Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Castro says Bush could spark WWIII
Gulf News
24 Oct, 2007
" ... Havana: Fidel Castro wrote on Tuesday that President Bush is threatening the world with nuclear war and famine -- an attack on Washington a day before the White House was to announce new plans to draw Cuba away from communism.
''The danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush's recent initiative to transform foods into fuel,'' Castro wrote in Cuban news media, referring to US support for using corn and other food crops to produce gasoline substitutes.
The brief essay titled ''Bush, Hunger and Death'' also alleged that Bush ''threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons.''
The White House on Tuesday brushed off Castro's comments -- particularly his assertion that Bush was pursuing a forceful conquest of Cuba.
''Dictators say a lot of things, and most of them can be discounted, including that,'' said White House press secretary Dana Perino.
Perino said that Bush on Wednesday would urge other nations to join together in promoting democracy in Cuba. ... " Full article >>
developing countries: IMF should also monitor advanced economies
Times of India
20 Oct 2007
" ... WASHINGTON: The International Monetary Fund should step up its surveillance of the United States and other advanced economies in light of the global credit crisis shaking world markets, the Group of 24 developing countries said on Friday.
They also repeated their demand for greater representation of developing countries in the governing bodies of the IMF and its sister organisation, the World Bank, to adapt institutions created 63 years ago to the conditions of the 21st Century.
In their communique the finance ministers and central bankers in the Group of 24 "noted the vulnerability of the US subprime mortgage market and its financial and spillover effects" on the global economy.
The meltdown in the United States caused by risky subprime mortgages made to borrowers with spotty credit or low income also hurt investors in Europe and elsewhere. Banks, hedge funds and others that invested in subprime mortgage-backed securities suffered big losses.
The ministers said that the crisis "underscored the need to improve the fund's surveillance of the advanced economies putting as much focus in evaluating their vulnerabilities as it does in emerging market economies."
The G-24 ministers met on the sidelines of the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank. Established in 1971 to coordinate developing countries' positions on international financial and developmental issues, the G-24 includes nations from Asia, Africa and Latin America, including growing economic powers such as India and Brazil. China sits in on the meetings as an observer. ... " Read full article >>
"who was the last person to 'imprint' the president prior to his public allusion to World War III?"
A critical question, therefore, is who was the last person to “imprint” the president prior to his public allusion to World War III? During his press conference, Bush noted that he awaited the opportunity to confer with his defense secretary, Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following their recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. So clearly the president hadn’t been imprinted recently by either of the principle players in the formulation of defense and foreign policy. The suspects, then, are quickly whittled down to three: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Vice President Dick Cheney, and God.
Hadley is a long-established neoconservative thinker who has for the most part operated “in the shadows” when it comes to the formulation of Iran policy in the Bush administration. In 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Hadley (then the deputy national security adviser) instituted what has been referred to as the “Hadley Rules,” a corollary of which is that no move will be made which alters the ideological positioning of Iran as a mortal enemy of the United States. These “rules” shut down every effort undertaken by Iran to seek a moderation of relations between it and the United States, and prohibited American policymakers from responding favorably to Iranian offers to assist with the fight against al-Qaida; they also blocked the grand offer of May 2003 in which Iran outlined a dramatic diplomatic initiative, including a normalization of relations with Israel. The Hadley Rules are at play today, in an even more nefarious manner, with the National Security Council becoming involved in the muzzling of former Bush administration officials who are speaking out on the issue of Iran. Hadley is blocking Flynt Leverett, formerly of the National Security Council, from publishing an Op-Ed piece critical of the Bush administration on the grounds that any insight into the machinations of policymaking (or lack thereof) somehow strengthens Iran’s hand. Leverett’s article would simply underscore the fact that the Bush administration has spurned every opportunity to improve relations with Iran while deliberately exaggerating the threat to U.S. interests posed by the Iranian theocracy.
The silencing of informed critics is in keeping with Hadley’s deliberate policy obfuscation. There is still no official policy in place within the administration concerning Iran. While a more sober-minded national security bureaucracy works to marginalize the hawkish posturing of the neocons, the administration has decided that the best policy is in fact no policy, which is a policy decision in its own right. Hadley has forgone the normal procedures of governance, in which decisions impacting the nation are written down, using official channels, and made subject to review and oversight by those legally and constitutionally mandated and obligated to do so. A policy of no policy results in secret policy, which means, according to Hadley himself, the Bush administration simply does whatever it wants to, regardless. In the case of Iran, this means pushing for regime change in Tehran at any cost, even if it means World War III. ..."
An idea whose time has come: Foreign bases on U.S. soil
Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.
"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.
"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."
The U.S. embassy to Ecuador says on its Web site that anti-narcotics flights from Manta gathered information behind more than 60 percent of illegal drug seizures on the high seas of the Eastern Pacific last year.
It offers a fact-sheet on the base at: http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/topics_of_interest/manta-fol.html
Correa, a popular leftist economist, had promised to cut off his arm before extending the lease that ends in 2009 and has called U.S. President George W. Bush a "dimwit". ..."
Nikos Raptis: Ethics of a Stone
ZNet Commentary
October 21, 2007
That the Greeks are the "chosen people" of the world is indisputable. Usually, "chosen peoples" are chosen by God Himself. However, in the case of the Greeks it was the (European) Christian white man that elevated the Greeks to the top of the world. The "creation" of man (and of the world) is denoted by the Greek word "genesis". After his birth man must be "baptized", that is "submerged into the water" as the Greek word "baptizo" denotes. Then follows the childhood period accompanied by Christian "catechism", as denoted by the Greek word "catecho" (to indoctrinate, that is to "brainwash"). Indoctrination which is performed by Christian "clergy", as denoted by the Greek word "clerekos" (priest). Quite frequently, these members of the clergy are "pederasts", as denoted by the Greek word "pedi" (child) and "eros" (love). Then the child goes to "school", as denoted by the Greek word "scholi" (leisure, school). No need to go on. Ask any Greek 10-year-old and he or she will spit out the "litany" (again a Greek word!) of the above claims, as proof that the Greeks are the "chosen people" of the world.
[Note: That it is the white man and not the Almighty that brought about this "racket" of the classical Greek supremacy is amply analyzed by Martin Bernal in his excellent work "Black Athena". Although the Nazis of yore (and of today) disagree fervently with him.]
So, facing the reality of this inundation of the western civilization (especially the sciences) with the Greek "spirit" (and Greek words) we find that it was inevitable to have a scientific branch with the name of "onomastics" or "onomatology" that studies the names of people (as expected, "onoma" being the Greek word for "name").
In this branch of science the correct spelling of the name "Petraeus" is "Petraios". The root of the word "petraios" is the Greek word "petra" which means "stone" or "rock". Thus, "petraios" is the adjective for "petra" and it means "of a rock" or "of a stone". The search around the word "petraios" results in a variety of interesting bits of information. Here are some of them:
- "rockfish": any of various fishes that live among rocks.
- "tomb": as in the play "Electra" of Sophocles.
- "Petraios": epithet of the God Poseidon in Thessaly as he was the one who "clave the rocks" of the valley of Tempi, and drained Thessaly.
- "Petraiai Nymphai": the nymphs (girls) of the rocks. [Did "nymphets" originate among those rocks? Who knows.]
- "Petraios": one of the "Centaurs" (creatures that were half human and half horse) who was killed in Thessaly by some king the day of his marriage to Hippodameia. [Centaurs are very well-known to Americans thanks to Walt Disney and his "Fantasia".]
General David H. Petraeus (or more correctly Petraios, as we have seen), is an "officer and a gentleman" plus a scholar. His father, Sixtus, a Dutch American, emigrated to the US during World War II. The Dutch origin of the General explains the Greek roots of his name.
Prominent among the European white men that we mentioned above, was the Dutch humanist and theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466/1469-1536). Erasmus was "infatuated" with the Greeks, as a matter of fact he "invented" what is known as the "erasmian" pronunciation of the classical Greek language. [Which we, as Greek kids, found strange, if not ridiculous]. Erasmus was the son of Roger Gerard, a priest. Following the trend of the Dutch intellectuals of his time Roger Gerard's son adopted the above Greco-Latinized name. Now he is known to the world as "Erasmus". Again the correct word is "Erasmos" which originates from the Greek word "erasmios" which means "lovable"! The root again is the Greek word "eros" that we have already met above.
So, it is rational to assume that the Dutch ancestors of General Petraios chose a Greek-sounding name for themselves. Now, which of the above listed items they thought described better their family is rather irrelevant to us. However, there is one more item that could be added to the list; Peter the Apostle of Jesus. Peter's original name was Simon but Jesus told him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona... And I say unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." [Matt. 16:18-19]. The name Peter originates from the Greek word "petra" which means "rock" or "stone", as we have already seen. Therefore the surname Petraios could be associated with Peter of Jesus.
The addition of Peter (the "rock") in the above possible choices for the Dutch ancestors of General Petraios is only a guess. What is not a guess is that General David H. Petraeus has the morality or ethics of a stone or a rock.
Petraeus took part in various US military operations: In Haiti, in one of the most repulsive and inhumane interventions of the US against a defenseless and innocent population. The code-name of the operation: "Operation Uphold Democracy". In Bosnia, in the murderous geopolitical game of the US in which (not so strangely) one of the protagonists, Milosevic, was a close friend of Richard Holbrooke, a top US official. Code-name: "Operation Joint Forge". In Kuwait, during the decade after the (Bush father) Gulf War. Code-name: "Operation Desert Spring" (that is, blossoming of the desert by killing about half a million Iraqi infants, during the Clinton watch). Finally in the present (Bush son) US "aggressive war" (a Nuremberg Tribunal crime) against Iraq. Code-name: "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
In all these US military operations that Petraeus participated (and in some commanded and commands), doing the bidding of the Bush family and the Clinton family, about 2 million infants, children, women, and men were murdered or starved to death.
In all languages there is the expression "heart of stone" to describe the cruel acts of a person. Thus, the claim that Petraeus has the "ethics of a stone" is based on the fact of the 2 million dead and the notion that only a "heart of stone" could tolerate participation in operations of this kind of US "benevolence".
To defend themselves human societies take measures against their members that commit crimes, especially crimes against humanity. Now, imagine that the American society decides to do something against the Bush family, the Clinton family, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Petraeus, et al. Could the following (imaginary) proposition for such a measure be adopted by the American people?
The proposition:
AMENDMENT XXVIII To the US Constitution
"We the American people, as part of the human population of this planet, having observed and unfortunately having tolerated the crimes against humanity committed by our leaders after the Second World War, we have come to the conclusion that our leaders should be judged for the crimes they commit in the same way as any other human is judged for the commission of the same crime. Therefore, if any of our leaders intentionally, through the crime of 'aggressive war', takes the life of even one human being should be judged in the same way that an individual who killed another person is judged."
Here enters a tragic paradox: There is no human on this planet (except persons of the Sarkozy ilk) who disputes that the above proposition is moral. Yet, most people will claim that it is "unrealistic" (or imaginary!). Therefore, let immorality rule the world.
If Bush, et al, should be judged and condemned for killing only one person it is reasonable to expect that for killing 2 million humans the sentence should be mathematically proportional to the number of the murdered.
It is up to the American people to remove the paradox and let morality reign on this planet adopting any Amendment that they themselves see fit.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
An FDA-Created Health Crisis Circles the Globe
"...Government officials around the globe have been coerced, infiltrated, and paid off by the agricultural biotech giants. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved.[1] In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.[2] In Mexico, a senior government official allegedly threatened a University of California professor, implying “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him not to publish incriminating evidence that would delay GM approvals.[3] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The FDA’s “non-regulation” of GM foods
Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.[4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.
There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.
Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.” According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”
Following Monsanto’s lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports. On May 26, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”[5] Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled..." Read full article>>
