Shell & Systems

I listened to BBC's World Business Review last night covering the Shell overstatements of the size of their oil reserves.

It was a telling conversation between three economic experts.

The American focused on the poor "ethics and moral" of the people involved, conveniently placing the responsibility on particular individuals (no need to look any further, no need for any changes beyond their hiring policies).

The two others focused on the internal structure and processes within Shell.

They all followed the unwritten rule in the economic world: Look at the symptoms, not the cause. Place the responsibility on specific individuals or (if you have to) corporations. Don't look at the deeper systems causes.

Of course, if we do look at the system these individuals and corporations are embedded in, we see a relatively simple reason for the scandals involving Enron, WorldCom, Shell and many other corporations.

They operate within an economic system where there is one priority: Maximizing profits for the shareholders.

When you make a decision, it must be evaluated on how effectively it will increase profits. Any other considerations are secondary.

Even for those many individuals within these corporations who has a good heart and the best of intentions, they still operate within a system where their choices are dictated by the primary principle.

This is a pattern brought to our collective awareness after WW2 when they explored how regular decent people could work within the Nazi system.

And -as with many in the Nazi system - workers in contemporary corporations feel compelled to follow the rules in spite of personal misgivings. After all, if they risk suffering adverse personal consequences (it their case, loose their job).

These processes, working within any corporation, has continuing and devastating consequenses for ecosystems and workers all over the world. Tellingly, it is when it finally has consequences for the shareholders that it receives this amount of media attention.

Feedback Loops II

A recent survey exemplifies the lack of good feedback loops in the US.

Many American still hold misperceptions about Iraq war, poll finds

WASHINGTON - A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.


In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that "clear evidence" was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).

There's no known evidence to date that these statements are true.

U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testified before Congress in January that no weapons were found and prewar intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong." CIA Director George Tenet last month rejected assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq had cooperated with al-Qaida.

Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll released Thursday found.

For example, among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush.

[...]

[source: Knight Ridder]

A similar poll last year correlated the misperceptions with people's main news source. For those believing there is clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al-Qaida, their main news source was:

67% Fox
56% CBS
49% NBC
48% CNN
45% ABC
40% Print
16% PBS/NPR

Feedback Loops

Any living system needs good feedback loops to survive. We need information about the effects of our actions so we can adjust our approach, and this information needs to be full and accurate.

In society, when actions benefit the few but not the many, the few will - in any way they can - prevent feedback about the consequences of these actions. Currently, the US government is doing this in many areas.

Banning photos of cascets of dead US soldiers is just one (and one where they know they won't be able to uphold the ban very well).

[more info: Al Jazeera | NY Times | Memory Hole ]


...

Why Rants?

I am sometimes wondering why I want to include a "Rants" section... It is not aligned much with how I want to live my life. On the other hand, it does reflect how I sometimes experience the world. My frustrations with the world. And specifically with the US.

Living in the US takes its toll in two ways.

First, by experiencing everything here that goes against a life-centered approach: (a) The corruption that permeates all levels of the political system. (b) The uninformed, life-alienating and hard views held by so many. Views that twice harms the people holding them - first psychologically by hardening, and then by their social and ecological consequences.

Second, by living in a culture that in many ways is hard and inhumane. A culture that hardens the heart.

Some of the entries here reflect a more humane state, others a more hardened state. It is good for me to experience and recognize both.

Tragic

Most of the civilized world does not support the policies now shared by the US and Israel. These are tragic policies that breaks with laws and guidelines at the core of humane and civilized nations. Policies that leads to illegal international acts of violence (Israel's 40 year occupation of Palestinian land, US "pre-emtive strike" and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq), and assasination of opponents (Israel in Palestine, US in Iraq).

Policies fueled, in Israels case, by fear... A fear that leads to illegal (40 year occupation of Palestinian land), inhumane and irrational choices (assasination of opponents) which in turn only fuels the very actions they try to prevent (violence towards Israeli citizens). It is a profoundly tragic situation, but one the Israeli people themselves have created by choices such as electing Sharon (a war criminal) as president.

And policies fueled, in the US case, by profound systems problems. A system where we see an alignment of the interests of multinational corporations (who's goal is short term profit for shareholders), the media (owned by the same corporations) and politicians (dependent on the support of the same corporations for financing their campaigns).

Rants II

Transferred from the Society & Ecology blog... [April 21, 2004]

I realize that this blog is turning more and more into rants about the abysmal state of the US, and although well deserved, I want to consolidate the rants and attempt more entries on positive solutions. These not only show some of the ways out, but focusing on solutions is a more effective way of changing the situation. They open up for partnerships rather than confrontation, and give hope.

First, here are some recent rants consolidated (note that these are relatively one-sided...!):


The Crumbling of the US Empire [April 18, 2004]

There is no doubt that the US empire will fall, after all - everything is transient. The only question is when. And it may come much sooner than many expect, as Johan Galtung outlines in the essay below.

This does not mean that the US republic disintegrates, only that the empire will crumble. Most likely through a combination of over-extension (militarily, economically), alienating allies, not taking care of domestic issues (gap between rich and poor etc), and an ill/mis-informed population (which is not good in a democracy).

Some of the signs I am aware of:

- The feedback loops that any society is dependent upon to make course corrections and decisions are severely impaired. This is mainly due to corporate media which is highly selective in which stories they report on, and which angles they take.
- Multinational corporations control both US media and politicians. This means that the public conversation (to the extent it exists) and US policies are largely determined by corporationd and their narrow/short-term interests. The interests of regular people, and future generations, is overlooked. This erodes the long-term prosperity of the country.
- People in the US, largely due to the abysmal state of US media, are mostly not concerned with the serious issues (ecology, increasing gap between wealthy and poor within the US and in the world, lack of decent health care system, massive amounts of money to the military industry - and not enough to basics such as healthcare and education, etc.) but focus on the irrelevant, fleeting, and symptoms of deeper problems (mindless entertainment, terrorism, etc).

Essay by Johan Galtung


Another Element... [April 18, 2004]

Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power: US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy

To understand what is happening in the Middle East, you must first understand what is happening in Texas. To understand what is happening there, you should read the resolutions passed at the state's Republican party conventions last month.

[...] The motion they adopted stated that Israel has an undivided claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, that Arab states should be "pressured" to absorb refugees from Palestine, and that Israel should do whatever it wishes in seeking to eliminate terrorism.

In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth.

What makes the story so appealing to Christian fundamentalists is that before the big battle begins, all "true believers" (ie those who believe what they believe) will be lifted out of their clothes and wafted up to heaven during an event called the Rapture. Not only do the worthy get to sit at the right hand of God, but they will be able to watch, from the best seats, their political and religious opponents being devoured by boils, sores, locusts and frogs, during the seven years of Tribulation which follow.

[...] We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans.

[...] And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay [...] travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that "there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking".

So here we have a major political constituency - representing much of the current president's core vote - in the most powerful nation on Earth, which is actively seeking to provoke a new world war. Its members see the invasion of Iraq as a warm-up act, as Revelation (9:14-15) maintains that four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates" will be released "to slay the third part of men". They batter down the doors of the White House as soon as its support for Israel wavers: when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again.

The electoral calculation, crazy as it appears, works like this. Governments stand or fall on domestic issues. For 85% of the US electorate, the Middle East is a foreign issue, and therefore of secondary interest when they enter the polling booth. For 15% of the electorate, the Middle East is not just a domestic matter, it's a personal one: if the president fails to start a conflagration there, his core voters don't get to sit at the right hand of God. Bush, in other words, stands to lose fewer votes by encouraging Israeli aggression than he stands to lose by restraining it. He would be mad to listen to these people. He would also be mad not to.

[source: the Guardian]


History? [April 18, 2004]

It only takes a high school level knowledge of the history of Iraq to predict the problems we currently see in Iraq.

Britain invaded the area in the 1920s, and - in imperialist fashion - created a country made up of ethnic/religious/political groups that did not have much affection for each other.

The people in the region has little reason to approve of another occupation, as the post WW1 history clearly tells us and the more recent history reinforces.

To imagine a true democracy emerging in the foreseeable future also seems naive, for two interlocked reasons: There are too many different etnich and religious groups in the region, with conflicting interests. They do not have a tradition of democracy. A tradition that is essential for such diverse groups to successfully work together. It is also interesting to note that if a true democracy emerges in foreseeable future, it will almost certainly not be what the US wants...

Here is an exerpt from an entry I made in March 2003, prior to the invasion.

Invasion

It is likely that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will run into a number of problems. The main one may be a persistent guerilla warfare. The history of the Iraqi people gives them strong reasons for resenting and opposing an invasion and occupation by the US and the UK. Some examples: (a) Great Britain invaded Iraq during WW1 and occupied the country for several years. (b) The US supported and created Saddam Hussein and supported and encouraged the Iraq-Iran war where large numbers of Iraqis were killed. (c) The US was responsible for a large number of civilian causalities during the first Gulf War. (d) During the first Gulf War, they destroyed the infrastructure (including water treatment plants) which led to massive suffering among the civilian population. (e) George Bush the First encouraging a failed upraising against Saddam Hussein, which led to thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's government. The US did nothing to help them. (f) The sanctions has lead to massive suffering among the Iraqi population, while Saddam Hussein and his government have not been harmed. (g) The current invasion and war is again bringing massive suffering to the civilian population. (h) They plan to dictate and control the creation of the new Iraqi government. To believe that the Iraqi population will welcome them with open arms is remarkably naive, and publicly expressing that assumption must be a willful deception or coming from a surprising lack of insight in human nature in general and the Iraqi history in particular. The Iraqis, no matter their view of Saddam Hussein, will most likely defend their country with any means available against what they see as an illegitimate invasion and occupation.

And two current articles:

The Last Iraqi Insurgency

[...] President Bush, too, seems to miss the point. "We're not an imperial power," he insisted in his press conference on Tuesday. Trouble is, what he is trying to do in Iraq — and what is going wrong — look uncannily familiar to anyone who knows some British imperial history. Iraq had the distinction of being one of our last and shortest-lived colonies. This isn't 'Nam II — it's a rerun of the British experience of compromised colonization.

[...] A revolt against colonial rule is not the same as a war. Vietnam was a war. Although the American presence grew gradually, it reached a peak of nearly half a million troops by the end of the 1960's [...] By comparison, there are just 134,000 American troops in Iraq today — almost as many men as the British had in Iraq in 1920. Then as now, the enemy consisted of undisciplined militias. There were no regular army forces helping them the way the North Vietnamese supported the Vietcong.

[...] What lessons can Americans learn from the revolt of 1920? The first is that this crisis was almost inevitable. The anti-British revolt began in May, six months after a referendum — in practice, a round of consultation with tribal leaders — on the country's future [...] In other words, neither consultation with Iraqis nor the promise of internationalization sufficed to avert an uprising.

[...] Then as now, the insurrection had religious origins and leaders, but it soon transcended the country's ancient ethnic and sectarian divisions. The first anti-British demonstrations were in the mosques of Baghdad. But the violence quickly spread to the Shiite holy city of Karbala, where British rule was denounced by Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi — perhaps the historical counterpart of today's Shiite firebrand, Moktada al-Sadr. The revolt stretched as far north as the Kurdish city of Kirkuk and as far south as Samawah, where British forces were trapped.

[...] There is much, then, to learn from the events of 1920. Yet I'm pessimistic that any senior military commander in Iraq today knows much about it. Late last year, a top American commander in Europe assured me that United States forces would soon be reinforced by Turkish troops; he seemed puzzled when I pointed out that this was unlikely to play well in Baghdad, where there is little nostalgia for the days of Ottoman rule.

[source: ny times]


'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux

[...] As the historian Niall Ferguson points out in his new book, "Colossus: The Price of America's Empire," President Bush's promise to Iraqis of "a peaceful and representative government" in place of Saddam's brutal regime was an uncanny, if unconscious, replay of what the British commander who occupied Baghdad in 1917 told the people of what was then still Mesopotamia. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," Gen. F. S. Maude said back then, expressing the desire that his forces would help the populace build their own governmental institutions.

Iraq did not, however, give birth to an indigenous form of self-government. The country was run instead by a Bremer-like civil commissioner, Sir Arnold Wilson, for three often violent years. He and his deputy, Mr. Ferguson writes, "drew up a scheme for a unitary Iraqi state with almost no local consultation, simply ignoring those who advised against yoking together Assyria and Babylonia, Sunni and Shia." Eventually a British-style constitutional monarchy was installed, leading to decades of tumult and coups. By the time the revolution of 1958 overthrew the monarchy, the Baath party and Saddam were lurking in the wings.

To revisit "Lawrence" and the history it dramatizes in embryo is to feel not only déjà vu but also a roaring anger at the American arrogance and ignorance that has led to the current nightmare. Condoleezza Rice's use of the word "historical" to describe the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential briefing on Osama bin Laden was not the only tipoff to her limited understanding of history. In the opening filibuster of her testimony, she invoked the Lusitania, Hitler's rise and Pearl Harbor as analogues of 9/11 — an asymmetrical comparison that blurs the distinctions between nations' acts of war and the stateless conspiracies of modern terrorists. Apparently the administration's understanding of British colonial history in the Middle East is no sharper.

[...] Yet much as we misread Iraqi culture, we also misrepresent our own to the Iraqis. It's Ayatollah al-Sistani, not the Americans, who champions direct elections. We turned Mr. al-Sadr from a simmering menace into a martyr by shutting down his incendiary newspaper, Al Hazwa. (And we did so at the same time that the Coalition Provisional Authority's official Web site was running a headline: "Gallup Poll: Baghdad Residents Overwhelmingly Desire Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly.") The First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who supported the war in Iraq, wrote in Newsday: "Of all the messages the United States could send to the people of Iraq, the sorriest is this: if you say things we disapprove of, we'll shut you up." And it wasn't the first such instance. The coalition has previously shut down another newspaper, Al Mustaqilla, and for a while closed the Baghdad office of Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera's principal satellite competitor. As an antidote we offer our own version of a "free press" — a TV station called Al Iraqiya that is so in thrall to the powers that be that for months it held back on reporting insurgent attacks on American forces. It's Fox News without the whoosh.

[...] "Once liberators turn into pacifiers, they've lost," Mr. Holbrooke said last week when we talked about "Lawrence of Arabia." Or, as Juan R. Cole, a professor of history and Iraq specialist at the University of Michigan, has said, "A hated occupier is powerless even with all the firepower in the world." Since we cannot cut and run and since we don't have any idea who should get the keys, it's clear that we, like the British before us, are in occupancy in Iraq for the long haul, no matter who officially has "sovereignty" 74 days from now. This is "Lawrence of Arabia," the sequel, and you can be certain it will play on every channel.

[source: ny times]


Bush & Hitler [April 18, 2004]

It is not uncommon to see comments comparing Bush to Hitler in the international press.

It may seem inappropriate. But - although it is dismissed by many in the US - there are some disturbing parallels.

For one, Bush's rethoric ("defending freedom") and terminology ("homeland" etc) is very close to that of Hitler. And there are deeper parallels when it comes to strategy: Creating and enhancing an athmosphere of fear (allowing laws to pass that normally would not). Erosion of civil liberties (abandoning the process of law). Creating strong enemy images. Stating that they are on the side of God and Truth. Lack of nuances, a black-and-white perception of the world ("you are either with us or against us").

Twelve Warning Signs of Facisim
Bush-Hitler Parallels
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History


Privatization [April 14, 2004]

The US, as we know, is the main promoter of privatization in the world. Not surprisingly, as privatization benefits multi-national corporations, and elected officials - especially on a national level - are dependent on their (financial and otherwise) support to be elected.

Privatization rarely benefits regular people. Communally owned (national or coops) operations have as their main purpose to serve the people, and use a big picture and long term perspective. If they don't fulfill this function optimally, that means that we must look into different - still communal - structures and processes.

Privately owned operations has as their primary function to increasing profits for their shareholders. They only need to serve people as long as it is in their own (short term) financial interest, which means that they can be selective in how and who they serve. Even if they are more efficient than communally owned operations (which is not a given), the savings - in this case profits - goes to the people on top and the shareholders. It does not serve the people.

One instructive example is privatized healthcare in the US. It has created a gap between those with access to health care, and the many who currently don't.

It is in the interest of insurance companies to insure only a segment (the healthy) of the population. They will deny health insurance to those who have (or have had) a serious illness, or those they consider at risk for illness. It means that only a segment of the popluation, largely the healthy and wealthy, receive adequate health services. It is a great setup for the health industry, and not such a good (sometimes deadly) situation for regular people.


Physical Correlations to Social Policy [April 11, 2004]

Poverty and poor diet mean the average US man is getting smaller, while Europeans keep growing taller.

Researchers have made a startling discovery: Americans are shrinking. A nation once famed for its strapping, well-nourished youth is gradually diminishing in physical stature.

By contrast, the heights of men and women from Europe are increasing inexorably. The average Dutchman, whose country produces the Continent's loftiest men, is now more than six feet tall - almost two inches above his American counterpart. And he is still growing.

[...] New research has shown some unexpected disparities between statures of Americans and Europeans, indicating that recent social changes and diet are major influences on adult height.

[...] This surprising reappraisal of American and European physiques is the work of researcher John Komlos of Munich University. 'Much of the difference is due to the great social inequality that now exists in the United States,' Komlos told The Observer last week. 'In Europe, there is - in most countries - good health service provision for most members of society and plenty of protein in most people's diets. As a result, children do not suffer illnesses that would blight their growth or suffer problems of malnutrition. For that reason, we have continued to grow and grow.'

On the other hand, America has eight million people with no job, 40 million individuals with no health insurance, 35 million living below the poverty line, and a population that exists mainly on junk food. There, the rise in average height that marked its progress as a nation through the 19th and 20th centuries has stopped and has actually reversed - albeit very slightly - in recent years.

[...] This discovery, which has been revealed through research that Komlos has assembled over decades, amounts to an assault on the values of the free market economy espoused by Americans and provides powerful support for those who back European ideas about universal healthcare.

[source - The Guardian]


Appearance [April 11, 2004]

Within and among people there is a wide diversity of maturity levels.

And, as everywhere else, there are many in the US who express what is well informed, humane and mature, and many who express the less informed, inhumane and immature.

Unfortunately, most people around the world mostly see the latter half.

When it comes to the US, international media reflects US media: Entertainment that is shallow and does not touch the deeply human. Domestic policies that often appears absurdly backwards (no public health care). International policies that seem ill informed and dangerous.

The former, humane sides, opens up for a sense of understanding and connection. The latter, the image the US currently projects, closes people off from sympathy and give raise to resentment.


Karma [April 9, 2004]

The approach of the US government, supported by a significant amount of people in the US, is one that expresses arrogance, self-righteousness, lack of understanding and knowledge, and disrespect for international democracy and individuals (ironically, since people in the US often pride themselves in their individualism...).

Their policies appear designed to alienate those who could be their allies. Most recently seen in their brutal and indiscriminatory responses to the (very predictable) resistance in Iraq. This in turn increases thew anger and resentment towards the US among regular Iraqis and others in the region. It fuels the cycle of violence and increasing polarization.


[...] Yet the disasters of the past week, the worst in political terms since President Bush decided to invade Iraq, are in large measure self-inflicted. The US suddenly found itself fighting a two-front war because it over-reacted to pressure, political and military, from important minority groups in the Sunni and Shia communities.

[...] the US responded to the killing of the four US contractors in Fallujah by sending in 1,200 Marines to launch a medieval siege, one in which they initially refused to allow ambulances in or out. If the Americans really believed they were being attacked by a tiny minority, Iraqis asked, why were they attacking a city of 300,000 people? The result has been to turn Fallujah into a nationalist and religious symbol for all Iraqis.

[...] For the first time the armed resistance is becoming truly popular in Baghdad. Previously Iraqis often approved of it as the only way to put pressure on the US. But they were also wary of the guerrillas, because of fear of religious fanaticism or connections with Saddam's deeply unpopular regime. But thanks to Fallujah, this has changed: Iraqi nationalism is back in business.

[...] Why did Mr Bremer play so easily into the hands of America's opponents? One answer probably is that hardline civilians in the Pentagon retain their control of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which they have staffed with fellow neo-conservatives who share their over-simplistic agendas for Iraq. The State Department still has little influence. [source - The Independent, UK]


Views [April 7, 2004]

It is interesting to note how the US government is consistently using what is referred to in international media as "wild west" rhetoric.

A rhetoric that is black and white (little or no room for nuances) and reflects a certain level of immaturity and lack of humanity. It is also interesting, and not surprising, that the US government does not acknwledge the understandable reasons for the resentment many around the world experience towards the US.

After all, the US does promote an agressive imperialist foreign policy (to broaden their cultural, economic and military influence) and most people around the world have good reasons to resist it. Their motivation is understandable and must be taken seriously by looking at the deeper systems changes neccesary to remove the causes behind the resentment.


Systems Changes [April 6, 2004]

There were two Democratic candidates who focused on the need for deeper systems change: Kusinich and Dean.

Neither won the primaries, and they could not.

Their policies went beyond the informal rules of US politics: focus on the symptoms, not the underlying causes. In addition, and tied to these informal rules, their views were too threathening to those benefiting by the current system (corporations and indirectly corporate media).


Bush [March 11, 2004]

As many cartoonists and others have picked up on, Bush Jr. appears weak. Someone who gives off the aura of lacking authority.

Could it be that this need to "prove himself" is one of the reasons for the excessively "masculine" policies (including engaging in wars). ..?


Still Surprised [March 5, 2004]

I am still surprised by the thought processes of the US media and the US public.

Among the recent ones is the tempest-in-a-teapot around gay marriage. It seems that this could be a very simple issue: Give anyone - gay or not - legal rights of partnership. And keep the marriage (which is a religious institution) strictly between the couples and their minister.

But, in typical fashion, it is made into another debate taking focus from far more serious issues.

It is also disturbing how the media shapes the presidential election process. They decided early on which Democratic candidates were "serious", "presidential" and "electable", typically based on questionable reasoning. Through their filter and selective focus, they then set up an inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy cycle.

And, not surprisingly, they helped eliminate those candidates who could create, or at least help focus on, real changes in the system (Kusinich and Dean).


Waking Up...? [March 5, 2004]

There is a large number of issues of far greater importance than terrorism, especially that from smaller groups around the world.

Among the main ones are the unravelling of our ecosystems (GMOs genes escaping, toxins in water, air and soil, loss of bioproductive ecosystems, etc) and the increasing gap among the wealthy and poor (and the wealthy using policies and smoke screens such as terrorism to maintain that trend).

Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, the UK Government's chief scientific adviser has said.

Sir David King said the US had failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And without immediate action flooding, drought, hunger and debilitating diseases such as malaria would hit millions of people around the world.

[...] "If we do not begin now, more substantial, more disruptive, and more expensive change will be needed later on."

[source: BBC]


And a Pentagon scenario:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. [full story - The Guardian]


Bush and Science [Feburary 20, 2004]

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is now shown to systematically distort science to fit their agenda. The examples are abundant.

In AIDS prevention, successful programs combine a wide range of approaches. The Bush administration use these multi-approach programs as "evidence" that "abstinence only" programs are most effective (!). The logging to "prevent forest fires" is another example. Nature does not need management, corporations does.

Although the Bush administration is hardly the first to politicize science, no other U.S. presidency in recent memory has so shamelessly distorted scientific findings for policy reasons, or suppressed them when they conflicted with political goals, as George W. Bush's has. This is the nub of the indictment delivered last week by 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates.

Source: International Herald Tribune


NPR [January 4, 2004]

When I first came to the US, I was happy to find a national public radio station.

I soon realized that it has some obvious shortcomings.

The media culture in the US is one of avoiding asking the serious questions, and NPR falls into the same pattern - while appearing to be slightly more serious than most other media outlets.

Public broadcasting systems in Europe and Canda seems to do a far better job in this area. They take seriously their task of critical and investigative reporting, and serious questioning of the policies of their government, as well as typical - and less typical - views among the population.


Mad Cows [December 22, 2003]

They have finally found mad cow disease in the US, which has long been expected. Predicably, the Bush administration says they are confident that it is nothing to worry about (they are probably as confident about this as they were about Iraqi WMDs...!).

The Bush administration says it remains confident the food supply is safe, despite the detection of mad cow disease in a slaughtered dairy cow in Washington state. [Source: Voice of America]

Mad Cow disease is one of many symptoms of a deeply unhealthy food production system in the US. It is a system that has moved from a wide network of family farms, to a few nodes of large factory farms, over just a few decades. On the worker side, is has led to tens of thousands of families loosing their independent income and working situation, and thousands of others working in poor/inhuman/soulless conditions in the factory farms. On the ecological side, it leads to massive soil erosion (tens of times as much top soil lost than built up), pollution of rivers and waterways (soil erosion, manure), toxic soils and groundwater (pesticides, antibiotics), and massive suffering for the animals (cramped conditions, mutilations, no access to outdoors). On the disease side, it leads to bacterias resistant to antibiotics, dieseases such as mad cow, and massive local/regional problems due to manure centralization and toxins in the soil, water and air (leading to cancer and more). See the book Mad Cow USA published in 1997.

As with so many of our current problems, there are simple and good solutions. In this case, supporting small local farmers, and maybe especially Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms. Through this, we support ecologically sound farming practices, local family farms and the local economy, and our own health and that of our community.


Election & Manipulations [December 20, 2003]

This is probably a cynical prediction, but there are some reasons for cynical predictions these days. I would be very surprised if Bush is not re-elected. Not because the democratic candidates are too "..." or not "..." enough (whatever is said about them), but because Bush has the ability to manipulate US media and public opinion to a degree rarely seen in a democratic country (although the US can be said to be only marginally democratic).

I think we can expect to see a string of manipulations of the media leading up to the election, which will make it very difficult for any opponent to win... The Bush administration has systematically fuelled and played on fear in the public (and a suprising portion of the public has bought into it), and will continue to do so to their own benefit.

One example: John Nichols: Unveiling Bush's mass deceptions, from Capitol Times in Madison, Wisconsin


Simple Minded [December 16, 2003]

Hm... I see that there seems to be a lot of excitement among the US government and media about the capture of Saddam Hussein. It seems remarkably simple minded to think that it will have any effect on the situation in Iraq. Why would the resistance be any less...? I guess it also highlights the fact that the Iraqis will be prosecuted (the ones not outright killed by US forces), while the crimes committed by US forces will be glossed over and ignored. What about all the civilians killed? Those who died from torture? An illegal invasion and occupation? It is sad to see the rest of the world accepting this, instead of forcefully standing up against abuse of power.


Death Threat from US Security Agency? [December 4, 2003]

A Canadian lawyer representing people (illegaly) held at Guantanamo Bay, has received death threats, which led him to drop all terror related cases. The voice was familiar to him, and connected to a death threat and subsequent disappearance of one of his clients. He said "he believed the source [of the threat] to be an American or Canadian intelligence agency." The US is torturing people to death, illegally holding people with no access to lawyer, and killing civillians in Iraq, so a death threat to those trying to defend terrorism suspects fits into the picture. Specifically, CIA has been involved in a long list of illegal and violent activities, including the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments and support of terrorism. Still, it is hard to believe that they are so crude about it. It will be interesting to see what comes our of this story, if anything.

A lawyer in Toronto representing a former terror suspect once held by the United States in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, said he would withdraw from all terror-related cases after finding a death threat on his telephone-answering machine. [...] An emotional Mr. Galati played the coarse message for reporters and said the voice was familiar. He said he believed the source to be an American or Canadian intelligence agency.

[Source - New York Times]

"I'm on the verge of tears because it means that we now live in Colombia. It means that the rule of law is meaningless. It means that lawyer cannot represent anyone even in what you profess to be a democracy here in Canada," he said. [...] Galati says he's heard the voice before. He claims the same man threatened a past client, who has since disappeared. The lawyer says he has reason to believe the threat originated with a U.S. or Canadian intelligence agency.

[Source - CBC]


Big Trouble in Iraq [December 3, 2003]

It seems that the US government (and media) finally are beginning to see some of the long-term problems in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, the US occupation of Iraq is resented more strongly and by more people as time goes by (no-one wants their country to be occupied, especially not by someone with values very different from your own, perceived as primarily be after power and oil, violent, and indiscriminating in terms of who they arrest and kill).

The US administration express "democracy" as one of their primary goals in Iraq. For many reasons, this is most likely a smokescreen for other goals - such as gaining a foothold in the Middle East to control natural resources. One of the reasons it is most likely a smokescreen, is that it is a remarkably naive idea, and one that - if actually realized - will not operate in the interest of the US.

Democracy in Iraq is likely to be very difficult. Iraq is a country constructed in the past by the west, and - as so many African countries with a similar history - pits very different ethnic and religious groups against each other. It may work in a country with long and stable democratic traditions, but Iraq is not one of them.

It seems that one or a combination of several paths are most likely: (a) The US stays in Iraq for a very long time, and the resistance continues and gains more followers. (b) The US pulls out, and leaves Iraq to infighting among the various factions. (c) A form of democracy is actually established, but with serious problems between the various groups (most likely involving violence). If a true democracy emerges within a reasonable time horizon (which is not likely), it will not operate in a way that is in the interest of the US.

One solution whould be to create distinct and mostly autonomous regions, corresponding as much as possible with the religious/ethnic groups within Iraq. This is an intelligent solution on one level, although has serious problems in terms of what may/will happen to those living in "wrong" regions (remember India/Pakistan).


Media, Justice etc. [November 26, 2003]

Below is another example of how US media systematically engage in one-sided reporting, ignoring any views or topics that may disrupt the system they have contributed to create. A system where mass media is owned by just a few corporations, their interests are identical or closely aligned with that of multinational corporations (often the same corporations), and politicians are dependent on support from corporations and corporate media to be elected.

It is often amazing to see how blatantly they distort stories, ignoring important views and aspects. One example: When the recount in Flordia following the 2000 election, the headlines were "Gore would have lost". They "forgot" to mention, or buried it far into the story, that the Florida-wide recount showed that Gore would in fact have won. The lead-up to the Iraq war is another example, where European media consistently reported that there were no solid reasons for attacking Iraq and revealed the lies of the US officials. The US media consistently supported the view of the US government, and rarely reported on stories that showed the weaknesses in their arguments and non-existence of their "evidence".

Dyke attacks US war coverage

BBC director general Greg Dyke delivered a stinging criticism of US news coverage of the war in Iraq [...].

"News organisations should be in the business of balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other. This is something which seemed to get lost in American reporting of the war," said Mr Dyke.

He said only four out of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the conflict opposed the war and the situation would not have been tolerated at the BBC.

"Telling people what they want to hear is not doing them any favours. It may not be comfortable to challenge governments or even popular opinion but it's what we are here to do," he said.

[Full Story - The Guardian]


Law lord castigates US justice

A senior law lord last night delivered a scathing attack on the US government's and the American courts' treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, branding it "a monstrous failure of justice".

Lord Steyn, one of the most senior judges in Britain's highest court, described the military tribunal for trying the detainees as a "kangaroo court".

The term, he said, implied "a pre-ordained arbitrary rush to judgment by an irregular tribunal which makes a mockery of justice". He asked whether the British government should not "make plain, publicly and unambiguously, our condemnation of the utter lawlessness" at Guantanamo Bay. [...]

[Full Story - The Guardian]


Motivations [November 25, 2003]

It is always difficult (and risky) to assign motivations to people. Still, it is important to do so when (a) there are strong reasons to assume that their expressed motivation is not the full picture, and (b) their actions have a strong impact on others.

In terms of the Bush administration and their actions following 911, there are good reasons to suspect that the explicit reasons behind their actions are far from the whole story.

The US government has systematically chosen strategies that fuels terrorism rather than reduce it. Strategies that systematically ignores root causes, applies massive violence (which fuels resentment), and leads to actions equally immoral as those of the terrorists (tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, torture, illegal detention).

Rather, their actions do fit into another scheme. A scheme that was in place long before 911: furthering their strategy of increased US cultural, economic and military worldwide dominance. Ironically enough, this is a strategy that quite possible initiated the 911 attacks in the first place, and is among the core root causes of western-oriented terrorism in general. It is a vicious cycle, and one that sadly enough suits the US governement.


Public Debate [November 22, 2003]

It is saddening to see how the public debate in this country (US) often gets hijacked and distorted.

A current example is the issue of "gay marriage". Which really is just an issue of providing purely legal rights for gay couples, similar to that of heterosexual couples. It seems a relatively neutral and straightforward issue, but is hijacked and made into a big issue about "marriage" (with all the different connotations that has for people), "morality" (something people in this country seems to use to knock each other down with), "evolution" (don't they know that homosexuality is prolific among other species?), and more.

Legal equality seems a no-brainer, while the "marriage" part seems to be purely a matter involving the couple itself and whomever is performing the cermony (it does not even need to be registered anywhere).


Cultural Differences [November 11, 2003]

I am puzzeled by much in the US culture, and especially by the reactions following 911. The typical reactions I saw in media and otherwise were often immensely odd to me - especially when they take the form of patriotism and violence... It is always a tragedy when people die, but how does that lead to what often became pathological patriotism? And how can killing thousands of people (civilians and soldiers) in Afghanistan and Iraq be an improvement of the situation, or a more ethical action than what led to the deaths on September 11 2001 (of far fever people one might add)?

It seems that these reactions are grounded in (a) a lack of understanding of the world and in particular the US position in the world, and (b) a deep insecurity which takes the form of choosing violence (low threshold for choosing violence as a tool, and pathological worship of violence as expressed in the rejoyicing in the deaths of Hussein's sons).


OK? [November 4, 2003]

I see that no new countries are sending troops to Iraq (Turkey decided against it today), there are daily attacks from the Iraqi resistance (including in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad), and there is increasing dissatisfaction among the Iraqis regarding the US occupation of their country...

On the other hand, the non-US/non-British countries are "irrelevant" (Bush's words), the green zone is proclaimed "safe", and everything is going very well in Iraq (again according to the Bush administration) - so I guess it is all OK.


Isolating the US [October 26, 2003]

It's been a while since I made an entry here, but it has not been for lack of material! The US government is continuing its habits of lies and intimidation (although modified somewhat lately).

As I mentioned in an earlier entry, each empire has its limited timespan, and there are many signs that the time of the US empire may soon be up. The foreign dept is immense, the majority of the US tax money is going directly or indirectly to cover military expenses, the gap between the few wealthy and the many poor is widening quickly, and the rest of the world is increasingly resenting the attitudes and actions of the US government.

A senior Norwegian offical went public just a couple of days ago, expressing a view shared by many (but not always expressed publicly): It is time for Norway to turn away from the US, and focus on establishing closer ties with the rest of Europe. The values of the US, as expressed in their foreign policies, are too far removed from that of the other western countries.


Cracking down on Dissent [September 21, 2003]

The latest in a long line of examples of how the US government is cracking down on dissent.

Fear as human shield faces jail

Sitting in her modest two-bedroom home on the west Florida coast, Faith Fippinger begins to cry as she talks about the prospect of going to jail.

This spring, the 62-year-old retired schoolteacher decided to travel to Iraq as a human shield.

To many she is a humanitarian, but in the eyes of the US Government she is a criminal. [...]

"War is death, I understand that. In my opinion though this war was illegal, unjust and unnecessary," she told me.

For three months she travelled around Iraq, guarding oil refineries, teaching in schools and working in hospitals.

[...]

Supporters argue that she was simply exercising her right to freedom of travel and speech and accuse the Bush administration of trying to make an example of her.

"You know, part of what democracy is all about is that you can have varying opinions and that we can express them," she says.

"It's in regimes like Saddam Hussein's where that freedom is not allowed."

But the US Treasury Department is standing firm.

[...]

It says it fully intends to proceed with her prosecution.

For travelling to Iraq Faith Fippinger will now probably lose her house, her pension and go to jail. [Full Story - BBC]


True Values [September 19, 2003]

To find someone's true values, look at their choices.

Bush chose to attack Iraq. He did this knowing (a) that there was absolutely no indication that Iraq was a danger to any of its neighbors (the neighboring countries as well as CIA made it clear they did not see Iraq as a threat), (b) that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism (again as CIA made clear), and (c) with the knowledge that it would be a profoundly costly affair, in terms of human lives, loss of goodwill, increased resentment and risk of terrorism, and money (one example: 500 billion dollars estimated by an independent group in Australia).

Now, he has asked for an additional 87 billion dollars, in addition to the billions already spent. This money goes from the taxpayers to his buddies in the military industry and is on top of the 300 billion dollars lost due to his tax cuts for the wealthy.

It is quite telling to look at what 87 billion dollars, a fraction of the total cost of the Iraq operation, could fund: Hire more than 2 million new teachers. Spend an additional $1,824 on each child in American public schools. Spend 58 times the proposed federal funding for community health centers in 2004. Spend $7,909 on each American child without health insurance. Spend 27 times more on AIDS research than the federal government spent in fiscal year 2000. [Full Story - Newsweek]


Small Scale vs. State Sponsored Terrorism (US and Israel) [September 11, 2003]

Sporadic and small-scale terrorism. This is a phenomenon that currently receive much attention, and significant resources in terms of money, time and people is channeled into combating these symptoms. (The deeper causes are interestingly enough largely ignored: inequality; marginalization of large groups of people; increasing gaps between wealthy and poor; US policies to achieve stronger economic, military and cultural dominance etc).

But what about the much larger problem of systematic and state-sponsored terrorism? Why is it so often ignored? There is an elephant in the room, but we pretend it is not there.

The answer is simple: Might makes right. The US uses systematic intimidation, domestically (Patriot Act) and internationally (foreign policies), to deal with dissent. Even European countries are far weaker in dealing with the big bully policies of the US than they would be if they were not concerned about the (mostly economical) consequences. It may be a wise short-term policy (in terms of their local interests), but dangerous in the long term.

Another element may be what Chaplin said in Monsieur Verdoux. If you committ a crime on a small scale, you are a criminal and dealt with. But if you committ a crime on a large enough scale, you are considered a hero. ("...it's all business. One murder makes a villain; millions a hero. Numbers sanctify.")

Thirty years ago today, September 11, 1973, the popular and legally and democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown in a bloody military coup. It was suspected at the time, and now confirmed by released documents, that the US was behind and supported the coup. The US later actively supported the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet, where hundreds of thousands of people were tortured, and thousands dissapeared.

There is an interesting parallel between the US involvement in Chile in 1973, and Israel vs. Palestine today. In both cases, the governments are involved in terrorist activities and in disposing of legally and democratically elected leaders.

Israel has for a long time engaged in systematic assasinations of Palestinian leaders, and has now announced that they will dispose of (exile or kill) Arafat.

These are just two of many cases (East Timor etc) that shows that the US and Israeli governments support, promote and engage in profoundly anti-democratic, illegal, terrorist activities, as long as it meets their goals.


The Pinochet files

A series of declassified US documents have revealed the extent of America's role in the Chilean coup, reports Jonathan Franklin.

September 11 1973 was a day of terror and bloodshed in Chile. After months of rising tension, army troops stormed the presidential palace, leaving President Salvador Allende dead and thousands prisoners throughout this previously democratic nation. [...]

"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup," reads a CIA document from October 1970. "It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [US government] and American hand be well hidden."

Two days after this document was written, top CIA officials proposed a terrorist campaign to stun the Chilean people into accepting a military regime. [...]

"That internal crisis was activated by the North American policies against it. We see how they energetically obstructed all types of credit from the World Bank and the InterAmerican Bank ... these were decisive actions. This were political and financial pressures that were very relevant [to the ensuing coup.]"

The US effort to destabilise Chile was led by a policy of massively funding and bribing non-leftwing Chilean politicians. [...]

As part of a particularly crude effort to remove army officers who supported democratic rule, the CIA organised to kidnap Rene Schneider, a Chilean army general.

That plot was botched; Schneider died, and today his family is suing the US government and Henry Kissinger in particular for playing a role in his murder. [...]

Even when the full extent of the torture and executions in Chile were well known, the US government sought to integrate the Pinochet regime into international business circles. [Full Story - The Guardian/UK]


Israel Announces Official Decision to Remove Arafat - By JAMES BENNET

The Israeli government decided in principle to "remove" Yasir Arafat, threatening the Palestinian leader with expulsion, jail or possibly death. [Full Story - New York Times]


False Connections [September 10, 2003]

I see that the US officials are still using the same rethoric of trying to connect Iraq with terrorism. There was never any connection before the recent war, and the large majority of the current attacks against the US is from homegrown resistance. If there is anything that can be called "terrorism", it is due to the lawless conditions in the country following the war.

Americans see link to Saddam

The Bush administration is so used to drawing rhetorical links between the war against Iraq and September 11 2001 that nearly 70 per cent of Americans think Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, public opinion analysts say. [...]

Pippa Norris, an expert on public opinion at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, says this misconception "comes partly from President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld drawing these links to justify US intervention in Iraq. [...]

"There was very little criticism of this way of seeing things in the US, compared with Europe, where there was a huge debate. So over time the link strengthened and became a rationalisation of events." [...] [Full Story - Financial Times]


Taxes [September 10, 2003]

I overheard someone talking about Norway and taxes the other day, saying (correctly) that Norway has universal healthcare and free higher education, and (incorrectly) that the taxes in Norway are much higher than in the US. I have heard this many times here, and it is a misconception that serves the current US system. If my wife and I lived in Norway, with the same income as here, we would pay about the same level of taxes - or more likely a little less taxes. In the US, about 50% of tax money goes to the military and paying off foreign debt caused by military expenses. In Norway, money goes to healthcare and education. It is a choice.


The Emperor's Clothes [September 9, 2003]


I am encouraged to see that more and more people are finally publicly saying that the Emperor has no Clothes.

War on terrorism may find few supporters, Annan says

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, questioned yesterday whether Washington will succeed in convincing other countries to make the war on terrorism an international priority, saying most believe pervasive poverty poses a bigger threat to global stability.

"The United States has decided that terrorism is the key, which is fair," Mr. Annan said, but tackling the problems of the Third World are more important to people who live there.

He also asked whether the "hard threat" of terrorism is caused by the "soft threat" of poverty.

"Soft threats ... have an impact on stability and security around the world," Mr. Annan said. "And if you were to deal with the soft threats ... you might be able to make the world a safer place." [...]

The UN Secretary-General was speaking as he released a report on the international fight on poverty. His comments about the relationship between terrorism and poverty are expected to raise eyebrows in Washington, because they suggest fighting terrorism is best done through huge international social programs.

Such a view flies in the face of Washington's approach, which involves putting even U.S. social programs on virtual hold while funds are diverted to confronting the terrorists directly. [...]

Pundits noted the amount Mr. Bush seeks [US$87-billion] is equal to the U.S. government's annual spending on education. [...] [Full Story - CanWest News Service]

Kofi Annan is going to the root causes of terrorism, while the US is systematically focusing on the symptoms (and in the process fueling the root causes). Now, which is more intelligent...?

Rants I

Transferred from the Society & Culture blog...

Intimidation & Supression of Dissent [September 10, 2003]

We already know that peace activists are targeted by a secret airport ban in the US.

Now, with the new color coding system, we can expect that the system will continue to be used for intimidation and suppressing dissent.

Anti-War Activists Targeted by Secret Airport Ban

After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports. [...]

The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicized "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers. [...]

Others who have filed complaints with the ACLU include a left-wing constitutional lawyer who has been strip-searched repeatedly when traveling through US airports, and a 71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to Washington to join an anti-government protest. [...]

The agency, she said, had no way of making sure that people did not end up on the list simply because of things they had said or organizations they belonged to. Once people were on the list, there was no procedure for trying to get off it. The TSA did not even think it was important to keep track of people singled out in error for a security grilling. According to documents the agency released, it saw "no pressing need to do so". [Full Story]


Air Travelers to Be Color Coded for Risk Level

The Washington Post reports the new Transportation Security Administration system will allow the agency to probe deeper into each passenger's identity than is currently possible under federal law, comparing personal information – like our shopping habits – against criminal records and intelligence information. [...]

Civil liberty organizations, conservative groups and some airlines have expressed concerns that the new system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System II, or CAPPS II, will allow the government to act as judge and jury regarding a passenger's history without any due process.

"You could be falsely arrested. You could be delayed. You could lose your ability to travel," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program.

The first will match the passenger's name and information against databases of private companies that collect information on people for commercial reasons, such as their shopping habits. This process will generate a numerical score that will indicate the likelihood that the passenger is who he says he is. Passengers will not be informed of their color code or their numerical score. [...]

"When airport security started confiscating cuticle scissors, most passengers felt less safe rather than more secure, since such great pains and expense had gone into taking action that many people thought trivialized the goal of security," says Noonan.

"I don't believe most of us will feel safer in any practical way because they say we 'won't be sitting next to an ax murderer,' as the head of the TSA noted. Even if we're 'approved' I suspect most of us will not enjoy flying knowing a government agency has first scrutinized our buying habits and financials. That knowledge will undoubtedly not serve to make us feel more secure about traveling." [Full Story]

Personal note here: I am a white, educated, middle-class person who has never had a credit card, and have a very low consumption level. According to the information above, I will most likely be targeted - just for that - as a potential security threat. I do not fit the norm in terms of demographics and spending habits. In addition, I have a history of organizing for global justice and peace issues, which also will label me as a security threat.

The story directly above also mentions that most of the new airport security measures are ineffective. Their main purpose seems to be to make it appear as if they are doing something (and to annoy the passengers). There are innumerable targets that will be equally good or better from a terrorist's point of view, and if they want to bring a plane down, then there is a large number of ways to do it that are not touched by the measures they are implementing.


Dean [September 8, 2003]

I have noticed several commentators (including democrats) viewing Dean as "too liberal" to be able to win over Bush. What they seem to ignore is the large number of people who are attracted to Dean, because he is not another spineless Democrat (of the type we have seen over the last two years). He is a candidate that may be able to mobilize a large number of people who would otherwise not vote. People who think there is too little difference between the typical Republican and Democratic candidate to make it a real choice. With Dean, there is finally a sense of a real choice. (I personally prefer Kucinich, who seems more visionary, but Dean is a good second).


Height of Idiocy [September 7, 2003]

Mr. G.W. Bush apparently said earlier today that he is ready to use as much money as "is necessary" to defeat terrorism. The way he plans to spend it, it proves that he is as stupid as many of us suspected before he was selected. Violence, arrogance and wars is a surefire way to fuel terrorism. The more they apply that approach, the more people around the world have solid reasons for resenting the US. If they wanted to use that money wisely, they would spend it (a) domestically on healthcare and education, and (b) internationally on (i) reducing the cultural, political and military influence of the US around the world, (ii) reducing the gap between poor and wealthy nations and individuals within nations, and (iii) help nations strengthen their own culture and local economy.

The current course will ruin the US economy and increase terrorism worldwide. The first is actually not a bad thing, if it also reduces the US dominance in the world (which it will if applied in the long run)... The second is obviously to the benefit of no-one.


Lack of Maturity & Information about the World [September 7, 2003]

There is an often surprising lack of maturity and lack of knowledge of the world in this country. The reactions following 911 is just one of many examples (splitting into "us" and "them", dehumanizing the opponents, wanting to do to others what we do not want anyone to do towards us). Another is the large percentage of US citizens who believe there was a connection between Irak and terrorism prior to the recent Iraqi war (eight of ten...!). In Norway, and probably in Europe in general, you would have to look long to find anyone who thinks there was such a connection (in Norwegian media, the lack of such a connection was often repeated before the war).


Irony [September 7, 2003]

The strong "preserving the freedom of the US" attitude expressed by many in this country is typically associated with some other behaviors and views. One is to blindly support the current administration, especially if they are engaged in a war (where is the freedom if the behavior is automatic?). The other is to be indignant when others express views different from themselves. I thought "freedom" was partly about encouraging and seriously exploring a wide variety of views?


Sidetrack [September 7, 2003]

The so called "war on terror" (I have issues with the term "war" as it indicates symptom focus rather than cause focus, win-loose mentality [our needs at the expense of their needs], dehumanization of opponents, etc.) functions as a smokescreen for far more important and serious areas - that all overlap and are tied into each other.

Our ecological situation is extremely serious. The Ecological Footprint of Humanity exceeds the bioproductive area of the Earth. In economic terms, this means that we are not only living off the interest of our resources (the surplus production), but off the principal (the productive core). The effects are not noticeable (on a large scale) until we reach the bottom of the account, at which point it is too late to turn around. Ecosystems, on which all our wealth, health and lives depend, are unravelling at an increasingly faster pace. We are facing not only an ecological collapse, but a cultural collapse as well. There is still time to change, but the change must be radical and fast.

Multinational corporations, with their singleminded focus on increasing profits for shareholders, increasinlgy determine international and national policies. Policies are created, by politicians dependent on the financial support of these corporations for being elected, that are in the interest of corporations, not in the interest of people, ecosystems, and future generations. Multinational corporations not only have politicians in their pocket, but also own a large segment of international and national mass media, and thus determine the information most people access, and how this information is viewed and discussed.


Terrorism or Resistance [September 7, 2003]

Norwegian media tends to emphasize the homegrown and varied resistance movement in Iraq. A very natural and predictable resistance to illegal occupation by a foreign power (that has a culture and set of values very different from their own, and profoundly immoral and corrupted from their view). US officials and media emphasize "terrorism", in a typical attempt to place a smokescreen on the situation. While there may be some instances that could be called "terrorism", it seems that most of it is indeed homegrown resistance.


US Hegemony [September 6, 2003]

Former British MP Michael Meacher is among the growing number of people who speaks up: The emperor has no clothes.

Michael Meacher, This war on terrorism is bogus (The Guardian).


Still Amazed [August 25, 2003]

I can't help still being amazed by the reaction of the US government and population following 911. To anyone following the international situation, even superficially, it was clear that the US foreign policy over many decades has given a large number of people around the world good reasons to resent the US. I personally was surprised it did not happen sooner. As an acquaintance of mine commented about the reaction of the US public: "Sorry your bubble burst." It seems amazing how the reaction was channeled into the most immature and unhealthy ways - into the desire to use violence and escalate the tragedy, into blind and pathological patriotism... Into a situation where people were willing to readily give up just what they said the US is representing.

Of course, the White House used the situation to further their own policies and US dominance around the world. The media followed, since they are owned by multi-national corporations with aligned interests. But that people accepted it? It seems almost beyond belief. It seems even more beyond belief that European governments largely have followed the US. I remember that NATO responded initially with emphasizing the need to reduce the gap between wealthy and poor etc. worldwide. They went directly to the cause of the frustration behind terrorism. And then they readily abandoned it as soon as the US applied pressure...


CIA Paying for False Testemony, PR Firm, and Reporters [August 24, 2003]

Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) had a revealing story on their evening news today. Apparently, CIA - on the request of the US government - payed off an Iraqi defector for false testemony (concerning nonexisting WMD facilities), a PR firm, and reporters, to create a false impression of WMD production in Iraq. There is already so much evidence that - in a more democratic and transparent system - the government would have to resign. Of course, in the US, nothing happens. [ more 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ]


Drones & Lies

The case for the Iraqi war is disentigrating in the media at an increasing rate. Of course, those who followed international news in the leadup to the war knew that a significant portion of the arguments of Bush, Powell and Blair were not grounded in reality. Now it is also coming into mainstream US news - too late to change what has happened, but maybe soon enough to let more people see what is going on with this government.

Some examples: Scientists: Iraq drones posed no threat | A look back at Powell's case on Iraq | No 10 knew: Iraq no threat | A Weapons Cache We'll Never See One of the prime minister's closest advisers issued a private warning that it would be wrong for Tony Blair to claim Iraq's banned weapons programme showed Saddam Hussein presented an "imminent threat" to the west or even his Arab neighbours. [story]

Huddled over a fleet of abandoned Iraqi drones, U.S. weapons experts in Baghdad came to one conclusion: Despite the Bush administration's public assertions, these unmanned aerial vehicles weren't designed to dispense biological or chemical weapons.

The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of Air Force intelligence analysts who argued in a national intelligence assessment of Iraq before the war that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones. [story]

Six months after Powell's Feb. 5 appearance, the file does look thin. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told U.S. senators last month the Bush administration had no "dramatic new evidence" before ordering the Iraq invasion. [...]

Powell presented satellite photos of industrial buildings, bunkers and trucks, and suggested they showed Iraqis surreptitiously moving prohibited missiles and chemical and biological weapons to hide them. At two sites, he said trucks were "decontamination vehicles" associated with chemical weapons.

These and other sites had undergone 500 inspections in recent months. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, a day earlier, had said his well-equipped experts found no contraband and no sign that items had been moved. Nothing has been reported found since. [...]

Powell said "classified" documents found at a nuclear scientist's Baghdad home were "dramatic confirmation" of intelligence saying prohibited items were concealed this way.

U.N. nuclear inspectors later said the documents were old and "irrelevant" - some administrative material, some from a failed and well-known uranium-enrichment program of the 1980s. [...]

Powell said defectors told of "biological weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. He displayed artists' conceptions of such vehicles.

After the invasion, U.S. authorities said they found two such truck trailers in Iraq, and the CIA said it concluded they were part of a bioweapons production line. But no trace of biological agents was found on them, Iraqis said the equipment made hydrogen for weather balloons, and State Department intelligence balked at the CIA's conclusion. The British defense minister, Geoffrey Hoon, has said the vehicles aren't a "smoking gun."

The trailers have not been submitted to U.N. inspection for verification. No "bioweapons railcars" have been reported found. [...]

Powell said Iraq produced four tons of the nerve agent VX. "A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons," he said.

Powell didn't note that most of that four tons was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision. Before the invasion, the Iraqis made a "considerable effort" to prove they had destroyed the rest, doing chemical analysis of the ground where inspectors confirmed VX had been dumped, the U.N. inspection agency reported May 30.

No VX has been reported found since the invasion. [...]

"We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry," Powell said.

No "chemical weapons infrastructure" has been reported found. [...]

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," Powell said.

Powell gave no basis for the assertion, and no such agents have been reported found. [...]

Powell said 122mm chemical warheads found by U.N. inspectors in January might be the "tip of an iceberg."

The warheads were empty, a fact Powell didn't note. [...]

"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. . . . And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them," Powell said.

No such weapons were used and none was reported found after the U.S. and allied military units overran Iraqi field commands and ammunition dumps. [...]

[story]


Falling Out of Love with America

An article that closely reflects my sentiments... [Full story]

[...] There was a deafening, bewildered silence that prairie night in the Iguana diner on the edge of Oklahoma, broken only by such musings as that of a man asking: 'What is it people have got against us, that they want to come killing our kids?' The honest answer: a despised 'federal government' headed by a man the Right - even beyond McVeigh's militias - regarded as a usurper in the White House. [...]

For nearly a decade a group of people exiled from power during the Clinton years had been making plans. Their names are now more or less well known: Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Douglas Feith. In a series of papers they devised a blueprint for unchallenged and unchallengeable American power, military and political, across the globe, with the Middle East and Iraq as fulcrum. All that was needed to realise that dream - said a document produced by one of their many think-tanks, the Project for the New American Century - was 'a new Pearl Harbour'. [...]

'I think what we are seeing now, represented by the policies of the Bush administration, is an old American tradition, an imperialist tradition that has existed since the middle of the nineteenth century. But we are in for a busy ride. Reality has a way of landing in your lap and punching you in the nose. "Empire Lite" may not work; and are the Americans really ready for heavy Empire?' [...]

'And so we are left with an America which sees the world as a football game: you win or lose. It has lost all sense of nuance. And even though Americans do not like foul play in football - a clip in the back from behind - we are encouraging it in the world. We have become a nation with no idea what it means to grow up in a refugee camp in the West Bank or Gaza, and no idea why people such as al-Qaeda - with whom I have no agreement at all, I hasten to add - dislike us so much.' [...]

There are many, invariably woolly, ways to measure how America is perceived in the world: one was the relative absence of anti-Americanism on the planet's streets until the invasion of Iraq. More instructive probably are the fortunes of quintessentially American commercial brands on the global market. Just this month, a survey by the RoperASW consultancy found that for the first time ever overseas sales by Nike, Microsoft and McDonald's have fallen by 14, 18 and 21 per cent respectively). [...]

By Ed Vulliamy, The Guardian


The US Promoting Terrorism Worldwide [August 23, 2003]

I am still struck by how determined the US seems to be in promoting terrorism worldwide. Their foreign policies, now more than ever, seems primarily aimed at giving people worldwide reason to feel increased resentment towards the US. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - opposed by the world majority and the UN - just being one recent example in a long history. Acting with disrespect (towards international democracy, the right of nations, and of individuals) and violence fuels terrorism - it does not diminish it.


Sentiments Towards the US [August 21, 2003]

I usually don't make an entry just to link to something else, but think this story is very revealing. It certainly reflects sentiments I find when I talk with other Europeans - both progressive and conservative (although the European conservatives would be seen as pretty liberal in the US). The dislike revealed in this survey seems to be based partly on the global effects of the US foreign policy (aimed at promoting US economic, cultural and military dominance throughout the world), and partly on the values promoted by the US.

These values are promoted in deeds, although not always in words, and include: Corporations and profit making over the needs of people. Individuals over community. Increasing the gap between wealthy and poor within the US and worldwide. Lack of understanding and respect for other cultures and religions. Arrogance and self-centeredness (our view is the only right one). A country founded on genocide, lieas and theft, and continuing thievery. [ 2 | 3 ]. The list can be made very long.

According to investigations carried out at the end of 2002 by the PEW Research Centre, dislike of the USA has risen in the last year in Latin American countries as well as in Middle Eastern nations. Around 81% of Pakistanis expressed aversion to US foreign policy. In Argentina loathing of America reaches 73% and just 6% of the Egyptian public has a favourable view of the United States.

The report in general states that the spread of U.S. ideas and customs is disliked by majorities in almost every country included in this survey. This sentiment is even prevalent in friendly nations, such as Canada (54%) and Britain (50%), and even more so in countries where America is broadly disliked. The PEW global attitudes survey interviewed more than 38,000 people in 44 nations between July and October 2002. [...]

The fact that the US is hated for its colonialist foreign policy is even acknowledged by many Americans themselves. Robert Bowman, bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne Beach, Florida wrote, "We are the target of terrorists because, in much of the world, our government stands for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things." [continued]

Story by Billy I. Ahmed, Bangladesh's The New Nation


Iraq and Violence [August 21, 2003]

Prior to the (illegal) invasion and occupation of Iraq, there were no proven links between that country and terrorism - even according to the CIA. Following the invasion and a short time into the occupation (which is going to be long lasting and costly in every way), there certainly is. Predictably, we are seeing a grassroots and homegrown resistance aimed at an occupying power with the intention of asserting their dominance in the oil-rich Middle East. We are also possibly seeing Iraq becoming a haven for terrorism and terrorists - due to the general resentment towards the US and the current lawless conditions. Terrorism following, not prior to, the occupation.


My Mail [August 19, 2003]

Nearly all my mail from Europe over the last few months has arrived opened. The same is the case of some US mail (especially packages). After two such occurrences over the same number of days, I finally went to the post office. They said - as I expected - that the mail is opened for security reasons. Opened, with no letter of explanation - and consistently leaving the envelope or package open...! The person at the post office mentioned that mail is opened at random. The frequency my mail is opened at seems to indicate that I may have the privilege of being on some sort of list (which I do see as a priveledge - akin to being on Nixon's famous list). The fact that they leave the mail opened (single minded concern for "security" - no concern for the recipient of the mail) reflects in its own little way the general attutude of the current US government.


Security [August 15, 2003]

Keywords: In terms of security, ineffective strategies. Military - often opposite effect. Airlines, ridiculous and ineffective measures (so many other ways to bring a plane down, so many better targets). Interview before visa, difficult to see how can be effective (will a terrorist openly admit what they are planning in a five or ten minute interview with an overworked embassy employee?). Only goals seems to be to appear to do something.

Real security: Healthcare, education. Withdraw US cultural, economic and military dominance. Aid countries in strengthening their own culture and traditions, their own local economies - on their own terms.


Culture (and cult) of Immaturity [August 2, 2003]

The US seems to have a cult of immaturity.

When I first came to the US, another Norwegian student made the observation that the US mainstream culture, (and thus a large segment of the population) seem to be stuck in adolescence - they do not mature beyond. It certainly seemed true (and still does) in terms of food choices, the media and entertainment. Still, I remember thinking that it had to be an exaggeration, especially in people's understanding of and view on the world.

The longer I am here, the more the description seems overall accurate. It goes far beyond food choices, media and entertaiment.

This reflection was sparked by a particular observation: The US media and government applauds and celebrates the assassination of Saddam Hussein's sons. How can anyone celebrate the death of another human being, unless they have lost touch with their own humanity - and thus their source of maturity.

The same lack of maturity is reflected in a large number of the (other) views and actions of the White House. Some examples: The "you are with us or against us", black-and-white, non-nuansed, view promoted by Bush. The habitual response to violence and tragedy with actions that lead to further violence and tragedy (for humans on "the other side"). The de-humanization of opponents.

US mass media systematically promote immature behavior. It is seen as "cool" to (apparently, but not truly) meet ones own needs with little concern for the needs of others. Unfortunately, this is picked up by a significant number of people, to the dismay of others.