December
5, 2013, Issue 197
HUDSON
VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
jacdon@earthlink.net
http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
–––––––––––––
CONTENTS
1. Quotes Of The Month: Arundhati Roy (1961- )
2. Statistics Of The Month
3. Climate Change Meeting — To Little, Too Late
4. Pope
Francis Sharply Criticizes Capitalism
5. Food,
Farms, And Solidarity
6. Economic Stagnation Haunts U.S.
7. Homeowner Charged In Death Of
Renisha Mcbride
8. U.S.-Iran
Deal: Imperialist Policy Shift
9. Global Rainfall Increase Linked To Warming
10.
Sleepwalking To Extinction
11.
Living Death In Prison For Petty Crimes
12.
Wikileaks Reveals Secret Details Of Tpp Pact
13.
U.S., Australia And The ‘Pivot’ To China
14.
Russia's View Of The Iran Deal
15.
Isreal’s Goal: Undermine U.S.-Iran Talks
16. NSA Envisions Total Global Surveillance
17. Petition: End Logging In America's Rainforest
–––––––––––––
1. QUOTES OF THE MONTH: Arundhati Roy
(1961- )
The Indian author of “The God of Small Things” is a
progressive commentator and political activist with a worldwide following.
·
“Another world is not only possible, she is on her
way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
·
“Thou shalt not be a
victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.
And above all
Thou shalt not be a
bystander.”
·
“Our strategy should be not only to confront empire,
but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With
our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance,
our sheer relentlessness – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories
that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.”
·
“The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse
to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their
wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.”
·
“Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need
us more than we need them.”
·
“Nationalism of one kind or another was the cause of
most of the genocide of the twentieth century. Flags are bits of colored cloth
that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's minds and then as ceremonial
shrouds to bury the dead.”
·
“Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital
but alone are not powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when
soldiers refuse to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and
aircraft, when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung
across the globe.”
—————————
2. STATISTICS
OF THE MONTH
·
Economic
woes, unpopular wars and nuclear meltdowns have eroded public trust in the
authorities, according to a new Gallup poll. Only 40% of citizens in the
mostly-rich countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development expressed confidence in their national governments in 2012, down
five percentage points from 2007. In the U.S. it’s about 35%. The drop is big
in countries hardest hit by recession: more than 20 percentage points in
Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Only 12% of Greeks trust their leaders, compared
with almost 80% in Switzerland (where faith in government rose in 2007-2012). Interestingly,
in non-OECD China about 65% of citizens have confidence in their government.
In the larger emerging countries, confidence is about 54%.
·
Since
1992 the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly opposed the vindictive American
sanctions 22 times. The Oct. 29 vote this year was typical: 188-2, with only
the U.S. and Israel in the minority. Israel has joined with the U.S. every
time, in return for which the U.S. employs its Security Council veto to protect
its sidekick from charges of war crimes and the like. The highest number of
opposition votes over the years was four — when the Marshall Islands and Palau
joined.
—————————
3. CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING:
TO LITTLE, TOO LATE
TO LITTLE, TOO LATE
 |
| Environmental organiztions walk out of UN meeting to protest lack of progress. |
By Jack A. Smith, Editor, Activist News
The
sharply increasing scientific indicators of impending disastrous global climate
change have failed to motivate the principal developed countries, led by the
U.S., to accelerate the lackluster pace of their efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
This
was the principal conclusion of several key environmental groups attending the
United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) Nov. 11-23 in Warsaw, Poland. The
meeting lasted a day and a half longer than scheduled to resolve a dispute
about new greenhouse emission targets. About 10,000 people attended the 19th
annual meeting of the so-called Conference of Parties (COP19) that drew nearly
all the UN’s 193 member states.
About
800 attendees associated with environmental groups walked out of the conference
Nov. 21, protesting the lack of progress. In a joint statement on the day of
the walkout, the World Wildlife Federation, OxFam, Friends of the Earth, Action
Aid and the International Trade Union Federation declared:
"Organizations
and movements representing people from every corner of the Earth have decided
that the best use of our time is to voluntarily withdraw from the Warsaw
climate talks. The conference, which should have been an important step in the
just transition to a sustainable future, is on track to deliver virtually
nothing."
According
to Professor Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics and a leading
British expert on climate change: “The actions that have been agreed are simply
inadequate when compared with the scale and urgency of the risks that the world
faces from rising levels of greenhouse gases.”
There
were also street protests and marches in Warsaw composed largely of younger
conference attendees and local youth. One slogan, referring to climate
disasters, was “The Philippines, Pakistan, New Orleans: Change the System, not
the climate.”
On
Nov. 18, delegates from 133 developing countries — under the umbrella of the
G77 group plus China — walked out temporarily “because we do not see a
clear-cut commitment by developed countries to reach an agreement” to
financially help poor countries suffering the effects of climate change for
which they are not responsible. The U.S., for instance, was reluctant to help
developing countries adapt to sea level rise, droughts, powerful storms and
other adverse impacts, even though it is historically the greatest emitter of
greenhouse gases.
By
the end of the conference, perhaps encouraged by the walkout, the world body
agreed to set up a “Loss and Damage” process for “the most vulnerable
countries” experiencing losses from global warming. The details remain vague.
A
distressing aspect of the conference came when four major developed countries
took actions in contradiction to fighting global warming. • Japan — the fifth
largest carbon polluter — announced it was breaking its pledge to reduce
greenhouse gases by 25% of 1990 levels by the year 2020, blaming the Fukushima
nuclear power plant disaster. • Canada and Australia recently declared they
would not support the Green Climate Fund — the UNCCC program to transfer money
from the developed to the developing countries to assist them in dealing with
climate change. • Conference host Poland, a major coal producer, worked with
the World Coal Association to simultaneously host the International Coal and
Climate Summit in Warsaw. (Greenpeace and others protested outside the coal
meeting.)
COP19
was permeated with corporate lobbyists from “fossil fuels, big business groups,
carbon market and financial players, agribusiness and agrofuels, as well as
some of the big polluting industries,” according to the oppositional “COP19
Guide to Corporate Lobbying.” Corporations appeared at previous COP meetings
but witnesses say never in such large number.
Obviously,
one of the most important issues confronting the world community is reducing
greenhouse carbon emissions to impede global warming. This is a perennial UNCCC
goal but hardly sufficient so far to prevent substantial increases in carbon
dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere, now exceeding 400 parts per million
(ppm) for the first time in at least 3 million years since the
Pliocene era.
Greenhouse
reductions hark back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which obligated developed
countries to specific — and in the main incongruously low — emissions reduction
targets while developing countries were encouraged to reduce emissions without
a binding requirement. Since 1997, despite Kyoto, emissions have increased substantially.
According to a new report from research teams coordinated by the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, “The gap between where emissions are
and where emissions would need to be in order to keep climate targets within
reach is getting bigger and bigger.”
Kyoto,
which the U.S. refused to join because of its so-called “bias” toward
developing countries, has in effect been extended from 2013 to 2020 when new
emissions targets will go into effect. Unless these new targets are far greater
than the old, CO2 ppm will jump much higher.
At
issue during COP19 was a proposal by the EU, U.S. and a number of developed
countries to eliminate Kyoto’s nonbinding reductions for developing countries.
Under this plan, each and all countries would set specific targets over next
year. These targets would then be
inspected by the other countries to assure they are adequate for the mission at
hand. The final targets would be published in early 2015 and presumably
approved by that year’s COP, and implemented in five years.
 |
| Protest inside hall of climate meeting. |
According
to an account in the mass circulation Indian newspaper The Hindu: “India, China
and other countries in the LMDC group take the position that the new climate
agreement must not force developing countries to review their volunteered
emission reduction targets. Setting themselves up in a direct confrontation
with the developed countries, the LMDC opposes doing away with the current
differentiation between developing and developed countries when it came to
taking responsibility for climate action.”
In
other words, the developing countries will do what they can to reduce
emissions, but the principal task by far belongs to the developed countries.
They argue that developed industrial countries have been spewing fossil
fuel-created greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for 100 to 200 years or more,
and most of these pollutants have yet to dissipate. The carbon dioxide already
in the atmosphere could warm the planet for hundreds of years.
The
richer countries reject this argument, pointing to the increasing
industrialization taking place in the developing world. Writing in the Guardian
Nov. 25, Graham Readfearn points out: “Rich countries are desperate to avoid
taking the blame for the impacts of climate change…. The developed countries
won't let any statements slip into any UN climate document that could be used
against them in the future” in terms of financing mitigation, adaptation and
compensation costs.
Most
developing countries are very poor and have contributed miniscule emissions,
but a few of them — China, India, and Brazil, among others — have become major
industrialized powers in relatively recent years. China, now the largest annual
contributor to global warming, has been seriously industrialized for less than
30 years and also functions as a global factory for many nations, including the
U.S. These recently industrializing developing states, most of which are former
exploited colonies of the rich countries, argue that the developed states
became major powers based on burning fossil fuels and thus have the major
responsibility to take the lead in reducing emissions.
China
points out that while it has recently displaced the U.S. as leading producer of
Greenhouse gas emissions, its population is three times greater. On a per
capita basis, Beijing notes, the average American in 2011 produced 17.6 metric
tons of carbon dioxide; the average Chinese, just 6.5 tons. (A metric ton is
205 pounds heavier than a 2,000 pound ton.) The U.S. rejects these arguments.
The
developed-developing conflict over emissions was finally resolved when China
and India withdrew demands for including Kyoto’s exception for developing
countries, in return for which “commitments” to a specific target were changed
to “contributions.” Clearly this is a vague stopgap measure that will
eventually change. The important matter is the total of emissions reductions to
be agreed upon in 2015.
The
U.S., as the most influential developed country, has taken hardly any action at
all to significantly reduce CO2 emissions when it was the number one emitter of
carbon in the atmosphere or now when it is number two, tut-tutting about
China’s smokestacks while President Obama boasts about expanding drilling for
oil and fracking for gas. Ironically, though China is a mass polluter today it
is investing far more heavily than the U.S. in renewable resources such as
solar and wind energy. This may eventually pay off, but not before an
unacceptable level of CO2 continue.
Given the number of drastic reports about climate change from the scientific community in the last several months, the accomplishments at COP19 are useful but hugely disproportionate to what is needed. In addition to the agreement on contributions to lower greenhouse emissions this also happened: The countries agreed on a multi-billion dollar program to combat global deforestation. The Loss and Damage project was passed, and developed states were urged to increase levels of aid to poorer countries. A plan was hammered out to monitor emissions reductions.
Given the number of drastic reports about climate change from the scientific community in the last several months, the accomplishments at COP19 are useful but hugely disproportionate to what is needed. In addition to the agreement on contributions to lower greenhouse emissions this also happened: The countries agreed on a multi-billion dollar program to combat global deforestation. The Loss and Damage project was passed, and developed states were urged to increase levels of aid to poorer countries. A plan was hammered out to monitor emissions reductions.
A
few of those recent drastic reports include these facts:
Greenhouse
gas emissions are set to be 8-12 billion tons higher in 2020 than the level
needed to keep global warming below 3.6 Fahrenheit, the UN Environment Program
said. (Above 3.6 F, the world’s people will begin to experience extreme
effects)…. According to the American Meteorological Society, there is a 90%
probability that global temperatures will rise 6.3 to 13.3 degrees Fahrenheit
in less than 100 years…. According to the Associated Press, a leaked report
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change means that “Many of the ills
of the modern world — starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war
and disease — are likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate
change”….. The U.S. is likely to become the world’s top producer of crude oil
and natural gas by the end of 2013 due to increased oil drilling and fracking
for gas….The U.S. is pumping 50% more methane into the atmosphere than the
government has estimated, reports Science News…. In a new study, the team of
researchers reports a global loss of 888,000 square miles of forest between
2000 and 2012 and a gain of only 309,000 square miles of new forest.
Summing
up the Warsaw conference, an observer for Christian Aid, Mohamed Adow,
declares: “In agreeing to establish a loss and damage mechanism, countries have
accepted the reality that the world is already dealing with the extensive
damage caused by climate impacts, and requires a formal process to assess and deal
with it, but they seem unwilling to take concrete actions to reduce the
severity of these impacts.”
“We
did not achieve a meaningful outcome,” said Naderev Sano, the head of the
Philippines delegation who had been fasting throughout the meeting in solidarity
with the victims of Typhoon Haiyan.
Samantha
Smith, representing the World Wildlife Fund at COP19 declared: “Negotiators in
Warsaw should have used this meeting to take a big and critical step towards
global, just action on climate change. That didn't happen. This has placed the
negotiations towards a global agreement [on emissions] at risk.”
The
next major UNCCC conference, COP20, will take place in Lima, Peru, in December 2014. The extremely important 2015 meeting, when the countries will decide on
new emissions targets, will be in Paris.
There is positive
news as well as the negative.
•
A majority
of the American people now seek to limit global warming, according to a recent
report from Grist Environmental News. Stanford University Professor Jon
Krosnick led an analysis of more than a decade’s worth of poll results for 46
states. The results show that the majority of residents of all of those states,
whether red or blue, are united in their worries about the climate. At least
three-quarters of residents are aware that the climate is changing. Two-thirds
want the government to limit greenhouse gas emissions from businesses. At least
62% want regulations that cut carbon pollution from power plants. At least half
want the U.S. to take action to fight climate change, even if other countries
do not.
•
The
walkout by environmental NGOs is highly significant. They are clearly “mad as
hell” and presumably are “not going to take this anymore!" to evoke the
famous line from the film Network. Their unprecedented action in Warsaw
undoubtedly reflects the views of millions of people back in the United States
who have been following the scientific reports and want Washington to finally
take dramatic action.
•
At issue
is mobilizing these people to take action in concert with others to force the
political system to put climate sanity and ecological sustainability on the
immediate national agenda. Two things are required. 1. A mass education program
is called for because the broader and deeper implications of reforms must be
understood and acted upon. 2. Unity in action is necessary to bring
together many constituencies to fight for climate sanity and justice with
a view toward protecting future generations from the excesses of the industrial
era.
•
There are up to a score of major environmental organizations in the U.S. Some,
like Greenpeace and 350.org are willing to offer civil disobedience; some are
important education and pressure groups; and some — far fewer — are too
cautious and compromising, such as those advocating for nuclear power or
natural gas. There must be many hundreds and more small and medium size
environmental groups throughout our country, with anywhere from 5 to 50 or even
100 local followers. And then there are the numerous progressive and left
organizations that basically agree with the environmental cause. None have to
give up their individual identities, but they can come together around specific
global warming and ecological issues and fight the power of the 1% to 5% who
essentially rule America.
•
The actions of the developing societies at COP19 were important, too,
particularly their brief walkout. The majority of these countries in Asia,
Africa and Latin America are not only vulnerable to the consequences of climate
change but rarely possess the economic wherewithal to adequately survive. They
will struggle for their demands in future global conferences.
•
Despite the foot-dragging of many developed countries, all of them contain
environmental and progressive/left organizations. They, too, are “mad as hell”
and will grow stronger.
•
Time may not be on sanity’s side, but as the CO2 ppm rises and the hopes for
significant reductions in greenhouse gases falls in the next few years,
conditions will be ripe for a global climate justice uprising.
At this point it seems that only a mass
mobilization of the U.S. and world’s peoples will be able to provide the
strength to stand up to the fossil fuel interests, the corporations, big
business, banks, financiers and the weak or corrupt politicians who stand in
the way of building an equal and ecologically sustainable society including
rational conservation of resources and reduction of excess consumption.
—————————
4. POPE FRANCIS SHARPLY CRITICIZES CAPITALISM
By Reuters news
service, Nov. 27
The
leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, has attacked “unfettered”
capitalism as "a new tyranny," urging global leaders to fight poverty
and growing inequality in the first major work he has authored alone as
pontiff.
The
84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, amounted to an official
platform for his papacy, building on views he has aired in sermons and remarks
since he became the first non-European pontiff in 1,300 years in March.
In
it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic
system, in September attacking the "idolatry of money" and beseeching
politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and
healthcare."
He
also called on rich people to share their wealth. "Just as the commandment
'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of
human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of
exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis wrote in the
document issued Nov. 26.
"How
can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of
exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"
The
pope said renewal of the church could not be put off and the Vatican and its
entrenched hierarchy "also need to hear the call to pastoral
conversion."
"I
prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on
the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and
from clinging to its own security," he wrote.
Called
Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), the exhortation is presented in
Francis's simple and warm preaching style, distinct from the more academic
writings of former popes, and stresses the church's central mission of
preaching "the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus
Christ."
In
it, he reiterated earlier statements that the church cannot ordain women or
accept abortion. The male-only priesthood, he said, "is not a question
open to discussion" but women must have more influence in church
leadership.
A
meditation on how to revitalize a church suffering from encroaching
secularization in western countries, the exhortation echoed the missionary zeal
more often heard from the evangelical Protestants who have won over many
disaffected Catholics in the pope's native Latin America.
In
it, economic inequality features as one of the issues Francis is most concerned
about. The 76-year-old pontiff calls for an overhaul of the financial system
and warns that unequal distribution of wealth inevitably leads to violence.
"As
long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the
absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the
structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's
problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.
Denying
this was simple populism, he called for action "beyond a simple welfare
mentality" and added: "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians
who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of
the poor."
Since
his election, Francis has set an example for austerity in the church, living in
a Vatican guest house rather than the ornate Apostolic Palace, travelling in a
Ford Focus, and last month suspending a bishop who spent millions of euros on
his luxurious residence.
He
chose to be called Francis after the medieval Italian saint of the same name
famed for choosing a life of poverty.
Stressing
co-operation among religions, Francis quoted the late Pope John Paul II's idea
that the papacy might be reshaped to promote closer ties with other Christian
churches and noted lessons Rome could learn from the Orthodox church such as
"synodality" or decentralized leadership.
He
praised co-operation with Jews and Muslims and urged Islamic countries to
guarantee their Christian minorities the same religious freedom as Muslims
enjoy in the west.
—————————
5. FOOD, FARMS, AND SOLIDARITY
[One
hears a lot in the Hudson Valley these days about saving family farms and
stopping GM crops. This very brief book review from the Sept.-Oct. Foreign
Affairs is of interest in this regard.]
By Andrew Moravcsik
Food, Farms and
Solidarity: French Farmers Challenge
Industrial Agriculture and Genetically Modified Crops.
By
Chaia Heller, Duke University Press,$25 (paper).
Although
Heller shrouds her conclusions in opaque academic jargon, her engaging book
contains many insights into the surprisingly divergent fates of French and U.S.
agricultural interest groups.
Her
basic thesis is that French farmers have been more successful than their
American counterparts at persuading their government to oppose the use of
genetically modified organisms not because that position is intrinsically
French (it originated in Vermont) or because French farmers enjoy more
political clout.
Rather,
the French farmers have prevailed because they linked their cause to powerful
legitimating symbols and political values in France: preserving small farms and
small towns, resisting unjust state authority, maintaining the power of unions,
combating the spread of McDonald’s and other fast-food chains, and defending
the integrity of local communities and traditional practices.
In
the United States, such tactics would be less effective, she argues, because
the American public lacks a sense of solidarity with unions, farmers, or
purveyors of gourmet food. It is hard to know if Heller is right, but her tale
of earthy farmers becoming postmodern ideological entrepreneurs makes for fun
reading.
—————————
6. ECONOMIC STAGNATION HAUNTS U.S.
By the Activist
Newsletter
As
though the erosion of American democracy, the weakening of civil liberties,
inequality, joblessness, indifference to global warming, and a penchant for
wars is not enough, now we have this:
“
What if the [economic] world we’ve been living in for the past five years is
the new normal? What if depression-like conditions [in the U.S.] are on track
to persist, not for another year or two, but for decades?”
The
liberal Keynesian economist Paul Krugman in his New York Times column asked
this question Nov. 18. He went on:
“You
might imagine that speculations along these lines are the province of a radical
fringe. And they are indeed radical; but fringe, not so much. A number of
economists have been flirting with such thoughts for a while. And now they’ve
moved into the mainstream. In fact, the case for ‘secular stagnation’ — a
persistent state in which a depressed economy is the norm, with episodes of
full employment few and far between — was made forcefully recently at the most
ultra respectable of venues, the IMF’s big annual research conference. And the
person making that case was none other than Larry Summers. Yes, that Larry
Summers [the former Treasury Secretary]….
“Summers
began with a point that should be obvious but is often missed: The financial
crisis that started the Great Recession is now far behind us. Indeed, by most
measures it ended more than four years ago. Yet our economy remains depressed.
“He
then made a related point: Before the crisis we had a huge housing and debt
bubble. Yet even with this huge bubble boosting spending, the overall economy
was only so-so — the job market was O.K. but not great, and the boom was never
powerful enough to produce significant inflationary pressure.
“Mr.
Summers went on to draw a remarkable moral: We have, he suggested, an economy
whose normal condition is one of inadequate demand — of at least mild
depression — and which only gets anywhere close to full employment when it is
being buoyed by bubbles….
“The evidence
suggests that we have become an economy whose normal state is one of mild
depression, whose brief episodes of prosperity occur only thanks to bubbles and
unsustainable borrowing…. Economic reality is what it is. And what that reality
appears to be right now is one in which depression rules will apply for a very
long time.”
[Editor:
A bubble
has been described as “trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at
variance with intrinsic values." Such values described the real value of a company not its
possibly inflated stock value.]
Some
respected economists, mostly Marxists, have been convinced for some time that
stagnation has become a more or less permanent feature of capitalist economies
in the U.S. and Europe. John Bellamy Foster, the leftist author and editor of
Monthly Review, declared recently:
“People
commonly see what happened in 2007 and 2008 when the bubble burst as a
financial crisis and nothing more. But the real problem is a tendency
towards economic stagnation in the mature economies, and the long-term slowdown
in the rate of growth.
“Our
argument is that financialization, the series of financial bubbles that we've
had over a period of decades, has been the main thing lifting the
economy. I think this is fairly well understood now, but it wasn't
understood so well five or six years ago. And while financial expansion
has been lifting the economy, financial bubbles always have their limits.
“As
the bubbles burst the government of course tries to act as the lender of last
resort, pouring in liquidity and loans, to get the financial system going
again. But it's not able to deal with the underlying problem which is
stagnation, and this time we're stuck; they can't get the financial system
really going again, and we're faced with a problem of economic stagnation
that's surfaced as a result.
“We
call this the 'stagnation-financialization trap' because the financialization
is the answer to stagnation but it creates bigger, more complex problems, and
eventually the two problems together get us into a condition where we really
can't move forward.”
Recognition
of capitalist stagnation may have “moved into the mainstream” in the U.S., but
Washington certainly does not seem to have a solution other than soldiering on
as long as profits are generated for business, Wall Street, and the 1%. Foster
argues, “socialism is the only answer.”
—
Foster’s comments are from a recent interview titled “Crisis of Capitalism and
Social Democracy,” at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/foster290513.html.
—
A video of Lawrence Summers speech at the IMF Economic Forum Nov. 8 is at
http://equitablegrowth.org/2013/11/16/759/this-mornings-must-watch-larry-summers-on-the-danger-of-a-japan-like-generation-of-secular-stagnation-here-in-the-north-atlantic
—————————
7. MAN CHARGED IN DEATH OF RENISHA
MCBRIDE
By Democracy
Now
Michigan
prosecutors have filed charges against a Detroit-area homeowner for the fatal
shooting of an unarmed African-American woman on his porch. Nineteen-year-old
Renisha McBride was apparently seeking help after a car crash when she came to
the door of the suspect, Ted Wafer. McBride was killed by a shotgun blast to
the face. After a more than week-long investigation that saw the case attract
national controversy, prosecutor Kym Worthy unveiled charges Nov. 15.
"She
was found with a very large gunshot wound to her face,” said Worthy. “It’s
alleged that she was shot to death by the homeowner after she knocked on his
locked front screen door. By all reports, she was unarmed, and there were no
signs of forced entry to the home. We obviously do not feel that the evidence
in this case [suggesys] that the defendant acted in lawful self-defense."
Wafer
faces up to life in prison on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and
possession of a firearm in a felony. He has claimed the gun fired by accident
and that he thought McBride was an intruder. At a news conference, McBride’s
mother, Monica McBride, addressed Wafer publicly: "I’m not going to call
you a monster. You said it was an accident. When you accidentally do something
to someone, you say you’re sorry or you apologize. You did no accident. You
took a life, and you took a beautiful life that was starting to blossom into a
beautiful woman."
—————————
8. U.S.-IRAN DEAL: IMPERIALIST POLICY SHIFT
By
Mazda Majidi
In
the early morning hours of Nov. 24, the world powers reached a deal with Iran
on its nuclear program. The interim agreement is for a duration of six months,
during which the signatories hope to reach a more comprehensive and long-term
agreement.
 |
| President Hassan Rouhani. |
In
exchange, while the U.S.-imposed sanctions will remain in place, there will be
$7 billion in sanctions relief and a promise of no new sanctions for six
months. The $7 billion in relief is essentially the unfreezing of Iran's own
assets in international financial institutions, part of an estimated $100-$120
billion that have been frozen and will continue to be "inaccessible and
restricted."
Given the harsh conditions imposed on Iran, it is a testament
to the capitalist class media monopoly that the main discussion in Western
media is whether Iran has been given too much. Since the agreement, President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been making the case for
the deal by emphasizing the huge concessions Iran was forced to make and that
the sanctions relief is reversible.
The
fact that the Iranian leadership energetically pursued a deal does not indicate
that the deal is just. Iran voluntarily agreed to the deal the same way that a
robbery victim voluntarily agrees to give up valuable possessions.
For over two
years, Iran has been exposed to comprehensive sanctions that amount to an
embargo. It is not just that the United States and the European Union refuse
trade with Iran, but that the U.S. will impose penalties on other states for
trading with Iran. Iran's oil sales, the main source of its currency, have
dropped to below half of what they used to be. Iran has been severely hampered
in its trade of petrochemicals, automobiles and practically all other products.
Similarly, it has been extremely difficult for Iran to purchase many essential
goods, including medicine. As with all other sanctions the imperialists have
imposed on oppressed countries, sanctions against Iran have caused death and
hardship.
Given
the damage done to Iran's economy, it is no wonder that the Islamic Republic
came into Geneva prepared to make major concessions. A modern economy cannot
live indefinitely under sanctions that make trade exceedingly difficult, not to
mention living under the constant "all options are on the table"
threat of military attack.
Besides,
as harsh as are the conditions imposed on Iran, the agreement is not a complete
capitulation. Complete cessation of nuclear activities, including uranium
enrichment for nuclear power generation, was not a demand made on Iran this
time. Explicitly stated or not, the agreement recognizes Iran's right to
continue enrichment, albeit under tight inspections. As unjust and unfair the
agreement may be, one cannot demand of an oppressed nation to withstand
economic strangulation indefinitely.
In
the June elections in Iran, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ineligible to run
for a third term, Hassan Rouhani won resoundingly in the first round. Rouhani's
main promise was "constructive engagement" with the West and bringing
an end to the sanctions. Having suffered two years of harsh sanctions that had
caused the Rial, Iran's currency, to lose nearly 2/3 of its value, the Iranian
people, particularly the working class, were suffering tremendously. Rouhani's
promise of ending the sanctions resonated with the voters hoping for an end to
extreme hardship.
But
Rouhani's conciliatory tone towards the West and willingness to make
concessions cannot be considered the deciding factor in what made the recent
agreement possible.
 |
| U.S aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, waiting... |
The
right-wing, pro-West Green Movement that arose in Iran following the 2009
presidential elections gave rise to Washington's hopes of regime change from
within. But by 2010, hopes for a Green overthrow faded. The crippling U.S.
sanctions, implemented in 2011, were another attempt at bringing about regime
change. Washington hoped that the sanctions would paralyze the economy and
cause so much hardship that the Islamic Republic would be destabilized. But as devastating
as the sanctions have been, they have not pushed the state to the verge of
collapse. The June 2013 elections resulted in the election of the more
conciliatory faction of the Islamic Republic, but regime change remained a
distant dream for Washington.
The
U.S. goal of overthrowing all independent states in the Middle East has
suffered another blow in Syria. Facing domestic and international opposition,
the Obama Administration was forced to relinquish its plans for bombing Syria.
While not stable, the Syrian state has gained strength and is far from
collapsing. Not only has the strength of the armed opposition faded, the Syrian
National Council/Free Syrian Army imperialist-supported alternative have lost
relative strength among the Syrian opposition, with the Al-Qaeda allied forces
emerging as the strongest opposition force.
With
Iraq not having emerged from the eight years of occupation as a dependable
client state, Syria surviving and Iran still standing, Washington's goal of a
Middle East comprised exclusively of client states is now no more than a
fantasy.
So,
as many foreign policy "realists" had long advocated, the Obama
administration had to part ways with the immediate goals of regime change in
Iran and embark upon a path of dealing with Iran as an adversary. Taking this
diplomatic path should not be confused with a humane foreign policy. In the
absence of a realistic military alternative for the U.S., diplomacy, not
military invasion and hostility, is now a more effective tool for promoting
imperialist interests….
—
This article is from Liberation News, Nov. 27.
—————————
9. GLOBAL RAINFALL INCREASE DUE TO WARMING
By Science
News, Nov. 11, 2013
A
new study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists shows that
observed changes in global (ocean and land) precipitation are directly affected
by human activities and cannot be explained by natural variability alone. The
research appears in the Nov. 11 online edition of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Emissions
of heat-trapping and ozone-depleting gases affect the distribution of
precipitation through two mechanisms. Increasing temperatures are expected to
make wet regions wetter and dry regions drier (thermodynamic changes); and
changes in atmospheric circulation patterns will push storm tracks and
subtropical dry zones toward the poles.
"Both
these changes are occurring simultaneously in global precipitation and this behavior
cannot be explained by natural variability alone," said Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) lead author Kate Marvel. "External influences
such as the increase in greenhouse gases are responsible for the changes."
The
team compared climate model predications with the Global Precipitation
Climatology Project's global observations, which span from 1979-2012, and found
that natural variability (such as El Niños and La Niñas) does not account for
the changes in global precipitation patterns. While natural fluctuations in
climate can lead to either intensification or poleward shifts in precipitation,
it is very rare for the two effects to occur together naturally.
"In
combination, manmade increases in greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion
are expected to lead to both an intensification and redistribution of global
precipitation," said Céline Bonfils, the other LLNL author. "The fact
that we see both of these effects simultaneously in the observations is strong
evidence that humans are affecting global precipitation."
—————————
10. SLEEPWALKING
TO EXTINCTION
[This article about global warming will surprise some readers because it deals with certain hard truths that must be faced to prevent a global climate change catastrophe. (FYI if necessary, One degree Celsius equals 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. One meter equals 3.28 feet.)]
By Richard
Smith
When,
on May 10th, scientists at Mauna Loa Observatory on the big island of Hawaii
announced that global CO2 emissions had crossed a threshold at 400 parts per
million (ppm) for the first time in millions of years, a sense of dread spread
around the world and not only among climate scientists. CO2 emissions have been
relentlessly climbing since Charles David Keeling first set up his tracking station
near the summit of Mauna Loa Observatory in 1958 to monitor average daily
global CO2 levels. At that time, CO2 concentrations registered 315 ppm. CO2
emissions and atmospheric concentrations have been rising ever since and have
recently passed a dangerous tipping point: 440ppm.
For
all the climate summits, promises of “voluntary restraint,” carbon trading and
carbon taxes, the growth of CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations have
not just been unceasing, they have been accelerating in what scientists have
dubbed the “Keeling Curve.” In the early 1960s, CO2 ppm concentrations in the
atmosphere grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has
industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to 2.1 ppm per year. In just the
first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74 ppm compared to last year.
Carbon
concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3 and
5 million years ago, when global average temperatures were 3˚C or 4˚C hotter
than today , the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40 meters higher
and jungles covered northern Canada; Florida, meanwhile, was under water along
with other coastal locations we now call New York, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong,
Sydney and many others. Crossing this threshold has fuelled fears that we are
fast approaching converging “tipping points” — melting of the subarctic tundra
or the thawing and releasing of the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic
sea bottom — that will accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to
stop it.
“I
wish it weren’t true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the
400 ppm level without losing a beat,” said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph
Keeling, son of Charles Keeling. “At this pace, we’ll hit 450 ppm within a few
decades.”
“It
feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,” said Maureen E. Raymo, a
scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia
University.
Why
are we marching toward disaster, “sleepwalking to extinction” as the Guardian’s
George Monbiot once put it? Why can’t we slam on the brakes before we ride off
the cliff to collapse? I’m going to argue here that the problem is rooted in
the requirement of capitalist production. Large corporations can’t help
themselves; they can’t change or change very much. So long as we live under
this corporate capitalist system we have little choice but to go along in this
destruction, to keep pouring on the gas instead of slamming on the brakes, that
the only alternative — impossible as this may seem right now — is to overthrow
this global economic system and all of the governments of the 1% that prop it
up and replace them with a global economic democracy, a radical bottom-up
political democracy, an eco-socialist civilization.
Although
we are fast approaching the precipice of ecological collapse, the means to
derail this train wreck are in the making as, around the world we are
witnessing a near simultaneous global mass democratic “awakening” — as the
Brazilians call it — from Tahrir Square to Zucotti Park, from Athens to
Istanbul to Beijing and beyond such as the world has never seen. To be sure,
like Occupy Wall Street, these movements are still inchoate, are still mainly
protesting what’s wrong rather than fighting for an alternative social order.
Like Occupy, they have yet to clearly and robustly answer that crucial
question: “Don’t like capitalism, what’s your alternative?” Yet they are
working on it, and they are for the most part instinctively and radically
democratic; in this lies our hope.
From
climate change to natural resource overconsumption to pollution, the engine
that has powered three centuries of accelerating economic development,
revolutionizing technology, science, culture and human life itself is, today, a
roaring out-of-control locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping
oceans of life, clawing out mountains of minerals, pumping out lakes of fuels,
devouring the planet’s last accessible natural resources to turn them into
“product,” while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons of
time. Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from
2.5 to 6 billion. But in these same decades, consumption of major natural
resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more. Natural gas
consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so
on. At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says that “half the world’s
great forests have already been leveled and half the world’s plant and animal
species may be gone by the end of this century.” [Human population today is 7
billion. It will reach 9.6 billion by 2050.]
Corporations
aren’t necessarily evil, though plenty are diabolically evil, but they can’t help
themselves. They’re just doing what they’re supposed to do for the benefit of
their shareholders. Shell Oil can’t help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and
cook the climate. That’s what shareholders demand. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and
other mining giants can’t resist mining Australia’s abundant coal and exporting
it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19% of Australia’s GDP and
substantial employment even as coal combustion is the single worst driver of
global warming. IKEA can’t help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia
to feed the Chinese mills building their flimsy disposable furniture (IKEA is
the third largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can’t help it if the
cost of extracting the “rare earths” it needs to make millions of new iThings
each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo — violence, rape, slavery,
forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways.
Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to
wipe out bees, butterflies, birds, small farmers and extinguish crop diversity
to secure their grip on the world’s food supply while drenching the planet in
their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids.
This
is how giant corporations are wiping out life on earth in the course of a
routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the
problems become.
In
Adam Smith’s day, when the first factories and mills produced hat pins and iron
tools and rolls of cloth by the thousands, capitalist freedom to make whatever
they wanted didn’t much matter because they didn’t have much impact on the
global environment. But today, when everything is produced in the millions and
billions, then trashed today and reproduced all over again tomorrow, when the
planet is looted and polluted to support all this frantic and senseless growth,
it matters — a lot.
The
world’s climate scientists tell us we’re facing a planetary emergency. They’ve
been telling us since the 1990s that if we don’t cut global fossil fuel
greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90% below 1990 levels by 2050 we will cross
critical tipping points and global warming will accelerate beyond any human
power to contain it. Yet despite all the ringing alarm bells, no corporation
and no government can oppose growth and, instead, every capitalist government
in the world is putting pedal to the metal to accelerate growth, to drive us
full throttle off the cliff to collapse.
Marxists
have never had a better argument against capitalism than this inescapable and
apocalyptic “contradiction.” Solutions to the ecological crisis are blindingly
obvious but we can’t take the necessary steps to prevent ecological collapse
because, so long as we live under capitalism, economic growth has to take
priority over ecological concerns.
We
all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas emissions. Stop
over-consuming natural resources. Stop the senseless pollution of the earth,
waters, and atmosphere with toxic chemicals. Stop producing waste that can’t be
recycled by nature. Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the
rights of other species to flourish. We don’t need any new technological
breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing what we’re
doing. But we can’t stop because we’re all locked into an economic system in
which companies have to grow to compete and reward their shareholders and
because we all need the jobs.
James
Hansen, the world’s preeminent climate scientist, has argued that to save the
humans:
“Coal
emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters
will be a dead certainty ... Yes, [coal, oil, gas] most of the fossil fuels
must be left in the ground. That is the explicit message that the science
provides. […] Humanity treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump
greenhouse gases in the air, we move onto a steeper, even more slippery
incline. We seem oblivious to the danger — unaware of how close we may be to a
situation in which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip
where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled into a torrential stream that
hurls us over a precipice to our demise.”
But
how can we do this under capitalism? After his climate negotiators stonewalled
calls for binding limits on CO2 emissions at Copenhagen, Cancun, Cape Town and
Doha, President Obama is now trying to salvage his environmental “legacy” by
ordering his EPA to impose “tough” new emissions limits on existing power
plants, especially coal-fired plants. But this won’t salvage his legacy or, more
importantly, his daughters’ futures because how much difference would it make,
really, if every coal-fired power plant in the U.S. shut down tomorrow when
U.S. coal producers are free to export their coal to China, which they are
doing, and when China is building another coal-fired power plan every week? The
atmosphere doesn’t care where the coal is burned. It only cares how much is
burned.
Yet
how could Obama tell American mining companies to stop mining coal? This would
be tantamount to socialism. But if we do not stop mining and burning coal,
capitalist freedom and private property is the least we’ll have to worry about.
Same with Obama’s “tough” new fuel economy standards. In August 2012 Obama
boasted that his new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would
“double fuel efficiency” over the next 13 years to 54.5 miles per gallon by
2025, up from 28.6 mpg at present — cutting vehicle CO2 emissions in half, so
helping enormously to “save the planet.” But as the Center for Biological
Diversity and other critics have noted, Obama was lying, as usual.
In
1950 Americans had one car for every three people. Today we have 1.2 cars for
every American. In 1950 when there were about 2.6 billion humans on the planet,
there were 53 million cars on the world’s roads — about one for every 50
persons. Today, there are 7 billion people but more than 1 billion cars and
industry forecasters expect there will be 2 to 2.5 billion cars on the world’s
roads by mid-century. China alone is expected to have a billion. So, at the end
of the day, incremental half measures like CAFE standards can’t stop rising greenhouse
gas [GHG]emissions. Barring some technical miracle, the only way to cut vehicle
emissions is to just stop making them — drastically suppress vehicle production,
especially of the worst gas hogs.
In
theory, Obama could simply order GM to stop building its humongous gas guzzlers
and switch to producing small economy cars. After all, the federal government
owns the company! But of course, how could he do any such thing? Detroit lives
by the mantra “big car big profit, small car small profit.” Since Detroit has
never been able to compete against the Japanese and Germans in the small car
market, which is already glutted and nearly profitless everywhere, such an
order would only doom GM to failure, if not bankruptcy (again) and throw masses
of workers onto the unemployment lines. So given capitalism, Obama is, in fact,
powerless. He’s locked in to promoting the endless growth of vehicle
production, even of the worst polluters — and lying about it all to the public
to try to patch up his pathetic “legacy.” And yet, if we don’t suppress vehicle
production, how can we stop rising CO2 emissions?
In
the wake of the failure of climate negotiators from Kyoto to Doha to agree on
binding limits on GHG emissions, exasperated British climate scientists Kevin
Anderson and Alice Bows at the Tyndall Centre, Britain’s leading climate change
research center, wrote in September 2012 that we need an entirely new paradigm:
Government
policies must “radically change” if “dangerous” climate change is to be avoided
“We urgently need to acknowledge that the development needs of many countries
leave the rich western nations with little choice but to immediately and
severely curb their greenhouse gas emissions... [It is a] misguided belief that
commitments to avoid warming of 2˚C can still be realized with incremental
adjustments to economic incentives. A carbon tax here, a little emissions
trading there and the odd voluntary agreement thrown in for good measure will
not be sufficient ... long-term end-point targets (for example, 80% by 2050)
have no scientific basis. What governs future global temperatures and other
adverse climate impacts are the emissions from yesterday, today and those
released in the next few years.”
And
not just scientists. In its latest world energy forecast released on November
12, 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that despite the bonanza
of fossil fuels now made possible by fracking, horizontal and deep water
drilling, we can’t consume them if we want to save the humans: “The climate
goal of limiting global warming to 2˚C is becoming more difficult and costly
with each year that passes... no more than one-third of proven reserves of
fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2˚C
goal...” Of course the science could be wrong about this. But so far climate
scientists have consistently underestimated the speed and ferocity of global
warming, and even prominent climate change deniers have folded their cards.
Still,
it’s one thing for James Hansen or Bill McKibben to say we need to “leave the
coal in the hole, the oil in the soil, the gas under the grass,” to call for
“severe curbs” in GHG emissions — in the abstract. But think about what this
means in our capitalist economy. Most of us, even passionate environmental
activists, don’t really want to face up to the economic implications of the
science we defend.
That’s
why, if you listen to environmentalists like Bill McKibben for example, you
will get the impression that global warming is mainly driven by fossi-
fuel-powered electric power plants, so if we just “switch to renewables” this
will solve the main problem and we can carry on with life more or less as we do
now. Indeed, “green capitalism” enthusiasts like Thomas Friedman and the
union-backed “green jobs” lobby look to renewable energy, electric cars and
such as “the next great engine of industrial growth” — the perfect win-win
solution. This is a not a solution. This is a delusion: greenhouse gasses are
produced across the economy not just by power plants. Globally,
fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation accounts for 17% of GHG emissions,
heating accounts for 5%, miscellaneous “other” fuel combustion 8.6%, industry
14.7%, industrial processes another 4.3%, transportation 14.3%, agriculture
13.6%, land use changes (mainly deforestation) 12.2%. This means, for a start,
that even if we immediately replaced every fossil-fuel-powered electric
generating plant on the planet with 100% renewable solar, wind and water power,
this would only reduce global GHG emissions by around 17%.
What
this means is that, far from launching a new green-energy-powered “industrial
growth” boom, barring some tech-fix miracle, the only way to impose “immediate
and severe curbs” on fossil fuel production/consumption would be to impose an emergency
contraction in the industrialized countries: drastically retrench and in some
cases shut down industries, even entire sectors, across the economy and around
the planet — not just fossil fuel producers but all the industries that consume
them and produce GHG emissions — autos, trucking, aircraft, airlines, shipping
and cruise lines, construction, chemicals, plastics, synthetic fabrics,
cosmetics, synthetic fiber and fabrics, synthetic fertilizer and agribusiness Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs).
Of
course, no one wants to hear this because, given capitalism, this would
unavoidably mean mass bankruptcies, global economic collapse, depression and
mass unemployment around the world. That’s why in April 2013, in laying the
political groundwork for his approval of the XL pipeline in some form,
President Obama said “the politics of this are tough.” The earth’s temperature
probably isn’t the “number one concern” for workers who haven’t seen a raise in
a decade; have an underwater mortgage; are spending $40 to fill their gas tank,
can’t afford a hybrid car; and face other challenges.” Obama wants to save the
planet but given capitalism his “number one concern” has to be growing the
economy, growing jobs. Given capitalism — today, tomorrow, next year and every
year — economic growth will always be the overriding priority ... till we
barrel right off the cliff to collapse.
There’s
no technical solution to this problem and no market solution either. In a very
few cases — electricity generation is the main one — a broad shift to
renewables could indeed sharply reduce fossil fuel emissions in that sector.
But if we just use “clean” “green” energy to power more growth, consume ever
more natural resources, then we solve nothing and would still be headed to
collapse. Producing millions of electric cars instead of millions of
gasoline-powered cars, as I explained elsewhere, would be just as ecologically
destructive and polluting, if in somewhat different ways, even if they were all
run on solar power.
Substituting
biofuels for fossil fuels in transportation just creates different but no less
environmentally-destructive problems: converting farm land to raise biofuel
feedstock pits food production against fuels. Converting rainforests,
peatlands, savannas or grasslands to produce biofuels releases more CO2 into
the atmosphere than the fossil fuels they replace and accelerates species
extinction. More industrial farming means more demand for water, synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides. And so on. Cap and trade schemes can’t cut fossil
fuel emissions because business understands, even if some environmentalists do
not, that “dematerialization” is a fantasy, that there’s no win-win tech
solution, that capping emissions means cutting growth. Since cutting growth is
unacceptable to business, labor and governments, cap and trade has been
abandoned everywhere.
Carbon
taxes can’t stop global warming either because they do not cap emissions.
That’s why fossil fuel execs like Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil (the largest
private oil company in the world) and Paul Anderson, CEO of Duke Energy (the
largest electric utility in the U.S.) support carbon taxes. They understand that
carbon taxes would add something to the cost of doing business, like other
taxes, but they pose no limit, no “cap” on growth. ExxonMobil predicts that,
carbon tax or no carbon tax, by 2040 global demand for energy is going to grow
by 35%, 65% in the developing world and nearly all of this is going to be
supplied by fossil fuels. ExxonMobil is not looking to “leave the oil in the
soil” as a favor to Bill McKibben and the humans. ExxonMobil is looking to pump
it and burn it all as fast as possible to enrich its shareholders.
Hansen,
McKibben, Obama — and most of us really — don’t want to face up to the economic
implications of the need to put the brakes on growth and fossil fuel-based
overconsumption. We all “need” to live in denial, and believe in delusions that
carbon taxes or some tech fix will save us because we all know that capitalism
has to grow or we’ll all be out of work. And the thought of replacing
capitalism seems so impossible, especially given the powers arrayed against
change. But what’s the alternative? In the not-so-distant future, this is all
going to come to a screeching halt one way or another — either we seize hold of
this out-of-control locomotive, or we ride this train right off the cliff to
collapse.
If
there’s no market mechanism to stop plundering the planet then, again, what
alternative is there but to impose an emergency contraction on resource
consumption?
These
are the sorts of things we would have to do if we really want to stop
overconsumption and save the world. All these changes are simple, self-evident,
no great technical challenge. They just require a completely different kind of
economy, an economy geared to producing what we need while conserving resources
for future generations of humans and for other species with which we share this
planet.
Economic
systems come and go. Capitalism has had a 300 year run. The question is: will
humanity stand by and let the world be destroyed to save the profit system?
That
outcome depends to a great extent on whether we on the left can answer that
question “what’s your alternative?” with a compelling and plausible vision of
an eco-socialist civilization. We have our work cut out for us. But what gives
the growing global eco-socialist movement an edge in this ideological struggle
is that capitalism has no solution to the ecological crisis, no way to put the
brakes on collapse, because its only answer to every problem is more of the
same growth that’s killing us.
“History”
was supposed to have “ended” with the fall of communism and the triumph of
capitalism two decades ago. Yet today, history is very much alive and it is,
ironically, capitalism itself which is being challenged more broadly than ever
and found wanting for solutions.
Today,
we are very much living in one of those pivotal world-changing moments in
history. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that this is the most critical
moment in human history.
We
may be fast approaching the precipice of ecological collapse, but the means to
derail this train wreck are in the making as, around the world, struggles
against the destruction of nature, against dams, against pollution, against
overdevelopment, against the siting of chemical plants and power plants,
against predatory resource extraction, against the imposition of GMOs, against
privatization of remaining common lands, water and public services, against
capitalist unemployment and job insecurity are growing and building momentum.
Today
we are riding a swelling wave of near simultaneous global mass democratic
“awakening,” an almost global mass uprising. This global insurrection is still
in its infancy, still unsure of its future, but its radical democratic instincts
are, I believe, humanity’s last best hope. Let’s make history!
—This
article is an excerpt from Smith's essay, "Capitalism and the destruction
of life on Earth," published in the Real-World Economics Review. Richard
Smith is an economic historian. He has written extensively for the New Left
Review, Monthly Review and The Ecologist. His new book “To Save t2e Planet,
Turn the World Upside Down” will be published in 2014.
—
From Adbusters, Nov. 15, 2013.
—————————
11. LIVING
DEATH IN PRISON FOR PETTY CRIMES
By Ed
Pilkington
At
about 12:40 p.m. on Jan. 2 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison
Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out
of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard,
Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”
A
few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison
in Louisiana. That was 16 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola,
and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to
die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159.
Jackson,
53, is one of 3,281 prisoners in America serving life sentences with no chance
of parole for nonviolent crimes. Some, like him, were given the most extreme
punishment short of execution for shoplifting; one was condemned to die in
prison for siphoning petrol from a truck; another for stealing tools from a
tool shed; yet another for attempting to cash a stolen check.
“It
has been very hard for me,” Jackson wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) as part of its new report on life without parole for
nonviolent offenders. “I know that for my crime I had to do some time, but a
life sentence for a jacket value at $159. I have met people here whose crimes
are a lot badder with way less time.”
Senior
officials at Angola prison refused to allow the Guardian to speak to Jackson,
on grounds that it might upset his victims — even though his crime was
victim-less. But his sister Loretta Lumar did speak to the Guardian. She said
that the last time she talked by phone with her brother he had expressed
despair. “He told me, 'Sister, this has really broke my back. I'm ready to come
out.'”
Lumar
said that she found her brother's sentence incomprehensible. “This doesn't make
sense to me. I know people who have killed people, and they get a lesser
sentence. That doesn't make sense to me right there. You can take a life and
get 15 or 16 years. He takes a jacket worth $159 and will stay in jail forever.
He didn't kill the jacket!”
The
ACLU's report, A Living Death, chronicles the thousands of lives ruined and
families destroyed by the modern phenomenon of sentencing people to die behind
bars for nonviolent offences. It notes that contrary to the expectation that
such a harsh penalty would be meted out only to the most serious offenders,
people have been caught in this brutal trap for sometimes the most petty
causes.
Ronald
Washington, 48, is also serving life without parole in Angola, in his case for
shoplifting two Michael Jordan jerseys from a Foot Action sportswear store in
Shreveport, Louisiana, in 2004. Washington insisted at trial that the jerseys
were reduced in a sale to $45 each – which meant that their combined value was
below the $100 needed to classify the theft as a felony; the prosecution
disagreed, claiming they were on sale for $60 each, thus surpassing the $100
felony minimum and opening him up to a sentence of life without parole.
“I
felt as though somebody had just taken the life out of my body,” Washington
wrote to the ACLU about the moment he learnt his fate. “I seriously felt
rejected, neglected, stabbed right through my heart.”
He
added: “It's a very lonely world, seems that nobody cares. You're never ever
returning back into society. And whatever you had or established, its now
useless, because you're being buried alive at slow pace.”
Louisiana,
where both Washington and Jackson are held, is one of nine states where
prisoners are serving life without parole sentences for nonviolent offences
(other states with high numbers are Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma and
South Carolina). An overwhelming proportion of those sentences — as many as 98%
in Louisiana — were mandatory: in other words judges had no discretion but to
impose the extremely harsh penalties.
The
warden of Angola prison, Burl Cain, has spoken out in forthright terms against
a system that mandates punishment without any chance of rehabilitation. He told
the ACLU: “It's ridiculous, because the name of our business is 'corrections' –
to correct deviant behavior. If I'm a successful warden and I do my job and we
correct the deviant behavior, then we should have a parole hearing. I need to
keep predators in these big old prisons, not dying old men.”
The
toll is not confined to the state level: most of those nonviolent inmates held
on life without parole sentences were given their punishments by the federal
government. More than 2,000 of the 3,281 individuals tracked down on these
sentences by the ACLU are being held in the federal system. Overall, the ACLU
has calculated that taxpayers pay an additional $1.8bn to keep the prisoners
locked up for the rest of their lives.
Until
the early 1970s, life without parole sentences were virtually unknown. But they
exploded as part of what the ACLU calls America's “late-twentieth-century
obsession with mass incarceration and extreme, inhumane penalties.”
The
report's author Jennifer Turner states that today, the US is “virtually alone
in its willingness to sentence nonviolent offenders to die behind bars.” Life
without parole for nonviolent sentences has been ruled a violation of human
rights by the European Court of Human Rights. The UK is one of only two
countries in Europe that still metes out the penalty at all, and even then only
in 49 cases of murder.
Even
within America's starkly racially charged penal system, the disparities in
nonviolent life without parole are stunning. About 65% of the prisoners
identified nationwide by the ACLU are African American. In Louisiana, that
proportion rises to 91%, including Jackson and Washington who are both black.
The
U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 2.3 million people
now in custody, with the war on drugs acting as the overriding push-factor. Of
the prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent offences nationwide,
the ACLU estimates that almost 80% were for drug-related crimes.
Again,
the offences involved can be startlingly petty. Drug cases itemized in the
report include a man sentenced to die in prison for having been found in
possession of a crack pipe; an offender with a bottle cap that contained a
trace of heroin that was too small to measure; a prisoner arrested with a trace
amount of cocaine in their pocket too tiny to see with the naked eye; a man who
acted as a go-between in a sale to an undercover police officer of marijuana –
street value $10.
Drugs
are present in the background of Timothy Jackson's case too. He was high when
he went to the Maison Blanche store, and he says that as a result he shoplifted
“without thinking”. Paradoxically, like many of the other prisoners on similar
penalties, the first time he was offered drug treatment was after he had
already been condemned to spend the rest of his life in jail.
The
theft of the $159 jacket, taken in isolation, carries today a six-month jail
term. It was combined at Jackson's sentencing hearing with his previous
convictions – all for nonviolent crimes including a robbery in which he took
$216 – that brought him under Louisiana's brutal “four-strikes” law by which it
became mandatory for him to be locked up and the key thrown away.
The
ACLU concludes that it does not have to be this way —suitable alternatives are
readily at hand, including shorter prison terms and the provision of drug
treatment and mental health services. The organization calls on Congress, the
Obama administration and state legislatures to end the imposition of mandatory
life without parole for nonviolent offenders and to require re-sentencing
hearings for all those already caught in this judicial black hole.
A
few months after Timothy Jackson was put away for life, a Louisiana appeals
court reviewed the case and found it “excessive,” “inappropriate” and “a prime
example of an unjust result.” Describing Jackson as a “petty thief.” the court
threw out the sentence.
The
following year, in 1998, the state's supreme court gave a final ruling. “This
sentence is constitutionally excessive in that it is grossly out of proportion
to the seriousness of the offence,” concluded Judge Bernette Johnson. However,
she found that the state's four strikes law that mandates life without parole
could only be overturned in rare instances, and as a result she reinstated the
sentence — putting Jackson back inside his cell until the day he dies.
“I
am much older and I have learned a lot about myself,” Jackson wrote to the ACLU
from that cell. “I am sorry for the crime that I did, and I am a changed man.”
Jackson
expressed a hope that he would be granted his freedom when he was still young
enough to make something of his life and “help others”. But, barring a reform
of the law, the day of his release will never come.
—
Democracy Now broadcast a video Nov. 15 titled “Life in Prison for Stealing a
$159 Jacket?” It included an important interview with Jennifer Turner, human
rights researcher and author of the new ACLU report. It is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sLBezzDbnM.
—
From the Guardian (UK) Nov. 13. The ACLU report, Living Death,” is at
https://www.aclu.org/living-death-sentenced-die-behind-bars-what
—————————
12. WIKILEAKS
REVEALS SECRET TTP DETAILS
By Russia Today
Details
of a highly secretive, multi-national trade agreement long in works were
published by WikiLeaks Nov. 13, and critics say there will be major
repercussions for much of the modern world if it's approved without major
changes.
The
anti-secrecy group published a 95-page
excerpt taken from a recent draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, a
NAFTA-like agreement that is expected to encompass nations representing more
than 40% of the world’s gross domestic product when it is finally approved: the
United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore,
Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.
President
Barack Obama and counterparts from 11 other prospective member states have been
hammering out the free trade agreement in utmost secrecy for years now, the
result of which, according to the White House, would rekindle the economies of
all of those involved, including many emerging countries.
Upon
the publication of the excerpt obtained by WikiLeaks, however, opponents of the
act are insisting that provisions dealing with creation, invention and
innovation could serve a severe blow to everyone, particularly those in the Internet
realm.
Although
the TPP covers an array of topics — many of which have not been covered by past
agreements, according to Obama — WikiLeaks has published a chapter from a draft
dated August 30, 2013, that deals solely on Intellectual Property, or IP,
rights.
Previous
reports about the rumored contents of the TPP with regards to IP law have
raised concern among activists before, with the California-based Electronic
Frontier Foundation going as far as to warn
that an earlier leaked draft text suggested the agreement “would have extensive
negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due
process and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate,” all of which is being
agreed upon without any oversight or observation. Indeed, the thousands of
words released by WikiLeaks this week has concretized those fears and has
already caused the likes of the EFF and others to sound an alarm.
Julian
Assange, the Australian founder of the whistleblower site who has been confined
to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over a year now, had particularly harsh
words for the TPP in a statement published alongside the draft release.
“If
instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free
expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative
commons,” Assange said. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance,
sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day
be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.
—
Text of Wikileaks Document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/183904865/Wikileaks-secret-TPP-treaty-IP-chapter-pdf.
—————————
13. U.S.,
AUSTRALIA AND THE ‘PIVOT’ TO CHINA
By the Activist
Newsletter
In
keeping with our ongoing reports on the U.S. military buildup against China,
here is an excerpt from a Nov. 12 report by Peter Symonds for the World
Socialist Web Site:
A
lengthy report released last week by the U.S.-based think tank, the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), provides a detailed assessment of
Australia’s central strategic role in the Pentagon’s preparations for war with
China. The report’s title itself — “Gateway to the Indo-Pacific:
Australian Defense Strategy and the Future of the Australia-US Alliance” — highlights
the critical geographical importance of the Australian continent for U.S. naval
and air operations in Indian and Pacific oceans in any war against China.
The
CSBA bills itself as independent and non-partisan, but is closely connected to
the American military establishment, receiving the bulk of its funds through
Department of Defense research projects. It was prominently involved in drawing
up the Pentagon’s AirSea Battle strategy for war against China — a devastating
missile and air attack on the Chinese mainland aimed at destroying its
communications and military infrastructure, supplemented by an economic
blockade to cut off vital Chinese imports of energy and raw materials from
Africa and the Middle East.
 |
| Obama reviews Australian troops. |
The
US military build-up in the Indo-Pacific region is an integral component of the
Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” — an all-sided diplomatic, economic and
strategic offensive aimed at undermining Chinese influence throughout the
region and encircling China militarily….
While
the Australian and U.S. governments speak of the American build-up in Asia in
benign terms and deny any targeting of China, the CBSA report explicitly
identifies China as the chief potential enemy. Other U.S. think tanks have laid
out the general strategy behind Obama’s “pivot,” but the CBSA report is the
first to focus exclusively on Australia’s military importance. As it explains,
“Australia has moved from ‘down under’ to ‘top center’ in terms of geopolitical
import. For the first time since World War II, Australian and American areas of
strategic priority overlap. The strength of this rekindled convergence suggests
that the US-Australia relationship may well prove to be the most special
relationship of the 21st century.”
—
This article continues at
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/12/aust-n12.html.
—
The full CSBA report is at http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2013/11/gateway-to-the-indo-pacific-australian-defense-strategy-and-the-future-of-the-australia-u-s-alliance-2/.
Click on the map.
—————————
14. RUSSIA'S
VIEW OF THE IRAN DEAL
 |
| Russia and Iran, very close. |
The
landmark agreement the P-5+1 and Tehran reached last weekend regarding the
Iranian nuclear program is having effects beyond the immediate region. Speaking
at a media forum in Rome on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
said that the deal obviates the need for NATO's ballistic missile defense plans
in Central Europe, given that the system—championed by the United States—was
designed to counter potential missile threats from Iran. Lavrov noted that if
the deal is implemented as planned, then "the stated reason for the
construction of the defense shield will no longer apply."
NATO's
ballistic missile defense plans in Central Europe have long been one of the
most contentious issues between Moscow and Washington. These plans, known as
the European Phased Adaptive Approach, involve placing interceptor bases
in Romania and Poland that are capable
of shooting down various-ranged ballistic missiles. These
are set to become operational in 2015 and 2018, respectively. The
groundbreaking ceremony at the site in Romania took place last month.
While
the European Phased Adaptive Approach is technically and officially
designed to counter missile attacks specifically from Iran, the plans have
drawn substantial concern from Russia. Moscow considers any NATO-related military
buildup in Europe a potential threat, and Russia fears that the technology used
in the development of the ballistic missile defense system could one day
challenge Russia's intercontinental missile arsenal, which it relies on as
its primary strategic deterrent. As the European Phased Adaptive Approach
becomes more robust—currently it is not much of a direct threat to Moscow,
based on capabilities and placement—it could seriously threaten Russia's
ballistic missile capabilities in the long term. For years, Russia has
demanded legal guarantees from NATO and the United States that the system would
not target its strategic nuclear deterrent. This issue has been a constant
sticking point in talks between Moscow and the West over ballistic missile
defense.
But
there is a broader issue regarding ballistic missile defense that goes beyond
the specifics of a system and legal guarantees: the battle between the
United States and Russia for influence in Central Europe. Ever since the fall
of the Soviet Union, Russia has been worried by what it sees as the West's
never-ending encroachment in its near abroad. The wave of NATO and EU expansion
during the late 1990s and early 2000s occurred at a time when Russia was weak
and came at great geopolitical cost to Moscow. Now Russia is stronger, but
it still views any U.S.- or NATO-led military moves in Central and Eastern
Europe through the same prism of interference, especially in what Russia
deems as its sphere of influence. Russia thus views the ballistic missile defense
system as an excuse for the United States to deploy military personnel in some
of the most strategic borderland states of Europe.
For
Russia to raise the ballistic missile defense issue again immediately after the
Iranian nuclear deal reveals two things. The first is Russia's more recent role
in facilitating U.S. policy in the Middle East. This began with Russia
developing a diplomatic resolution to the chemical weapons crisis in Syria and
saving the United States from engaging in another unpopular military
intervention in the region. The Syria resolution then opened the door for Iran
and the United States to negotiate. Despite its reservations over a
U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, Russia knew it could do little to derail the
process and calculated instead that its cooperation in the deal—as opposed
to its obstruction—would give Russia substantial leverage in other more
pressing issues with the United States. It is likely that NATO's ballistic
missile defense plans for Central Europe would be on the top of Moscow's list
of such issues.
The second
revelation is the far-reaching consequences of the Iranian nuclear
settlement. Not only does a potential U.S.-Iranian understanding lead
to a realignment of the balance of power in the Middle East, it also carries the
potential for changes in a host of other regions, from Afghanistan to the
Caucasus to Central Asia. The same could be said for Central Europe,
considering how it intersects with U.S.-Russian negotiations that run parallel
to U.S.-Iranian talks….
—
From Stratfor, Nov. 25, 2013. http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/russias-view-iran-deal-and-us-plans-central-europe.
—————————
15. ISRAEL’S
GOAL: UNDERMINE U.S.-IRAN TALKS
By Norman
Solomon and Abba A. Solomon
More
than ever, Israel is isolated from world opinion and the squishy entity known
as “the international community.” The Israeli government keeps condemning the
Iran nuclear deal, by any rational standard a positive step away from the
threat of catastrophic war.
In the short run, the belligerent responses from Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are bound to play badly in most of the U.S. media.
But Netanyahu and the forces he represents have only begun to fight. They want
war on Iran, and they are determined to exercise their political muscle that
has long extended through most of the Washington establishment.
While it’s unlikely that such muscle can undo the initial
six-month nuclear deal reached with Iran last weekend, efforts are already
underway to damage and destroy the negotiations down the road. On Capitol Hill
the attacks are most intense from Republicans, and some leading Democrats have
also sniped at the agreement reached in Geneva.
A widespread fear is that some political precedent might
be set, undercutting “pro-Israel” leverage over U.S. government decisions. Such
dread is inherent in the negative reactions from Netanyahu (“a historic
mistake”), GOP lawmakers like House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers
(“a permission slip to continue enrichment”) and Senator Saxby Chambliss
(“we’ve let them out of the trap”), and Democratic lawmakers like Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez (“this agreement did not proportionately
reduce Iran’s nuclear program”) and Senator Charles Schumer (“it does not seem
proportional”).
Netanyahu and many other Israelis — as well as the
powerhouse U.S. lobbying group AIPAC and many with similar outlooks in U.S.
media and politics — fear that Israel’s capacity to hold sway over Washington
policymakers has begun to slip away. “Our job is to be the ones to warn,”
Israel’s powerful finance minister, Yair Lapid, told Israeli Army Radio on
Sunday. “We need to make the Americans to listen to us like they have listened
in the past.”
This winter and spring, the Israeli government and its
allies are sure to strafe U.S. media and political realms with intense barrages
of messaging. “Israel will supplement its public and private diplomacy with
other tools,” the New York Times reported Monday from
Jerusalem. “Several officials and analysts here said Israel would unleash its
intelligence industry to highlight anticipated violations of the interim
agreement.” Translation: Israel will do everything it can to undermine
the next stage of negotiations and prevent a peaceful resolution of the dispute
over Iran’s nuclear program.
Looking ahead, as a practical political matter, can the
U.S. government implement a major policy shift in the Middle East without at
least grudging acceptance from the Israeli government? Such questions go to the
core of the Israeli occupation now in its 47th year.
Israel keeps building illegal Jewish settlements in the
West Bank; suppression of the basic human rights of Palestinian people
continues every day on a large scale in the West Bank and Gaza. There is no
reason to expect otherwise unless Israel’s main political, military and
economic patron, the United States, puts its foot down and refuses to backstop
those reprehensible policies. They can end only when the “special relationship”
between the USA and Israel becomes less special, in keeping with a single
standard for human rights and against military aggression.
Such talk is abhorrent to those who are steeped in the
notion that the United States must serve as a reliable enabler of Israel’s
policies. But in every way that those policies are wrong, the U.S. government
should stop enabling them.
The longstanding obstacles to such a halt stand a bit less
tall today, but they remain huge. No less than before, as William Faulkner
said, “The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.” This certainly
applies to the history of gaining and maintaining unequivocal U.S. support for
Israel.
Today’s high-impact American groups such as AIPAC (which
calls itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”), Christians United for Israel (“the
largest pro-Israel organization in the U.S., with more than a million members,”
according to the Jerusalem Post) and similar outfits have built on
65 years of broad and successful Israel advocacy in the United States.
Baked into the foundation of their work was the premise of
mutuality and compatibility of Israeli and American interests. Until the end of
the Cold War, routine spin portrayed aid to Israel as a way to stymie Soviet
power in the region. Especially since 9/11, U.S. support for Israel has
been equated with support for a precious bulwark against terrorism.
Ever since the successful 1947 campaign to press for UN
General Assembly approval of Palestine partition, Israel’s leaders have closely
coordinated with American Jewish organizations. Israeli government
representatives in the United States regularly meet with top officers of
American Jewish groups to convey what Israel wants and to identify the key U.S.
officials who handle relevant issues. Those meetings have included
discussions about images of Israel to promote for the American public, with
phrases familiar to us, such as "making the desert bloom" and
“outpost of democracy.”
As any member of Congress is well aware, campaign
donations and media messaging continue to nurture public officials cooperative
and sympathetic to Israel. For the rare officeholders and office seekers who
stand out as uncooperative and insufficiently sympathetic, a formulaic remedy has
been applied: withholding campaign donations, backing opponents and launching
of media vilification. Those political correctives have proved effective—along
the way, serving as cautionary tales for politicians who might be tempted to
step too far out of line.
The mainstream American Jewish Committee decided in 1953
that for its pro-Israel advocacy, “To the utmost extent, non-Jewish and
non-sectarian organizations should be used as spokesmen.” Such a strategic
approach has borne fruit for the overall Israel advocacy project in the USA. It
is time-tested and mature; broadly distributing messages through organizations
of most political flavors; and adept at touching almost all sizable media.
This year, Israeli leaders have intensified their lurid
casting of Iran as the next genocidal Third Reich, and Israel as the protector
absent for Jews during the Holocaust. For some, the theme is emotionally
powerful. But it must not be allowed to prevent a diplomatic resolution of the
nuclear dispute with Iran.
From now till next summer, the struggle over talks with
Iran will be fierce and fateful. All signs point to determined efforts by
Israel—and its many allies in the United States—to wreck prospects for a
peaceful solution.
— From,
http://www.normansolomon.com, Nov. 25, 2013. Norman Solomon is the founding
director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and the author of “War Made Easy:
How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” Abba A. Solomon is the
author of “The Speech, and Its Context: Jacob Blaustein’s Speech ‘The Meaning
of Palestine Partition to American Jews,’ Given to the Baltimore Chapter
American Jewish Committee, February 15, 1948.”
—————————
16.
NSA
ENVISIONS TOTAL GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE
By
Tom Carte, WSWS, Nov. 26, 2013
A
top secret National Security Administration (NSA) strategy document leaked by
whistleblower Edward Snowden envisions spying on “anyone, anytime, anywhere,”
free from all legal restraints, and radical expansions in the NSA’s activities
in the period of 2012-2016.
The
five-page document dated February 23, 2012, which was published by the New
York Times Nov. 24, is entitled “SIGINT Strategy 2012-2016.” The name of
the author does not appear on the document, nor is it clear who was responsible
for it.
Among
the document’s central themes is that the law has “not kept pace” with the
NSA’s “mission.” Translated into plain English, this means that the NSA is
knowingly engaged in illegal activity.
In
fact, the NSA’s spying activities — as well as the activities of the numerous
other government agencies engaged in domestic spying — are in flagrant
violation of the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment, part of the Bill of
Rights. This amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures,” and provides that the government must obtain a warrant based on
“probable cause” connecting a targeted person with criminal activity before a
search or seizure can be carried out…
For
all practical purposes, the military-intelligence agencies operate without
restraint, as if there was no such thing as a Fourth Amendment. Without
mentioning any legal rights its targets might have, the document simply
announces that the NSA intends to achieve “mastery of the global network,”
i.e., unrestrained global surveillance. To the extent the document obliquely
makes reference to legal rights at all, it does so to state that the NSA will
“aggressively pursue legal authorities and a policy framework mapped more fully
to the information age.”
More
information from Snowden is still coming to light. On Oct. 24 it was revealed
that the NSA has infected 50,000 computer networks with malware. Malware is
intrusive software that can be used to take control of a computer, either for
the purpose of gaining access to private information or of disrupting activity.
In many countries, creating and distributing malware is a criminal offense.
—————————
17. PETITION: END U.S. RAINFOREST LOGGING
By
Earth Justice
The Tongass in Southeast Alaska is our country’s
largest national forest — nearly 17 million acres of towering Sitka spruce trees,
fog-drenched inlets, salmon-spawning rivers, and well-fed bears. It is a land
of plenty, which is why the timber industry has aggressively logged here for
decades.
Three
years ago, the administration set a goal of transitioning quickly away from
destructive old-growth logging, yet the Forest Service is now considering
weakening its conservation strategy, even planning several large old-growth
timber sales with no reduction in sight.
Hold the
government to its promise by commenting on this disappointing proposal. We need
sustainable management that restores forests, develops tourism, preserves
watersheds, improves fisheries, and protects the lifestyles of southeast
Alaskans who live off the lands and waters.
Please
sign this petition:
https://secure.earthjustice.org/site/Advocacy;jsessionid=BA05FC226F9851D39987B324B5177B83.app338b?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1467&utm_source=Convio&autologin=true#startform
—————————
