Almost a year ago the inauguration of President Barack Obama was hailed as a turning point in US race relations. The country was said to be entering a new era of post-racial politics, on the path to a future of greater diversity and tolerance. But while crowds flocked to Washington to witness the swearing in, others were refusing to join the party. Racially motivated threats against Obama rose to new heights in the first months of his presidency, with the US seeing nine high-profile race killings in 2009. Meanwhile white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups claim their membership is growing and that visits to their websites are increasing. Filmmakers Rick Rowley and Jacquie Soohen went inside the white nationalist movement to investigate. (Al Jazeera)
"Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise." - U.S. President Barack ObamaNorth Korea: Backed out of the NPT in 2003. Tested a nuclear weapon. World powers have limited influence over North Korea’s actions. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.
Turning to the safeguards issues on the agenda of this General Conference, the nuclear programme of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea remains a matter of serious concern. The Agency has had no inspectors in the country since April last year, and I therefore have nothing to report on any activities of the IAEA in relation to the DPRK. The DPRK has not permitted the Agency to implement safeguards in the country since December 2002 and it has not implemented the relevant measures called for in Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874. I again call on all parties concerned to make concerted efforts for a resumption of the Six-Party Talks at an appropriate time. (My emphasis)
“This new app shows the unfiltered realities that settlements create on the ground of the West Bank. While people are entitled to their opinions on this divisive issue, there is only one set of facts, and our app makes these facts available in unprecedented clarity and detail,” said Debra DeLee, APN’s President and CEO. (Haaretz)
PK: One of the strengths of our government and one of the shortcomings of the opposition parties is that we make sure everyone knows what our government’s position is. We make sure we speak to issues with a united voice.
SP: So that’s why you, and the prime minister, and other ministers all end up using the exact same quotes when you answer questions?
PK: Yes. So when we’re asked about the Israeli position on settlements, we never criticize Israel publicly. We say those settlements are “unhelpful” in finding a comprehensive peace settlement.
If the prisoners are blindfolded, they don't know they are being photographed and we don't know who they are, so there is no humiliation perceive by them then or now as suggested by some. She mugged for the camera, but not much, I see in her contempt for the photographer - the tilt of her head, pursed lips and narrowed eyes - not a triumphal smile as suggested by some.
The photo suggests the opposite of callus; read their crossed legs, Her talking to him leaning right next to him and facing him. No gun (nylon 'handcuff' strip in hand) and so close she feels she's not in real danger. He can't help but perceive she is there and is not threatened as his legs are not crossed defensively at the knee as are her's. He's the same prisoner on the far left as in the 2d photo. Compare the two shots.
The captions are subject to misinterpretation, but the photos of body language tell a positive story. She's doing her military duty with a positive attitude, the prisoner is being addressed as a person. She's not shouting into his ear. She's positioned forward to look into his face, hence her left arm in behind supporting her. This action on her part is indicative of genuine human communication and not object treatment. That her legs are crossed and she is leaning over suggests she is physically defensive but intellectually engaging him - thoughtful. He's neither cringing nor leaning away, so he's not in fear and leaning/resting back against the wall whereas in the other shot he's leaning forward, so I take it he's less tense or stressed in her presence than when alone. Did she put him as ease? Possibly.
Note the two on the right have hands in front - not a threat to the soldiers like the one with hands in back she sits next to in the other shot. The soldier's perceived him to be a danger relative to the others because they tied his hands in back, yet she addresses him in close proximity.
One must carefully read the body language and chronology of photos, not just the 'wiseguy' afterthought caption. I don't read contempt in her for the prisoners, but rather for the photographer. I don't read in the photos that she's doing anything other than her professional duty and doing it well and in a proper fashion. I don't see any indications that the prisoners are being mistreated.
If we wrongly over-criticize these photos and the Israelis prohibit the taking of photos, what evidence will there be if and when there is actual physical abuse and disagreement by soldiers about how to treat their prisoners? Then things will get worse for both sides.
deanmblakeLos Angeles, CAAugust 16th, 20107:36 pm
Gender segregation has spawned a culture of excessive telecommunication. Bluetooth usage (to exchange details between men and women anonymously) on phones was commonplace in Saudi Arabia before mobile owners in the West had any use for the tool. In a country of early adopters and super-users, people usually have more than one mobile phone to separate friends, family and professional contacts. Before pay-as-you go arrived on the scene, my female friends sometimes had their chauffeurs procure more mobile phone numbers in their own names so that the bill would not be sent to their father's home address.
It is not clear exactly what the Saudi authorities are hoping to achieve or pre-empt with this new measure, since if a woman has gone past immigration at the airport that means that she has already been signed off by her guardian and all her paperwork was in order. In addition, if one is to imagine that the guardian may have since changed his mind or was co-opted or tricked into giving permission, the text message allegedly contains no information about the woman's destination – only that she has left.
Neither explanation holds up to scrutiny. Funding was yanked from Caribana and Gay Pride, two major Toronto events. But the Calgary Stampede and the Montreal Jazz Festival are also major events, and they are receiving $1 million and $3 million respectively in federal funding. As for regional balance, the big recipients outside of Toronto remain largely unchanged.
I imagine like most of you, I was brought up under the shadow of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. In the early Eighties it was a particularly frigid time in the conflict. And at the time I had a friend who was doing research at Columbia University in New York City and he had a piece of technology which doesn’t sound like much nowadays but at the time it was pretty spectacular. He had a machine that could steal the signal from the Russian satellite above the North Pole and we could watch Russian television. So on Saturday night he and I would have a few beers and we’d end up back at the university and climb this little spiral staircase to this tiny attic room at the top of the college. And he’d turn this machine on and low and behold: Russian television! You know it was after midnight in New York City so it’s like 10 in the morning, Sunday morning in Moscow and we were drunk and watching Russian children’ shows. Russian Sesame Street and cartoons and shit like that. But what struck me was how beautifully made these programmes were; with a great deal of love and care and attention. And the obvious logic is that the Russians love their children like we do, which was the basis of détente. The reason we didn’t blow each other up is because all of us had a stake in the future, which was our children.
In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly of common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too
“You don’t want to be Lyndon Johnson, sacrificing your potential for doing good on the domestic front by a destructive, never-ending foreign involvement. It’s the Democrats’ disease to take the same compassion that motivates their domestic policies and let it lure them into heroic but ill-considered foreign wars.”
From The Guardian:– Former political advisor Dick Morris to then-U.S. President Bill Clinton. Morris was advising Clinton against military intervention in Bosnia (the former Yugoslavia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide.
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
"If he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, all right, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed?"
– Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele referring to U.S President Barack ObamaFrom the Washington Post:
From A Problem from Hell:Of course, Steele was right from the start. His truth was the larger one, which is that enough time has elapsed so that the war in Afghanistan can be seen as Barack Obama's. It began, as we all know, under the illustrious George W. Bush, who then got distracted by all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and veered off toward Baghdad. But these are mere details, pesky facts with which we need not concern ourselves. The truth is that Obama found this war on his doorstep, took it in, nursed and even escalated it, and swaddled it in his own clothes: more troops, and still more on the way.
One can appreciate how Steele got his "facts" wrong. It is how possession of the Vietnam War moved from Lyndon Johnson to Richard Nixon even though they both lacked absolute belief in the cause -- whatever exactly that once was. Nixon, in fact, even had a secret plan to end the conflict and was furiously de-escalating, rapidly Vietnamizationing and frantically trying to disentangle himself and the nation from the war. Still, when demonstrators gathered outside the White House, it was not to praise his peace efforts but to denounce him as a warmonger. The rule in all these cases seems pretty apparent: Either end the war or own it.
In 1984 President Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, had demanded that armed intervention
1) Be used only to protect the vital interests of the United States or its allies;
2) Be carried out wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning;
3) Be in pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives;
4) Be accompanied by widespread public and congressional support;
5) And be waged only as a last resort.
[Colin] Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, […] resurrected this cautious military doctrine and amended it to require a “decisive” force and a clear “exit strategy.” Iraq had eventually threatened U.S. oil supplies, whereas Yugoslavia’s turmoil threatened no obvious U.S. national interests. The war was “tragic,” but the stakes seemed wholly humanitarian. It met very few of the administration’s criteria for intervention.From 'Violent Politics':
Wars of opinion, [General Antoine Henri] Jomini wrote, come about when one state seeks to propagate its own doctrines or to crush the dogma of another state. He would have placed the current American neoconservative plan forcibly to impose “democracy” on other nations as a war of opinion. It would have horrified him. Such wars, he said, “enlist the worst passions, and become vindictive, cruel and terrible.” They are fearful, he continued, “since the invading force not only is met by the armies of the enemy, but is exposed to the attacks of an exasperated people… History… appears to clearly demonstrate the danger of attacking an intensely-excited nation.” Thus, attack and reprisal without restraint are inevitable.
Perhaps as bad but certainly more problematic are what he call national wars, since the invader has only his army whereas “his adversaries have an army and a people wholly or almost wholly in arms [so that] even the non-combatants have an interest in his ruin and accelerate it by every means in their power.”From The Guardian:
But even if Steele is a hack, it is worth contemplating whether he may have a point: what started as a specific act of retribution against a terrorist attack on US soil has become an attempt to turn Afghanistan into an at least minimally normal country. By accepting the counterinsurgency plan offered by General Stanley McChrystal (a brave solider whose public relations skills unfortunately rival Steele's), Obama has actually chosen to make Afghan nation-building his war.
“…many heterosexuals supported gay rights when it wasn’t popular. Now that lesbians and gays are empowered, they have a duty to speak for people who need a voice. You’re obliged to help others who need it.”
As the parade neared its start, Meir Weinstein, the national director of the Jewish Defence League, marched down the block to stand in front of the idle contingent from Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. With a Bluetooth in his ear and a rainbow flag draped over his shoulder, he waved his Israeli flag at the group – who were only recently permitted to march after parade organizers lifted an earlier ban.
“This is a provocation,” yelled one of the member of QuAIA. The two challenged each other about how many of their members of their respective groups were homosexual.
“You are like a fly in my ear,” Mr. Weinstein replied.
At the very front of a huge parade of peaceful demonstrators was the Black Bloc (seen in the distance). They are marching east along Queen Street, smashing all the windows as they go. Ahead of them are some bicycle cops escorting the crowd. They did not react to the vandalism occurring behind them, probably preferring to avoid escalating the situation and sparking a riot. Property can be replaced; lives cannot.
A Black Bloc anarchist wearing gloves and a bicycle helmet walks past this Starbucks a moment after his comrades had smashed its windows. Riot police, looking on from the steps of the Much Music building across the street, did not react.
This was taken at the corner of Queen Street and John Street. About 10 feet behind me are more riot police and bicycle cops blocking the street. They did not react to the vandals.
Shattered glass litters the ground.
About 20 feet from me, an anarchist threw a brick through a Starbucks window. I ran back, expecting the riot police on the other side of the street -- 50 feet away, you can see them under the traffic lights in the middle of the photo -- to begin firing tear gas; in fact they didn't flinch. They allowed the anarchists to do as much property damage as they liked, but directed them down a corridor along Queen Street.
I think the police preferred to have insurance cover the property damage, rather than intervening with force which might have sparked a full scale riot. It seemed sensible from my perspective.
To give you a sense of the atmosphere: it felt nothing like mayhem. There was just a calm procession of legitimate demonstrators (and onlookers) while an equally calm group of anarchists at the front of the pack walked down the street smashing windows with impunity. Surreal.
"How can the prime minister preach austerity and restraint to Canadians and his G20 colleagues when he has lost control of the cost of his own summit?" -- Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff (BBC)I keep hearing the word ‘austerity’ these days. I swear it must be the word of the month. So I must ask: in these “austere” times, exactly where is the sense in spending over $1 billion to host a meeting of leaders that already meet several times a year?
A Skype-sponsored summit would've saved us the trouble of building a fake lake (I still don't understand this one, given that Lake Ontario is just a streetcar ride away). We could've left the trees in the ground. Bay and Front wouldn't resemble a garrison. And I'd be able to use my cellphone without having to worry about dropped calls.
