05 November 2006

The Dupes of Haggard

The megachurch pastor who was the also titular leader of the U.S. evangelical lobby has finally admitted that he is guilty of "sexual immorality". Haggard, a man with an apparent hotline to God and a weekly conference call with someone who thinks he is God, is deeply anti-intellectual, a notorious homophobe and a highly vocal opponent of gay marriage.



Haggard became a born-again Christian in 1972, and then went on to study at the aptly named Oral Roberts University, a charismatic Christian university in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He took up the position of associate pastor of a megachurch in Louisiana in 1984 and moved to Colorado to establish the New Life Church shortly afterwards. This church grew from a small group meeting in his house to the huge congregation and enormous campus it currently occupies.

The scandal came to public attention last week, after a claim made by masseur Mike Jones on a Colorado radio station that he had been paid to have sex with Mr Haggard almost every month over the past three years. Ted Haggard has denied the claims made by Mr Jones but said he did receive a massage from him. He also admitted to buying methamphetamine but claims that he "never used it".

He was fired by the church on Saturday 4th of November, having stepped down as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals the previous Thursday.

For anyone interested, Harpers have a very interesting article with lots of background info on the church, its former pastor and their somewhat bizarre beliefs.

On the issue of gay marriage, I guess I am what most fundie Christians would describe as 'luke warm'. In reality, I think there are far more urgent and important issues to occupy my thoughts and my time than the relatively trivial question of whether two people of the same sex should be able to have a piece of paper that declares them to be in a legally recognised civil union.

One of the issues that I feel does warrant concern is the enormous undue influence the fundamentalist evangelical lobby has on the United States government and in particular the foreign policy of the administration. I am also concerned about the unquestioning support that lobby has for the state of Israel and the utter contempt it displays for those who happen to find themselves in Israel's firing line.

Quite a few members of that same lobby decry anyone who shows any concern for the environment or the future of the planet as being an 'earth worshipper' and believe that the dominion over the earth that was given them by the great real-estate agent in the sky is a right to plunder, consume and destroy the finite resources of the planet.

I am convinced that the sort of duplicitousness and hypocrisy displayed by Ted Haggard is but the tip of the iceberg and that many more such skeletons are hiding out in the closets of various high-profile fundamentalist leaders. The sooner the rest of them are outed, the better for all of us.

Continue reading...

Obsession: FOX News and the war for votes

Newshounds, whose tagline is "We watch FOX so you don't have to" have revealed that Faux News has rearranged its weekend line-up in order to be able to air a terror film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", presumably to scare the wits of out floating voters and send them to the polls - voting for the ruling junta- the GOP.

Faux News, in announcing that it will air the film, claims that it is a "frightening new documentary by filmmaker Wayne Kopping" and that "what he found, is something FOX News believes every American should know."



The documentary, far from being new, is actually a year old, and will be aired four times over the weekend in what consitutes unabashed electioneering.

Ignoring the fact that a significant proportion of the American public do not believe the official line on the events of 9/11 and that the supposed facts of what happened that day simply fail to add up, an article at the the Faux News site tries to stir up the fear factor using the tried and not so trusted line on 9/11...

"We often hear that 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans. But have Americans really woken up to the truth of how much radical Islamists want us dead, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to fulfill their mission?"

Back in the real world, outside of the Faux News world of manufactured fear and support for state-sponsored terrorism, this piece would have to be reworded to read...
"We often hear that 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans. But have Americans really woken up to the truth of how much the neoconservative administration have used 9/11 to turn America into a dictatorship in all but name, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to fulfill their mission?"

This so-called documentary will, of course, work its magic on less news-savvy and may well scare the living daylights out of them. What it won't do, of course, is deliver the true picture.

It won't discuss the relatively powerless nature of radical Islam when compared against the hostile and aggressive policies of the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom. It won't touch on the debate surrounding the inconsistencies of the 9/11 story, and the distinct possibility that the perpetrators are not those who have shouldered the blame so far. It will steer clear of any discussion on the idea that radical behaviour, where it exists, is an merely an effect for which the cause must be identified and dealt with. In other words, it will paint a simplistic and partisan view of affairs with the sole purpose of rallying support for the current administration and its ongoing "war on terra".

Whether or not the target audience for this electioneering blitz possesses the required attention span to sit out a documentary of this length remains to be seen - but the intention of Faux News is crystal clear - bolster the GOP vote by manufacturing fear and in doing so, manufacturing votes.

Continue reading...

02 November 2006

Remembering Deir Yassin

In the early morning of April 9th 1948, commandos from the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin and members of the Stern Gang attacked the village of Deir Yassin and its 750 Palestinian residents, even though the village was located outside the area assigned by the United Nations to the new state of Israel.



Deir Yassin, known to be a peaceful and trouble-free village, had one strategic advantage that was to be its downfall. It was built on high ground on a corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and as such was earmarked for occupation under Plan Dalet.

The Haganah, the main Israeli defense force had given authorisation to the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun to perform the takeover, working side-by-side with a rag tag bunch of terrorists known as the Stern Gang. Over 100 men, women, and children were murdered and fifty-three children were left orphaned, literally dumped along the wall of the old city.

This unprovoked massacre, and others carried out since in the name of Zionism, should never be forgotten. The organisation Deir Yassin Remembered was set up to ensure the memory of those who perished is kept alive and their suffering not forgotten.

Continue reading...

01 November 2006

Welcome to school - fascist style

Associated Press reported that armed riot police recently carried out a raid on Michigan junior and high schools as part of an exercise. Of course the children were not made aware of what was about to take place and even teachers were given just a few minutes notice.

Marge Bradshaw, a parent with four children attending Godfrey-Lee Schools said "Some of these kids were so scared, they just about wet their pants. I think it's pure wrong that the students and parents were not informed of this".

Judging by the YouTube video below, a similar incident took place in Goose Creek, South Carolina some years ago, where armed police raided a high school with their weapons drawn - ostensibly in search of drugs. I have to say that the time stated on the video is a little suspect, as nobody in their right mind is at school at 6:45am. Judge for yourself.



I really fail to see any purpose in terrorising children in this way, other than to condition them to accept such brutal intrusions into their lives as routine and unavoidable. It really does not matter what rationale you might come up with... a society that has to resort to such tactics in the education of their children let alone accept them as routine on the streets of our cities, is a society that has failed in a fundamental way. It is not, no matter what way you spin it, a hallmark of a successful, thriving and free society.

If you are voting in the elections on November 7th, will you be voting for someone who will only give you more of the same, or even worse? Or will you be voting for someone who will commit to reversing the decimation of your civil liberties and turning back from the headlong march towards total fascism?

Continue reading...

31 October 2006

More Inconvenient Truths

In a report sponsored by the UK government, and bearing his name, Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank stated that "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century". In the report he also warns that we are too late to prevent any damaging consequences from climate change.

Responding to the report, Richard Lambert, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry stated that “Provided we act with sufficient speed, we will not have to make a choice between averting climate change and promoting growth and investment”. While this conclusion could be accurate, it is based on the twin assumptions that growth rather than stability is the way forward and that we will act immediately, making the right moves and choices. It assumes that we can have our cake and eat it.

Our pursuance of growth at all costs is a major contributing factor in this mess. Growth should not be a non-negotiable factor in our economic policies. The end-game of growth is that companies have produce more and more, and consequently pollute more and more. Is the cost of growth really worth paying?

Whether or not we as a species can act sensibly is debatable and evidence so far is not good. The failure of the world of business in particular, and that of society in general, to take the threat of global warming seriously has already brought us to this impasse.

We continue to embrace, without question, the utterly wasteful concept of “planned obsolescence” first mooted by Brooks Stevens in the 1950’s. Although the average person will have nothing to lose by a return to manufacturing goods designed to last – and perhaps paying a little more for them – there is little impetuous to do so.

Few of us pay sufficient attention to energy wastage in our homes, despite the fact that remedying this waste will have minimal impact on our precious “quality of life”. Any recently produced piece of domestic electronic equipment will have an on/standby switch in place of on/off switch – forcing those who want to cut waste to unplug these devices from the wall socket. I can not see any evidence of public pressure to reintroduce the less wasteful but perhaps less couch-potato-friendly on/off switch.

Yet more of us choose, usually for infantile and ostentatious reasons, to drive fuel-guzzling four-by-four off-road vehicles even when those same vehicles will only ever be used to drive our increasingly obese children to school. Some people even believe that to be ‘free’ means having the right to consume as much as they wish and to pollute as much as they wish. Those same people are normally those who won’t even utter a whimper when their true freedoms are taken away under their noses.

We continue to tolerate the lunacy of shipping food and beverages thousands of kilometres when precisely the same food or beverage is available locally. Beppe Grillo, the Italian comic, gave an excellent example of this when he showed how bottled water produced in the south of Italy was being shipped to the north, where ample supplies of locally produced mineral water were already available. Some may defend this profligacy as ‘choice’, but in reality you are defending a choice between two things are for all intents and purposes identical – with the exception of labelling.

While I agree that it is impossible to avoid the deleterious consequences of climate change, I would suggest that to allow economics to dictate the remedies will hamper attempts to limit the damage. We can prevent our demise and that of the majority of species we share the planet with, and minimise the worst of the impact of global warming, but in order to do so we have to stop trying to fit our environmental action around established economic principles – putting the cart before the horse. Forget saving the planet – the planet will survive long after our demise – if we are to save ourselves and the world we live in now, we must act without compromise on the environmental front and then revisit the economics, shaping our future economic system around the steps we need to take to survive.

The long-term targets proposed by the Stern report may be sufficient to protect economic growth, but are unlikely to deliver the sort of environmental impact to stave off climate changes that will spell disaster for large swathes of populations in the developing world, and perhaps even for many of those in the developed world too.

Continue reading...

27 October 2006

Media disinformation and the renewed demonisation of Russia

Over the past year, the previously understated but regular drip-feed of articles in the Western media critical of the Russian establishment has become more frenzied and purposeful, reflecting an increase in the level of hostility towards Russia from the powers-that-be in the West. Of course, no state is perfect and no state should be beyond criticism, but I can’t help but wonder why Russia is the target of such much condemnation when their ‘crimes’ whereas the absolute tyranny being imposed on the people of Uzbekistan by Islam Karimov goes relatively unreported.

Behind the media disinformation - the veiled allegations that President Putin was somehow complicit in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya; the deliberate misinterpretation of a deeply ironic remark made to the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about Israeli President Moshe Katsav; the customary wailing about the “rolling back democratic reforms” in Russia; the endless fake outrage at Russian actions in Chechnya - lie the real reasons for the renewed vigour in the campaign to demonise Russia.

What has Putin done to draw fire from assorted mouthpieces of Western governments and various hacks in the Western media? The reason for their ire is that he has established an effective and solid resistance to the rape and pillage of Russia by the globalised forces of unfettered greed. Putin has come to the conclusion that the powers that be in the West, in other words, the trans-national corporations and their ultimate owners, don’t just want access to Russian oil, nor do they want control of Russian oil, they want total control of every aspect of the Russian economy. For them, nothing short of total economic submission will do.

Putin is guilty of the ultimate sin, that of economic nationalism. The sin is that of putting the needs of your country before those of international capital. It is the real reason why Salvador Allende was ousted and replaced with the despot Pinochet. It is the true motive for the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It is the reason why Hugo Chavez is dishonestly depicted as a tyrant. It will be the actual rationale for any future war against Iran, despite claims to the contrary. In the case of Russia and the Putin administration, this 'sin' has manifested itself in number of ways, each of which is discussed in detail below.

Control of NGOs
On April 17th of this year, a law passed by the Russian Parliament, the Duma, took effect. This law, vociferously denounced as ‘controversial’ and ‘retrogressive’ by the media in the West, imposes restrictions on domestic and foreign nongovernmental organizations operating in Russia. The law puts in place strict registration requirements and imposes rigorous financial oversight on the operations of NGOs. The law also provides for the dissolution of an NGO if its activities "threaten Russia's independence or sovereignty".

The motive for this legislation is not to deny freedom of speech or to attempt undermine the rights of citizens, but to protect Russia from the insidious activities of certain foreign-funded NGOs that are established to do precisely three things:

  • undermine the governments of sovereign nations and in doing so subjugate their economies
  • promote the bland, insipid and ultimately impotent brand of western democracy
  • press for the market liberalisation that is in reality little more than legalised plundering and wholesale racketeering
Vladimir Putin seeks to prevent a repeat of the "colour" revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, where anti-ultra-nationalist xenophobes were funded by NGOs set up by the likes of the US National Endowment for Democracy, ostensibly to free the countries from their Soviet past and to establish them as independent democracies. The reality of these pseudo-revolutions is somewhat different, however. Their purpose was solely to move the countries out of the sphere of influence of Russia and into that of the United States. Democracy - or at least the concept of democracy unadulterated with corporatist fundamentalism, electoral fraud and the threat of tyranny - played no part in the proceedings.

In the most ironic of all ironies, the most vituperative disapproval of this move to curtail the activities of foreign NGOs came from the United States, a country that had previously put in place two versions of the freedom-busting "Patriot Act". Piling insult on top of injury, the political class and media in the United States remain fierce critics of Russia and her apparent lack of freedoms, despite having descended into a deeper dystopic state following recent the signing into law of the Military Commissions Act.

Dollar Independence
On May 10th of this year, Vladimir Putin, in his State of the Nation speech to the Russian Duma (Parliament), announced that Russia would make the rouble a convertible currency, in order that it could be used for payment in oil and natural gas transactions. At the present time, oil sales are exclusively transacted in dollars and are made solely through the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMX) and the London Petroleum Exchange (LPE), both of which are owned by American investors.

Any move away from the denomination of oil in dollars will severely impact on the demand for the greenback on the global market and would result in billions of dollars flooding back into the United States, causing at the very least a severe economic slump and potentially resulting in total economic meltdown.

Like Saddam Hussein before him, the real threat Vladimir Putin poses to the United States is his desire to free his country and the sale of its resources from the shackles of the US fiat currency. In November 2000, Saddam Hussein had started selling oil in euros, thus threatening the absolute hegemony of the dollar. Up to this point, oil had never been transacted in euros - as Britain and Norway, two major oil producers, one of which is a member of the EU and the other a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) decided to retain their own currencies and to continue denominating the sales of their oil in dollars. The result of the insolence of Saddam Hussein in threatening the hegemony of the almighty dollar was illegal invasion of Iraq. The pretext for the invasion was a lie - a smokescreen. The impending destruction of Iraq would have nothing whatsoever to do with the dictatorial nature of the Hussein regime, or his attacks on the Kurds. The true motive for the invasion was solely because he threatened US supremacy and the domination of its currency.

Similarly, the real reason for the posturing on Iran has nothing to do with alleged plans on the part of the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons. It is because the Iranians have announced plans to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse (Market) transacting oil in Euros. The exchange would be based on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf, an Iranian duty-free and tax-free zone. The launch date for the bourse has been delayed, and when and if it does go into operation it will have to overcome the major obstacle that the current amount of euro currency in circulation is insufficient. However, any moves away from the use of the dollar, however putative, can be considered a threat to the long-term viability of the greenback. Those who dismiss such suggestions as conspiracy theory may like to explain why the privately-owned U.S. Federal Reserve has cancelled the publishing of the M3 monetary aggregate, a report that details the extent dollar holdings globally.

If President Putin continues with his plans to establish the rouble as a convertible currency and to transact all sales of Russian oil in the rouble, then expect the demonisation of Russia in general and Putin in particular to increase dramatically.

Conflict with Georgia
Georgian President, Mikail Saakashvili is frequently painted as being a nationalist, but as always the reality of his presidency bears little relationship to the propaganda. Although he has fought hard to have Russian bases removed from Georgian soil, he has quickly replaced them with those of another foreign power - The United States. Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, the United States and her allies have been busy cultivating lackies and establishing bases in the former Soviet states bordering Russia.

For the authorities in Moscow, the Caucasus region and other former satellite states are their geopolitical backyard and therefore critical to their national security. The United States has bases in 130 of 160 countries in the world, and Russia has every right to be concerned about the presence of forces from an increasingly hostile nation on their borders - and have rightly used this incursion into the region as a reason to renew investment in their military.

The publicly stated rationale for Western support for Georgia in their conflict with Russia is that Saakashvili is committed to democracy and that Putin is somehow the contrary. This is undiluted nonsense.

A report by OSCE Watch concluded that the March 2004 poll effectively produced a one party state in Georgia with a small nominal and utterly ineffective opposition. Since that time, Saakashvili has busied himself with appointing close relatives to important governmental posts and despite having stated that “it was unacceptable for the Georgian president to have an inflated staff or a luxurious residence” he is now constructing a veritable palace for himself on the outskirts of Tbilisi - having demolished the police headquarters and a considerable number of neighbouring dwellings. This palace is reported by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group to be larger in scale than the White House in Washington. It is amazing that such a small country could afford such a disproportionate display of wealth and status. Despite its new status as a ‘democratic nation’ Georgia continues to be mired by outright corruption, cronyism, political racketeering and murder. Life for ordinary Georgians has not improved one iota since the colour revolution, and in many respects has worsened considerably.

A scale model of the new palace
(Photo by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group)


The fascist and totalitarian credentials of Saakashvili are close to impeccable. Constitutional amendments that were hastily pushed through parliament in February 2004, shortly after Saakashvili took power, effectively confer unlimited powers on the president. Also, in a move redolent of similar events in Nazi Germany, Saakashvili decreed that the symbol of the National Movement would become the new flag of Georgia, effectively making the symbols of the state and the party one and the same.

From the behaviour of the victor of the Rose Revolution, it is apparent that Georgia is not a democratic state, at least not by any commonly accepted definition of the word. Georgia has become a mini-dictatorship in all but name, a regime tied to and governed by the interests of the United States. Given the deep-seated connections between Saakashvili and the United States administration, the recent arrest of four Russian officials in Georgia can only be seen as deliberate action designed to provoke Russia - so that the Russian rejoinder can be dissected, analysed, criticised and demonised in the Western media.

Support for Byelorussia
Like Georgia, Byelorussia is a state sharing a border with Russia. Unlike Georgia, Byelorussia is an ally to Russia, and that - along with a shared history- is the primary reason for the close relationship between the two countries. The relationship does not imply Russian approval of the methods Lukashenko uses to remain in power, but is simply an attempt by Russia to ensure that Byelorussia does not become the 131st country in the world to host U.S. military bases.

Like Russia, Byelorussia has curtailed the activities of foreign NGOs and probably for much the same reasons. While there is an undoubted need for reform in Byelorussia, if the NGOs have their way, the reforms will be similar to those imposed on Georgia and Ukraine, and will not have the effect of improving the quality of life of Byelorussian citizens or making their government more accountable.

Any guesses as to who is sponsoring this putative "revolution"?
(photo by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group)

Alexander Lukashenko does have (as he said himself) "an authoritarian ruling style" and there is cause for concern about human rights violations and the actions of the state against independent journalists, national minorities and opposition politicians. However the true extent of such violations - when compared against those of "friendly" authoritarian regimes, such as the new Georgian administration- are exaggerated by the usual interested parties.

Ironically, Byelorusssia has been criticised by various U.S. funded NGO's for retaining the death penalty for certain crimes, despite the fact that the biggest culprit in the terminal dispatch of criminals is the chief cheerleader in anti-Lukashenko lobby. Also, in another supreme irony, in a testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice labelled Belarus, along with five other nations, as one of the United State's list of "outposts of tyranny".

The dismantling of oligarchy
Putin, much to the annoyance of the global kleptocracy, has started making moves to bring oil and gas production back under Russian control. The moves against Khodorkovsky, the ousting of Royal Dutch Shell from the Sakhalin II gas fields on the grounds of their failure to meet environmental regulations and the creation of the super corporation Gazpromneft have all contributed to the process of wrestling back control of resources that were literally given away to foreign companies and investors by the Yeltsin government. Of course, some in Russia, such as the newspaper Газета (Gazeta), will paint this as "a rather peculiar system of power where the nation’s key economic assets are run on behalf of the state by a group of close associates", but remained strangely silent while a small group of ultra-wealthy foreigners looted what they could of Russia's natural resources.

Military resurgence and Security Co-operation
The Russian army, navy and air-force are showing signs of recovering from their former dilapidated state. Despite years of economic problems, Russia has remained very much at the forefront of military technology and Vladimir Putin has made it clear in May 2003 through his annual State Of The Nation address that he would strengthen and modernise the Russian nuclear arsenal in order to “ensure the defence and capability of Russia and its allies in the long term”.

Through the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, Russia has been working together with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to bolster their collective defensive capability. On a broader front, Russia participates in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, whose members held war-games in Kazakhstan in August 2006. Russia has also signed a comprehensive military cooperation agreement with India, again in August of this year.

Conclusion
Without doubt, the rationale for the upsurge in anti-Russian propaganda in the Western media is triggered by the re-emergence of Russia as a global power and the decision of the Russian administration to put the strategic interests of Russia ahead of those of the United States. Indeed, the U.S. Council for Foreign Relations is urging George Bush to “stop regarding Russia as a strategic partner” because “Russia has become an increasingly authoritarian state with a foreign policy that is sometimes at odds with the interests of the United States and its allies”. It is true that the Russian administration is acting against the interests of the United States. After all, it is doing what any government should do… it should act in the interests of its own people. If clamping down on the Trojan Horses that are the western-funded NGOs is authoritarian, then I guess Russia is also authoritarian.

So, for once, it appears that the Council for Foreign Relations, a neocon think-tank that laughably describes itself as a “Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” has got something right.

Continue reading...

23 October 2006

The Stakes

With all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, a recent Republican advertisment goes a long way towards threatening the American people with further terrorist attacks and potential nuclear annihilation... unless...of course.. they cast their vote for the GOP on the 7th of November. The spot, which recalls the infamous "Daisy" advert that was the brainchild of Lyndon Johnson, is a jumbled video montage of assorted terrorist-types vowing to attack the United States, backed by the sound of a ticking time bomb that morphs into a thumping heartbeat and finally becoming an explosion.



The sad truth is that this kind of electoral blackmail will probably work its peculiar charm on that sizeable percentage of the American popuplation who have given up the will to think for themselves, or who will always implicitly believe that the actions of government are by their very nature benign.

Of course it is debatable as to whether a victory for the GOP or for the Democrats will make even the slightest bit of difference, but my suspicion is that a win for the latter would at least bring a halt to the headlong slide into totalitarianism. Of course, for the oligarchs, kleptocrats and plutocrats who pull the strings behind the scenes, it does not matter one bit who the eventual victor is - as the underlying and unwritten agenda will stay unchanged no matter what the outcome.

The Republican blackmail advert is at least truthful in claiming that failure to act will drive the stakes higher than can be imagined. What it fails to be truthful about is the exact nature of those stakes, the true identity of those who pose a very real and present threat to the American people and also the corrective action that needs to be take in order to ensure that the stakes don't become higher.

Continue reading...