by Mel Seesholtz Ph.D.

I’ve been studying and writing about gay and lesbian issues since 2003. What got me started was then Senator Rick Santorum’s comments in an AP interview in which he compared gay sex to bestiality (among other things). Those comments made him the poster-boy for malicious theopolitical rants, an image he reinforced when speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate during its debate of the Federal Marriage Amendment. With histrionic bravado Mr. Santorum proclaimed, “the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security – standing up and defending marriage?” 

Santorum’s dogmatic views on gays and several other issues – in addition to his abrasive personality and “I know everything” attitude, plus his cyber school scandal – prompted Pennsylvania voters to kick him out of office. Apparently Mr. Santorum didn’t learn anything from his ignominious defeat and is still uttering the same nonsense in his run for the GOP presidential nomination:

Santorum: Perry Must Support Polygamy If He’s ‘Fine’ With New York’s Marriage Equality Law

By Igor Volsky on Jul 25, 2011

 

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R) lashed out against Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for suggesting that he was “fine” with New York’s decision to legalize same-sex message, asking Perry – who is said to be considering his own run for the White House – if he would similarly endorse polygamy or laws against “heterosexual marriage”…

 

On the campaign trail, he has repeatedly argued that marriage equality would “destabilize” society, called for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and claimed that gay people don’t deserve the “privilege” of parenthood. Allowing gay people to marry is “going to have a devastating impact on our children, it’s going to have a devastating impact on families, and it’s going to have a profound impact on religious liberties,” he said during a campaign stop last month.

Religions have their place, as do politics. Problems arise when they’re mixed and used to play on people fears and promote social unrest and civil discrimination. 

All of today’s major religions evolved a very long time ago by building upon or borrowing from older belief systems. (That’s evolution for you.) The three major Western religions are testimony to that, as is thoroughly researched and documented in Karen Armstrong’s 1993 A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (A transcript of an interview with Bill Moyers is available here.)

To be sure, they all contain some “truths,” but they also contain a lot of irrational, ill-informed nonsense that simply cannot be accepted as “truth” today. Unfortunately, the truths and the nonsense got blended and then codified as “the word of God” and sanctified as “dogma.” One undeniable truth is that the three major Western warrior sky-god religions, their scriptures and dogma were all created by men a very long time ago in response to a social and cultural realities and a worldview that no longer exist. 

In an October 10, 2004 article “Interpreting the Bible on Gay Unions” in The Detroit Free Press, Susan Ager quoted from an essay by Walter Wink, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, that appeared on the web site of Bridges-Across. In discussing Leviticus 20:13, “Wink explains that thousands of years ago, people thought men held the seed for life, that women only incubated those seeds into babies. Thus, spilling your seed with another man or alone was ‘tantamount to abortion or murder.’ Leaders frowned on that, too, as they worked hard to build up their struggling tribe” [italics added]. 

No knowledge of how conception or genetics really worked and a very secular prime directive: make more people to “build up their struggling tribe,” thereby extending its religion’s social control and political power through numbers. 

A final comment by Dr. Wink must also be noted, especially by those devout Bible-believers who so object to gay people: “If Christians are to take this verse [Leviticus 20:13] literally, they would demand the execution of all homosexuals. Not only homosexual, but all men who have ever masturbated or otherwise spilled their seed” [italics added]. How many males of all ages – sons, brothers, cousins, friends, passing acquaintances and total strangers – would that condemn to death? What would be the effect on human population civilization? Interesting proposition, is it not? 

If there were only a few “pure” males, they would have to impregnate many, many, many women to keep the population up and at least somewhat genetically diverse. Monogamous one-man-one-woman “marriage” would be distinctly counterproductive. 

From their inception, the three major Western religions thrived on encouraging condemnation – and hatred – of others. Then as now, dogmatic religious zealots use fear-based religion and dogma to maintain control over people’s lives and thoughts and promote hatred of others. Those goals also underwrite the political agendas of some. Case in point, Bradlee Dean of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide ministry and GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann. Mr. Dean used religion to proclaim killing gays is a moral act:

You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry that brings its hard rock gospel into public schools, has been deepening its long-running ties to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Long a cause célèbre for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has twice lent her name to the group’s fundraising efforts, You Can Run (YCR) had a booth at the GOP convention in April, and the group’s frontman, Bradlee Dean, reports that gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer recently accepted an invitation to visit with him at Dean’s home. But recent controversial statements by Dean – that Muslim countries calling for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians” – have drawn the ire of some both within and outside the party.

 

“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,” Dean said on YCR’s May 15 radio show on AM 1280 the Patriot. “This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”

 

“If America won’t enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that,” Dean continued. “That is what you are seeing in America.”

 

“The bottom line is this… they [homosexuals] play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator,” Dean said, before going on to make a claim that has no basis in fact: “On average, they molest 117 people before they’re found out. How many kids have been destroyed, how many adults have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?”

And what did Mrs. Bachmann have to say about this “ministry” and its overt hate-mongering, seeming call for violence “in the name of God,” and blatant lying about the “average gay” (whatever that is) molesting 117 people before they’re found out? Huffington Post documented her position: 

WASHINGTON -- If you thought evangelical preaching needed longer hair, tattoos, nu-metal drumming, and a ton of hate speech directed at gays, then Bradlee Dean is your guy.

 

He's very much Rep. Michele Bachmann's guy. Bachmann, whose district covers Dean's suburban Minnesota headquarters, didn't just endorse Dean, but has prayed for him and his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, in a clip highlighted recently by City Pages.

 

"Would you keep them from evil?" Bachmann prays. "Would you keep them from pain?" Finally she begs the Almighty to "pour a triple blessing on this ministry" and expand it ten-fold. 

Mrs. Bachmann was, of course, the first to sign “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” (Not surprisingly, Rick Santorum also signed and is “courting” Bob Vander Plaats, author of “The Marriage Vow.”) And Mrs. Bachmann’s husband, Marcus Bachmann, does run dog-and-pony show clinics where one can “pray the gay away.” Such “reparative,” “conversion,” – “ex-gay” therapies – have been denounced as ineffective and harmful by every legitimate, science-based, professional medical association in America. 

According to the American Psychological Association, no scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of therapies that attempt to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. According to the American Medical Association, “There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation,” and the AMA “does not recommend aversion therapy for gay men and lesbians.” 

The American Psychological Association has stated that “Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help.” The American Psychiatric Association concurs: “gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.” And according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.” 

All forms of “ex-gay” therapies were publicly decried in 1999 as unethical by both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. For more on the “ex-gay” ruse (and the Bachmann clinics) see Truth Wins Out and by all means check out this study:

Pat Robertson’s Regent University: Ex-Gays Can Act The Part, But Orientation Doesn’t Change

By Zack Ford on Jul 21, 2011

 

Revelations that Marcus Bachmann’s clinics administer ex-gay therapy have thrust the “controversial” treatment into the media spotlight. There is no controversy among scientists, however, who continue to agree that the therapy is not effective and should not be recommended because it can be harmful. A new study from a surprising source confirms this reality; researchers at Pat Robertson’s Regent University found that “ex-gays” in opposite-sex marriages continued to have a same-sex orientation.

 

The study (PDF) looked at “mixed-orientation” marriages in which at least one member of the couple is not heterosexual. … 

Bradlee Dean, meanwhile, has filed a law suit: 

Bradlee Dean's Ample Antigay Comments

By Andrew Harmon

 

The Minnesota preacher who filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit Wednesday against MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Minnesota Independent reporter Andy Birkey has a long track record of broadcasting antigay comments, Think Progress LGBT's Zack Ford writes.
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International's Bradlee Dean claims that Maddow and Birkey maliciously took some of his comments out of context while ignoring a ministry disclaimer condemning calls to execute gay people — this to achieve both journalists' end-goal, according to the complaint, of “significantly [harming] the ‘big political prize’ which they loathe, Christian conservative presidential candidate Michele Bachmann,” who has “twice lent her name to [the ministry's] fundraising efforts.”

 

But Ford posted an extensive history of Dean's support for prosecution and incarceration of gay people, as well as assertions that a “homosexual agenda” is infiltrating the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota [“Bradlee Dean Never Calls For The Persecution Of Gays, Except All The Time,” posted July 27, 2011]. … 

 

by Kourosh Ziabari

 

What follows is the complete text of my in-depth interview with Mr. Bayyenat in which we discussed the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, the prospect of Iran-West relations and the politics of Israel's nuclear activities.

Kourosh Ziabari: The past decade has been witness to unending and unremitting clash between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear program. The West has constantly accused Iran of trying to build nuclear bombs while Tehran has persistently denied the allegation. What do you think about the nature of Iran's nuclear program? Why has it become so controversial and contentious? We already know that there are four nations in the world, who are not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but nobody in the international community pressures them to halt their nuclear program and nobody investigates their nuclear arsenals. Why Iran is being singled out?

Abolghasem Bayyenat: Iran's nuclear program is driven by two major factors. The most important factor is genuine domestic need for electric power generation. Iran's fossil fuel reserves have been fast depleting over the past few decades in light of the growing domestic consumption caused by population growth, ongoing industrialization and economic development in Iran. The prospect of full depletion of fossil fuel reserves motivated Iranian leaders to seek alternative sources of energy. Nuclear power presented itself as the most reliable alternative source of energy for Iran, given its sustainability and tested performance in developed countries.

The second important factor is that developing nuclear power and harnessing nuclear energy represents an advanced scientific realm and progress in that front serves as a source of national pride for Iran. A limited number of nations in the world have been able to master the full nuclear fuel cycle. Development of an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capacity along with progress in other advanced scientific realms such as space program and stem cell research can thus positively influence Iran's national self-image and elevate its international prestige.

by Bruce Campbell Ph.D.

In the U.S., Rupert Murdoch's global News Corporation owns The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the New York Post, MySpace.com, Barron's, TVGuide, HarperCollins Publishers, and 20th Century Fox, to name just a few of its extensive holdings.  Amid revelations that News Corporation media entities hacked into the phone and medical accounts of British elected officials and private citizens, a former New York City cop alleges that he was approached by News Corporation employees who sought illegal access to the phone accounts of Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks.

This is an ugly glimpse of the truth behind the liberal vs. conservative "culture wars" happily promoted by Murdoch's media enterprises and other corporate media concerns.  The true culture war is not about religion or family values; it is about communication itself.

Like it or not, you and I are combatants in a society-wide conflict over the means and ends of communication. Murdoch's News Corporation is the paradigm case.  We must recognize this conflict and deliberately and collaboratively defend ourselves. I will call this conflict media warfare. Let me explain.

Media are not corporations but those conduits of communication and cultural diffusion that are the modern internal wiring of the cultural landscape through which we move in our everyday lives.   This cultural circuitry is not the problem, at least not by itself.  Media by themselves - each medium a distinct channel of our collective messaging - could (and should) serve to ease and extend and give specific form to our efforts to interact meaningfully with each other.

The conflict arises when speech and creativity are overrun by interests alien to our non-commercial and non-ideological interpersonal needs, to our concrete family and community interests.  The problem, in other words, occurs when corporate interests use the media to sideline, or to subordinate and control, the emotional and social and democratic needs and purposes that require that we communicate with each other and create meaning together in the first place.

Without these basic human needs, we would have nothing to say to each other.  If not for profit- and power-seeking interests commandeering the channels of communication, we wouldn't so frequently feel powerless and under siege.

Media warfare, in short, results from the occupation of our communication circuits by powers indifferent or even hostile to the traditions and relationships that sustain human life in healthy community.  The media of communication are both the battlefield and the spoils of war.  This is media warfare.  And we are losing.

On one side, forces that would marginalize or bend our communication to the service of their strategies for concentrating profit and power; on the other side, people who engage the means of communication in order to understand, to reciprocate, to support, to learn, to discuss, and to participate in an open-ended conversation about common interests.

Which side are you on?

You were likely already aware of the incoming cultural ordnance: The News hits us daily. That capital "N" marks information as worthy of your attention, but is also a sign common to all news that is packaged and distributed as a corporate product, whether as CBS News, FOX News, or CNN News.

With the occasional exception of carefully selected "human interest stories," the News is an angst-ridden shock-and-awe affair.  Crime, natural disasters, and people suffering and behaving badly are placed at the center of our attention.  Scandals, tragedies and controversies explode all around, preferably involving sex and/or celebrity.  These stories frequently generate their own sequels and prequels, cluster bombs of ancillary emotional distress strewn about the media market.  One can only imagine how News Corporation agents might have sought to amplify and extend the tragedy and horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by publishing the private communication of victims.

The political News centers frequently on those most divisive issues that allow for easy distinction between the two major political parties.  Witness the "culture wars" central to News Corporation's business and political interests. Into this simplistic polarity all of our hopes and dreams for collective life are herded. We are barraged by the opinions of professional ideologues who publicly digest the News-with-a-capital-N on your and my behalf.

The point is not that the News is untrue (although, as it turns out, sometimes it is untrue).  The point is that the News is based on a business model that recognizes fear and anger and titillation (and simplistic either/or politics in a two-party political system) as building blocks for market share, and hence for profit and ideological dominance.  Most of us, meanwhile, just want to inform ourselves, to learn about and understand what is happening in our society and beyond.

Amid the clamor of the News, one can easily fail to notice the rarity of news of such things as the policy arguments of social movements and third parties, the existence of citizens forums, emerging neighborhood development issues, city council meetings, union meetings, neighborhood association meetings, civic initiatives and perspectives of young people, scientific studies and their policy implications (of soil and water quality, of early childhood development, etc.), historical perspectives on issues of the day, or a broad range of civic activity organized in and by the communities of the viewing public.

In short, what tends to be excluded from the corporate News is what could be called actionable news, reporting that facilitates participation by everyday people in existing democratic processes, involvement in local or regional social action, and/or informed engagement in meaningful public conversation about the common good and how this is reflected (or not) in public policy. Instead, the News promotes consumer action, with reporting about the opening of a new shopping mall, the debut of a blockbuster movie, or the like.

We are nearly exclusively on the receiving end in these episodes of communication, which are vertical and unilateral, and are now relayed far beyond the once primitive reach of television and newspapers, through the inter-locking networks of websites, blogs, cable news programming, and social media.  Despite our horizontal and multi-lateral ability to "post" and "tweet" to our own social networks, the flow of communication is heavily unidirectional, and we are shaped by the impact.  Vertical and unilateral decisions lurk behind the apparently friendly and interpersonal surfaces of Facebook communications.  Hey you - hails the machine - a dozen of your friends "like" white teeth.  Are your teeth white enough?

"But in what sense is this warfare?," a reasonable person might ask.

In the sense that our way of life is under attack.  I do not mean the "American way of life," as reported on the News.  I mean the way of life of people who engage the means of communication in order to understand, to reciprocate, to support, to learn, to discuss, and to participate in an open-ended conversation about common interests and diverse perspectives.

We are preoccupied, outraged, fearful, titillated, and suspicious in measures grotesquely disproportionate to what we are able (or allowed) to do about what concerns us.  We like to think of ourselves as reasonable people, but are stirred up and instigated, our limbic systems activated and fed on fear, despondency, libidinous excitement and anger.  Any concept of human nature we might hold that is not driven by the implicit theology of the News - i.e., death, destruction, selfishness and mayhem at the dark core of humanity - is ritually slain by nightfall each day.

So what to do?  For starters, we need to recognize that the empowerment afforded by social media sites is limited, and maybe even compensatory, a taste of something that is otherwise not allowed.  Instead of trying to "like" our way to defense of our communication needs, we must engage directly and actively with a growing conversation about policy mechanisms for limiting vertical, corporate control of our cultural environment, and for expanding and diversifying local community participation and ownership. Most importantly, we must think.  One of the purposes of communication is to think together, to deliberate, to participate in dialogue, to imagine possibilities for our collective life.  This is what the News asks us to forget.

Bruce Campbell teaches Cultural Criticism, among other things, at St. John's University in Collegeville, MN.  His most recent book is ¡Viva la historieta!: Mexican Comics, NAFTA, and the Politics of Globalization.  

Introduction

On May 29, 2011, President Obama visited Joplin, Missouri, the site of a devastating tornado that killed 140 and pronounced it a terrible “tragedy”. But were the deaths the inevitable result of ‘natural events’ beyond the human intervention?

Coincidentally the same week Afghan President Karzai condemned the killing of a family of 14 by a NATO fighter bomber, running the total to several hundred civilians killed so far this year and thousands over the decade.

The relation between the civilian deaths in Joplin and Afghanistan raises fundamental questions about the priorities, character and direction of the US Empire and the future of the American republic.

Geography of Tornados

Every year at least 20 major violent tornadoes – with winds exceeding 200 mph – hit “tornado alley” and beyond, including central Texas, northern Iowa, central Kansas, Nebraska, western Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. Each and every year at least sixty are killed and several hundred are maimed and injured. This year, through May 2011, over 519 have been killed, 25% of whom were in mobile homes, almost three times as many as those in standard houses.

In other words, these tornado-related deaths are predictable, annual, and region-specific and have a higher incidence among low income households. Government agencies and academics have compiled data banks and time series information mapping the route, frequency and impact of tornadoes.

Information about the nature of killer tornadoes is plentiful. Nevertheless deaths mount from year to year. Fear and insecurity stalks the region’s most susceptible to the violent whirlwinds, even as the Congress and White House have increased personnel and funding for ‘Homeland Security’ twenty fold over the decade .The current budget is over $180 billion. If we add the deaths caused by other ‘natural’ disasters like the flooding of New Orleans, the numbers of deaths are staggering. What explains this perverse relation between huge public funding for ‘homeland security’ and the increased insecurity of vulnerable Americans in clearly identified danger zones?

The reason is clear: ‘Homeland Security’ (HS) is an Orwellian misnomer. The agency is not concerned with domestic, civilian, American security. HS is part of a military-police response to imagined overseas threats, which have not materialized or at least have not produced deaths comparable to tornadoes and floods in the last 11 years.

HS spends billions and employs thousands to investigate, spy and harass citizens engaged in legal-constitutional activities. HS and the Pentagon spend tens of billions on overseas infrastructures – buildings, bases, camps -and over 900 billion in arms. HS and the Defense Department forcefully intervene militarily throughout the world via overt and clandestine operations.

To be precise HS intervenes offensively overseas, attacking civilian targets, while it fails to engage domestically to protect American civilians who are left defenseless in the face of predictable natural disasters.

HS and the Pentagon’s sustained violent overseas operations are rejected and regarded as a hostile imperial intervention by the civilians in those countries adversely affected. In contrast, defenseless citizens in the US would welcome large-scale intervention in the form of community shelters, which would provide survival, security, life-saving protection and financial aid for rebuilding their lives. Moreover, Pentagon and HS spending on overseas infrastructure, bases and bombs results in deficits, whereas investments in tornado and flood shelters would stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the US.

by Peter Stern The Fight Against a Mediocre Public Education is NOT working. We all know it.

For the majority of children and parents, who rely on it, public education continues to fail the needs and the learning outcomes of the children attempting to get a quality education. Believe me, I know first-hand. I graduated public education, barely. My high school had 6,000 kids enrolled.

I forced myself to continue my education and received my first Masters Degree from New York University, one of the top colleges in the nation. I have 2 more post graduate degrees. I became a public school teacher and then a Principal. I was a Program Director for the Board of Education in a major U.S. city.  I also became a University Professor.  One sad day I finally left teaching because of politics and burnout trying to create positive change in a system that fights you every step of the way in providing a quality education for our children. Instead, I became a Director of Information Services and made a lot of money.

Public education needs help. There have been many leaders who have tried to "fix" it, but all have failed for one reason or another. I have a simpler solution for success. It will save a ton of tax dollars and will achieve better learning outcomes. It will provide the public education the majority of our children need in order to succeed in life. It will work for all of them.

• Teach children the basic needs in learning and life: reading, writing, math along with some basic science and core history. Do it so learning is fun.

• Reduce class sizes in half.

• Then give them one elective period where they can pursue whatever topic they, their parents and/or educators want.

• Teach them better communication and life training skills that actually are important in daily life, e.g., like maintaining a checking account, writing a business letter, interview skills and job resume writing.

• There is no need to teach religious thought, political philosophy or any of that other tripe that has little to do with REAL learning in public education.

• Teach kids to learn for learning's sake, how to research any topic and to enjoy the learning process.

by Susan Lindauer

 

No great civilization is ever destroyed from without, or conquered by external forces, until it first destroys itself from within. America's leaders should have thought long and hard about that before voting to extend the Patriot Act last week.

Unhappily it's official. We the People are the enemy. We have dared to prod and examine government policy too closely. We have questioned government leadership when we should rightly have obeyed without challenge. Some of us have exposed wrongful government practices and deceptions, expecting to hold Congress and White House leaders accountable to voters. Foolish us!

Last week Congress set the record straight. Breaking campaign promises to defeat the Patriot Act, Congress blocked hearings and debate on amendments that would fix problems in surveillance rules, and rammed a four year extension on the American People. Only 31 Republicans and 122 Democrats voted against the Patriot Act in the House.

IMPORTING GESTAPO LAW

It's no exaggeration, unfortunately, that the Patriot Act is more dangerous to our way of life than any foreign enemy.

Most ominously, entire sections of the Patriot Act are verbatim and identical to two of the most frightening laws in World History:

• The 1929 Bolshevik Communist Criminal Act established Communist control in the age of Joseph Stalin. It created a security apparatchik unparalleled in its intrusion into the lives of ordinary, non-political families. For enforcement, it created the Gulags, which quickly filled with intellectuals and dissidents, poets and hard luck Russian people who got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was enough for a neighbor to point a finger secretly for that individual to disappear to the Siberian work camps for life. Secret charges, secret evidence, secret accusations figured prominently--- identical to the Patriot Act.

• It's a toss up if that's worse than its commonality with Germany's Enabling Act in 1933. Such comforting words, "the Enabling Act" established the legal framework for Nazi Fascism. The Enabling Law lay the parameters for the Third Reich of Adolph Hitler.

by William Blum

When they bombed Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador and Nicaragua I said nothing because I wasn't a communist.

When they bombed China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, and the Congo I said nothing because I didn't know about it.

When they bombed Lebanon and Grenada I said nothing because I didn't understand it.

When they bombed Panama I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer.

When they bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen I said nothing because I wasn't a terrorist.

When they bombed Yugoslavia and Libya for "humanitarian" reasons I said nothing because it sounded so honorable.

Then they bombed my house and there was no one left to speak out for me. But it didn't really matter. I was dead. ¹

The Targets

It's become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns of modern times — 78 consecutive days — was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia: white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are: (A) It poses an obstacle — could be anything — to the desires of the American Empire; (B) It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.

The survivors

"We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans." ²

NASA has announced an audacious new mission, launching a spaceship that will travel for four years to land on an asteroid, where it will collect dust from the surface and deliver the precious cargo to Earth, where scientists will then examine the material for clues to how life began. Truly the stuff of science fiction. However, I personally would regard it as a much greater accomplishment of humankind if we could put an end to America's bombings and all its wars, and teach some humility to The Holy Triumvirate — The United States, the European Union and NATO — who recognizes no higher power and believe they literally can do whatever they want in the world, to whomever they want, for as long as they want, and call it whatever they want, like "humanitarian."

 When I first read Robert Kaplan, it was shortly after 9/11 when a whole library of books became available about U.S. foreign policy and how it should deal with the terrorist threat presented to the U.S. and democracy. At that time, in his work “Warrior Politics” he reasonably recognizes that his perspective is but one of many and none can be truly objective. He recognized the reality of the “American imperium” in terms that imperialism is the “most ordinary and dependable form of protection for ethnic minorities and others under violent assault,” and “an imperial reality already dominates our foreign policy.” Towards the end of the work he quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization,” and follows with his own summation that “the restraining power of our own democracy makes it hard for us to demand and orchestrate authentic transitions everywhere. Only through stealth and anxious foresight can America create a secure international system.”

There are areas of context and interpretation that do limit the text. Two of his main sub-themes are Islamic terrorism and democracy, and for both he makes statements that are almost ‘aha’ moments, but then are left hanging without actually making it into deeper connections. Further from apparent awareness, although perhaps lingering constantly in the background, is the very empire which he identified earlier as not being given its due background for the region. Other empires - Portugal, Dutch, British, French, Japanese - are all included for the influence they have had on the region, but little is discussed of U.S. actions, covert and overt, in the region, past or present. In the manner in which his information is presented, it makes little difference to the agreeable nature of the narrative, but it needs to be kept in mind while reading that there is much of the overall general context of the U.S. imperium that is not discussed. Diego Garcia is one of the singular misses, the island nation given to the U.S. military by Britain while the indigenous Chagossians were evicted from the island and not compensated. Ethnic cleansing? Racism? Empire? Certainly far from “the restraining power of our own democracy.”

Any situation, as is the case with interstate highway travel, in which to momentarily stop or even to slow down, one risks death should be regarded as an affront (if not anathema) to common sense and the longings of the heart. When the landscape we pass through has been reduced to a meaningless blur, our lives grow indistinct as well

Naseer Aruri is Chancellor Professor (emeritus) of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He is president of Trans-Arab Research Institute in Boston. Prof. Aruri is the a contributor to the book "Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War" by the South End Press and the author of the book "Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return" published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2001. Prof. Aruri is on the Advisory Board of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation.

Aruri has also written the book "The Obstruction of Peace: The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians." Amazon.com has described this book "a Palestinian perspective on the peace process in his Middle Eastern region which provides a different view for the reasons behind Palestinian-Israeli impasses."

According to Wikipedia, Aruri contributed to the foundation of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in 1983. From 1984-1990, Aruri was elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, USA, and served on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch/Middle East from 1990 to 1992.

What follows is the complete text of my exclusive interview with Prof. Naseer Aruri in which we discussed a variety of topics including the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of the United States in the solving the crisis in Palestine and the performance of PLO as the defacto representative of the Palestinian nation in the international level.

Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Prof. Aruri; there are various interpretations regarding the truth behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides of the conflict cite claims over the land which is known as the Land of Israel. So, from an impartial and objective point of view, which side is the righteous? Which of them tells the truth?

Naseer Aruri: This is not a conflict between two equal claims. The Palestinian population is the indigenous party living on the land since the days of the Cananites. Their presence as the dominant party was interrupted by the Crusades but it was restored by the Islamic conquest of the 7th century A.D. When the Zionists received the Balfour Declaration from Britain in 1917 the Jewish population constituted less than 7% of the population. It was an unauthorized promise made by an imperial power to a colonial settler movement at the expense of the Majority (the indigenous Palestinians). By World War II the Jewish population had increased to one-third mainly as a result of colonial settlement. This minority was in possession of less than 6% of the land. Today it controls all of historic Palestine through the force of arms, an illegal phenomenon under international law.

KZ: You're said to be an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and described it a cover for territorial conquest. Would you please explain for us the reasons you oppose Oslo Peace Process? Given that the Declaration called for the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from parts of Gaza Strip and West Bank and facilitated the creation of a Palestinian National Authority, what are your reasons for contesting the Oslo Accords?

NA: The Oslo Accords constituted an act of surrender by Yaser Arafat, whose movement was facing economic, diplomatic and leadership crises, and having recognized Israel in 1988, it took the easy way out by concluding an unauthorized deal with Israel in 1993 in which Israel did not cede any bit of sovereignty whatsoever not only in historic Palestine but even in the West Bank, which constitutes 22% of historic Palestine. The phrase "external security" was the corner stone of the document and it served as a euphemism for sovereignty, which remained in the hands of Israel. Oslo has also negated the culture of the Intifada, which was based on voluntary maxims and associational values In brief, Oslo created a facade of equality when Israel was an occupant within the meaning of International law, while the Palestinians were occupied rather than co-equal. Under such a cover, Israel was given license to expand its territorial conquest even farther and this added territory was acquired under presumed "peaceful conditions." Colonial settlements in the occupied territories have more than doubled since 1993 and they continue to constitute the single most intractable obstacle to a diplomatic settlement until this day. Technically, Oslo was an agreement to reach agreement, but better yet, an agreement to obfuscate an equal settlement and an honorable and principled compromise.

KZ: Although the Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel's right to exist, accepted UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and made several concessions during its interactions with the State of Israel, the United States still considers it a terrorist organization. What's your viewpoint regarding the performance of PLO? Has it succeeded in representing the Palestinian people and defending their demands? Recently leaked documents show that the PLO under Mahmoud Abbas had agreed to Israel's sovereignty over nearly all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. What's your take on that?

by Ramzy Baroud

Shocking is not a sufficient term to describe Justice Richard Goldstone’s decision to recant parts of the 2009 report on alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The document, known as the Goldstone Report, was compiled after a thorough investigation led by the South African judge and three other well-regarded investigators. They documented 36 incidents that occurred during the Israeli Operation Cast Lead, an unprecedentedly violent attack against small, impoverished and besieged Gaza. It resulted in the death of over 1,400 Palestinians, and the wounding of over 5,500.

Goldstone is both Jewish and Zionist. His love for Israel has been widely and affectionately conveyed. In this particular case, he seemed completely torn between his ideological and tribal position and his commitment to justice and truth, as enshrined in the mandate of the UN Human Rights Council.

After 18 months of what seemed a wholly personal introspection, accompanied by an endless campaign of pressure and intimidation by Zionist and pro-Israel Jewish groups from all over the world, the man finally surrendered.

 “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document,” he wrote in the Washington Post on April 1. But what did Goldstone learn anew since he issued his 575-page report in September 2009?

The supposed basis of Goldstone’s rethink is a follow-up report issued by a UN committee chaired by retired New York Judge Mary McGowan Davis. Her report was not a reinvestigation of Israel’s —  and Hamas’ — alleged war crimes in Gaza, but a follow up on the Goldstone Commission’s findings, which urged the referral of the matter to the International Criminal Court. McGowan Davis made this distinction clear in a recent interview with the Israeli Jerusalem Post. According to the post, she said, “Our work was completely separate from (Goldstone’s) work.” She further stated, “Our mandate was to take his report as given and start from there.”

So how did a probe that used Goldstone’s findings as a starting point go on to inspire such a major refutation from one of the authors of the original report?

McGowan Davis’ report merely acknowledged that Israel has carried out an investigation into a possible “operational misconduct” in what is largely known outside Israel as the Gaza massacre. The UN follow-up report recognized the alleged 400 investigations, but didn’t bear out their validity. These secret inquiries actually led to little in terms of disciplinary action.

by William A. Cook Ph.D.

Yet, good may come of this decision. Now Israel is free to declare its innocence before the International Court of Justice since it is Israel’s investigation that can be presented as its case, with the good Judge as co-defendant. After all, isn’t this exactly what the Israeli government has wanted from the start, a way to demonstrate to the world that its Army is the most moral on the planet, its government the most democratic, acting only to defend its people, its weaponry the most sophisticated state of the art precision ordinance available, and its actions always proportionate to the crimes it seeks to address? Knowing now what they did not know before Judge Goldstone recanted his report, the government of Israel has nothing to fear from the ICJ but the justice it so rightfully deserves. Certainly it makes no sense for Israel or the UN to do nothing now that the report has been brought into question. The world has castigated Israel because of the report, now it’s Israel’s turn to seek revenge and put before the world how righteous and how legal its actions have been. How fortunate this turn of events.

And how opportune a moment since our United States Congress has once again jumped to the fore as defender of the beleaguered state of Israel by writing a letter to the UNHRC that it should expunge the report from history since it is biased against the Jewish state and this would help make amends. (“Congressional initiatives targeting Goldstone report” April 11, 2011 JTA)But why expunge it? Israel, after all, knows it did no wrong; it has done its own investigation and declared its innocence. What an opportunity to show the world that it has been maligned, that it has obeyed all international laws relative to individual rights, that as an occupying force under Geneva Conventions and the Charter of the UN it has observed all requisite responsibilities toward the people of Gaza, and finally that it had rights to invade that the international community must recognize since it was only defending itself.

Let us present this case as objectively as we can by using the words in the Israeli Gaza Operation Investigations: the means used to investigate, the difficulties that impeded the investigation, their presentation of the investigation concerning white phosphorus, and the conclusions drawn by the Military Advocate General, oh, and the convictions leveled on those found guilty. We’ll follow that presentation with some eye witness accounts of the Gaza operation, the affect of white phosphorus and its legality, and the impact of DIME explosives on humans and the environment. A few photos of Israeli use of white phosphorus will accompany this article if possible.  

by Matthew Nasuti

 

In February 2011, in a little known development, the Obama Administration decided to seek new enemies abroad by choosing sides in a low level civil war being waged in southern Nigeria. Astonishingly, the U.S. State Department has publicly allied itself with oil giant Chevron, which is the target of a guerrilla war being waged by the fifteen (15) million Ijo tribesmen in the Niger River Delta.

Chevron is accused of environmental devastation, theft of resources and corruption.

While the formal U.S./Chevron alliance in Nigeria is new, the ties between senior Obama Administration officials and Chevon are long standing. On August 9, 2009, Hillary Clinton, while traveling in Angola, proclaimed that she and Chevron share “a common vision.”

Chevron pipelines and personnel in the Delta have been under attack for twenty years by local tribesman. What occurred in Nigeria in February 2011, is that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) entered into a partnership with Chevron Corporation. USAID contributed $25 million for a joint public relations effort called “the “Niger Delta Partnership Initiative.” Chevron press releases have since trumpeted the U.S./Chevron alliance. Chevron, which has an unsavory reputation within some segments of Nigerian society, is seeking to bolster its image by allying itself with the United States.

The Niger Delta dispute first came to the world’s attention in the early 1990's. At that time the one million plus Ogoni people had begun a mass peaceful protest against Shell Oil due to alleged environmental crimes. Led by poet/writer Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Ogoni pacifist movement came under increasing violent attack by government militias. In 1993, Mr. Saro-Wiwa was arrested, 2,000 Ogoni were massacred and 80,000 were evicted from their homes. In 1995, Mr. Saro-Wiwa was summarily tried by a military court and hanged with eight others on November 12, 1995. His relatives sued Shell in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the “Torture Victims Protection Act” and received a $15.5 million settlement.