Thursday, June 28, 2007

BEAUTIFUL MISERY


a film review of SICKO
by Malik Isasis
























The only complaint I have about Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko is the title, but that’s where the complaint ends. Like in Fahrenheit 911, the prologue to Sicko begins with a right and left jab. Adam, who has injured himself, sews the deep gash over his knee, closed himself with a needle and thread. Why? He has no insurance and can’t afford it. Then there’s Rick, who sawed off two of his fingers, the middle finger and his ring finger. Like Adam, Rick has no insurance. He couldn’t afford to save both tips of his fingers, so the doctors gave him a choice, save the middle finger for $60,000 or save the ring finger for $12,000. Rick opted for the ring finger at $12,000. I gave the doctors the middle finger.

The contrasts of the American healthcare system with countries like Canada, France, Britain, and Cuba reveals the systemic failures, the sickness and the bed soars of the American healthcare system. Moore also reveals the corporatization of doctors who’ve wiped their asses with the Hippocratic Oath, which is to due no harm; doctors in the Health Maintenance Organization or HMO, managed care systems have become corporate bean counters, forgoing medicine for the corporate bottom line. The more money they save the HMOs (AETNA, Blue Shield Blue Cross, etc.) the further along they go in their careers. A divide and conquer scheme that is elegant and effective.

Why We Fail

Michael Moore has and is being sold by the corporate media as a Cult of Personality, but that’s only so that the media can discredit him and marginalize him as a far left radical, in an attempt to obfuscate the mirror in which he holds up to our faces.

Notice in reviews of this film, critics go out of their way to say Moore is not a 'journalist' or something derogatory--making the review about Moore, rather than the content of the documentary. These critics are part of the corporate Matrix, I shouldn't expect them to not try and marginalize the messenger. Back to the review.

A former British Member of Parliament in the documentary said:

“If you can find the money to kill people, you can find the money to help people.” Imagine a ‘mainstream’ American politician speaking this way. “If you have power, you use it to meet the needs of your community.” He followed.

The government of Britain has power, and it has chosen to help the people. So have the governments of Canada, France and Cuba. However, the United States government chooses to use its power to show its contempt.

Imagine.

Moore effectively illustrates why the United States government has failed us, and why we have failed us. It would have been interesting to see how many people in Moore’s documentary supported Bush, and support the Occupation of Iraq before their illnesses. Our politicians’ ability to get the poor and marginalized to vote against their own interests and or to give up and not vote is why we continue to fail ourselves. We vote against our own interests, or not vote at all. This is the corner stone of a failing Democracy.

However, there is something else.

Debt bondage

Keep people in debt and they are less likely to revolt. We are born into debt, graduate from college in debt; I graduated with a Master’s in Social Work at a cost of $47,000 from one of the Nation’s top schools. Yet, I’ve been in noble poverty for 7 years caring for the poor and the sick, how do I pay this back with the meager salary of a Social Worker? Speaking of sick, if we become sick or injure ourselves, we accrue debt. It’s tantamount to modern slavery to the likes of Citi Bank, Master Card, Visa, Bank of America, Direct Loans et cetera. Is it no wonder that Americans are the most indebted in the Western world? Do you think this is by design?

In France, the French are not saddled with college debt, education is free, and they aren’t saddled with healthcare costs, because healthcare is free—just like in Britain, Canada, Cuba and many other countries.

There are powerful stories in the film. Some of the people in the film didn’t live because their doctors and insurance companies failed them.

The insurance conglomerates had shown their asses during Hurricane Katrina in which they refused to pay their customers for the damages and losses. Even with reports of record profits months before, the insurance industry bulked at claims.

It is a government approved racket, selling illusions and a false sense of protection to the American people at the very real cost of lives. It is sanctioned murder by neglect.

The film invites a sense of hopelessness.

The depth at which the healthcare corporations have pimped out politicians, doctors, and the media turns one's stomach. The collusion is disheartening.

Is this Who We Want to Be?

In one of the most powerful sequences, a hospital was dumping patients on skid row in Los Angeles because they weren’t able to pay the bill. This was the first time I’d gotten choked up. This is when Moore asked, “Who are we?” I think he was asking for effect, because it is clear who we are.

In Cuba, Moore brought some 9-1-1 rescue workers to get treatment they otherwise couldn’t afford. The rescue workers were medically treated. The intake? Simply the name and date of birth.

One of the workers who ground down his teeth in his sleep due to Post traumatic stress, received new teeth. Another worker was taken off five unnecessary medications. The Cuba sequence was the most powerful in the film; illustrating once again, how effective social medicine can be.

Politicians have become operatives for corporations. Government has become a pit stop for politicians on their way to CEOships at large corporations and lobbying firms. Corporations are producing and incubating politicians like produce, pulling them from the tree when rip and sending them out on the campaign trail to become the next Congressperson, or Senator, and the next President because the bottom line must be protected at all cost.

Who are we?

I dunno Mike, maybe you got the title right after all.


Grade: A+

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

SEPIA


by Anna Elisabeth, Matrix Correspondent

















It was almost 7:30pm as I walked down the street, umbrella in hand and heart in my throat. I was headed to meet an online prospect for the first time; a self-proclaimed straight guy who sings and dances, picks up random pennies, and recently ended an online connection with someone who masqueraded as a 38 year old woman with no children but eventually confessed to being 10 years older and having four children. My odds of impressing were high.

The name of the bar held true as everyone was cast in a brownish-red glow much like the sepia toned photos adorning the exposed brick walls. I immediately recognized him when I walked in; a little eager, nervously shaking his foot, and wearing a buttoned-down shirt with the sleeves extended to his wrists despite the humid weather. I ordered what he had – a blue moon with an orange slice – and we made our way to the patio. I hated to admit it, because my expectations were high, but I wasn’t attracted to him. To be honest, I haven’t been attracted to any of the men I’ve met online. They’ve, for the most part, been shorter than what they advertised and have had very narrow shoulders; which, for a corn-fed girl from the Midwest who is seeking the comfort of laying her head on a man’s chest, is not appealing.

One of the things about online dating is that the usual chit-chat has already been written about in the numerous contacts that have been made before the initial meet and greet so the pressure was on to engage in instant, intriguing conversation. Not to mention the pressure I felt when I looked down to notice that his zipper was fully undone! What was I to do? I just met the guy – did I tell him or leave him hanging and hope that he would soon notice himself?

I had actually been in a somewhat similar predicament before while riding the Q train from Manhattan to Brooklyn. A man in his forties was leaning against the train door. I was across from him and to my left, there was another women, only further down. As I read I occasionally glanced up to see if he had yet noticed that his pants were unzipped. He was reading the newspaper, oblivious. During one of my glances, I noticed something moving around that area and much to my utter surprise, and deep disgust, I realized his penis beginning to burst, and then bursting, out of his pants!

Anyway, back to the date. So, I decided that to tell this guy that his pants were unzipped was way too awkward and things were already awkward enough after the fumbled greeting of a sideways hug and near miss lip/cheek kiss as we introduced ourselves. So, I focused entirely on his eyes all the while risking his perception of this. After 15 minutes of hearing his family history and his adventures of applying to boarding school on his own at the age of 12 in order to escape his family the conversation turned to me. I sat there a bit stunned but managed to begin to share some of my family details. The therapist in me wanted to dive right in to his psyche and his reasons for wanting to escape but I’ve managed to learn that the more questions I ask, the more they share, and the deeper this mini meet and greet becomes. So, I kept the focus on myself and held my cards close to my chest.


Five minutes into sharing he apologetically interrupted and said, “Okay, so, before you came I went to the bathroom and I just noticed that I forgot to zip my fly so I’ve been sitting here for two minutes trying to decide how to handle this situation and I’ve decided that I need to just put it out there and tell you that I’m about to zip up my fly”. As he said this he pushed his chair back and in a dramatic effort zipped his pants.

Enough said. But, wait, there’s more…

Out of much surprise to myself I decided that although I wasn’t attracted to him in the least I did enjoy his company and was willing to take more time to get to know him. Plus, I was hungry and needed to eat anyway so figured why not have the company along with my burger?

We decided to change venues and headed over to the nearby burger joint. Just as we left it began to downpour. I had an umbrella so we shared it and all I could think was “Please, let this rain end” as it was so unbearably uncomfortable to be that close to him. At that point I viscerally understood that although the conversation was good and he was sweet, kind, and funny it just couldn’t be forced. Despite this, we went for the burgers anyway.

During dinner and after more indulgence of the Blue Point he asked me about my previous relationship and why it ended. I debated the multiple answers I could’ve given him and decided to tell the truth. “He was 39 and instead of having kids he wants to travel the world on his motorcycle.”.

Apparently, this offended his masculine sensibilities.

“You know, Anna, I’m a very intuitive guy and it seems to me that I’m not really your type and I think that this is too soon for you to be dating anyone again and I don’t ride motorcycles”. I had also shared with him that I love camping and backpacking so he had also added in his monologue, “although I do know how to build a fire, and put up a tent, and I’m not ‘opposed’ to nature, I still think I’m not your type”. Lastly, he said “and, I’m sure I’m the first guy in a long time who you’ve been on a date with who wore a button down shirt with the sleeves rolled down and buttoned at the wrist.”

At this point, I could have easily said,“Thank you very much for dinner” and left my money and walked out. But I said “Is that a question or a statement?” and then he asked me to “confirm” what he had said. I did and explained that we don’t have the chemistry.

Misery. Sheer misery. After all that, he walked me home and said, “Well, think about it. I’m a nice guy and maybe next time I’ll show up with a motorcyle and a tent”. I said goodnight and knew, without a doubt, that I would not be calling him again.

Three online dates later and I am still not convinced that this is the way to meet men. That said, I’m not giving up hope and have another date next weekend with a massage therapist who flies the high trapeze in his spare time. I’m waiting to see whether this is a metaphor or not. Who knows, I may have to return to the good ol’ fashioned art of bumping my cart into some hot guy at the grocery store.

Monday, June 25, 2007

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND


by Maliha Masood, Matrix Correspondent


















So here we go again. Salman Rushdie has become a knight and the Islamic world is up in arms. Iran's foreign ministry strongly objects. People are protesting in the streets of Pakistan. Never mind the fact that the very same folks holding banners begrudging Sir Salman have probably never even seen or read Sir Salman's copious novels, let alone be familiar with his notorious Satanic Verses, in which he was a little less than careful in depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The perceived blasphemy earned him a death sentence and caused an international uproar. So what's this got to do with the knighthood?

Everything and nothing

Furious mobs, suicide bombers, saviors of honor. They'll have you believe they're defending Islam but is this really about Islam? No, in the sense that these groups are merely using the pretext of religion to push their own political agendas. Yes, in the sense that any critique of religion, be it in the form of satire or fantasy or outright insult will create a backlash among certain factions. This is not just restricted to the Islamic realm, but public opinion unflailingly assumes that Muslims are the only people on earth who cannot tolerate freedom of speech and expression when it comes to liberals and creative types who want to challenge the status quo.

I beg to differ.

It's hard to imagine that all Christians would take kindly to the image of Jesus peeing on a cross, yet Christians are not labeled fundamentalist to nearly the same extent. Granted there are of late hyper sensitive and ultra orthodox Muslims who need only the slightest excuse to brandish violence or condemn the West, but they do not define Islam as a whole and they certainly do not give license to the media to portray the entire Muslim world as hopelessly backward and anti modern.

If only the clichés would taper down, but they won't and for good reason. Because we are not giving alternative measures, showing different viewpoints other than anger and knee jerk reactions. As for Mr. Rushdie and his knighthood, let's just chalk that up to institutional mumbo jumbo. To recognize a writer for his work is a fine and noble thing. But a name is still a name, whether it precedes with a title or not.

Maliha Masood was born in Karachi, Pakistan. She moved to the States at the age of twelve and grew up in the suburbs of Seattle. Fluent in Urdu and French, Maliha studied International Business at the University of Washington and worked as a research analyst in the IT sector for six years before turning towards writing.

Her book Zaatar Days, Henna Nights recalls her year-long, overland trek through the Arab world -- from the streets of Amman, Beirut, Damascus and Istanbul to Kurdish mountain villages.


FINDING PURPOSE


by Malik Isasis

























Israel and the United States have played Dr. Frankenstein in the Middle East. Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq are a mess. Israel and the United States have collapsed governments and created insurrections to cause civil wars and bloody chaos. To what end Drs. Frankenstein? Is it so that Gaza and the West Bank can always be failed States, so that eventually their hopes are dissolved into a Greater Israel? Iraq is a failed State…is Lebanon on its way?


Israel and the United States have the opposite of the Midas touch in the Middle East, because everything they touch turns into shit. In both their blotted histories of colonization and occupation, they have failed miserably because of the inability to rise above the false sense of superiority and entitlement over Arab and Muslim people. The United States and Israel would like to domesticate Arab and Muslim people as if they were animals, to make them docile even when hostilities against them are committed.

Any Muslim or Arab fighting against Israel’s and the United States’ occupation, and colonization efforts without the machinations of a multibillion-dollar military are labeled a “terrorist.” This narrative only works because the population believes that Arab and Muslims are savages and violent by nature.

Nowhere has a racist narrative been used more ruthlessly than in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The narrative/counter-narrative that Americans understand goes something like this: Israelis are morally superior, religiously observant guiltless victims while the Palestinians are Arabs and therefore guilty of uncivilized extremism. Watch any story about the conflict on network news and you will recognize the skewed coverage. Israel has a moral claim to its existence because of its victim status, and because the Palestinian claims don't really matter. This is so entrenched that people get more upset by verbal criticism of Israel's policies ("it's anti-Semitic") than by well-documented human rights violations perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinians. News reports and news programs dare not stray outside of these dual narratives.


The Purpose


All murder is barbaric, not just the violence committed by Arabs and Muslims, but also the incendiary weaponry from multi-million gunships, and warplanes of the United States and Israel. One form of death doesn’t rise above the other. There is nothing brave or democratic about occupation, war and colonization.

But again, Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank or Iran has nothing to do with bravery or democracy. The only purpose is to extend the power of two countries the United States and Israel. Just maybe the Arab and Muslim people are on to this heist.

The sickness of power is that you want more of it, you fear losing it. If this is where America finds itself, its only purpose: to hold onto power at the expense of its existence, we are surely witnessing the death of this superpower.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Scramble for Africa's Oil


by Christopher Thompson, The Black Agenda Report
























The Pentagon is embarked on a massive effort to militarily secure African oil assets for the United States. Under cover of the so-called "war on terror," the U.S. is deepening its military ties to "friendly" African regimes, enhancing their capacity to deal with internal dissidents and external rivals. From the Horn of Africa to the Gulf of Guinea and the Niger Delta, the Americans bolster authoritarian regimes and flaunt U.S. air, naval and "special operations" power. Even the FBI has gotten into the act, performing interrogations of hundreds of "suspects" swept up in Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia and brutal suppression of internal foes.

The Pentagon is to reorganize its military command structure in response to growing fears that the United States is seriously ill-equipped to fight the war against terrorism in Africa. It is a dramatic move, and an admission that the US must reshape its whole military policy if it is to maintain control of Africa for the duration of what Donald Rumsfeld has called "the long war." Suddenly the world's most neglected continent is assuming an increasing global importance as the international oil industry begins to exploit more and more of the west coast of Africa's abundant reserves.

The Pentagon at present has five geographic Unified Combatant Commands around the world, and responsibility for Africa is awkwardly divided among three of these. Most of Africa - a batch of 43 countries - falls under the European Command (Eucom), with the remainder divided between the Pacific Command and Central Command (which also runs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Now the Pentagon - under the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the defense department - is working on formal proposals for a unified military command for the continent under the name "Africom." This significant shift in US relations with Africa comes in the face of myriad threats: fierce economic competition from Asia; increasing resource nationalism in Russia and South America; and instability in the Middle East that threatens to spill over into Africa.

The Pentagon hopes to finalize Africom's structure, location and budget this year. The expectation is that it can break free from Eucom and become operative by mid-2008.

"The break from Europe will occur before 30 September 2008," Professor Peter Pham, a US adviser on Africa to the Pentagon told the New Statesman. "The independent command should be up and running by this time next year."

A Pentagon source says the new command, which was originally given the green light by the controversial former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is likely to be led by William "Kip" Ward, the US army's only four-star African-American general. In 2005, Ward was appointed the US security envoy to the Middle East and he is reportedly close to President George W. Bush. He also has boots-on-the-ground experience in Africa: he was a commander during Bill Clinton's ill-fated mission in Somalia in 1993 and he served as a military representative in Egypt in 1998. Ward is now the deputy head of Eucom.

America's new Africa strategy reflects its key priorities in the Middle East: oil and counter-terrorism. Currently, the US has in place the loosely defined Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative, incorporating an offshoot of Operation Enduring Freedom that is intended to keep terrorist networks out of the vast, unguarded Sahel. But the lack of a coherent and unified policy on Africa is, according to some observers, hampering America's efforts in the Middle East. US military sources estimate that up to a quarter of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from Africa, mostly from Algeria and Morocco.

Moreover, there is increasing alarm within the US defense establishment at the creeping "radicalization" of Africa's Muslims, helped along by the export of hardline, Wahhabi-style clerics from the Arabian peninsula.

"The terrorist challenge [has] increased in Africa in the past year - it's gotten a new lease on life," according to Pham.

But it is the west's increasing dependency on African oil that gives particular urgency to these new directions in the fight against terrorism. Africa's enormous, and largely untapped, reserves are already more important to the west than most Americans recognize.

In March 2006, speaking before the Senate armed services committee, General James Jones, the then head of Eucom, said: "Africa currently provides over 15 per cent of US oil imports, and recent explorations in the Gulf of Guinea region indicate potential reserves that could account for 25-35 per cent of US imports within the next decade."

These high-quality reserves - West African oil is typically low in sulphur and thus ideal for refining - are easily accessible by sea to western Europe and the US. In 2005, the US imported more oil from the Gulf of Guinea than it did from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Within the next ten years it will import more oil from Africa than from the entire Middle East. Western oil giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, France's Total and Britain's BP and Shell plan to invest tens of billions of dollars in sub-Saharan Africa (far in excess of "aid" inflows to the region).

But though the Gulf of Guinea is one of the few parts of the world where oil production is poised to increase exponentially in the near future, it is also one of the most unstable. In the big three producer countries, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Angola, oil wealth has been a curse for many, enriching political elites at the expense of impoverished citizens. Angola is now China's main supplier of crude oil, supplanting Saudi Arabia last year. The Chinese, along with the rest of oil- hungry Asia, are looking covetously at the entire region's reserves.

Realpolitik of What Suits

Looming over West Africa is the spectre of the southern Niger Delta area, which accounts for most of Nigeria's 2.4 million barrels a day. Conflict here offers a taste of what could afflict all of sub-Saharan Africa's oilfields. Since 2003, the Delta has become a virtual war zone as heavily armed rival gangs - with names such as the Black Axes and Vikings - battle for access to pipelines and demand a bigger cut of the petrodollar.

Oil theft, known as "bunkering," costs Nigeria some $4bn (£2.05bn) a year, while foreign companies have been forced to scale back production after kidnappings by Delta militants. Such uncertainties help send world oil prices sky-high.

The Pentagon's new Africa policy is to include a "substantial" humanitarian component, aimed partly at minimizing unrest and crime. But the reality is that a bullish China is willing to offer billions in soft loans and infrastructure projects - all with no strings attached - to secure lucrative acreage.

"It's like going back to a Cold War era of politics where the US backs one political faction because their political profile suits their requirements," says Patrick Smith, editor of the newsletter Africa Confidential, widely read in policy circles. "It's a move away from criteria of good governance to what is diplomatically convenient."

According to Nicholas Shaxson, author of Poisoned Wells: the Dirty Politics of African Oil, "[Africom] comes in the context of a growing conflict with China over our oil supplies."

Africom will significantly increase the US military presence on the continent. At present, the US has 1,500 troops stationed in Africa, principally at its military base in Djibouti, in the eastern horn. That could well double, according to Pham. The US is already conducting naval exercises off the Gulf of Guinea, in part with the intention of stopping Delta insurgents reaching offshore oil rigs. It also plans to beef up the military capacity of African governments to handle their dissidents, with additional "rapid-reaction" US forces available if needed. But - echoing charges leveled at US allies elsewhere in the "war on terror" - there are fears that the many authoritarian governments in sub-Saharan Africa might use such units to crack down on internal dissent.

Raising Hackles

The increased US military presence is already apparent across the Red Sea from Iraq, where, in concert with Ethiopia, Washington has quietly opened up another front in its war on terror. The target: the Somalia-based Islamists whom the Americans claim were responsible for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Earlier this year, US special forces used air strikes against suspected al-Qaeda militants, killing scores.

FBI interrogators have also been dispatched to Ethiopian jails, where hundreds of terror suspects - including Britons - have been held incommunicado since Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December last year, according to Human Rights Watch. The problem with this more confrontational approach in Africa is apparent. "There's definitely a danger of the US [being] seen as an imperial exploiter," says Shaxson. "The military presence will raise hackles in certain countries - America will have to tread lightly."

Nonetheless, the Pentagon is hoping that Africom will signal a more constructive foreign policy in the region and a break with the past. "Politically [Africa] is important and that's going to increase in coming years," says Pham. "It's whether the US can sustain the initiative."

African Oil: the Numbers

22% of US crude oil imports came from Nigeria in the first quarter of 2007

25% of US crude imports came from Saudi Arabia in the same period

75% of the Nigerian government's income is oil-related

800,000 Nigerian estimate for barrels of oil lost each day through leaks, stoppages or theft by rebels

$2.3bn cost of building Chevron's Benguela Belize platform off the coast of Angola

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

COLLTERAL GENOCIDE


Wrecking Iraq: One Million Dead, 2 Million Wounded, 3 Million Displaced
by Mike Ferner, Counterpunch


















Two elements are necessary to commit the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and

2) the physical element, which includes any of the following: killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births; or forcibly transferring children to another group.

Considering that such clear language comes from a UN treaty which is legally binding on our country, things could start getting a little worrisome -- especially when you realize that since our government declared economic and military warfare on Iraq we've killed well over one million people, fast approaching two.

This summer will be one year since researchers from Johns Hopkins University collected data for a study which concluded 655,000 additional deaths were caused by the military war, and things have only gotten worse since then. Then consider that the economic war killed an additional 500,000 Iraqi kids under the age of five during only the first seven years of sanctions which were in force for a dozen years, according to a 1999 U.N. report.

Based on the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqis killed in the war, one could conservatively estimate that another 2.6 million people have been wounded. The U.N. estimates that between 1.5 million and 2 million Iraqis are now "internally displaced" by the fighting and roughly the same number have fled their country, including disproportionate numbers of doctors and other professionals.

If you are sitting down and possess a healthy imagination, try conjuring up similar conditions here in our land. Start with the fact that few people buy bottled water and what comes out of the tap is guaranteed to at least make you sick if not kill you Three times as many of our fellow citizens are out of work as during the Great Depression On a good day we have three or four hours of electricity to preserve food or cool the 110-degree heat No proper hospitals or rehab clinics exist to help the wounded become productive members of society Roads are a mess Reports of birth defects from exposure to depleted uranium have begun surfacing around the country. Reflect for a minute on the grief brought by a single loved one's death. Then open your heart to the reality of life if we suffered casualties comparable to those endured by the people of Iraq.

In the former cities of Atlanta, Denver, Boston, Seattle, Milwaukee, Fort Worth, Baltimore, San Francisco, Dallas and Philadelphia every single person is dead. In Vermont, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oregon, South Carolina and Colorado every single person is wounded.

The entire populations of Ohio and New Jersey are homeless, surviving with friends, relatives or under bridges as they can. The entire populations of Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky have fled to Canada or Mexico. Over the past three years, one in four U.S. doctors has left the country. Last year alone 3,000 doctors were kidnapped and 800 killed. In short, nobody "out there" is coming to save us.

We are in hell.

Of course our government didn't intend to commit genocide, it just sort of happened. The Iraqis kept getting in the way while we were trying to complete the mission. Mistakes were made as we were building democracy, but surely no genocide was intended. After all, we are the international deciders of what is and what isn't genocide, and we know full well that intent is a requirement.

It was only "collateral genocide" and lord knows we did our very best to avoid it.

Mike Ferner is an Ohio writer. His book, "Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq" is available on his website www.mikeferner.org



WAR AT THE REMOTE


by Norman Solomon, Guerilla News Network



















It’s a popular notion: TV sets and other media devices let us in on the violence of war. “Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens,” President Bush told a news conference more than three years ago. “I don’t. It’s a tough time for the American people to see that. It’s gut-wrenching.”

But televised glimpses of war routinely help to keep war going. Susan Sontag was onto something when she pointed out that “the image as shock and the image as cliche are two aspects of the same presence.”

While viewers may feel disturbed by media imagery of warfare, their discomfort is largely mental and limited. The only shots coming at them are ones that have been waved through by editors. Still, we hear that television brings war into our living rooms.

We’re encouraged to be a nation of voyeurs — or pseudo-voyeurs — looking at war coverage and imagining that we really see, experience, comprehend. In this mode, the reporting on the Iraq war facilitates a rough division of labor. For American media consumers, the easy task is to watch from afar — secure in the tacit belief we’re understanding what it means to undergo the violence that we catch via only the most superficial glances.

Television screens provide windows on the world that reinforce distances. Watching “news” at the remote, viewers are in a zone supplied by producers with priorities far afield from authenticity or democracy. More than making sense, the mass-media enterprise is about making corporate profit in sync with governmental power.

Exceptional news reports do exist. And that’s the problem; they’re exceptions. A necessity of effective propaganda is repetition. And the inherent limits of television in conveying realities of war are further narrowed by deference to Washington.

Styles vary on network television, but the journalistic pursuits — whether on a prime-time CNN show or the PBS “NewsHour” — are chasing parallel bottom lines. When the missions of corporate-owned commercial television and corporate-funded “public broadcasting” are wrapped up in the quest to maximize profits and maintain legitimacy among elites in a warfare state, how far afield is the war coverage likely to wander?

While media outlets occasionally stick their institutional necks out, the departures are rarely fundamental. In large media institutions, underlying precepts of a de facto military-industrial-media complex are rarely disturbed in any sort of sustained way — by the visual presentations or by the words that accompany them.

“Even if journalists, editors, and producers are not superpatriots, they know that appearing unpatriotic does not play well with many readers, viewers, and sponsors,” media analyst Michael X. Delli Carpini commented. Written with reference to the Vietnam War, his words now apply to the Iraq war era. “Fear of alienating the public and sponsors, especially in wartime, serves as a real, often unstated tether, keeping the press tied to accepted wisdom.”

Part of the accepted wisdom is the idea that media outlets are pushing envelopes and making the Iraq war look bad. But the press coverage, even from the reputedly finest outlets, is routinely making the war look far better than its reality — both in terms of the horror on the ground and the agendas of the war-makers in Washington.

Countless stories in the daily press continue to portray Bush administration officials as earnestly seeking a political settlement in Iraq while recalcitrant insurgents, bent on violence, thwart that effort. So, with typical spin, a dispatch from Baghdad published in The New York Times on June 17 flatly declared that comments by U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus “reflected an acknowledgment that more has to be done beyond the city’s bounds to halt a relentless wave of insurgent attacks that have undercut attempts at political reconciliation.”

Of course, occupiers always seek “political reconciliation.” As the Prussian general Karl von Clausewitz observed long ago, “A conqueror is always a lover of peace.”

At the same time, the more that an occupying force tries to impose the prerogatives of a conqueror, the more its commander must deny that its goals are anything other than democracy, freedom and autonomy for the people whose country is being occupied. In medialand, the lethal violence of the occupier must be invisible or righteous, while the lethal violence of the occupied must be tragic, nonsensical and/or insane. But most of all, the human consequences of a war fueled by U.S. military action are shrouded in euphemism and media cliche.

Which brings us back to violence at the remote. While a TV network may be no more guilty of obscuring the human realities of war than a newsprint broadsheet or a slick newsmagazine, we may have higher expectations that the television is bringing us real life. Vivid footage is in sharp contrast to static words and images on a page. At least implicitly, television promises more — and massively reneges on what it promises.

We may intellectually know that television is not conveying realities of life. But what moves on the screen is apt to draw us in, nonetheless. We see images of violence that look and loom real. But our media experience of that violence is unreal. We don’t experience the actual violence at all. Media outlets lie about it by pretending to convey it. And we abet the lying to the extent that we fail to renounce it.

Artifice comes in many forms, of course. In the case of television news, it’s a form very big on pretense. We’re left to click through the world beyond our immediate experience — at a distance that cannot be measured in miles. But away from our mediated cocoon, spun by civic passivity, the death machinery keeps roaring along.

GNN contributor Norman Solomon’s book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death is out in paperback. A documentary film based on the book will premiere this month. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org

Sunday, June 17, 2007

America’s White Thug Love & Ethnically Acceptable Violence


by Dr. Edward Rhymes, Black Agenda Report





















America's love affair with the gangster-killer-thug Soprano family proves beyond doubt that white violence is exalted in the culture, while Black violence is Public Enemy Number One. Tony Soprano needs a high-priced psychiatrist, but a million Black men and women deserve a living death in prison. Gangster-actors Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart are revered as cultural icons, while Seventies so-called "Black-sploitation" films and contemporary rap recordings are condemned as symptoms of African American social pathology. Violence, apparently, is an exclusive White Right.


As the popular HBO series The Sopranos came to a close; and the show's stars made the rounds of talk & late-night shows, I found myself perplexed by America's fascination with this program. Then again, why should I be? This is just another example of America's propensity to embrace the glorification of violence and criminal activity in entertainment when those pulling the triggers and those doing the killing are white - A&E, which airs Sopranos reruns, just unveiled a commercial promoting the show and it shows a tractor exploding after the driver turns the key, a woman in an convenience store removing a bag of ice from a freezer and revealing the face of a murder victim and two kids beating a bicycle with baseball bats. This is accepted, ignored or celebrated. And so the decolorization of white violence in entertainment is achieved.

In that same vein, not too long ago AMC (American Movie Classics) was promoting a Godfather movie marathon and the promo consisted of scenes from the Godfather trilogy with gangsta rap playing in the background. Maybe they were just trying to reach a more contemporary audience, but whether knowingly or unknowingly AMC made a critical cultural & historical connection - a connection made by far too few people in this country. Many people, White and Black, continue to treat gangsta rap (and Black culture as well) as if it were not informed and shaped by the dominant culture's values. Even a great deal of my white liberal & progressive brothers and sisters, seem to believe that Blacks in America hail from a different planet than they do - a planet that hasn't been touched by this society's long-standing history of glorifying violence and celebrating gangsterism. Indeed, most Whites believe that only Blacks have influenced Blacks and the diseases that are contracted from the defects in American culture have played no significant role in impairing or impacting the Black folk of this nation.

The Beginnings of White Thug Love

It can be argued that the beginnings of the deracialization of white violence in America began in the colonies when the Native Americans were portrayed as savages for acts that Whites were equally guilty of or acts of aggression that would have been deemed self defense had the "aggressors" not been Native-American. However, I want to focus on the American romanticization of the white outlaw and gangster in popular culture and film.

One of the most powerful examples of this "whitewashing" of history and criminal activity is found in the legend of Jesse James. The story of Jesse James remains one of America's most cherished myths - and one of its most erroneous. Jesse James, so the legend goes, was a Western outlaw, though, in fact, he never went west; was America's own Robin Hood, though he robbed from the poor as well as the rich, and kept it all for himself; and a gunfighter whose victims, in reality, were almost always unarmed.

Less heroic than brutal, James was in fact a product, from first to last, of the American Civil War; a Confederate partisan of expansive ambition, unbending politics and surprising cunning, who gladly helped invent his own valiant legend. A member of a vicious band of Missouri guerrillas during the war, James sought redemption afterwards. But as the PBS American Experience production revealed, year by year, he rode further from it, redeeming instead the great and glorious memory of the Old South. In a life steeped in prolific violence and bloodshed, he met what was perhaps the most fitting end; like so many of his own victims, James himself was an unarmed man, shot in the back. Nevertheless we see his image romanticized time and again through various films (the most popular being the 1939 version starring Tyrone Power) and historical retellings. He is sensitively portrayed as the reluctant outlaw; the Confederate idealist who was pushed into a life of crime - in this description we see the interconnectedness of the media, popular culture and public perception in creating and buttressing America's time-honored folktales. This is repeated in the tales of Doc Holliday, Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid and so on.

The American Gangster in Early American Cinema

Of course Al Capone, by the end of the 1920s, was the quintessential symbol of American gangsterism. Capone was accepted as a force in American life that government was powerless to control; his mercurial rise to power in Chicago's underworld made him not only feared and hugely wealthy but a substantial political influence and an example of how a gangster could make a business asset of his reputation - a popularity and perceived charisma that is imitated in every popular gangster film. Other figures such as Bonnie & Clyde, the Barkers and Pretty Boy Floyd have all been sanitized and romanticized as well; giving them Robin Hood-like status in popular culture.

The mythologized gangster can only be understood in relation to the wider society, whether he is cast as a villain whose actions confirm the need for law and order or as an outlaw hero admired for the toughness and energy with which he defies the system - the "outlaw hero" perspective has to also be understood in its racial context as well. Let's face it, Blacks who were hounded by even harsher social realities than White ethnics, never were or would be cast as "outlaw heroes" in the early days of film. The gangster films of the early 1930s use the rebellious figure of the criminal and the hierarchical structure of the criminal organization both to challenge and to make irony of capitalism and the business ethic. Having made a career of illegality, the gangster functions as the dark double of "respectable" society, undermining its claims to legitimacy and parodying the American drive to succeed; underworld activities image the injustices and vicissitudes of American economic life, with its illusions of upward mobility, its preoccupation with image-building and its hierarchy of exploiters and exploited.

Many types of criminal, from the urban white ethnic gangster to the poor white farm boy who drifted into crime, acquire, in the Depression, cross-class and cross ethnic appeal (the best discussion of which is in Jonathan Munby's Public Enemies, Public Heroes). Both types become symbols of a rebellion impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to enact. The heroic rebel image was reinforced by the Hollywood versions of the myth, featuring performances of great dynamism and energy.

Movie gangsters such as Cagney and Edward G. Robinson were heroes of dynamic gesture, strutting, snarling and posturing, possessing a blatant, anarchic appeal. Standing outside the law in a period when Depression America was cynical about all sources of moral authority, they possessed an awe-inspiring grandeur, even in death. At the same time, however, they were a reflection of legitimate society. The criminal big-shot, viewed in the distorting mirror of the satirist, is a parody of the American dream of success, ironizing the business ethic by the illegality of his methods as well as by his ultimate defeat; the inevitable fall of the big-time gangster creates a sense of entrapment in an economically determined reality. He is the victim of a society in which everyone is corrupt.

Warner Bros. was considered the gangster studio par excellence, and the "Big Three" of Warners' gangster cycle, all actors who established and defined their careers in this genre, included:

1. Edward G. Robinson

2. James Cagney

3. Humphrey Bogart

Others who were early gangster stars included Paul Muni and George Raft. Three classic gangster films (among the first of the talkies) marked the genre's popular acceptance and started the wave of gangster films in the 1930s in the sound era. The lead role in each film (a gangster/criminal or bootleg racketeer of the Prohibition Era) was glorified but each one ultimately met his demise in the final scenes of these films, due to censors' demands that they receive moral retribution for their crimes. The first two films in the cycle were released almost simultaneously by Warner Bros.:

(1) Mervyn LeRoy's Little Caesar (1930) starred Edward G. Robinson as a gritty, coarse and ruthless, petty Chicago killer named Caesar Enrico (or "Rico") Bandello (a flimsy disguise for a characterization of Al Capone), who experienced a rise to prominence and then a rapid downfall; Robinson was the first great gangster star

(2) William Wellman's The Public Enemy (1931) starred James Cagney (in his first film) as a cocky, fast-talking, nasty, and brutal criminal/bootlegger named Tom Powers - most memorable in a vicious scene at the breakfast table where the scowling gangster assaults his moll girlfriend (Mae Clarke) by pressing a half grapefruit into her face. (Both are still in their pajamas, indicating that they spent the night together.) The finale included the door-to-door delivery of Cagney's mummy-wrapped corpse to his mother's house - the bandaged body falls through the front door.

(3) Howard Hawks' raw Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (1932), a Howard Hughes'ThugsCagneyGuns produced film from UA starred Paul Muni as a power-mad, vicious, immature and beastly hood in Prohibition-Era Chicago (the characterization of Tony Camonte was loosely based on the brutal, murderous racketeer Al Capone). Other stars were George Raft (as his coin-flipping emotion-less, right-hand killer).

The ultra-violent, landmark film in the depiction of Italian-American immigrant gangsters included twenty-eight deaths, and the first use of a machine gun by a gangster. It was brought to the attention of the Hays Code for its unsympathetic portrayal of criminals, and there was an ensuing struggle over its release and content. The disturbing portrayal of irresponsible and anti-social behavior by the gangsters almost encouraged its attractiveness. (In tribute over fifty years later, Brian de Palma remade the film with Al Pacino in the title role of Scarface (1983)).

Eventually, two of the most successful gangland "Mafia" films ever made appeared in the 1970s with Francis Ford Coppola's direction of Mario Puzo's best-selling novel, The Godfather (1972), and The Godfather, Part II (1974). Both were epic sagas of a violent, treacherous, and tightly-knit crime family superstructure from Sicily that had settled in New York and had become as powerful as government and big business. Returning war veteran/son Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) had to loyally follow in his father's criminal path, without questioning its legitimacy.

Both contained a number of brutal death scenes, including Sonny Corleone's (James Caan) flurry-of-bullets death at a toll booth in the first. Part II was the first sequel ever to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. The third and final (this episode received far less critical acclaim than the previous two) installment in the trilogy was The Godfather, Part III (1990).

Director Martin Scorsese also explored the theme of family ties being torn apart by unpredictable violence. His intense films regularly starred actor Robert De Niro. Scorsese's "crime trilogy" included two mob pictures in the 1990s. The first film in the trilogy was Mean Streets (1973) - the one that established Scorsese's reputation. It was about the lives of aspiring, small-time crooks in the Little Italy section of New York.

The other two films were GoodFellas (1990) - adapted from Wiseguy, which followed thirty years in the lethally-violent criminal careers of rising mobsters and was based on the life of actual ex-mobster Henry Hill. And Scorsese's Casino (1995) examined a Mafia criminal dynasty making its presence known in a brutal takeover of 1960s-70s Las Vegas.

Although many of the gangsters in these films met with death and destruction, this did not prevent America's love affair with them - the glorification of the white ethnic gangster in cinema became an American guilty pleasure. Indeed, the vast majority of these films are considered classic. Even though these glorified thugs flouted the law at every turn and committed despicable acts of violence, they were still cast as charismatic and strangely sympathetic figures. The audience and the American public somehow found itself subconsciously; as well as consciously, pulling for them.

Fade to Black

The late 60's and early 70's brought the Black variation on some of the themes contained in the earlier gangster films. These gangster melodramas, with elements of social protest, were dominated by a single (male or female) charismatic personality. The genre contained stories of the pimp or pusher at a crisis point, caught between the needs of his people (Black Nationalism) and the pressure to sellout from "The Man." Standout examples are Superfly, played by Ron O'Neal; and The Mack. Cotton Comes to Harlem (1970) and Sweet Sweetback (1971) have been credited with kicking off the genre - Sweet Sweetback's Badaaass Song was fierce and uncompromising and deemed inaccessible to whites. Peebles went ahead and produced it anyway, financing it largely himself. Unable to show the film in many cinemas, he persuaded a few black cinemas in Detroit, San Francisco and New York to show it.

The response was incredible. Black people in droves went to see what was, essentially, the tale of a promiscuous black antihero as he made his way towards Mexico to evade the white police. Peebles wrote his own score and enlisted the assistance of the newly-formed group called Earth, Wind and Fire who happened to be friends with one of his production crew. Black Caesar (1973), starring Fred Williamson, was modeled on 1931's Little Caesar and needed only slight color tweaking to attract a new (and predominantly Black) audience. Blaxploitation films have been criticized for glorifying criminal behavior and perpetuating negative stereotypes, but the genre seldom gets credit for addressing issues and concerns relevant to the overlooked urban/inner-city demographic.

In the 1990s several Black directors explored issues of urban justice through stories of children growing up in urban America. Films such as Boyz N the Hood brought vivid images of disenfranchised and violent neighborhoods and the obstacles involved in growing up in these neighborhoods. These films questioned whether the criminal justice system works in neighborhoods isolated from both the creation and the protections of the legal system, and where the rules of the criminal justice system sometimes collide with the rules of the neighborhood justice system. In this same time period, Hollywood released many more films directed by Blacks, films such as Ernest Dickerson's Juice (starring Tupac Shakur and Omar Epps), Allen and Albert Hughes Menace II Society, and Spike Lee's Clockers.

Though some of these flicks have enjoyed cult status, they received castigation and criticism that the "classic" films which portrayed whites as the gangsters, criminals and thugs rarely received - John Singleton's Boyz-N-The Hood stands out (and mostly alone) in receiving critical acclaim while portraying inner-city violence.

The Scarface Generation

Perhaps no film has made more of an impression on what would later become gangsta rap than the 1983 film Scarface - the name Scarface, and its many variations, can be found in scores of songs and albums (as well in artist and group names). It stars Al Pacino as Tony Montana, a Cuban-immigrant who shoots and kills his way to the "top" to become the head of a powerful and brutal drug empire. It also, in my opinion, far-and-away one of the most explosive and bloody films in the history of the gangster-film genre. Four short years later, LA-based rapper Ice T emerged with his album Rhyme Pays (1987) which depicted hardcore street-life. In 1988 N.W.A.'s (Niggaz With Attitude) underground album Straight Outta Compton firmly established gangsta rap within the American music scene. Its keynote track F*** Tha Police was considered so shocking that radio stations and MTV refused to play it. Nonetheless, the album went platinum.

N.W.A. and gangsta rap's popularity was compounded with the release of their second album EFIL4ZAGGIN in 1991, which debuted at number two in the Billboard chart with neither a single nor a video and became the first rap album to reach number one. Snoop Doggy Dogg then became the first rapper to go straight to number one with his album Doggystyle (1993). The reliance on crime in the lyrics of gangsta rap fuels much of the controversy surrounding the musical style. And while it has been criticized for glorifying the negativity of the streets, gangsta rap's defenders claim that the rappers are simply reporting what really goes on in their neighborhoods. In other words they are telling a story through their specific cultural and experiential lens - this is not an endorsement of gangsta rap, but rather an attempt to properly contextualize the genre.

Conclusion

Granted, the high profile scandals and tragedies that have accompanied some of the biggest names in rap and gangsta rap adds fuel to the charges of it being too violent--- such as the trials of Sean "P Diddy" Combs and Snoop Dogg and the murders of Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G. (Biggie Smalls). Nevertheless, I remember gangsta rap in its infancy (before any of the aforementioned incidents took place) and condemnations of its ultra-violent lyrics and persona were being voiced even then. Hypocritically, the bloody Genovese and Colombo crime family wars were taking place in New York in the early 70's (when the first two Godfather movies were released) and a correlation between that reality and The Godfather was not made. Neither was any strong assertion made concerning Brian DePalma's Scarface glorifying and promoting the actual cocaine-financed mafia that was on the rise in the 80's.

In American popular culture and in the consciousness of the American public, real and media white violence and crime is deracialized. For example, when the tragedy occurred at Virginia Tech there was a flurry of questions about how it would impact people's views of Korean Americans. Was that question asked in regard to whites when Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City? What about Columbine? Or Ronald Gene Simmons? For every Cho there are 10-15 Bundys, Gacys, Specks and Dahmers, and yet there is no condemnation of white culture or a feared backlash against whites because of the actions of a notorious few. The same cannot be said of Black folk and other people of color. Our problems and concerns are usually treated as some sort of racialized pathology, whereas white indiscretions and transgressions are viewed as the innocuous and colorless "societal" or "social" ill - detached and divorced from whiteness. On a related note, Salon.com's headline story, about the Sopranos, for Saturday June 9, 2007 was titled: "Our Favorite Murderer."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. Although, as a principle, I am against a great deal (if not most) of the violent messages that is being transmitted through some films and music, that does not prevent me from gleaning powerful ideas, concepts and perspectives from those same films and forms of music (The Godfather, N.W.A, Scarface and [pre-Barbershop] Ice Cube included). The sexism and carnage, that I am opposed to, that is displayed in The Godfather, does not blind me to depth of the characters and the complexity of the plot. Likewise, the misogyny and violence, that I abhor, that is present in the earlier songs of gangsta rap (I cannot embrace anything or anyone in the current field), does not negate the fact that those artists did bring to the forefront many issues and concerns of the Black community - such as racial profiling, poverty, gang life and police brutality. ThugsalbumcoverLogoSmall

So what is the point that I am trying to make here? I suppose that it is this: that if the problem or concern is violence in entertainment, then make the condemnation of it across the racial and ethnic board - no matter how sympathetic, charismatic or heroic they make the Michael and Vito Corleones, the Tony Montanas or the Tony Sopranos. Because, if the eradication of violence in entertainment begins and ends with Black faces and voices, then it is a strategy that is bound to fail. Or, if one believes that proper perspective and context must be used in critiquing these popular mafia films and series, that's fine. However, don't fail to apply that same drive for context and perspective when judging the music and messages that flow from a Black outlook. And finally, don't divorce that critique from the long history of white ethnic violence in American cinema and popular culture that preceded and helped to influence that same outlook.

Friday, June 15, 2007

REVOLUTION: ARE YOU IN?


by Malik Isasis






















What would it take to make a better world?

What is the role of the individual in a social movement?

Is social (r)evolution possible?

What would be the elements of such a movement?

What’s wrong with the current social/political climate?

What would the structure and goals of a social (r)evolution look like?

What would the core values of such a movement be?

Where do we start?


JOE LIEBERMAN IS A DOUCHE BAG


by Malik Isasis


Senator Joseph Isadore Lieberman, the Independent Democrat, is a douche bag. He is a tool of war and is doing his part to make sure that the United States continues it colonization effort in Iraq and if that weren’t enough, bomb Iran. He is only for death and destruction because he lacks imagination…I take that back, it is not a lack of imagination that drives people like Lieberman it is unadulterated power. Lieberman got a sip of this corruptive nectar last November 2006 when he won his seat, after losing in the Democratic primary.

He found himself back into the senate winning with overwhelming financial and propaganda support from Republican operatives. Lieberman waltzed into the senate bitter with the Democratic Party and ever since then he has threaten to leave the Democratic Party frequently for the Republican Party. He has successfully played the Democrats against the Republicans and vice-versa, making himself a kingmaker. The razor-thin majority in the senate is so close that a political whore like Lieberman can sell his soul and dignity for the crumbs of power.

The Democratic Party per usual gave Lieberman a powerful position on a committee. Still he whines like a baby with shit in his diapers because this is the sickness of power, you assume you have entitlements that others don’t. Power is like the ring, in the book/film Lord of the Ring, anyone who comes in to contact with it becomes a destructive force.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the US should consider a military strike against Iran over its support of Iraqi insurgents.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."


Bush has ushered in an era where United States’ politicians speak off the cuff with no regard to what they say or the consequences of such thoughtless chest beating. This chest beating with other people’s loved-ones to fight their fights substitutes as diplomacy. Our politicians speak to other nations as if they were children, and then have the nerve to get upset when other nations ignore them.

What makes people like Lieberman and Bush kindred spirits is their ability to focus on personal goals over that of a nation and the people they represent. They hoard power, delusional and blinded by their own grandiosity. Unfortunately for the world, Israel and American neocons have their hands up both these meat puppets’ asses.


CAPITOL I, CAPITOL D


by Malik Isasis, A REPOST
















When the axe came into the forest, the trees said, “The handle is one of us.” So goes an African Proverb. The “Independent Democratic” senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, is being courted heavily by the Republicans to caucus with the Republican Party. Senator Lieberman has felt a sense of abandonment by the Democratic Party leadership after losing to his challenger, Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary. After he had lost, he registered himself as an Independent Democrat, to get another bite at the apple.

On November 7, 2006, as an Independent Democrat, Lieberman beat his Democratic challenger Ned Lamont in the senatorial race, putting himself in the middle of a bidding war between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and by a bidding war; I mean a Committee Chair position and maintaining of his seniority to give either side political advantaged.

"I am now an Independent Democrat -- capital I, capital D.” Senator Lieberman said (Associated Press). When asked if he’d switch caucuses if he felt uncomfortable with the Democratic Party, in a not so subtle threat, he replied:

"I'm not ruling it out, but I hope I don't get to that point. And, and I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we, we want you to switch over,' " he said (Associated Press).

Well I say, why else would the Republicans support a Democratic Senator from the oppositional party, if they didn’t expect anything in return? It’s kinda like that guy in prison who offers you a cigarette, only to return later wanting to fuck you in the ass, for the favor.

With a slight advantage in the Senate, the Democrats and Republicans will need Joseph Lieberman to move the agenda in either direction. So, it appears that Lieberman has found himself in a position where he will be able to use his newly found independence to get almost anything he asks for. He has found his “joementum” he’d been searching for since his Vice Presidential bid in 2000; it appears now, that he is one of the most powerful men in Washington, D.C. and isn’t that what it’s all about? Power?

The leadership in the Democratic Party has shot themselves in the foot by not supporting Ned Lamont. They left him twisting in the wind. And now the Democratic Party find themselves having to consider giving Lieberman a leadership position and Committee Chair position, even though he decided to buck the Democratic Party to become an Independent.

If Lieberman had been traumatized by the direction of the Democratic Party, he would have left the party and run as an Independent from the outset. He didn’t do so because he is a coward, and make political gains in the media by marketing himself as a moderate, just like John McCaine markets himself as a Maverick—all sugar, no nutritional value.

Senator Joseph Lieberman is part of the sickness of our political system, where incumbent politicians feel a sense of entitlement to their office and to power. Lieberman waxes eloquently about values, and integrity but he’s a political whore, willing to sell off his services to the highest bidder. Lieberman has made losing about him, rather than about the people he represents. When it becomes about the politicians, it’s not about the constituents. It is personal gain over political responsibility.

His political DNA reads neocon, and the Republican Party is where he should be. Hey Joe, on the way out, don't let the door hit 'ya where the good Lord split 'ya.




Sources:

Associated Press, Lieberman Won’t Rule Out Caucusing with GOP

Friday, June 08, 2007

ALL BLOCKED UP


by Malik Isasis
























I’m struggling with writer’s block. It’s probably due to my recent move to New York City. I've been unable to follow the news as closely as I would like. My environment has radically changed. My appetite has changed, so has my sleeping patterns. I’m still settling down. I've been sitting in front of the screen staring for hours. I got nothing. I hope to get back into the swing of things on Monday.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND WAR


by Maps of War





Which presidents and political parties were responsible for America's deadliest wars? To what extent can you blame a president or a political party for choosing to go to war? This map may hold some answers. It illustrates the history of American war from 1775 to 2006. War is a necessary evil. Politics, however, shouldn't be.


GANGS, TERRORISTS, AND TRADE


by Adam Elkus, Guerilla News Network

















The Latin American state has lost its monopoly on violence

While most Americans are familiar with al-Qaida, they’re less knowledgeable about a group spreading terror within U.S. inner cities: Mara Salvatrucha. Also known as MS-13, the Maras have 20,000 North American members. Mara cadres have set up in many American cities, creating the beginnings of a national command hierarchy, with some Maras on the East and West coast reporting directly to and paying gang dues to leaders in Central America. As these cadres grow and learn, they become more dangerous, and already they have begun to actively target law enforcement officers. Although the FBI and law enforcement agencies have tried to contain them using anti-racketeering statutes, which allow prosecutors to attack the structures of organized crime, the real problem lies beyond the border.

MS-13 is the product of the vicious Central American civil wars of the 1980s. Thousands fled north, many of them veterans of both sides. Unable to find work because of a lack of education, some of these refugees decided to leverage their combat skills to survive, forming Mara Salvatrucha. As a result of toughened immigration polices, U.S. officials deported MS-13 members to their countries of origin. However, this solution proved facile and politically expedient. After their return home, MS-13 members ruthlessly destroyed the local gangs and took control of huge swathes of Central American cities.

There are 70,000 Maras in Latin America. Like al-Qaida, they operate loose, autonomous cells that form a broad transnational network. Individual cells are surprisingly sophisticated. Some are devoted to intelligence gathering, propaganda, recruitment, and logistics, as well as their more common activities of drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution, and murder. In the cities and provinces they control, the Maras have carved out zones of autonomy, parasite structures within the larger state where they provide a rudimentary system of patronage and protection to the people in return for allegiance and tribute.

Paralyzed by a lack of resources and decades of authoritarianism, neglect, and economic disparity, Central American states have found it difficult to deal with this threat. The Maras are heavily armed with M16s, AK-47s, and military grade explosives. Gang-related violence has risen to pandemic levels. In El Salvador alone, gang-related violence is responsible for 60% of all murders. Many security experts fear that Central America could become like Colombia, with huge areas of the country governed by mini-narcostates. The Peten region of Guatemala has already become just that. It is devoid of government authority, with the economy and local life dominated by the Maras and other criminal gangs and oriented primarily around drug trafficking. Another fear is that the Maras will start to carve out a political identity, making the jump from criminal overlords to a fully functional, armed political movement—with the sole goal of loosening state authority to create a jungle of quasi-feudal narcostates.

The Maras are part of a troubling trend in Latin America: the rise of transnational gangs, narcotraffickers, and terrorists. These anti-state formations have successfully created power networks of their own, overwhelming security forces and creating rudimentary fiefdoms in areas where state control is weak. These actors have thrived in an environment where neoliberal economic policies have exacerbated traditional inequalities. They have profited from the legacy of civil wars and U.S.-backed dictators. It is not a new trend but the latest twist in a century of violent upheaval and inequality. Although these actors are not representative of a decline in state power in general, their success at eluding and challenging the state and forming autonomous zones indicates that they have decisively broken the state’s monopoly of violence. This does not bode well for the long-term security of the Americas.

Losing the Drug War

In Mexico, President Felipe Calderon’s efforts to bring narcotics cartels to heel have produced no visible results. His most recent operation, a December 2006 6,000-man raid on narcotraffickers throughout the country, netted no important arrests. Drug prices in the United States have held steady or fallen, suggesting that the Mexican government’s efforts to stem the supply of narcotics have failed. For the foreseeable future, things seem likely to only get worse. In poverty-stricken northern Mexico, cartels still run narco-states within the larger state superstructure. Corrupt local officials tolerate these cartels’ usurpation of state authority as long as it does not undermine their own positions. In response to Calderon’s efforts, cartel thugs have only gotten bolder. Inspired by al-Qaida, they have added beheadings to their repertoire, slaughtering their rivals and leaving their heads for show. Drug cartels even videotape the killings of rivals and put them up on Youtube. Drug killings have climbed to a high of 2,000 per year.

In Colombia, illicit coca production in Columbia has increased from 80,000 to 86,000 hectares, according to the International Crisis Group. The leftist narco-insurgent Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) still maintains a virtual state in large sections of the countryside despite President Alvaro Uribe’s stepped-up military offensive. It dominates local life and criminal structures, sustained by profitable cocaine exports that the government has failed to eradicate.

The lure of drug money has maintained high levels of corruption in the Colombian military, and the drug shadow economy has woven itself into the very DNA of the country’s power structure. The elite counter-drug units that Uribe has fielded to eliminate the narco-traffickers have found themselves betrayed and militarily targeted by their comrades in the security forces who have been bought by drug lords. Uribe’s chief success to date, the demobilization of right-wing paramilitaries operating outside the state, has even backfired. Scandals involving right-wing paramilitaries linked to the highest levels of government have multiplied, further tarnishing Uribe’s credibility and proving that murderous right-wing militiamen still maintain significant influence within the Colombian government.

Uribe has raised defense spending to unprecedented levels with little effect. Guerrillas have won a number of tactical victories over government troops from their base in the countryside through the use of anti-personnel landmines and snipers. In Colombia’s major cities, FARC cadres wait underground for the right moment for bloody assault. Uribe seems blind to the structural reasons for the failure of the state to eliminate the narco-state within Columbia. Fifty percent of the country lives below the poverty line, and class conflict burns in the cities and the countryside. With the government fixated solely on a military response, it is unlikely that there will be any progress in Colombia’s drug war, and the state will remain a weak top layer to the multiple narco-groups warring for supremacy.

Gangs and Terrorists Challenge the State

In Brazil in May 2006, criminal groups took on the state itself in a twisted variation of the Tet offensive. The First Capital Command (PCC), a criminal network operating out of Sao Paulo, launched calculated assaults on police officers in Sao Paulo and across neighboring provinces, taking over prisons, carrying out drive-by shootings, ambushing police officers, storming police stations, buses, public transport systems, and shopping centers. Their goal was to demonstrate to the government who was really in charge. The outgunned police were helpless against the PCC’s heavy machine guns and grenades. More than 100 prisons rioted, 150 people died, and millions were terrorized. The PCC’s power remains formidable, controlling more than 140,000 prisoners in Sao Paolo alone with 500,000 outside affiliates, which include lawyers, informants, drug dealers, bankers, and gun runners. The PCC’s assault, however, is only one public example of increasing gang power. In the many slums (favelas) of Rio de Janeiro, local politicians only enter with the permission of gang leaders who deliver votes in exchange for patronage.

The tri-border region between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina remains a lawless center where drug traffickers, criminals, money launderers, gun runners, and terrorists operate freely. Argentine authorities believe that Hezbollah operatives planned and carried out dry runs in the tri-border region in preparation for the 1994 car bombing of the Israeli-Argentinean Mutual Assistance Center. And intelligence experts speculate that Al-Qaeda may be trying to set up a cell within the tri-border region.

Sadly, instability is not restricted to Latin America. In Haiti, criminal organizations continue to dominate civic life. During the 2004 coup that ousted former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, many prisons and courthouses were destroyed by rebels and criminals, gutting the legal system. The country’s judiciary-<>poorly paid, corrupt, poorly equipped, and burdened by a legal code that has essentially remained unchanged since the 19th century-has been powerless to resist an overwhelming surge in criminal activity. An ever-expanding network of transnational crime syndicates, drug traffickers, and armed groups aided by allies among the corrupt police and security forces control the streets. This is unsurprising, as the leaders and soldiers of the 2004 coup included many criminals and ex-paramilitaries from the junta that briefly ousted Aristide in 1994...read on.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

HOW BUSH RISKS AN ISLAMIST BOMB


by Ivan Eland, Consortium News























The Bush administration has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the administration has also missed the chance to maintain a stable nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Like the U.S. policy toward the Shah’s Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bush administration, despite a rhetorical commitment to spread democracy around the world, has put all of its eggs in the basket of an autocrat unlikely to survive—in this case, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Although Musharraf has used the U.S. war on terror to play the United States like a fiddle, the Bush administration believes there is no better alternative. Unfortunately, backing Musharraf could create a nuclear-armed Pakistan controlled by radical Islamists.

Unfortunately, Pakistan probably has already been “lost,” and U.S. policy has played an important role in its demise. U.S. policymakers have repeatedly underestimated the consequences of the deep unpopularity engendered by profligate U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other countries.

In Iran, although the Shah’s government was brutal, the regime also became so identified with its unpopular U.S. benefactor that the United States became a major contributing factor in its collapse and replacement with a militant and enduring Islamist substitute.

The Bush administration, with its macho bravado, has had a tin ear for the ramifications of anti-U.S hatred. After 9/11, instead of using the attacks as a justification to go after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Bush administration had the opportunity to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, take full advantage of Musharraf’s limited-time offer to give the U.S. military free reign in Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda, and then withdraw from the region.

Instead, the Bush administration allowed mission creep to take its eyes off the prize of taking down al Qaeda. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan turned to nation-building, counterinsurgency, and cutting off the drug trade. The continued occupation of Afghanistan by non-Muslim forces and the close U.S. support for the dictator Musharraf in neighboring Pakistan, predictably revved up Pakistani Islamic militants and gradually turned them against his regime.

In an attempt to discreetly court these militants to support his government and to maintain the flow of U.S. military aid to ostensibly fight them, Musharraf allowed these groups to operate in the wild tribal regions of western Pakistan on the Afghan border and even reached a truce with them to withdraw the Pakistani government’s military forces from these areas. This wink and nod policy has allowed both al Qaeda and the militant Taliban to recover and step up attacks from these safe havens.

Given Musharraf’s unenthusiastic pursuit of al Qaeda in Pakistan, why does the United States continue to support him? The answer is mainly a fear of “instability”—read, any change of leadership in a nuclear weapons state.

The United States fears that the only alternative to Musharraf in a nuclear-armed Pakistan is the Islamic militants; but this outcome is actually more likely if the unpopular United States continues to zealously back Musharraf. At the same time Musharraf’s popularity has faded. He has faced mass protests across Pakistan for his increased despotism and his suspension of the country’s chief justice.

Musharraf feared that the judge, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, might issue rulings that would interfere with his attempt to have the parliament elect him to another five-year term. In addition, several former Pakistani generals have talked openly about overthrowing him in a coup.

But it may be too late to control a coup and reestablish military rule. The Islamists have been strengthened by Musharraf’s suppression of alternative non-Islamic opposition parties; Musharraf has said that their leaders—exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawa Sharif—will not be allowed to return for upcoming parliamentary elections.

The Bush administration should change policy and end the occupation of Afghanistan, which would cool the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and the Islamic militancy in Pakistan. In addition, the United States should threaten to cut off aid to Pakistan unless Musharraf and his intelligence services make a genuine attempt to capture or kill bin Laden.

With a cooling of militant Islam in the region, Musharraf should have more leeway to pursue bin Laden without an Islamist backlash. Finally, the United States should press Musharraf to genuinely open Pakistani elections to non-Islamist parties and allow their leaders to return from exile. These actions would further erode support from the Islamist radicals.

Unfortunately, keeping the Islamists around, but contained, has been good for the autocratic Musharraf regime. The problem is that the instability caused by this policy can no longer be contained.

Like the Shah of Iran, Musharraf must use increased violence to put down popular protests, thus further fueling the spreading uprisings. The Shah’s Iran and Pakistan have one important difference, however: Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Tragically, the Bush administration may eventually give the world an Islamist bomb.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

KILLING ROSIE O’DONNELL


by Malik Isasis




















I’ve watched the conservatives and their right wing flying monkeys with fascination as they vomit bile into their echo chamber in their attempt to destroy Rosie O’Donell. Why does the right wing despise Rosie O’Donnell?

It was only 9 years ago in 1996 when the corporate media dubbed Rosie O’Donnell, Queen of Nice during the run of her popular show,The Rosie O’Donnell Show. The corporate media and punditry were in love with Rosie--even pitting her against Oprah by pushing Rosie as the next guru of daytime talk television--even publishing her magazine, Rosie to compete with Oprah’s O magazine.

O’Donnell’s multiple-Emmy Award winning show was a harmless confection of interviews and friendly banter with Hollywood guests. There was nothing remotely political about her shows. O’Donnell’s views were liberal then too. She was just as outspoken then as now but that was before September 11, 2001. After 911, there was mass delusion of the American populace, which opened a pathway for the neocons to enact its manifesto of world domination by sticking their hands up Bush’s ass and moving this meat puppet’s mouth.

Rosie left her show in 2002 and came to The View in September 2005. By the time she had arrived, Hurricane Katrina had just happened and The Meat Puppet’s approval ratings were taking a dive as America awoke from its four-year slumber to see the accumulation of bed soars on its ass. Rosie immediately began criticizing the Bush administration and it’s incompetence.

The Art of the Straw man

Rosie O’Donnell is a test case for the neocons, which has set out to assassinate her character by portraying her as someone who is emotionally unstable and whose views are in the extreme.

Corporate media have commissioned polls on Rosie:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Americans have read, seen or hear about recent stories about Rosie O’Donnell’s early departure from her latest TV venture–”The View.”O’Donnell, an outspoken and well publicized Democrat, is viewed favorably by just 25% of Americans (including just 33% of Democrats). Sixty-one percent (61%) of all Americans hold an unfavorable view of the daytime TV diva.

Do you give a shit if Rosie’s approval rating is 25%? The corporate media believes this is worth their resources. The corporate media and their shill pollsters continue to distract away from the real tragedy, which is George Bush’s presidency and the global crises after global crises he and his flying monkeys have created.

The corporate media suckles from the breasts of the six-tittied right wing beast, as they pile on, acting as an accessory to the attempted murder of Rosie O’Donnell’s character and sincerity. Even the disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom Delay got into the act by vomiting, “If you take Imus, we’ll take Rosie.”

The same strategy was tried with the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against the Iraq Invasion.

The conservatives and their right wing brethren are true artists, bullshit artists who never change their strategy, which is to target an icon of a progressive movement and discredit said icon with negative propaganda using mainstream news, therefore discrediting the revolution e.g. Martin Luther King , Jr., Ghandi, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk, Cindy Sheehan and countless other political activists. The right wing are affective at what they do because their strategy depends on intolerance, which is plentiful in this country.

The neocons are using Rosie O’Donnell to discredit progressives and marginalize debate on the occupation of Iraq and future attacks on Iran. They will use the same tactics with filmmaker Michael Moore when his documentary film Sicko hits theatre screens.

The neocons are looking for any excuse to stick their hands up the meat puppet’s ass again to check off another Middle Eastern country on their manifesto hit list. Rosie O'Donnell is just a casualty of that cause, but it will be she who gets the last laugh when like the Dixie Chicks, her career rises like the Phoenix.

CHINA'S CONQUEST OF AFRICA


by By Andreas Lorenz and Thilo Thielke, Spiegel International




China is conquering Africa as it becomes the preferred trading partner of the continent's dictators. Beijing is buying up Africa's abundant natural resources and providing it with needed cash and cheaply produced consumer goods in return.

Thomas Mumba was a devout young man. He spent his free time studying the Holy Scriptures and directing the church choir at the United Church of Zambia in his hometown of Chambeshi. Mumba, a bachelor, was also committed to abstinence -- from beer and from sex before marriage. A larger-than-life depiction of Jesus Christ surrounded by a herd of sheep still hangs in his room. The poster is pure "Made in China" kitsch, like most things here in the Zambian copper belt, located more than a six hours' drive north of the capital Lusaka.

Mumba, a shy, slight young man, bought the Chinese-made religious image at a local market and hung it up at home. It was cheap, cheaper than goods from Europe, at any rate. Mumba's Chinese Jesus cost him 4,000 kwacha, or about 75 cents. "It was his first encounter with the evil empire," says Thomas's mother Justina Mulumba, two years after the accident that would change her entire life.

Thomas Mumba died on April 20, 2005 when an explosives depot blew up in the Chambeshi copper mine. He had just turned 23 and had been working in the mine for two years. To this day, no one knows how many people died that day, because the mine's Chinese owners attempted to cover up what they knew about the accident. Besides, they had kept no records of who was working near the explosion site on the day of the accident.

According to the memorial plaque, there were 46 victims, but it could just as easily have been 50 or 60. Only fragments of the remains of most of the dead were recovered. Mukuka Chilufya, the engineer who managed the rescue team, says that his men filled 49 sacks with body parts that day. The Chinese have deflected all inquiries about the explosion.

ustina Mulumba wears a mint-green dress as she kneels at her son's grave, whispering almost inaudibly: "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do." The cemetery is by the side of the road, only a short distance from the plant gates. Chinese trucks drive by, churning up the dry African soil and briefly coating the entire cemetery in a cloud of red dust.

The drivers are in a hurry to get their trucks, filled with copper, to the port of Durban on the Indian Ocean, where the copper will be loaded onto ships bound for China. Mumba wasn't the only one whose fate was sealed by copper. All of Zambia depends on copper, which is by far this southern African country's most important export, well ahead of cobalt. Copper accounts for more than half of all its export revenues.

The precious metal attracted scores of white colonizers to the country north of the Zambezi River in the early 20th century. The British flag flew over Northern Rhodesia, as Zambia was then called, until 1964. That was followed by the era of independence and of Socialist leader Kenneth Kaunda, who initially benefited from rising copper prices.

Kaunda, a religious man, was obsessed with bringing education to the people of his country. But he had little understanding of economic matters. He had so many schools built that the government eventually found itself lacking the funds to pay the teachers. When Kaunda decided to nationalize the foreign-owned mines to raise cash for the government's coffers, it was his bad luck that copper prices soon plunged.

ustina Mulumba wears a mint-green dress as she kneels at her son's grave, whispering almost inaudibly: "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do." The cemetery is by the side of the road, only a short distance from the plant gates. Chinese trucks drive by, churning up the dry African soil and briefly coating the entire cemetery in a cloud of red dust.

The drivers are in a hurry to get their trucks, filled with copper, to the port of Durban on the Indian Ocean, where the copper will be loaded onto ships bound for China. Mumba wasn't the only one whose fate was sealed by copper. All of Zambia depends on copper, which is by far this southern African country's most important export, well ahead of cobalt. Copper accounts for more than half of all its export revenues.

The precious metal attracted scores of white colonizers to the country north of the Zambezi River in the early 20th century. The British flag flew over Northern Rhodesia, as Zambia was then called, until 1964. That was followed by the era of independence and of Socialist leader Kenneth Kaunda, who initially benefited from rising copper prices.

Kaunda, a religious man, was obsessed with bringing education to the people of his country. But he had little understanding of economic matters. He had so many schools built that the government eventually found itself lacking the funds to pay the teachers. When Kaunda decided to nationalize the foreign-owned mines to raise cash for the government's coffers, it was his bad luck that copper prices soon plunged.

Feeding China 's Hunger for Raw Materials

In the early 1990s, Zambia abandoned its socialist planned economy, Kaunda withdrew from politics and the ongoing slump in copper prices precipitated an economic crisis. In the late 1990s, when then-president Frederick Chiluba felt compelled to give in to pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to privatize the unproductive, unprofitable state-owned mines, the price of a ton of copper was barely $900.

At the time, no one in Africa -- or, for that matter, in New York, London or Geneva -- foresaw India's and China's rise as economic powers, or the attendant thirst for resources. When rising demand suddenly drove up copper prices to previously unanticipated levels, it was yet another stroke of bad luck for poor Zambia that the country had already sold off much of its copper-mining rights to the Australians, Canadians, Indians and Chinese.

A ton of copper costs $8,000 today. Zambian mines are currently producing 500,000 tons a year, a number that could soon increase to 700,000. This is good for the foreign mine owners, but the Zambians see next to nothing of the profits.

The Chinese need the copper for their booming industry. The metal is used primarily to make wires, cables, integrated circuits and metal products like pipes and toolmaking machines -- in other words, in almost every branch of industry, from automobile manufacturing to the construction industry.

By 2004 China was already the world's second-largest importer of copper ore, after Japan. "If copper scrap and residues are added, China imports a quarter of the world's copper production," writes the research department of Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank in a report titled "China's Commodity Hunger." The report concludes that the demand for copper will "remain high."

Privatization couldn't have gone worse for the Zambians. But in the age of the dragon descending upon Africa, things could get far worse. Michael Chilufya Sata sits in a cramped, smoke-filled office behind mountains of paper, smoking one cigarette after another. Sata, who as head of the Patriotic Front is Zambia's most important opposition leader, is also a demagogue.

For many Zambians Sata is a saint, but for others he is a reincarnation of the devil -- that includes the government, which has had him thrown in jail repeatedly. In one instance he was accused of sabotage when he and his supporters allegedly smuggled explosives into a copper mine, and he was recently arrested on charges of having provided false information about his financial circumstances.

Sata captured more than 29 percent of the vote in the September 2006 presidential election, while the winner in that race, current President Levy Mwanawasa, claimed 43 percent. But Sata believes that the election was rigged. According to opinion polls, he was initially clearly in the lead in the capital and in the copper belt. But when the tide turned in favor of the incumbent, Sata cried election fraud and violence erupted in the streets of Lusaka for several days.

If there is one issue which Sata uses to mobilize the masses, it is the Chinese. He has warned voters that they plan to export their dictatorship to Africa, colonize the continent and introduce large-scale exploitation. Unlike Western investors, says Sata, the Chinese have little interest in the Africans' well-being.

The politician quickly talks himself into a rage. Chinese have little interest in human rights, he says. They are only interested in exploiting Africa's natural resources, which they have carted off using their own workers and equipment, and without having paid a single kwacha in taxes. Sata sums up his position as follows: "We want the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return. They exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took care of us. They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilization."

A majority of Zambians likely agree with Sata. On his recent and third trip to Africa, Chinese President Hu Jintao canceled his planned visit to the Zambian copper belt at the last minute, fearing demonstrations by disgruntled workers and the resulting embarrassing TV images. Only last year, protestors in Chambeshi were injured when police fired into their midst...read on.