Selves and Others

More evidence that the U.S. government is justifying surveillance of political dissidence under the guise of monitoring "terrorism" has recently come to light. Early this March an FBI agent’s presentation at the University of Texas law school listed Indymedia, Food Not Bombs, the Communist Party of Texas and "anarchists" as groups on the FBI’s "Terrorist Watch List" for central Texas.

On March 8, 2006, FBI Supervisory Senior Resident Agent G. Charles Rasner, delivered a guest lecture before professor Ronald Sievert’s U.S. Law and National Security class of approximately 100 students. Accompanying his lecture was an "unclassified" PowerPoint presentation titled "Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Texas." (...)

Rumors are brewing in Washington that the states of Kansas and Utah will be forced to secede from the United States and form their own country. As firm supporters of the most incompetent and dangerous president in American history, these two states are as much out of reality as their president, and so deserve special recognition as “rogue states,” injurious to the health and security of the United States. And the other 48 states have every right to protect themselves from such rogue elements. (...)

Last night Channel 4 News broadcast a relatively long piece on Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. You can get a flavour from its website: "He is in danger of joining a rogue’s gallery of dictators and despots - Washington’s latest Latin nightmare."

This was a piece which might as have well been written by the US State Department, although Channel 4 News’ Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, appeared on screen. It was one of the worst, most distorted pieces of journalism I have ever seen, qualifying as crude propaganda.

I have been in Venezuela lately and almost nothing in Rugman’s rant coincides with reality. The undermining of truth throughout this travesty was demonstrated in its "coverage" of a cowed media. Venezuela is a country in which 95% of the press, TV and radio are owned by the far-right, who mount unrelenting daily attacks on the government unhindered. The Latin American Murdoch, Cisneros, unfettered, controls much of it. Indeed, it is probably the most concentrated, reactionary media on earth - but that was not worthy of a single word from Rugman. (...)

Comment on Chomsky’s "Israel Lobby?" by Jeff Blankfort

Chomsky: "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf

region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the

much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."

This claim can not be substantiated simply because it isn’t true. In 2002, for example, Haim Saban, the Israel-American who funds the Saban Center at the Brooking Institute and is a big

contributor to AIPAC, gave $12.3 million to the Democratic Party, almost as much as the $14 plus million the arms manufacturing PACs gave to both parties. In 2001, Mother Jones listed on its web

site, the 400 leading contributors to the 2000 national elections. Seven of the first 10 were Jewish, as were 12 of the top 20 and 125 of the top 250. I didn’t go any further. Were all these Jews

supporters of Israel? To some degree it is quite likely, but, as a number of observers over the years have said, in the eyes of Congress, there is only one key issue for American Jews and that is

Israel. Now, if "ME Scholar Stephen Zunes," who Chomsky quotes, or Chomsky himself, has evidence that contradicts this, let them present it. I have sent copies of this email to both of them. (...)

I’ve received many requests to comment on the article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (henceforth M-W), published in the London Review of Books, which has been circulating extensively on the internet and has elicited a storm of controversy. A few thoughts on the matter follow.

It was, as noted, published in the London Review of Books, which is far more open to discussion on these issues than US journals — a matter of relevance (to which I’ll return) to the alleged influence of what M-W call "the Lobby." An article in the Jewish journal Forward quotes M as saying that the article was commissioned by a US journal, but rejected, and that "the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in a American-based scientific publication." But despite the fact that it appeared in England, the M-W article aroused the anticipated hysterical reaction from the usual supporters of state violence here, from the Wall St Journal to Alan Dershowitz, sometimes in ways that would instantly expose the authors to ridicule if they were not lining up (as usual) with power. (...)

· Baghdad officials end link with coalition in protest

· Minister claims 37 victims were tied up and killed

in Baghdad

Senior ministers from the three main Shia factions united yesterday to denounce an American raid on a Baghdad mosque complex in which at least 20 people died, opening the biggest rift between the US and Iraq’s majority Shia community since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

"At evening prayers, American soldiers accompanied by Iraqi troops raided the Mustafa mosque and killed 37 people," said Abd al-Karim al-Enzi, the security minister, who belongs to the Dawa party of the prime minister, Ibrahim al Jaafari. "They [the victims] were unarmed. They went in, tied up the people and shot them all. They did not leave any wounded." (...)

There is little disagreement on the indispensable role of the media in influencing political debate and narrative, thus shaping public discourse.

Among progressives, liberals and most political minorities in the United States and Europe, there is an equal consensus regarding the troubling alliance that is bringing warmongering politicians, ideologues, religious zealots and media moguls together. They alone possess the capabilities to sway the public in any way they wish, or so it seems; they stack a nation’s priorities in the way they find most fit; they concoct wars and justify them when they go awry. In short, they manipulate democracy by manipulating the public, using whatever means necessary: fear, misinformation and all the familiar rest.

No other issue has been the victim of such treachery like the Middle East discourse in the West, and particularly that concerning Palestine and Israel. This is a subject that is as old as the conflict itself. Even before the establishment of the state of Israel upon the hundreds of conquered and mostly destroyed Palestinian towns and villages in 1947-48, the founders of Israel seemed utterly aware of the destructive impact of their action on Western public opinion. Israeli historian Benny Morris’s commanding book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is dotted with instances where - in their secretive dealings - Zionist politicians bickered over the massacring of Palestinians or their overt ethnic cleansing particularly because of how such blatant actions could damage Israel’s image in the West, not because of the moral dilemma of the acts themselves. (...)

Defenders of women’s rights to reproductive health care options have long been aware of the far right’s opposition to women’s reproductive freedom. A major problem in recent years has been a growing number of so-called pro-life feminists who use increasingly persuasive moral arguments to gain support for the restriction of women’s access to reproductive health care and control over their bodies.

Historically, the anti-abortion movement sprang up almost immediately following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which effectively legalized abortion by striking down state-level restrictions on reproductive choice.

After Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions increased dramatically. In response, “pro-life” forces mobilized. In January 1974, Nellie Gray organized a march on Washington to call attention to the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. “It’s murder, pure and simple,” she said.

Opponents of abortion lobbied to cut off federal funds that allowed the poor to obtain abortions. They insisted that abortion should be performed in hospitals and not less expensive clinics, and they worked to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Although the Supreme Court, which included Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman in its history, reaffirmed its judgment in 1983, the pro-life movement marched on, gaining steam. (...)

Listen to an exclusive download (MP3) of the song here.

Rachel Corrie went to Gaza to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinians, whose voice is seldom heard in her country, the US. That she herself should be silenced - first by an Israeli bulldozer, next by a New York theatre cancelling a play created from her words - is a testimony to the power of her message. This song was written on a plane on March 20 and recorded at Big Sky Recordings, Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 22. The tune is borrowed from Bob Dylan.

An Israeli bulldozer killed poor Rachel Corrie

As she stood in its path in the town of Rafah

She lost her young life in an act of compassion

Trying to protect the poor people of Gaza

Whose homes are destroyed by tank shells and bulldozers

And whose plight is exploited by suicide bombers

Who kill in the name of the people of Gaza

But Rachel Corrie believed in non-violent resistance

Put herself in harm’s way as a shield of the people

And paid with her life in a manner most brutal

But you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears,

Take the rag away from your face.

Now ain’t the time for your tears.

(...)

JESSIE KINDIG reports from France as students and workers put new pressure on the conservative government.

AN EXPLOSIVE movement against the French government’s attack on the rights of young workers is growing in strength and unity, and refusing to give in to partial concessions.

As Socialist Worker went to press, France’s main unions were preparing for a March 28 day of strike action to oppose a government plan to impose a “First Employment Contract” (known by its French initials, CPE).

A day of youth protest last week drew an estimated 450,000 into the streets across the country, and union-backed protests March 15 saw a turnout of some 1.5 million workers and students in 150 cities and towns across France.

Students have been organizing since the conservative government of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin first announced plans for the CPE in January. The law would create a two-year trial period for all workers under 26, during which employers could fire them without cause at any time.

After the proposal was pushed through parliament March 8, schools across France erupted in repeated mass protests. Today, 68 out of the 84 universities in France are on strike, occupied by students or protesting, along with over 200 high schools. (...)

[Pages 1 and 2 | March 31, 2006]