analysis in which it claims how the “rule of law” can be reinstated, if the opposition wins just 50 percent plus one seat. It is a blueprint describing a takeover of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Public Defender and General Comptroller and reorganizing the Citizen and Electoral powers of the Constitution.
El Nacional emphasizes, “This will be just the first step.”
Threatening these gains and aims is an intensifying economic and political war waged by the right-wing opposition and the U.S. government in the lead-up to the elections. The campaign of aggression shows no signs of easing after Dec. 6.
The right-wing politicians—part of Venezuela’s capitalist class—hope to derail the revolutionary government by winning a majority of seats in the National Assembly.
Ominous detailed plans by the opposition to dismantle revolutionary laws and institutions were published in El Nacional, on Nov. 23, one of the main opposition newspapers.
A “non-governmental organization” called “Un Estado de Derecho,” made up of right-wing lawyers, has prepared a 40-page analysis in which it claims how the “rule of law” can be reinstated, if the opposition wins just 50 percent plus one seat. It is a blueprint describing a takeover of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Public Defender and General Comptroller and reorganizing the Citizen and Electoral powers of the Constitution.
El Nacional emphasizes, “This will be just the first step.”
What Washington fears most of all
The U.S. government has killed or wounded millions of people in its wars and occupation throughout the Middle East, in its determination to control the giant oil resources of the region.
Venezuela has the largest-known oil reserves of any country in the world.
Before Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, U.S. and British oil companies reaped enormous profits with minimal royalties paid to Venezuela. Meanwhile, 80 percent of the people lived in poverty through the decade of the 1990s.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. had tightened the blockade against Cuba and imposed neo-liberal policies throughout Latin America and the Caribbean via government leaders subservient to Washington.
President Chávez put a stop to this submission in 1999 when he took office. Today, Venezuela’s oil belongs to the country, not the imperialist powers.
In 2004, Chávez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro launched a process of unprecedented unity among several countries that was never possible before, with the formation of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples, ALBA.
Washington’s influence diminished in recent years due to the revolutionary and progressive governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador.
This is why President Obama acceded to Latin American pressure to allow Cuba to attend the Organization of American States summit, and opened up diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is simply a change of tactics. The ultimate objective of reasserting its domination and overturning the revolutionary governments remains the same.
The U.S. government has killed or wounded millions of people in its wars and occupation throughout the Middle East, in its determination to control the giant oil resources of the region.
Venezuela has the largest-known oil reserves of any country in the world.
Before Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, U.S. and British oil companies reaped enormous profits with minimal royalties paid to Venezuela. Meanwhile, 80 percent of the people lived in poverty through the decade of the 1990s.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. had tightened the blockade against Cuba and imposed neo-liberal policies throughout Latin America and the Caribbean via government leaders subservient to Washington.
President Chávez put a stop to this submission in 1999 when he took office. Today, Venezuela’s oil belongs to the country, not the imperialist powers.
In 2004, Chávez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro launched a process of unprecedented unity among several countries that was never possible before, with the formation of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples, ALBA.
Washington’s influence diminished in recent years due to the revolutionary and progressive governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador.
This is why President Obama acceded to Latin American pressure to allow Cuba to attend the Organization of American States summit, and opened up diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is simply a change of tactics. The ultimate objective of reasserting its domination and overturning the revolutionary governments remains the same.
Progressive forces worldwide must know what is at hand if the right-wing and U.S. government were to defeat the government and progressive candidates. We must work ever more earnestly to defend the Bolivarian Revolution.
In the United States, the newly created Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee, along with the ANSWER Coalition, Alliance for Global Justice, U.S. chapters of FMLN, and many other groups, are mobilizing to hold rallies, meetings and other actions in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New Haven, Conn., Dec. 5 and 6. In Vancouver, Canada, several organizations will hold a protest at the U.S. Consulate on Dec. 6, as well as forums. Actions are planned throughout Latin America. Information is available at: www.cuba-venezuela.org
In the United States, the newly created Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee, along with the ANSWER Coalition, Alliance for Global Justice, U.S. chapters of FMLN, and many other groups, are mobilizing to hold rallies, meetings and other actions in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New Haven, Conn., Dec. 5 and 6. In Vancouver, Canada, several organizations will hold a protest at the U.S. Consulate on Dec. 6, as well as forums. Actions are planned throughout Latin America. Information is available at: www.cuba-venezuela.org
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/venezuela-elections-a-battle-to-defend-revolution/
December 2, 2015
Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-establishment-took-over-copenhagen-climate-march/
The Establishment took over Copenhagen Climate March
by Ron Ridenour / December 1st, 2015
Colourful grass roots ingenuity spread throughout major streets in Copenhagen, November 29. We were between 10,000 and 15,000 of the million who marched in 175 countries at 2300 sites. Yet unbeknownst to me we were being “led” by a major politician of the economic-political Establishment responsible for the very pollution we oppose, and for the wars that murder millions, send more millions in flight, and pollute the planet.
Hedegaard had been Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s climate and energy minister before he won the top warmongering post at NATO, and then turned over Denmark’s nation’s reins to Løkke. She then acted as an agent for big capital and the Western governments during negotiations at COP 15 when these polluters met behind closed doors, keeping the Third World countries in the dark. That led to African delegates walking out of the conference with the support of several Latin American countries, and island states sinking under the rising ocean tides.
At the time I was one of two press attachés for Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, and assisted Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez and three other progressive Latin American government heads. I heard these leaders speak of the subversive role played by the Danish government with Hedegaard at the top. The conference is well known for its dirty dealings and empty words.
At the time I was one of two press attachés for Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, and assisted Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez and three other progressive Latin American government heads. I heard these leaders speak of the subversive role played by the Danish government with Hedegaard at the top. The conference is well known for its dirty dealings and empty words.
Hedegaard has a long history of helping to subvert the planet and murder people. She was war spokesperson (“defense” spokesperson) for the Konservative Party of Denmark, in 1987. This party always votes for wars the US wants. She was even a recipient of the warring “Knight’s Cross of an order of Danneborg” (Denmark’s flag), in 2005. During her career as a minister between 2004 and 2009, she backed the wars against peoples in the Middle East and North Africa. Wars are the major cause of polluting the nature that she supposedly wants to protect.
The 2006 CIA factbook states that only 35 countries used more oil per day than did the Pentagon. An April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon consumes as much as 14 millions gallons of oil per day. That translates into nearly 20 billion liters of oil yearly, more than Sweden consumes. This places the US Department of Defense as the number one consumer of petroleum, according to Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies. Klare is also a defense correspondent for several magazines and a Human Rights Watch board member.
The 2006 CIA factbook states that only 35 countries used more oil per day than did the Pentagon. An April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon consumes as much as 14 millions gallons of oil per day. That translates into nearly 20 billion liters of oil yearly, more than Sweden consumes. This places the US Department of Defense as the number one consumer of petroleum, according to Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies. Klare is also a defense correspondent for several magazines and a Human Rights Watch board member.
Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-establishment-took-over-copenhagen-climate-march/
December 2, 2015
Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-neo-liberal-assault-on-black-lives-from-baltimore-to-buenaventura-colombia/
The Neo-Liberal Assault on Black Lives from Baltimore to Buenaventura Colombia
by Ajamu Baraka / December 1st, 2015
Danelly Estupiñan, a powerful Afro-Colombian human rights activist and personal friend of mine, is now facing a mortal threat from the fanatical criminals aligned with powerful economic interests who are committed to keeping Black people subjugated in the port city of Buenaventura and throughout Colombia.
An activist and member of the Black Communities Process (PCN), Danelly joins a long list of women, labor and youth activists who are facing death or have been murdered for daring to organize Afro-Colombians to defend their dignity.
At 5:30pm on November 23, Danelly received a death threat stating: “Danelly, you are close to the end.” Less than five hours later, she received a call from a friend where a distorted voice was interposed saying “we know where you are, we know where you are.”
The Black Communities Process (PCN) Buenaventura office, Palenque el Congal, works to defend the rights and dignity of Afrodescendant communities living in the Bajamar area of Buenaventura’s Cascajal Island for decades. Afrodescendants living in this area, many of whom are the displaced and their children, fled conflict and abuse in nearby river communities. They are now living in sub-human conditions due to the abandonment of the State. Not only have they had to confront extreme marginalization, poverty, lack of basic services, and had little access to employment opportunities, but now that the area they live in has increased in value as a result of the “free trade agreement” between Colombia and the U.S., they have also become the targets of armed groups that want to force them off of their land.
An activist and member of the Black Communities Process (PCN), Danelly joins a long list of women, labor and youth activists who are facing death or have been murdered for daring to organize Afro-Colombians to defend their dignity.
At 5:30pm on November 23, Danelly received a death threat stating: “Danelly, you are close to the end.” Less than five hours later, she received a call from a friend where a distorted voice was interposed saying “we know where you are, we know where you are.”
The Black Communities Process (PCN) Buenaventura office, Palenque el Congal, works to defend the rights and dignity of Afrodescendant communities living in the Bajamar area of Buenaventura’s Cascajal Island for decades. Afrodescendants living in this area, many of whom are the displaced and their children, fled conflict and abuse in nearby river communities. They are now living in sub-human conditions due to the abandonment of the State. Not only have they had to confront extreme marginalization, poverty, lack of basic services, and had little access to employment opportunities, but now that the area they live in has increased in value as a result of the “free trade agreement” between Colombia and the U.S., they have also become the targets of armed groups that want to force them off of their land.
This is the basis and objective of the Trans-pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the “pivot to Asia,” NATO; the war in Syria and the continuous support for the Western imperialist fort in the so-called Middle-East, known as Israel.
Do not be confused by the role of vassal states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK or even states that appear to be independent from this domination, like China and Russia – the foundation of the edifice of global capitalist domination, while under duress, is still situated in the West and represents a continuation of the 523 year pan-European colonial/capitalist project. This is the primary contradiction that the people of the world face.
On November 9, paramilitaries killed Afro-Colombian youth activist Jhon Jairo Ramirez Olaya in Buenaventura. Today, Danelly Estupiñan, whose life and activities are a symbol for all who struggle in local spaces against oppression, is now facing death for her and her organization’s audacity to resist the behemoth that is capitalist globalization.
Do not be confused by the role of vassal states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK or even states that appear to be independent from this domination, like China and Russia – the foundation of the edifice of global capitalist domination, while under duress, is still situated in the West and represents a continuation of the 523 year pan-European colonial/capitalist project. This is the primary contradiction that the people of the world face.
On November 9, paramilitaries killed Afro-Colombian youth activist Jhon Jairo Ramirez Olaya in Buenaventura. Today, Danelly Estupiñan, whose life and activities are a symbol for all who struggle in local spaces against oppression, is now facing death for her and her organization’s audacity to resist the behemoth that is capitalist globalization.
Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-neo-liberal-assault-on-black-lives-from-baltimore-to-buenaventura-colombia/
November 30, 2015
"Tomorrow's Battlefield": As U.S. Special Ops Enter Syria, Growing Presence in Africa Goes Unnoticed"
Published on Nov 13, 2015
Democracynow.org - "The recent U.S. deployment of special operations forces to Syria expands a global U.S. battlefield that is at a historic size. This year, special ops have been sent to a record 147 countries—75 percent of the nations on the planet. It’s a 145 percent increase from the days of George W. Bush. And it means that on any given day elite U.S. forces are on the ground in 70 to 90 countries. Those shocking numbers are revealed by our guest, the journalist Nick Turse. For years, Turse has been tracking the expansion of global U.S. militarism for the website TomDispatch and other outlets. His latest book, "Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa," focuses on one particular American military battlefield that often goes unnoticed. Turse says the U.S. military is now involved in more than 90 percent of Africa’s 54 nations."
https://zcomm.org/zvideo/980289/
Qaddafi had to go. He was the only obstacle to this.
“Tomorrow’s Battlefield”
By Nick Turse, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez
Source: Democracy Now
"Tomorrow's Battlefield": As U.S. Special Ops Enter Syria, Growing Presence in Africa Goes Unnoticed"
Published on Nov 13, 2015
Democracynow.org - "The recent U.S. deployment of special operations forces to Syria expands a global U.S. battlefield that is at a historic size. This year, special ops have been sent to a record 147 countries—75 percent of the nations on the planet. It’s a 145 percent increase from the days of George W. Bush. And it means that on any given day elite U.S. forces are on the ground in 70 to 90 countries. Those shocking numbers are revealed by our guest, the journalist Nick Turse. For years, Turse has been tracking the expansion of global U.S. militarism for the website TomDispatch and other outlets. His latest book, "Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa," focuses on one particular American military battlefield that often goes unnoticed. Turse says the U.S. military is now involved in more than 90 percent of Africa’s 54 nations."
https://zcomm.org/zvideo/980289/
Qaddafi had to go. He was the only obstacle to this.
November 30, 2015
http://democracynow.org - The White House rejects a bailout package for Puerto Rico days after the U.S. territory failed to pay a small portion of the massive $72 billion it owes to bondholders. It was the biggest municipal bond default in U.S. history. Unlike U.S. states and municipalities, Puerto Rico cannot declare bankruptcy. Juan González discusses how the roots of the crisis are deeply tied to Puerto Rico’s colonial status.
Puerto Rico’s Economic “Death Spiral” is Tied to Legacy of Colonialism
By Juan Gonzalez
Source: Democracy Now
November 27, 2015
"Could Puerto Rico become America’s Greece? That’s a question many are asking as the island faces a devastating financial crisis and a rapidly crumbling healthcare system. Puerto Rico owes $72 billion in debt. $355 million in debt payments are due December 1, but it increasingly looks like the U.S. territory may default on at least some of the debt. Congress has so far failed to act on an Obama administration proposal that includes extending bankruptcy protection to Puerto Rico and allocating more equitable Medicaid and Medicare funding for the island. Meanwhile, Puerto Rican leaders in the United States are planning a massive lobbying day in Washington in early December to spur congressional action. In a holiday special, we feature a major speech by Democracy Now! co-host Juan González on “Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis: Economic Collapse in America’s Biggest Colony and What Can Be Done About It.”
https://zcomm.org/zvideo/980736/
Puerto Rico’s Economic “Death Spiral” is Tied to Legacy of Colonialism
http://democracynow.org - The White House rejects a bailout package for Puerto Rico days after the U.S. territory failed to pay a small portion of the massive $72 billion it owes to bondholders. It was the biggest municipal bond default in U.S. history. Unlike U.S. states and municipalities, Puerto Rico cannot declare bankruptcy. Juan González discusses how the roots of the crisis are deeply tied to Puerto Rico’s colonial status.
Puerto Rico’s Economic “Death Spiral” is Tied to Legacy of Colonialism
By Juan Gonzalez
Source: Democracy Now
November 27, 2015
"Could Puerto Rico become America’s Greece? That’s a question many are asking as the island faces a devastating financial crisis and a rapidly crumbling healthcare system. Puerto Rico owes $72 billion in debt. $355 million in debt payments are due December 1, but it increasingly looks like the U.S. territory may default on at least some of the debt. Congress has so far failed to act on an Obama administration proposal that includes extending bankruptcy protection to Puerto Rico and allocating more equitable Medicaid and Medicare funding for the island. Meanwhile, Puerto Rican leaders in the United States are planning a massive lobbying day in Washington in early December to spur congressional action. In a holiday special, we feature a major speech by Democracy Now! co-host Juan González on “Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis: Economic Collapse in America’s Biggest Colony and What Can Be Done About It.”
https://zcomm.org/zvideo/980736/
November 30, 2015
Everyone says the United States is killing people with drones as a last resort, even though in that minority of cases in which the United States knows the names of the people it is aiming for, many (if not all) of them indisputably could have been easily arrested."
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-waroholic-wishes-you-peace-on-earth/
Again, I know that other countries, including my own, have also played a large role in the mess in the ME and NA, but I can't change the titles. We've got to stop this shit.
A Waroholic Wishes You Peace on Earth
By David Swanson
Source: Worldbeyondwar.org
November 29, 2015
"Imagine an alcoholic who managed every night to get a hold of and consume huge quantities of whiskey and who every morning swore that drinking whiskey had been his very last resort, he’d had no choice at all.
Easy to imagine, no doubt. An addict will always justify himself, how ever nonsensically it has to be done.
But imagine a world in which everyone believed him and solemnly said to each other “He really had no other choice. He truly had tried everything else.”
Not so plausible, is it? Almost unimaginable, in fact. And yet:
Everyone says the United States is at war in Syria as a last resort, even though:
The United States spent years sabotaging UN attempts at peace in Syria.
The United States dismissed out of hand a Russian peace proposal for Syria in 2012.
And when the United States claimed a bombing campaign was needed immediately as a “last resort” in 2013 but the U.S. public was wildly opposed, other options were pursued.
Everyone says the United States is killing people with drones as a last resort, even though in that minority of cases in which the United States knows the names of the people it is aiming for, many (if not all) of them indisputably could have been easily arrested."
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-waroholic-wishes-you-peace-on-earth/
Again, I know that other countries, including my own, have also played a large role in the mess in the ME and NA, but I can't change the titles. We've got to stop this shit.
November 30, 2015
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/international-day-of-solidarity-with-the-palestinian-people/
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People
By Richard Falk
Source: Richardfalk.com
November 30, 2015
[Prefatory Note: Today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, as established by the UN General Assembly. It was on that day in 2012 that the General Assembly voted to recognize Palestine as a non-member observer state, a status similar to that enjoyed by The Vatican.
It was a symbolic victory for Palestine, made sweeter by overcoming the bitter opposition of Israel, and supported of course by the United State. Despite its concerted efforts to block any Palestinian reliance on international law to put forward their case for a recognition of Palestinian rights, Israel while opposing each and every move, when and if it loses, scoffs at the result as meaningless and changes nothing.
This year the UN agreed to have the Palestinian flag flying along side other member states outside UN Headquarters in NYC, another symbolic victory opposed by Israel. How meaningful is it? True, there is no lessening of the daily ordeal of Palestinians in their various settings, especially those living under occupation or in refugee camps in neighboring countries. Yet, aside from a slap at Israel that contributes to a growing sense of international outrage about the refusal to resolve the conflict, such symbolic moves are battles in the Legitimacy War that Palestine has been waging on many fronts, and with success. The civil society front may be the most important, which centers its efforts on the BDS Campaign that moves from success to success, building a momentum that is challenging the balance of forces that has allowed Israel to ignore Palestinian grievances for decades. From an international perspective, Palestine is now at the very least an occupied state and this has potential consequences in both diplomacy and international law.
I post below a comment from Mazin Qumsiyeh, a remarkable person, who lives the reality of occupation and exemplifies the spirit of nonviolent Palestinian resistance that seeks to counterpose a heroic normalcy against the quotidian cruelties of the Israeli occupation. I have found much inspiration in the example of Mazin and many other Palestinians, reminding me that we all, especially we Americans, share a responsibility to engage in struggle on behalf of justice for the Palestinian people, which is in the end the only foundation for a sustainable peace for both peoples. With so much attention these days diverted to other regional issues, especially ISIS and Syria, we who care about Palestine must especially raise our voices of protest and join in the concrete acts of solidarity that are having an impact.]
The message of Mazin Qumsiyeh:
It was a symbolic victory for Palestine, made sweeter by overcoming the bitter opposition of Israel, and supported of course by the United State. Despite its concerted efforts to block any Palestinian reliance on international law to put forward their case for a recognition of Palestinian rights, Israel while opposing each and every move, when and if it loses, scoffs at the result as meaningless and changes nothing.
This year the UN agreed to have the Palestinian flag flying along side other member states outside UN Headquarters in NYC, another symbolic victory opposed by Israel. How meaningful is it? True, there is no lessening of the daily ordeal of Palestinians in their various settings, especially those living under occupation or in refugee camps in neighboring countries. Yet, aside from a slap at Israel that contributes to a growing sense of international outrage about the refusal to resolve the conflict, such symbolic moves are battles in the Legitimacy War that Palestine has been waging on many fronts, and with success. The civil society front may be the most important, which centers its efforts on the BDS Campaign that moves from success to success, building a momentum that is challenging the balance of forces that has allowed Israel to ignore Palestinian grievances for decades. From an international perspective, Palestine is now at the very least an occupied state and this has potential consequences in both diplomacy and international law.
I post below a comment from Mazin Qumsiyeh, a remarkable person, who lives the reality of occupation and exemplifies the spirit of nonviolent Palestinian resistance that seeks to counterpose a heroic normalcy against the quotidian cruelties of the Israeli occupation. I have found much inspiration in the example of Mazin and many other Palestinians, reminding me that we all, especially we Americans, share a responsibility to engage in struggle on behalf of justice for the Palestinian people, which is in the end the only foundation for a sustainable peace for both peoples. With so much attention these days diverted to other regional issues, especially ISIS and Syria, we who care about Palestine must especially raise our voices of protest and join in the concrete acts of solidarity that are having an impact.]
The message of Mazin Qumsiyeh:
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/international-day-of-solidarity-with-the-palestinian-people/
November 30, 2015
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/can-democracy-and-genocide-co-exist-in-burma/
Can democracy and genocide co-exist in Burma?
By Murtaza Shaikh
Source: open democracy
November 30, 2015
We have witnessed a momentous and historic event in Burma (Myanmar); the first real glimpses of democracy with the military dictatorship making way for the landslide victory of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi after over two decades of political exile at an immeasurable personal cost.
However, there is a story behind the headlines and jubilation, to a large extent sidelined and omitted, perhaps because it inconveniently complicates and even undermines the simplistic narrative of democratic triumph over dictatorship, of absolute good overcoming absolute evil. That barely visible story, rather than a minor detail, demands our full attention, especially if the purpose behind the electoral exercise was a future democratic Burma, where human rights and its diverse ethnic and religious plurality is accommodated, respected and reflected politically.
And it is this: the Rohingya Muslim minority numbering around 1 million were denied the right to vote or stand for office, following a recent census, which excluded all Rohingya. Couple this with recent in-depth reports from Queen Mary University and Fortify Rights and the Yale Law School finding that the process of genocide is under way against the Rohingya. The QMU report concludes
The report is endorsed by Tomás Ojea Quintana, former Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (2008-14). Earlier in 2013, a Human Rights Watch Report titled: ‘All You Can Do is Pray’ had concluded, with the help of detailed satellite imagery, the treatment of Rohingya met the legal definition of ethnic cleansing.
However, there is a story behind the headlines and jubilation, to a large extent sidelined and omitted, perhaps because it inconveniently complicates and even undermines the simplistic narrative of democratic triumph over dictatorship, of absolute good overcoming absolute evil. That barely visible story, rather than a minor detail, demands our full attention, especially if the purpose behind the electoral exercise was a future democratic Burma, where human rights and its diverse ethnic and religious plurality is accommodated, respected and reflected politically.
And it is this: the Rohingya Muslim minority numbering around 1 million were denied the right to vote or stand for office, following a recent census, which excluded all Rohingya. Couple this with recent in-depth reports from Queen Mary University and Fortify Rights and the Yale Law School finding that the process of genocide is under way against the Rohingya. The QMU report concludes
“the Rohingya have suffered the first four of the six stages of genocide. They have been, and continue to be, stigmatized, dehumanised and discriminated against. They have been harassed, terrorized and slaughtered. They have been isolated and segregated into detention camps and securitised villages and ghettos. They have been systematically weakened through hunger, illness, denial of civil rights and loss of livelihood.” This puts them at serious risk of stage five which is “mass annihilation”.
The report is endorsed by Tomás Ojea Quintana, former Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (2008-14). Earlier in 2013, a Human Rights Watch Report titled: ‘All You Can Do is Pray’ had concluded, with the help of detailed satellite imagery, the treatment of Rohingya met the legal definition of ethnic cleansing.
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/can-democracy-and-genocide-co-exist-in-burma/
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Saskatchewan
Home country: Canada
Member since: Sat Jul 9, 2005, 11:46 PM
Number of posts: 20,582
