Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support
Too awesome. It's amazing people don't get called out like this more often.... Palin, are you watching this?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Holy Names
Now some Islamists want to prohibit non-Muslims from referring to God as Allah.
By Christopher Hitchens
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
How Differential Gear works (BEST Tutorial) - Simple & Amazing
An excellent tutorial from the 1930's on the principles and development of the Differential Gear
. Fast Forward to 1:50
The Republicans' Reagan Amnesia
Republicans love hallowing Ronald Reagan’s name. Too bad they know so little about the guy.
Last week in Hawaii, the Republican National Committee almost passed a resolution named after the Gipper. “Whereas President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies,” it declared, only candidates who complied with eight of 10 “Reaganite” principles would be eligible for party funds.
The GOP isn’t as close to a political rebirth as its boosters believe.
And what were those principles, exactly? No. 1—according to the resolution—was “smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes.” Let’s take those from the top. Smaller government: Federal employment grew by 61,000 during Reagan’s presidency—in part because Reagan created a whole new cabinet department, the department of veterans affairs. (Under Bill Clinton, by contrast, federal employment dropped by 373,000). Smaller deficits and debt: Both nearly tripled on Reagan’s watch. Lower taxes: Although Reagan muscled through a major tax cut in 1981, he followed up by raising taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986. In 1983, in fact, he not only raised payroll taxes; he raised them to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Let’s put this in language today’s tea-baggers can understand: Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care.
Then there’s plank number five: Reaganite candidates must “oppos[e] amnesty for illegal immigrants.” Really? Because if you look up the word “amnesty” in Black’s Law Dictionary, you’ll find a reference to the 1986 bill that Reagan signed, which ended up granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
Then there’s foreign policy. Plank number six demands that candidates back the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what did Reagan do in his biggest confrontation with jihadist terror? When Hezbollah murdered 241 U.S. servicemen in Beirut in 1983, the Gipper didn’t surge; he withdrew the remaining American troops, and fast. Plank number 7 calls for “effective [read military] action to eliminate” Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs. But Reagan condemned Israel’s 1981 preventive strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor. And plank number nine requires steadfast opposition to abortion. Yet two of Reagan’s three Supreme Court nominees voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. Turns out this Reagan guy wasn’t really that Reaganite after all.
Why does this Republican amnesia about Reagan matter? Because it shows that the GOP isn’t as close to a political rebirth as its boosters believe. Reagan succeeded because he married a reputation for principle with an instinct for pragmatism. When Republicans lost big in the 1982 midterm elections because Democrats accused them of wanting to privatize Social Security, Reagan abandoned the idea and instead made a deal with Democrats that raised taxes and saved the program. In 1984, when his advisers told him that Americans considered him too warlike, he responded with a series of breathtakingly dovish speeches about his desire to eliminate nuclear weapons that helped ensure his landslide re-election. In 1981, he nominated the socially moderate Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, even though Jerry Falwell and other evangelical leaders cried betrayal.
That was the real Reagan, the one Republicans need to embrace if they’re to genuinely threaten Barack Obama’s chances of re-election. Instead, they’ve reinvented the Gipper as a Sarah Palin-style zealot. Party activists always want to believe they can win elections without compromising their ideological purity, and the GOP’s recent string of off-year victories has convinced the conservative base that most Americans are tea-baggers at heart. But the tea-bag movement is dominated by graying white Anglos, at a time when the American electorate is growing less white, less Anglo and less gray. Demographically, American politics is being transformed by the dramatic growth of Hispanics, and by the emergence of a vast (and heavily non-white) “millennial” generation, larger in number than the baby boomers. Both groups went heavily for the Democrats in 2004 and 2008. And in their economic and cultural views, both are light years away from the tea-bag GOP.
These realities will be easy to overlook this year, because minorities and the young turn out in lower numbers in midterm elections, and because when unemployment is at 10 percent, the party in power suffers no matter what. But ultimately, the GOP’s fortunes will rest on its capacity to make inroads in these two groups. The angry white geezer vote alone won’t do it.
That’s why many of the smartest conservative intellectuals—from David Brooks to David Frum to Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam—believe the GOP must become less ideologically doctrinaire. In this effort, the real Ronald Reagan could be a useful model. Of course, were he around today, he’d have a tough time getting funding from the RNC.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris
, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
, will be published by HarperCollins in June.For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
A poor black woman's cells were harvested in 1951. They have never died, were sent into space, and are responsible for the polio vaccine.
Henrietta Lacks’ ‘Immortal’ Cells
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Henrietta-Lacks-Immortal-Cells.html#ixzz0eOPkfuV1
Journalist Rebecca Skloot’s new book investigates how a poor black tobacco farmer had a groundbreaking impact on modern medicine
- By Sarah Zielinski
- Smithsonian.com, January 22, 2010
Henrietta Lacks' cells were essential in developing the polio vaccine and were used in scientific landmarks such as cloning, gene mapping and in vitro fertilization.
Medical researchers use laboratory-grown human cells to learn the intricacies of how cells work and test theories about the causes and treatment of diseases. The cell lines they need are “immortal”—they can grow indefinitely, be frozen for decades, divided into different batches and shared among scientists. In 1951, a scientist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, created the first immortal human cell line with a tissue sample taken from a young black woman with cervical cancer. Those cells, called HeLa cells, quickly became invaluable to medical research—though their donor remained a mystery for decades. In her new book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
, journalist Rebecca Skloot tracks down the story of the source of the amazing HeLa cells, Henrietta Lacks, and documents the cell line's impact on both modern medicine and the Lacks family.
, journalist Rebecca Skloot tracks down the story of the source of the amazing HeLa cells, Henrietta Lacks, and documents the cell line's impact on both modern medicine and the Lacks family.Who was Henrietta Lacks?
She was a black tobacco farmer from southern Virginia who got cervical cancer when she was 30. A doctor at Johns Hopkins took a piece of her tumor without telling her and sent it down the hall to scientists there who had been trying to grow tissues in culture for decades without success. No one knows why, but her cells never died.
She was a black tobacco farmer from southern Virginia who got cervical cancer when she was 30. A doctor at Johns Hopkins took a piece of her tumor without telling her and sent it down the hall to scientists there who had been trying to grow tissues in culture for decades without success. No one knows why, but her cells never died.
Why are her cells so important?
Henrietta’s cells were the first immortal human cells ever grown in culture. They were essential to developing the polio vaccine. They went up in the first space missions to see what would happen to cells in zero gravity. Many scientific landmarks since then have used her cells, including cloning, gene mapping and in vitro fertilization.
Henrietta’s cells were the first immortal human cells ever grown in culture. They were essential to developing the polio vaccine. They went up in the first space missions to see what would happen to cells in zero gravity. Many scientific landmarks since then have used her cells, including cloning, gene mapping and in vitro fertilization.
There has been a lot of confusion over the years about the source of HeLa cells. Why?
When the cells were taken, they were given the code name HeLa, for the first two letters in Henrietta and Lacks. Today, anonymizing samples is a very important part of doing research on cells. But that wasn’t something doctors worried about much in the 1950s, so they weren’t terribly careful about her identity. When some members of the press got close to finding Henrietta’s family, the researcher who’d grown the cells made up a pseudonym—Helen Lane—to throw the media off track. Other pseudonyms, like Helen Larsen, eventually showed up, too. Her real name didn’t really leak out into the world until the 1970s.
When the cells were taken, they were given the code name HeLa, for the first two letters in Henrietta and Lacks. Today, anonymizing samples is a very important part of doing research on cells. But that wasn’t something doctors worried about much in the 1950s, so they weren’t terribly careful about her identity. When some members of the press got close to finding Henrietta’s family, the researcher who’d grown the cells made up a pseudonym—Helen Lane—to throw the media off track. Other pseudonyms, like Helen Larsen, eventually showed up, too. Her real name didn’t really leak out into the world until the 1970s.
How did you first get interested in this story?
I first learned about Henrietta in 1988. I was 16 and a student in a community college biology class. Everybody learns about these cells in basic biology, but what was unique about my situation was that my teacher actually knew Henrietta’s real name and that she was black. But that’s all he knew. The moment I heard about her, I became obsessed: Did she have any kids? What do they think about part of their mother being alive all these years after she died? Years later, when I started being interested in writing, one of the first stories I imagined myself writing was hers. But it wasn’t until I went to grad school that I thought about trying to track down her family.
I first learned about Henrietta in 1988. I was 16 and a student in a community college biology class. Everybody learns about these cells in basic biology, but what was unique about my situation was that my teacher actually knew Henrietta’s real name and that she was black. But that’s all he knew. The moment I heard about her, I became obsessed: Did she have any kids? What do they think about part of their mother being alive all these years after she died? Years later, when I started being interested in writing, one of the first stories I imagined myself writing was hers. But it wasn’t until I went to grad school that I thought about trying to track down her family.
How did you win the trust of Henrietta’s family?
Part of it was that I just wouldn’t go away and was determined to tell the story. It took almost a year even to convince Henrietta’s daughter, Deborah, to talk to me. I knew she was desperate to learn about her mother. So when I started doing my own research, I’d tell her everything I found. I went down to Clover, Virginia, where Henrietta was raised, and tracked down her cousins, then called Deborah and left these stories about Henrietta on her voice mail. Because part of what I was trying to convey to her was I wasn’t hiding anything, that we could learn about her mother together. After a year, finally she said, fine, let’s do this thing.
Part of it was that I just wouldn’t go away and was determined to tell the story. It took almost a year even to convince Henrietta’s daughter, Deborah, to talk to me. I knew she was desperate to learn about her mother. So when I started doing my own research, I’d tell her everything I found. I went down to Clover, Virginia, where Henrietta was raised, and tracked down her cousins, then called Deborah and left these stories about Henrietta on her voice mail. Because part of what I was trying to convey to her was I wasn’t hiding anything, that we could learn about her mother together. After a year, finally she said, fine, let’s do this thing.
When did her family find out about Henrietta’s cells?
Twenty-five years after Henrietta died, a scientist discovered that many cell cultures thought to be from other tissue types, including breast and prostate cells, were in fact HeLa cells. It turned out that HeLa cells could float on dust particles in the air and travel on unwashed hands and contaminate other cultures. It became an enormous controversy. In the midst of that, one group of scientists tracked down Henrietta’s relatives to take some samples with hopes that they could use the family’s DNA to make a map of Henrietta’s genes so they could tell which cell cultures were HeLa and which weren’t, to begin straightening out the contamination problem.
Twenty-five years after Henrietta died, a scientist discovered that many cell cultures thought to be from other tissue types, including breast and prostate cells, were in fact HeLa cells. It turned out that HeLa cells could float on dust particles in the air and travel on unwashed hands and contaminate other cultures. It became an enormous controversy. In the midst of that, one group of scientists tracked down Henrietta’s relatives to take some samples with hopes that they could use the family’s DNA to make a map of Henrietta’s genes so they could tell which cell cultures were HeLa and which weren’t, to begin straightening out the contamination problem.
So a postdoc called Henrietta’s husband one day. But he had a third-grade education and didn’t even know what a cell was. The way he understood the phone call was: “We’ve got your wife. She’s alive in a laboratory. We’ve been doing research on her for the last 25 years. And now we have to test your kids to see if they have cancer.” Which wasn’t what the researcher said at all. The scientists didn’t know that the family didn’t understand. From that point on, though, the family got sucked into this world of research they didn’t understand, and the cells, in a sense, took over their lives.
How did they do that?
This was most true for Henrietta’s daughter. Deborah never knew her mother; she was an infant when Henrietta died. She had always wanted to know who her mother was but no one ever talked about Henrietta. So when Deborah found out that this part of her mother was still alive she became desperate to understand what that meant: Did it hurt her mother when scientists injected her cells with viruses and toxins? Had scientists cloned her mother? And could those cells help scientists tell her about her mother, like what her favorite color was and if she liked to dance.
This was most true for Henrietta’s daughter. Deborah never knew her mother; she was an infant when Henrietta died. She had always wanted to know who her mother was but no one ever talked about Henrietta. So when Deborah found out that this part of her mother was still alive she became desperate to understand what that meant: Did it hurt her mother when scientists injected her cells with viruses and toxins? Had scientists cloned her mother? And could those cells help scientists tell her about her mother, like what her favorite color was and if she liked to dance.
Deborah’s brothers, though, didn’t think much about the cells until they found out there was money involved. HeLa cells were the first human biological materials ever bought and sold, which helped launch a multi-billion-dollar industry. When Deborah’s brothers found out that people were selling vials of their mother’s cells, and that the family didn’t get any of the resulting money, they got very angry. Henrietta’s family has lived in poverty most of their lives, and many of them can’t afford health insurance. One of her sons was homeless and living on the streets of Baltimore. So the family launched a campaign to get some of what they felt they were owed financially. It consumed their lives in that way.
What are the lessons from this book?
For scientists, one of the lessons is that there are human beings behind every biological sample used in the laboratory. So much of science today revolves around using human biological tissue of some kind. For scientists, cells are often just like tubes or fruit flies—they’re just inanimate tools that are always there in the lab. The people behind those samples often have their own thoughts and feelings about what should happen to their tissues, but they’re usually left out of the equation.
For scientists, one of the lessons is that there are human beings behind every biological sample used in the laboratory. So much of science today revolves around using human biological tissue of some kind. For scientists, cells are often just like tubes or fruit flies—they’re just inanimate tools that are always there in the lab. The people behind those samples often have their own thoughts and feelings about what should happen to their tissues, but they’re usually left out of the equation.
And for the rest of us?
The story of HeLa cells and what happened with Henrietta has often been held up as an example of a racist white scientist doing something malicious to a black woman. But that’s not accurate. The real story is much more subtle and complicated. What is very true about science is that there are human beings behind it and sometimes even with the best of intentions things go wrong.
The story of HeLa cells and what happened with Henrietta has often been held up as an example of a racist white scientist doing something malicious to a black woman. But that’s not accurate. The real story is much more subtle and complicated. What is very true about science is that there are human beings behind it and sometimes even with the best of intentions things go wrong.
One of the things I don’t want people to take from the story is the idea that tissue culture is bad. So much of medicine today depends on tissue culture. HIV tests, many basic drugs, all of our vaccines—we would have none of that if it wasn’t for scientists collecting cells from people and growing them. And the need for these cells is going to get greater, not less. Instead of saying we don’t want that to happen, we just need to look at how it can happen in a way that everyone is OK with.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Henrietta-Lacks-Immortal-Cells.html#ixzz0eOPkfuV1
FW de Klerk: The day I ended apartheid
Twenty years ago today, FW de Klerk
addressed South Africa's Parliament – and stunned the world. Ivan Fallon reveals the extraordinary story behind apartheid's endSee the full story at:
The Independent.
Australia now worse than China - Censoring Political Debate
SOUTH Australia has become one of the few states in the world to censor the internet.
The new law, which came into force on January 6, requires anyone making an online comment about next month's state election to publish their real name and postcode.
The law will affect anyone posting a comment on an election story on The Advertiser's AdelaideNow website, as well as other Australian news sites.
It could also apply to election comment made on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
The law, which was pushed through last year as part of a raft of amendments to the Electoral Act and supported by the Liberal Party, also requires media organisations to keep a person's real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.
'Still free speech'
Attorney-General Michael Atkinson denied that the new law was an attack on free speech.
"The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud," Mr Atkinson said.
"There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else."
Mr Atkinson also said he expected The Advertiser to target him for sponsoring the law.
"I am also certain that Advertiser Newspapers and News Limited will punish me personally, viciously for being the attorney-general responsible for this law," he said.
"You will publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me."
The Advertiser's editor, Melvin Mansell, said: "Clearly this is censorship being implemented by a government facing an election.
"The effect of that is that many South Australians are going to be robbed of their right of freedom of speech during this election campaign.
"The sad part is that this widespread suppression is supported by the Opposition.
"Neither of these parties are representing the people for whom they have been elected to govern."
The Right to Know Coalition, made up of Australia's major media outlets including News Limited, publisher of The Advertiser and parent company of news.com.au, has called the new laws "draconian".
"This is one of the most troubling erosions of the right to free speech in Australia for many years," Right to Know spokeswoman Creina Chapman said.
Ms Chapman also pointed out that newspaper blogs such as AdelaideNow were moderated and publishers and broadcasters took responsibility for the material they published.
Liberal doubts
Opposition justice spokeswoman Vickie Chapman said yesterday while the Liberal Party had supported the amendment to the Electoral Act, she believed it would be too broad to implement if it included Facebook and Twitter.
Ms Chapman said Mr Atkinson should introduce a regulation to limit its scope.
"It is clearly not the intention of what we understood that to be," she said.
The SA law - which could also apply to talkback radio - differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym.
The law will apply as soon as the writs for the March 20 election are issued. The writs for the election can be issued any time between now and 25 days before the election. The law will then lapse at 6pm on polling day.
Mr Atkinson said there was no intention to broaden the law to take it beyond the period of elections.
The new law, which came into force on January 6, requires anyone making an online comment about next month's state election to publish their real name and postcode.
The law will affect anyone posting a comment on an election story on The Advertiser's AdelaideNow website, as well as other Australian news sites.
It could also apply to election comment made on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
The law, which was pushed through last year as part of a raft of amendments to the Electoral Act and supported by the Liberal Party, also requires media organisations to keep a person's real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.
'Still free speech'
Attorney-General Michael Atkinson denied that the new law was an attack on free speech.
"The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud," Mr Atkinson said.
"There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else."
Mr Atkinson also said he expected The Advertiser to target him for sponsoring the law.
"I am also certain that Advertiser Newspapers and News Limited will punish me personally, viciously for being the attorney-general responsible for this law," he said.
"You will publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me."
The Advertiser's editor, Melvin Mansell, said: "Clearly this is censorship being implemented by a government facing an election.
"The effect of that is that many South Australians are going to be robbed of their right of freedom of speech during this election campaign.
"The sad part is that this widespread suppression is supported by the Opposition.
"Neither of these parties are representing the people for whom they have been elected to govern."
The Right to Know Coalition, made up of Australia's major media outlets including News Limited, publisher of The Advertiser and parent company of news.com.au, has called the new laws "draconian".
"This is one of the most troubling erosions of the right to free speech in Australia for many years," Right to Know spokeswoman Creina Chapman said.
Ms Chapman also pointed out that newspaper blogs such as AdelaideNow were moderated and publishers and broadcasters took responsibility for the material they published.
Liberal doubts
Opposition justice spokeswoman Vickie Chapman said yesterday while the Liberal Party had supported the amendment to the Electoral Act, she believed it would be too broad to implement if it included Facebook and Twitter.
Ms Chapman said Mr Atkinson should introduce a regulation to limit its scope.
"It is clearly not the intention of what we understood that to be," she said.
The SA law - which could also apply to talkback radio - differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym.
The law will apply as soon as the writs for the March 20 election are issued. The writs for the election can be issued any time between now and 25 days before the election. The law will then lapse at 6pm on polling day.
Mr Atkinson said there was no intention to broaden the law to take it beyond the period of elections.
Monday, February 1, 2010
What a mockery!! Under Obama, the cabal of war ciminals and crimes against humanity, instead of facing the ICC in Hague, walk out freely one by one. Makes you wonder if 9/11 was an insider job and/or a foreign flag terrorism to justify every murderous, genocidal deeds that the cabal perpetrated in the name of national security. One commentator to this article, Curt, sums up the status of justice thus:
“The Constitution: irrelevant. International laws of war that are also laws of the US according to US law: quaint, obsolete. The Justice Department has become the Justification Department, creating excuses for lawlessness rather than enforcing justice.
The government is a creation of the Constitution, if the Constitution is irrelevant then the government has no basis for any claim to authority, if the laws of the US mean nothing to it then the laws are null and void for all.
Our government is an organized crime syndicate, far worse and more dangerous than any that ever existed in recorded history. No matter what the future brings we are in bad times and things will get far worse before they get better, and they will not start to get better until the vast majority of the American people wake up and see the chains they are bound in, and see the vast evil being done in their name, and demand change. Until they're willing to give up American Idol, and give up the illusion that they are 'safe' while the predators in Washington run rampant, nothing will change.”
Here is the complete article:
http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531
“The Constitution: irrelevant. International laws of war that are also laws of the US according to US law: quaint, obsolete. The Justice Department has become the Justification Department, creating excuses for lawlessness rather than enforcing justice.
The government is a creation of the Constitution, if the Constitution is irrelevant then the government has no basis for any claim to authority, if the laws of the US mean nothing to it then the laws are null and void for all.
Our government is an organized crime syndicate, far worse and more dangerous than any that ever existed in recorded history. No matter what the future brings we are in bad times and things will get far worse before they get better, and they will not start to get better until the vast majority of the American people wake up and see the chains they are bound in, and see the vast evil being done in their name, and demand change. Until they're willing to give up American Idol, and give up the illusion that they are 'safe' while the predators in Washington run rampant, nothing will change.”
Here is the complete article:
http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531
A Constitutional Amendment worth fighting for: Getting Corporations Out of Our Politics
Congresswoman Donna Edwards and constitutional law professor Jamie Raskin
speak out against the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and call for a mass movement of people to support a constitutional amendment. Visit FreeSpeechforPeople.org to learn more and get involved!
Israel admits using white phosphorus: Punishes top officials on attack in a UN compound.
Israel has revealed it has reprimanded two top army officers for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound in Gaza last year.
In the attack on 15 January 2009 the compound was set ablaze by white phosphorus shells.
The admission is contained in the Israeli response to the UN's Goldstone report, which concluded both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes.
Both officers have retained their ranks, according to reports.
The Israeli army has not specifically said that the rules of engagement were broken over the use of white phosphorus.
During the 22-day conflict last year, media pictures showed incendiary shells raining down on a UN compound.
ANALYSIS
Paul Wood, BBC News, Jerusalem
Buried in paragraph 108 of the Israeli report to the UN is the key fact of the document. Two senior officers were reprimanded for failing to follow their own rules of engagement.
This is an explosive admission, especially as this is about an incident involving white phosphorus and Israel had always maintained that this was not misused in Gaza.
This is the first time that Israel has acknowledged, at least in part, allegations by that civilians were jeopardised by the misuse of artillery at the main UN warehouse in Gaza City.
The officers will not face criminal prosecution. That is something the Israeli political-military establishment is desperate to avoid. They fear it would be disastrous for morale and would damage the ability of Israel's army to fight the next war.
However, Israel's problem is that if its own investigations appear to the outside world to be a whitewash, the UN is all the more likely to order a special tribunal at The Hague.
Paul Wood, BBC News, Jerusalem
Buried in paragraph 108 of the Israeli report to the UN is the key fact of the document. Two senior officers were reprimanded for failing to follow their own rules of engagement.
This is an explosive admission, especially as this is about an incident involving white phosphorus and Israel had always maintained that this was not misused in Gaza.
This is the first time that Israel has acknowledged, at least in part, allegations by that civilians were jeopardised by the misuse of artillery at the main UN warehouse in Gaza City.
The officers will not face criminal prosecution. That is something the Israeli political-military establishment is desperate to avoid. They fear it would be disastrous for morale and would damage the ability of Israel's army to fight the next war.
However, Israel's problem is that if its own investigations appear to the outside world to be a whitewash, the UN is all the more likely to order a special tribunal at The Hague.
The officers were named in Israeli media reports as Gaza Division Commander Brig Gen Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col Ilan Malka.
"Several artillery shells were fired in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas," the Israeli response to the Goldstone report says.
The officers were charged with "exceeding their authority" in ordering the use of the weapons in the attack.
An Israeli Defence Force spokesman said that the reprimand would be noted on their records and would be considered if they apply for promotion in future.
Brig Gen Eisenberg is still in command of Israel's Gaza division, and Col Malka has been moved to the West Bank under the same rank, according to the Reuters news agency.
'Evidence'
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the military was investigating about 150 allegations. There was enough evidence in 36 cases to pass those claims to military police for criminal investigations.
"In this particular case, it was not referred to criminal investigation, it wasn't decided that there was evidence of criminal wrongdoing and a reprimand was warranted," Mr Regev said, referring to the shells fired on the UN compound.
Criminal proceedings have so far been opened in one case, concerning an alleged theft of a credit card from a Palestinian family by an Israeli soldier.
The soldier used the card to withdraw hundreds of dollars, Israeli media reported.
Mr Regev said there would be "serious consequences" for soldiers found guilty of criminal conduct.
'Hush money'
A Hamas spokesman said the disciplinary action was "further admission of Israel's guilt" over alleged war crimes.
But he said he did not expect any further action to be taken against military officers.
He said Israel had paid the United Nations $10.5 million (£6.6 million) in damages to repair their compounds, which he called "hush money".
A UN representative who was in the compound in Gaza city during the attack told the BBC he "expected full accountability from the Israelis".
Two UN staff and two Palestinians sheltering in the compound were seriously injured, he said.
A doctor at Gaza city's main hospital told the BBC he treated hundreds of Palestinians for phosphorus burns during the offensive.
UN demands
The BBC's Paul Wood in Jerusalem says it is the first time Israel has revealed it reprimanded any officer for his actions during the offensive, named Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli military.
Our correspondent says the admission was buried in the document handed to the UN on Friday.
The UN General Assembly has demanded that both Israel and Hamas launch independent investigations into their conduct during the Israeli operation which began in December 2008.
An Israeli official said the submission to the UN was not intended to respond in detail to the allegations and incidents outlined in the Goldstone report, but to explain why the Israeli justice system was "reliable" and "independent".
The Islamist movement Hamas has denied that its forces deliberately targeted civilians with rockets.
Both sides have until 5 February to respond in detail to the UN General Assembly's request for independent investigations to be launched.
White phosphorus, which is used to lay smokescreens, is legal for use on open ground but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions.
Story from BBC NEWS:
The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone Including Bin-Laden or Chinese Govt. Control Our Democracy
Orwell must be chuckling in his grave for 1984 is becoming a reality day by day where the big brother is always watching over you.
It would not be funny were the US not a global military and financial hyperpower. With the ultra neo con judges installed by the Bushes, we have the most stupid ruling ever from the neo con ultra right US supreme court that corporations are persons and hence can fund politicians without any limits.
If the only country implicated by this ruling was the US, we could laugh it off. But this ruling affects the whole wide world. Corporations such as Blackwater and their ilk which are on a crusuade against Islam (or any dominant religious group sitting on oil), could potentially fund all the polititians with their massive illegitimate earnings, to have perpetual prosetelytistic wars to further profit and convert. Not only could they buy up all the politicians, but they could buy them up with tax payers dollars! What an Orwellian world is unfolding and yet not a peep from the corporate multi media!! Ruper Murdock (Murderer!!) would be able to buy up all politicians and control our minds with his filthy media!!
Full post:
http://www.truthout.org/the-supreme-court-just-handed-anyone-including-bin-laden-or-chinese-govt-control-our-democracy56332
Friday 22 January 2010
by: Greg Palast
| AlterNet
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.
The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.
I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.
Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.
But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.
Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.
Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."
George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.
Olson has not responded.
The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.
Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.
Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.
And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.
In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!
The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.
Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.
We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.
Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition for Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."
Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.
So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at www.gregpalast.com.
It would not be funny were the US not a global military and financial hyperpower. With the ultra neo con judges installed by the Bushes, we have the most stupid ruling ever from the neo con ultra right US supreme court that corporations are persons and hence can fund politicians without any limits.
If the only country implicated by this ruling was the US, we could laugh it off. But this ruling affects the whole wide world. Corporations such as Blackwater and their ilk which are on a crusuade against Islam (or any dominant religious group sitting on oil), could potentially fund all the polititians with their massive illegitimate earnings, to have perpetual prosetelytistic wars to further profit and convert. Not only could they buy up all the politicians, but they could buy them up with tax payers dollars! What an Orwellian world is unfolding and yet not a peep from the corporate multi media!! Ruper Murdock (Murderer!!) would be able to buy up all politicians and control our minds with his filthy media!!
Full post:
http://www.truthout.org/the-supreme-court-just-handed-anyone-including-bin-laden-or-chinese-govt-control-our-democracy56332
Friday 22 January 2010
by: Greg Palast
| AlterNetIn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.
The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.
I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.
Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.
But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.
Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.
Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."
George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.
Olson has not responded.
The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.
Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.
Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.
And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.
In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!
The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.
Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.
We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.
Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition for Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."
Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.
So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
." Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at www.gregpalast.com.
One American Soldier Says It Like It Is
Our real enemies are not those living in a distant land whose names or policies we don't understand; The real enemy is a system that wages war when it's profitable, the CEOs who lay us off our jobs when it's profitable, the Insurance Companies who deny us Health care when it's profitable, the Banks who take away our homes when it's profitable. Our enemies are not several hundred thousands away. They are right here in front of us.
- Mike Prysner
Please share with your friends, family and acquaintances. Every little effort counts in the long run.
Please Support the Veterans at:
http://www.ivaw.org/
Posted by http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePhaedrus83
Tony Blair and his oh-so-clean conscience - UK Politics, UK - The Independent
This is Robert Fisk at his best and his take on Lord Blair's unrepentent testimony.
This [Lord Blair] unrepentant war criminal, lier, and perpetarator of crimes against humanity has implicated Iran in everything that went wrong with their devilish master plan to control the resources of the Mid East, their nefarious greed and get the war drums beating again for the attack on Iran for their master, the neo cons. The monster, instead of facing the ICC, is a “peace” envoy, to of all the places, Mid east and basking in utter and sheer luxury luxury, earning 7 figures at a pop for his despicable speeches!! Who are these monsters who are anxious to hear him? Are they in the same league?
Here is comment in the independent that sums up Lord Blair:
The Inquiry panel is an assortment of incompetent, ignorant, timid, biased, spineless and pathetic individuals. No wonder they were picked. Nevertheless, Blair's hideous catalogue of lies, delivered yesterday in his uniquely slimy, manic, sickening way, only served to expose further what an evil, disgusting 'human being' he is. Blair's terrible performance yesterday was another nail in his coffin. He contradicted himself, contradicting others, failed to answer questions, twisted words in the most devious¨and cynical way to intentionally mislead and used that pathetic body language that he seems to beleive fools anyone but now fools nobody. An actor, a liar, a lawyer. The world now knows that Blair is a war criminal who must be tried for his war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Over 800,000 murders that he, Straw, Hoon, Boyce, Campbell et al will be held accountable for in court. It is proven that this was an illegal and unecessary war based on a pack of lies.
Inquiry panel itself is a great farce since it is made up of the most extreme neo constructions:
INQUIRY PANEL MEMBERS
snickid wrote:
Saturday, 30 January 2010 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
To be more specific, the Enquiry panel have been handpicked on the basis that they will cause no bother to either Mr. Blair or any of the other architects of the war, as the biography of the 5 members makes plain:
1. John Chilcot
Career diplomat, close links to British intelligence. Member of the Butler Inquiry that exonerated the government on intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction.
2. Roderic Lyne
Governor of Ditchley Foundation, which promotes Anglo-American relations – director Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations in the approach to Iraq war and witness at the Inquiry.
3. Lawrence Freedman
Member of Ditchley Foundation, architect of the ‘Blair doctrine’ on the use of military action for ‘humanitarian’ intervention, Freedman was asked to provide “a philosophy that Blair could call his own” (John Kampfner, Blair’s Wars).
4. Baroness Prashar
Member of Ditchley Foundation.
5. Martin Gilbert
Historian, well-known for extreme pro-Zionist views. On Iraq war said that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill.”
For more information, see Kevin Blowe (www.blowe.org.uk) and Craig Murray (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/iraq_inquiry_th.html).
This [Lord Blair] unrepentant war criminal, lier, and perpetarator of crimes against humanity has implicated Iran in everything that went wrong with their devilish master plan to control the resources of the Mid East, their nefarious greed and get the war drums beating again for the attack on Iran for their master, the neo cons. The monster, instead of facing the ICC, is a “peace” envoy, to of all the places, Mid east and basking in utter and sheer luxury luxury, earning 7 figures at a pop for his despicable speeches!! Who are these monsters who are anxious to hear him? Are they in the same league?
Here is comment in the independent that sums up Lord Blair:
The Inquiry panel is an assortment of incompetent, ignorant, timid, biased, spineless and pathetic individuals. No wonder they were picked. Nevertheless, Blair's hideous catalogue of lies, delivered yesterday in his uniquely slimy, manic, sickening way, only served to expose further what an evil, disgusting 'human being' he is. Blair's terrible performance yesterday was another nail in his coffin. He contradicted himself, contradicting others, failed to answer questions, twisted words in the most devious¨and cynical way to intentionally mislead and used that pathetic body language that he seems to beleive fools anyone but now fools nobody. An actor, a liar, a lawyer. The world now knows that Blair is a war criminal who must be tried for his war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Over 800,000 murders that he, Straw, Hoon, Boyce, Campbell et al will be held accountable for in court. It is proven that this was an illegal and unecessary war based on a pack of lies.
Inquiry panel itself is a great farce since it is made up of the most extreme neo constructions:
INQUIRY PANEL MEMBERS
snickid wrote:
Saturday, 30 January 2010 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
To be more specific, the Enquiry panel have been handpicked on the basis that they will cause no bother to either Mr. Blair or any of the other architects of the war, as the biography of the 5 members makes plain:
1. John Chilcot
Career diplomat, close links to British intelligence. Member of the Butler Inquiry that exonerated the government on intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction.
2. Roderic Lyne
Governor of Ditchley Foundation, which promotes Anglo-American relations – director Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations in the approach to Iraq war and witness at the Inquiry.
3. Lawrence Freedman
Member of Ditchley Foundation, architect of the ‘Blair doctrine’ on the use of military action for ‘humanitarian’ intervention, Freedman was asked to provide “a philosophy that Blair could call his own” (John Kampfner, Blair’s Wars).
4. Baroness Prashar
Member of Ditchley Foundation.
5. Martin Gilbert
Historian, well-known for extreme pro-Zionist views. On Iraq war said that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill.”
For more information, see Kevin Blowe (www.blowe.org.uk) and Craig Murray (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/iraq_inquiry_th.html).
Obama the sell-out? Obama shamelessly shills for the Israeli war party.
Obama shamelessly shills for the Israeli war party.
"How did they get in? We're not supposed to be asked real questions"
I'm sure that's the question Obama and Biden were asking themselves as Obama fumbled for an answer to this very simple and very patriotic question.
His pathetic response speaks volumes, doesn't it?
The State of Israeli stole and continues to steal Palestinian lands.
In the process, it has dislocated, marginalized and outright killed hundreds of thousands of people.
It enforces this criminal enterprise by the continuous harassment and brutalization of Palestinian people, young and old, male and female.
The only way it is able to run its Nazi-like occupation of Palestinian lands is with the ongoing financial and military support of the United States and to keep that support coming it pays off and blackmails everyone involved in national US politics.
Any US politician who supports the Israeli war party's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is a traitor to the US. Period. End of story.
Yes, we've had a lot of traitors in the White House and Congress over the years and you don't need to look at the Palestinian situation to know that. Just look at the state the country is in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
