'How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right.'
Chief Black Hawk. Sauk.
'How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right.'
Chief Black Hawk. Sauk.
'Former Bush Interior Secretary Takes Job as Attorney for Shell
By Todd Wilkinson
Gale Norton is back providing oversight of energy development issues on public lands in the American West, this time as a key legal advisor for a major global oil company.
Months after she resigned her cabinet post as President Bush's Interior Secretary-and then seemed to disappear from public view-the Coloradan apparently has accepted an offer to serve as counsel for Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Shell, one of the world's largest producers of oil, was also one of the companies that Norton's Interior Department routinely engaged on matters of drilling in sensitive ecological settings.
According to Dow Jones Market Watch, which published her job announcement Wednesday, Norton will serve as general counsel for Shell's unconventional resources division. By "unconventional resources," a Shell spokesman said it pertained to emerging technology that targets such things as oil shale and extra heavy oil. Shell's U.S. subsidiary, Shell Oil Co., is based in Houston, but Norton will be allowed to render her legal expertise from Denver.
The timing of Norton's career move is certain to raise eyebrows from government watchdogs and environmental groups that long have asserted that Norton, her former deputy at Interior J. Steven Griles, Vice President Dick Cheney through his national energy strategy task force, and Congress gave energy companies preferential treatment by opening up coastal areas as well as western and Alaskan lands to increased oil, gas, and coal development.
Shell has focused a significant part of its resources in the past on drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and in other coastline areas of the world.
Early in 2007, Democrats who now control the House and Senate, plan to hold hearings that closely scrutinize Interior's dealings not only with oil and gas companies, which have received billions of dollars in subsidies during times of record profits, but also the department's relationship to convicted felon and lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Indian tribes for which Interior has a trust obligation and a role in permitting gaming casinos.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122806T.shtml Of:
The New York Times:
'The Rush to Hang Saddam Hussein.
The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity. The public record is bulging with the lengthy litany of his vile and unforgivable atrocities: genocidal assaults against the Kurds; aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait; use of internationally banned weapons like nerve gas; systematic torture of countless thousands of political prisoners.
What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future. A carefully conducted, scrupulously fair trial could have helped undo some of the damage inflicted by his rule. It could have set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness. It could have fostered a new national unity in an Iraq long manipulated through its religious and ethnic divisions.
It could have, but it didn't. After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.
What might have been a watershed now seems another lost opportunity. After nearly four years of war and thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, it is ever harder to be sure whether anything fundamental has changed for the better in Iraq.
This week began with a story of British and Iraqi soldiers storming a police station that hid a secret dungeon in Basra. More than 100 men, many of them viciously tortured, were rescued from almost certain execution. It might have been a story from the final days of Baathist rule in March 2003, when British and American troops entered Basra believing they were liberating the subjugated Shiite south. But it was December 2006, and the wretched men being liberated were prisoners of the new Iraqi Shiite authorities.
Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won't either.'
'Inside TV News: We Were Silenced by the Drums of War.
By Jeff Cohen
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
September 11th made 2001 a defining year in our country's history. But 2002 may have been the strangest. It began with all eyes on Osama bin Laden and ended with Osama bin Forgotten - as the White House turned its attention to Iraq. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech mentioned Saddam Hussein 17 times, but bin Laden not once.
Everything about my nine-month stint at cable news channel MSNBC occurred in the context of the ever-intensifying war drums over Iraq. The drums grew louder as D-Day approached, until the din became so deafening that rational journalistic thinking could not occur. Three weeks before the invasion, MSNBC Suits terminated "Donahue," their most-watched program.
For 19 weeks, I had appeared in on-air debates almost every afternoon - the last weeks heavily focused on Iraq. I adamantly opposed an invasion. I warned that it would "undermine our coalition with Muslim and Arab countries that we need to [help us] fight Al Qaeda" and would lead to "quagmire."
In October 2002, my debate segments were terminated. There was no room for me after MSNBC launched Countdown: Iraq - a daily show that seemed more keen on glamorizing a potential war than scrutinizing or debating it. The show featured retired colonels and generals resembling boys with war toys as they used props, maps and glitzy graphics to spin invasion scenarios. They reminded me of pumped-up ex-football players doing pregame analysis.
It was excruciating to be silenced while myth and misinformation went unchallenged. Military analysts typically appeared unopposed; they were presented as experts, not advocates. But their closeness to the Pentagon often obstructed independent, skeptical analysis.
When Hans Blix led UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq in November 2002 after a four-year absence, Countdown: Iraq's host asked an MSNBC military analyst, "What's the buzz from the Pentagon about Hans Blix?" The retired colonel declared that Blix was considered "something like the Inspector Clousseau of the weapons of mass destruction inspection program ... who will only remember the last thing he was told - and that he's very malleable."
Retired General Barry McCaffrey was the star military analyst on NBC and MSNBC - a hawk who pushed for an invasion every chance he got. (After the war started, McCaffrey crowed, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and the Bradley fighting vehicle." Unknown to viewers, McCaffrey sat on the board of a military contractor that pocketed millions on the Abrams and Bradley.)
As the war began, CNN news president Eason Jordan admitted that his network's military analysts were government-approved:
"I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started. I met with important people there and said, for instance, at CNN, here are the generals we're thinking of retaining to advise us on the air and off about the war. And we got a big thumbs-up on all of them. That was important."
[The idea of] Pentagon-approved analysts calls to mind FAIR's protest chant: "Two, four, six, eight/Separate the press and state."'
Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122606M.shtml
Uit eigen ervaring weet ik hoe ook in Hilversum dissidente visies onmogelijk werden gemaakt. Zelfs bij de VPRO. Ook de Hilversumse publieke omroepen zijn door de kijk- en luistercijfers en de reclame onderdeel van de commerciele massamedia, ook al worden ze voor een groot deel met belastinggeld gesubsidieerd.
'Book Description: Impeccably researched and explained survey of the evidence for imminent dramatic climate change. Synopsis: Climate change is not a matter of gradually increasing temperatures. New scientific findings about how our planet works show that it does not do gradual change. Under pressure, it lurches into another mode of operation. Man-made global warming is on the verge of unleashing unstoppable planetary forces. Biological and geological monsters are being woken, and they will consume us. Virtually overnight Nature's revenge will be sudden and brutal, like a climatic tsunami sweeping across the globe. No question, we are the last generation to live with any kind of climatic stability. In this impassioned report, Fred Pearce travels the world on the story to end them all. Most troubling, while visiting the places where the action may start: deep in the Amazon, high in the Arctic and among the bogs of Siberia, he uncovers the first signs that nature's revenge is already under way.
From the Back Cover: 'Engaging, lucid and balanced...This is a powerful book about the most important event in human history. Read it.' PROFESSOR LORD MAY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
Since the last ice age, almost 13,000 years ago, human beings have prospered in a stable, predictable climate. But our generation is the last to be so blessed. In THE LAST GENERATION Fred Pearce lays bare the terrifying prognosis for our planet. Climate change from now on will not be gradual - nature doesn't do gradual change. In the past, Europe's climate has switched from Arctic to tropical in three to five years. It can happen again. So forget what environmentalists have told you about nature being a helpless victim of human excess. The truth is the opposite. She is a wild and resourceful beast given to fits of rage. And now that we are provoking her beyond endurance, she is starting to seek her revenge.
'Do we really need another book telling us that doom is imminent? In this case, the answer has to be yes.' James Flint, DAILY TELEGRAPH
About the Author Fred Pearce: Fred Pearce is a former news editor at New Scientist magazine, and is currently its environment and development consultant. He is one of the world's leading writers on water. He also writes regularly for the Independent and the Times Higher Education Supplement, the Boston Globe and Foreign Policy in the US and has written reports and extended journalism for WWF, the UN Environment Programme, the Red Cross, UNESCO, the World Bank and the UK Environment Agency. He is syndicated in Japan, Australia and elsewhere and has filed articles from more than 50 countries in the past decade.
He was voted BEMA Environment Journalist of the Year in 2001 and has been short-listed for the same award in 2000, 2002 and 2003. He is a past recipient of the Peter Kent Conservation Book Award and the TES Junior Information Book Award. His books (for both adults and children) have been translated into eight languages.
He is a regular broadcaster on radio and TV, with interview credits from Today to Richard and Judy to the Open University.'
'Lies and Obfuscations.
By Eleanor Clift
A look back at some of the biggest falsehoods of 2006.
In the spirit of holding our political leaders accountable, this year-end review will tabulate the worst lies told by Bush and company, along with several stories that were underreported in the media. Much of what was generated got lost in the fog of war, but the long arm of history will retrieve these moments. As the president said in his news conference this week, if they're still writing about No. 1 - George Washington - there's plenty of time before the historians can properly evaluate No. 43. Judging by the mess in Iraq, it could be 200 or 300 years - if ever - before Bush is vindicated.
Bush has shifted his rhetoric in deference to the grim and deteriorating reality on the ground in Iraq. Asked by a reporter on Oct. 25 if we are winning the war, Bush said, "Absolutely, we're winning." Offered the opportunity at his press conference to defend that statement, Bush has adopted a new formulation. He now says, "We're not winning, but we're not losing." That sounds like the definition of a quagmire.
Exploitation of the war gained Republicans seats in '02 and got Bush a second term in '04, but it wasn't enough in '06. Karl Rove decided the best way for Republicans to retain control of the House and Senate was to embrace the war in Iraq and run against the Democrats as "Defeatocrats" and "Cut and Runners." It might have worked, had not most Americans decided they did indeed want to cut and run. Not right away - the voters want an orderly exit - but they weren't buying Bush's big lie about the Democrats.
Bush campaigned this fall as though the Democrats were the real enemy, not the terrorists. "They [Democrats] think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again…If you don't want your government listening in on terrorists, vote for the Democrats." Now that the Democrats have won, watch Bush try to off-load blame for the failure in Iraq. If the Democrats won't go along with whatever cockamamie scheme he comes up with, he can always accuse them of losing the war.
Days after giving Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a ringing endorsement, declaring he would be there until the end, Bush fired him. It was the most obvious lie of his presidency. And it tripped so easily off Bush's tongue. There was none of the stammering that usually accompanies his public utterances. It was as big a lie as Rove's assertion on National Public Radio that all the public polls pointing toward a rout for the GOP were wrong. "I have the math," Rove proclaimed. A lot of people believed Rove, but the voters didn't.
The administration had the media snookered much of the time. Stories that were underreported largely because they ran counter to administration spin include:...'
Lees verder: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16326716/site/newsweek/ Of:
'"Marxism, he argues, is the flip side of capitalism, not its opposite or its solution... Industrialism in capitalist, socialist or communist countries exists in a colonial relationship to Nature and to indigenous people."
JOHN MOHAWK WAS RIGHT.
Rick Whaley remembers John Mohawk:
Author and Professor John Mohawk spoke at the first national Greens
gathering in Amherst, Massachusetts in July 1987. He provides, to my mind,
the most profound theoretical center for Green politics. Marxism, he
argues, is the flip side of capitalism, not its opposite or its solution.
While he recognizes the contributions the Left has made to fighting the
excesses of industrial capitalism (and the long tradition in radical culture
of deconstructing capitalism), Mohawk poises the wellspring of Green theory:
Industrialism in capitalist, socialist or communist countries exists in a
colonial relationship to Nature and to indigenous people.
The solution is a thorough Native or Green perspective, quite different
in its solutions—technological, spiritual, economic, educational, energy and
consumption—than that of Labor-Left allies. Mohawk is arguing that the
old-isms do not address the threat to the very biology of the planet — tears
in the ozone layer (cancers); acid rain (basic chemistry of plant roots
destroyed); global warming; chemicals disrupting reproduction. They can make
the unresolved 20th century issues of social class and distribution appear
[Milwaukee Greens used to give out to unreconstructed Leftists joining the
Green Party: John Mohawk’s "Marxism from a Native Perspective" (Akwesasne
Notes, Early Spring, 1981) where he raised this cornerstone (Green) thesis
on Industrial society.]
Also posted on the internet:
Editors' note: Indian Country Today is thankful for the early thoughts
shared below [and the first paragraph of this above posting] by former
editor Jose Barreiro, long-time friend and collaborator of John Mohawk.
Barreiro currently serves at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American
"Mohawk, 61, was pronounced dead at his home in Buffalo on Dec. 12. He is
mourned by large numbers of people, expressing the most heartfelt
condolences to the family and close relatives of this beloved man of wisdom.
A longtime professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the
highly talented and engaging scholar was a motivating force in the Indian
traditionalist movement and the national and international indigenous
initiative of self-sufficiency and self-assertion of the contemporary era.
Mohawk's essays and speeches from the early 1970s, through his genial
direction of the national Indian newspaper, Akwesasne Notes, from 1976 to
1984, were pivotal contributions to the development of intellectual capacity
in the Indian movement. From his academic perch, Mohawk developed
enlightening university courses while sustaining a wide-ranging program of
writing and community educational and oratorical forays. In recent years, he
had been an opinion columnist for Indian Country Today.
Intensely steeped in the spiritual ceremonial traditions of the
Haudenosaunee people through his foundational longhouse culture at the
Cattaraugus Reservation in western New York, Mohawk was one of those rare
American Indian individuals who comfortably stepped out into the Western
academic and journalistic arenas. He was an enthusiastic participant in his
own traditional ways, a legendary singer and knowledgeable elder of the most
profound ceremonial cycles of the Haudenosaunee. As a scholar, he
represented the Native traditional school of thought in a way that was as
authentic as it was brilliantly modern and universal.
Mohawk wrote several important books and articles, among which is the
classic ''Basic Call to Consciousness,'' a seminal work that catalyzed
Native thinking and understanding of global history in a way that was
superbly useful. Later, along with Onondaga elder Oren Lyons, Mohawk edited
the important book ''Exiled in the Land of the Free,'' which gathered the
significant thinking around foundational American Indian rights. His
research and writing on ''Basic Call to Consciousness'' was typical of his
style as an activist scholar. It was largely written during the winter and
spring of 1977 in the deep woods of upstate New York, where the author was
often prodded by the visits of Haudenosaunee chiefs, clan mothers and other
elders, to whom he would read his developing prose and who would comment
deeply on the manuscript.
Many will credit John Mohawk as the major intellectual and strategic force
behind the surge of Haudenosaunee activism of the past 30 years. Many more
know and respect him for his many expressions on important national and
international issues. While he published and lectured widely, Mohawk
generously gave much of his intellectual prowess directly to community
issues. At moments when traditionalist life was threatened, he worked
diligently to establish strategic directions for the longhouse and other
traditionalist governments. One remembers many instances in which Mohawk
made a huge difference in dangerous moments of inter-ethnic and political
conflict. Many are the times when he forsook professional glory or
advancement to join the battle lines, where he employed his powerful
intellect to save life while always pressing the demand for Native peoples'
unique sovereign rights.
A strong defender of national and international human rights, Mohawk was a
mentor to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Indian and non-Indian college
students and young professionals, many of whom have gone on to fulfill
important posts. He was a great and loyal friend, one who could tease you to
tears while marveling your life with incredible sweetness, consistency and
John Mohawk was self-effacing to a fault. Easily admired and even revered,
he shunned and suspected any such feelings. This came out of his natural
deep integrity. He was wont to tell enraptured audiences, ''Remember one
thing, if you remember nothing else I've told you: I am not a star!''
He was wrong on that one. John Mohawk was - is - a star...."'
Zie ook: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414185