By Robert Scheer

Are we Americans truly savages or merely tone-deaf in matters of morality, and therefore more guilty of terminal indifference than venality? It’s a question demanding an answer in response to the publication of the detailed 370-page report on U.S. complicity in torture, issued last week by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

Because the report was widely cited in the media and easily accessed as a pdf file on the Internet, it is fair to assume that those of our citizens who remain ignorant of the extent of their government’s commitment to torture as an official policy have made a choice not to be informed. A less appealing conclusion would be that they are aware of the heinous acts fully authorized by our president but conclude that such barbarism is not inconsistent with that American way of life that we celebrate.

But that troubling assessment of moral indifference is contradicted by the scores of law enforcement officers, mostly from the FBI, who were so appalled by what they observed as routine official practice in the treatment of prisoners by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo that they risked their careers to officially complain. A few brave souls from the FBI even compiled a “war crimes file,” suggesting the unthinkable—that we might come to be judged as guilty by the standard we have imposed on others. Superiors in the Justice Department soon put a stop to such FBI efforts to hold CIA agents and other U.S. officials accountable for the crimes they committed.

That this systematic torture was carried out not by a few conveniently described “bad apples” but rather represented official policy condoned at the highest level of government was captured in one of those rare media reports that remind us why the Founding Fathers signed off on the First Amendment.

“These were not random acts,” The New York Times editorialized. “It is clear from the inspector general’s report that this was organized behavior by both civilian and military interrogators following the specific orders of top officials. The report shows what happens when an American president, his secretary of defense, his Justice Department and other top officials corrupt American law to rationalize and authorize the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners.”

One of those top officials, who stands revealed in the inspector general’s report as approving the torture policy, is Condoleezza Rice, who in her capacity as White House national security adviser turned away the concerns of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft as to the severe interrogation measures being employed. Rice, as ABC-TV reported in April, chaired the top-level meetings in 2002 in the White House Situation Room that signed off on the CIA treatment of prisoners—“whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called water boarding. …” According to the report, the former academic provost of Stanford University came down on the side of simulated drowning.

As further proof that women are not necessarily more squeamish than men in condoning such practices, the report offers examples of sexual and religious denigration of the mostly Muslim prisoners by female interrogators carrying out an official policy of “invasion of space by a female.” In one recorded instance observed by startled FBI agents, a female interrogator was seen with a prisoner “bending his thumbs back and grabbing his genitals … to cause him pain.” One of the agents testified that this was not “a case of a rogue interrogator acting on her own.” He said he witnessed a “pep rally” meeting conducted by a top Defense Department official “in which the interrogators were encouraged to get as close to the torture statute line as possible.”

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

The Pentagon has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasury that won’t be easily undone by future administrations.

A full-fledged cottage industry is already focused on those who eagerly await the end of the Bush administration, offering calendars, magnets, and t-shirts for sale as well as counters and graphics to download onto blogs and websites. But when the countdown ends and George W. Bush vacates the Oval Office, he will leave a legacy to contend with. Certainly, he wills to his successor a world marred by war and battered by deprivation, but perhaps his most enduring legacy is now deeply embedded in Washington-area politics — a Pentagon metastasized almost beyond recognition.

The Pentagon’s massive bulk-up these last seven years will not be easily unbuilt, no matter who dons the presidential mantle on January 19, 2009. “The Pentagon” is now so much more than a five-sided building across the Potomac from Washington or even the seat of the Department of Defense. In many ways, it defies description or labeling.

Who, today, even remembers the debate at the end of the Cold War aboutå what role U.S. military power should play in a “unipolar” world? Was U.S. supremacy so well established, pundits were then asking, that Washington could rely on softer economic and cultural power, with military power no more than a backup (and a domestic “peace dividend” thrown into the bargain)? Or was the U.S. to strap on the six-guns of a global sheriff and police the world as the fountainhead of “humanitarian interventions”? Or was it the moment to boldly declare ourselves the world’s sole superpower and wield a high-tech military comparable to none, actively discouraging any other power or power bloc from even considering future rivalry?

The attacks of September 11, 2001 decisively ended that debate. The Bush administration promptly declared total war on every front — against peoples, ideologies, and, above all, “terrorism” (a tactic of the weak). That very September, administration officials proudly leaked the information that they were ready to “target” up to 60 other nations and the terrorist movements within them.

The Pentagon’s “footprint” was to be firmly planted, military base by military base, across the planet, with a special emphasis on its energy heartlands. Top administration officials began preparing the Pentagon to go anywhere and do anything, while rewriting, shredding, or ignoring whatever laws, national or international, stood in the way. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld officially articulated a new U.S. military posture that, in conception, was little short of revolutionary. It was called — in classic Pentagon shorthand — the 1-4-2-1 Defense Strategy (replacing the Clinton administration’s already none-too-modest plan to be prepared to fight two major wars — in the Middle East and Northeast Asia — simultaneously).

Theoretically, this strategy meant that the Pentagon was to prepare to defend the United States, while building forces capable of deterring aggression and coercion in four “critical regions” (Europe, Northeast Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East). It would be able to defeat aggression in two of these regions simultaneously and “win decisively” in one of those conflicts “at a time and place of our choosing.” Hence 1-4-2-1.

And that was just going to be the beginning. We had, by then, already entered the new age of the Mega-Pentagon. Almost six years later, the scale of that institution’s expansion has yet to be fully grasped, so let’s look at just seven of the major ways in which the Pentagon has experienced mission creep — and leap — dwarfing other institutions of government in the process.

(Continue reading: AlterNet)

In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott McClellan, would forever slay the single most ludicrous myth in our political culture: The “Liberal Media”:

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the “liberal media” didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.

Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush’s own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being “too deferential” to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush’s ability to propagandize the nation on the media’s uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration’s falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being “too deferential” to the right-wing Government “in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington”? If one were to set about with the goal of debunking the “Liberal Media” myth — as Eric Alterman specifically did four years ago and other media critics have more generally done before that — one couldn’t dream up evidence more conclusive than McClellan’s admissions.

Blindingly conclusive evidence which would — for any rational person — forever negate the “Liberal Media” myth has been piling up for years. The extraordinary (though woefully incomplete) 2004 mea culpa from The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were “allowed to stand unchallenged.” The Washington Post’s own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as “independent analysts” spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media’s pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals — which led to his impeachment — stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.

Beyond all that, are there any reporters left who deny that the campaign-covering media in 2000 was gushingly enamored of George Bush and oozing with contempt for Al Gore? Identically, their intense affection for John McCain is something they openly proclaim; as they shamelessly acknowledge, they’re his “base.” And while some journalists undoubtedly harbor admiration for Barack Obama, the non-stop coverage of one anti-Obama narrative after the next — Jeremiah Wright, lapel pins, patriotism “questions,” “Bittergate,” “problems” with Jewish and white voters — simply has no parallel in any coverage of McCain.

(Continue reading: Glen Greenwald-Salon.com)

Sadly, the brave Guardian columnist could not get his hands on Bush’s lap dog, John Bolton.

Unbiased Guardian columnist George Monbiot was blocked from making a citizen’s arrest of John Bolton today in Wales. (Telegraph)
FOX News reported:

John Bolton managed to escape a British journalist’s attempt to place him under citizen’s arrest Wednesday evening at a festival in Wales.

The Telegraph newspaper reported that Guardian columnist George Monbiot, a critic of the Iraq war, tried to arrest the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as he was exiting the stage at the Hay Literary Festival. The Telegraph earlier reported that Monbiot would try to arrest Bolton for war crimes.

According to the article, Monbiot was blocked by two security guards, and Bolton was ushered away even as Monbiot attempted to dart after him once he was released. Monbiot reportedly said he was “disappointed” he was unable to make the arrest.

“This was a serious attempt to bring one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war to justice, for what is described under the Nuremberg Principles as an international crime,” he was quoted as saying.

George Monbiot was led away as the tried to make his citizen’s arrest. (BBC)

Monbiot posted the charges against John Bolton on his blog.

(Continue reading: Gateway Pundit)

Islamists, even when not in power, wield fear and faith to pressure their societies in conservative directions

Seven years after 9/11, views on the Islamist threat remain polarized and both are flawed, argues journalist and author Sadanand Dhume: The right overplays the danger to Europe and the United States, while the left underestimates its impact on Muslim-majority countries. Ironically, the very patterns of weakness in Muslim societies strengthen minority Islamists, among the most organized and motivated players in many Muslim nations. Islamic culture prohibits any criticism of Islamic traditions and leads to the suggestion that a lack of faith, rather than failure to embrace modernity, spur poverty and inequality, explains Dhume. Education and economic development carry less priority than rigid faith. Therefore, he concludes, the threat posed by Islamism and its extremist tactics is indirect for the West, immediate and serious for moderation and the liberal democracies of developing Muslim nations.

(Continue reading: YaleGlobal)

An Exclusive Interview with Ron Paul

The Libertarian Dark Horse is Still Kicking

By WAJAHAT ALI

“Who the heck is Ron Paul?” asked many Americans over the course of the past year. The 70 year old, Texas Congressman’s name and face adorned web pages, blogs, email spams, posters and pamphlets throughout the nation. Out of nowhere, the Republican Presidential candidate appeared on television for the Primary debates giving blunt, hard hitting, no nonsense answers and lacerating jabs. He criticized fellow candidates for their foreign policy, corporate cronyism, and support of “big” government. His candid demeanor, especially in calling out the Administration for its failure in Iraq, helped win him over many independents, jaded Republicans, and “on the fence” liberals who found his voice a refreshing and legitimate “third option.” He dominates the Internet search engines, wins most of the online polls, maintains an overwhelming presence on Youtube, and recently scored a number one bestseller with his manifesto: “Ron Paul: The Revolution.”  Through independent, grass roots activism, his campaign received over $6 million dollars making it the largest one-day fundraiser in U.S. political history.

However, his detractors suggest Ron Paul is more of an “internet sensation” than a practical solution. His followers are seen as mindless and rabid “acolytes” whose repetitive mantra of “smaller government, de-regulations, pro free market” is naïve and blind to the economic and political realities of the world. Mostly, people suggest Congressman Paul’s rhetoric is simply old school libertarianism masquerading as a “revolution.” Regardless of your opinion, most admire his willingness to speak his mind. In this interview, he discusses a gamut of subjects in his characteristically frank and honest demeanor.

For nearly an hour, we tackled The Republican Party, President Bush’s legacy, Obama, Illegal Immigration, Abortion, Race in America, Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Gay Marriage, the Housing Crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the American Media.

ALI: Many people are asking: “Are you still in the race?”

PAUL: Well, technically I am. I mean there’s not much of a race since McCain has all the votes. But I am participating. And we still try to get his votes. Like yesterday we got 15% in Oregon [Primary] and that represents a solid base that we have.

ALI: Next logical question, why still stay in the race?

PAUL: I think what we’re doing is real important. I think the message is important. The people who are involved, the volunteers, are enthusiastic. Our numbers keep growing. We still have money in the bank. They want to see the campaign continue to maximize our efforts and at the same look forward to continuing this project even after the election and make sure we reach as many people as we can.

ALI: It’s going to be, most likely, Obama vs. McCain. Who do you think will win? Who do you think should win? Can you move beyond partisan loyalty to support Obama?

PAUL: I think Obama will probably win the primary, but I wouldn’t bet money on it. At one time, I thought it would be impossible for any Republican to come close, but with the Democrats beating up on each other, it’s given time for McCain to recover a bit. But I can’t see how a Republicans can win, because this country does not like it when we have a long drawn out war and a bad economy, and that’s what we have.

So I think Obama certainly has the edge. If I had to bet money, I’d bet on Obama. As far as supporting Obama, I wouldn’t be able to, because he has a lot of positions I don’t agree with. His rhetoric is much closer than McCain on foreign policy obviously, but his foreign policy is not a whole lot different than what McCain and the Republicans have. You know, even the leadership in the House, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to really change things since they took over the House in 2006. I wouldn’t expect Obama to really change foreign policy. I still think they’re very much anxious to do something against Iran. [Nancy] Pelosi [Speaker of the House] has been pushing that, and that’s the position of both parties.

ALI: I want to ask you about the Republican Party. What is Bush’s legacy for the Republican Party, and what harm has he done to not only the nation but also the Republican Party? Can the Republican Party rebound in 2008 and, if so, what is its identity and how does it define itself?

PAUL: Well, they’re going to have a tough time, because they had their chance. The culmination of it was in 1994 and 2000, when they finally got the total control in preaching the gospel of less government and balanced budget. Even in the year 2000, Bush talked about no nation building and not playing the role of world policeman. The failure of that is so overwhelming: that is the legacy. So, getting credibility back is the main thing. And then going back to what they claim they believe in: smaller government, balanced budgets, personal liberty and the Constitution. They have a long way to go.

ALI: The name of your new book, a manifesto, is entitled “The Revolution.” These are bold words – no subtlety there. But many say your positions are merely rhetorical window dressing for old school libertarianism.

PAUL: Well, I don’t know where the old school libertarianism came from or where it is. It’s old school Constitutionalism. And the Constitution is very libertarian, so I guess you could connect it that way. But when thinking of conventional politics and Republican politics, it’s old school Republican politics. When we had a Robert Taft who was head of the Republican Party, he argued much of what I argue today. As a matter of fact, another interesting person who took that position was Warren Buffet’s dad, Howard Buffet, when he was in Congress. His position was very similar to mine. So, that may be old school Republicanism, but it just means that we believe the government should be really small in size and we should follow the Constitution.

ALI: Let’s talk about your foreign policy positions. You clarify in your book that you are not an isolationist but more of a non-interventionist. Your opposition to the Iraq War and pre-emptive strikes against Iran is now well known and quite popular with many progressives, independents, the Left and the youth. However, you are also critical of foreign aid to countries as well. If international actors, such as The IMF, WTO, or even Super Powers were to abandon predatory corporatism, couldn’t aid, such as educational aid to Afghanistan, deter future blowback and help create friendship? Are you averse to this form of “intervention?”

PAUL: No, and there still would be that I don’t want to steal money from people and give it to corrupt governments that would maybe misuse this money. A free and prosperous country would do this in a voluntary fashion. But, the point that people have to remember is that if you want to impose our will on Iraq through bombs and promote democracy: this is done with a “do good” objective. They’re always saying we’re going to promote the goodness of America, we’re going to promote democracy. They try to tell us this is all done with “good intentions.” So, if you do that and it backfires, then some of us will complain.

But doing the same thing using foreign aid, people say, “Well, this is different. This is economic aid.” So, that’s legitimate to tax poor people in this country, or inflate the currency, or borrow and bankrupt the country to do “good” on economic terms? But the whole thing is using force again.  So, I reject the use of force to promote these good intentions. Besides, just as good intentions in foreign policy backfire like they did in Iraq and Vietnam and so many other places, the good intentions in helping poor people who are starving in Africa do the same thing. Because if you send them food in the midst of civil war, the government takes it over and they use it as a weapon against certain factions, so it rarely does the job it’s supposed to do. Just because economic aid is well intended, it’s matter of fact identical to the “well intentions’ of those who want to use military force.

ALI: Will you say that The Marshall Plan was a use of “good” foreign intervention and aid? Subsequently, is there any example you can give me where foreign aid was actually beneficial? Any way where the U.S. could actually help?

PAUL: Well, no, I wouldn’t have voted for The Marshall Plan for the same reason I just stated. It was pointed out that if you look at all the capital investments after WW2, the Marshall Plan came late and it was small compared to what Germany did afterwards, under Erhardt, he didn’t follow the advice of liberal economists over here who told him, “Keep on with the wage and price controls and bunch of other things,” he just de-regulated it. He created an environment where a lot of capital came in. And that’s how they got back on their feet again.

I can’t think of anything where some good will come from it [foreign aid.] There’s not a good argument for that.  But there’s always some good that appears to come from it. Like, if you do anything here or domestically or overseas, you might say, “Well, look, you might be opposed to it, but we built this hospital, and it’s a wonderful hospital and it works. And we built this house for somebody.” But, so often, what is not asked is what is the expense? How much did it cost? Who lost their job? Who had to pay for this? How much debt was there? How much inflation did it cause? How long did the hospital last? Would the hospital last as long had it been developed privately? So, you can’t look and say that because it looks like it was beneficial in the short run for a small group, it never can justify the use of force to redistribute wealth at the point of a gun.

Whether you go and use a gun to take taxes and benefit Halliburton, it’s the same thing. Even when we do good here in this country, it’s interesting, we did the same thing where we had to help Katrina victims. It was terribly unsuccessful, but Halliburton was doing no bid contracts! So, that’s the kind of thing I object to. But the most important thing is that a lot of this could be taken care of and the fact that the government doesn’t do it, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen, it’s going to likely happen in a much better manner.

ALI: What is your opinion on the government subcontracting crucial public sector functions to private military firms such as Halliburton and Blackwater? We’ve witnessed several public relations debacles and overspending and waste resulting from the government’s over reliance on this outsourcing in Iraq alone. Should both the private actors and the government be blamed? Isn’t this kind of a marriage between the government and corporate actors both going awry?

PAUL: Oh, yeah. That’s what militarism and all this government activity does. Militarism encourages the military industry complex. Once the government takes over medical care, then you have the medical industrial complex. In finance, you have the banking complex, because the banks are in bed with the Federal Reserve and they control the money and the interest rates. Very often the media, because it’s licensed and controlled by the government, they become the propagandas for war. So, you have too much of this, and if you had a strict constitutional society, you’d have none of it.

ALI: Congressman Paul, you voted for the use of military force in Afghanistan. However, Afghanistan now sees the rise of the Taliban, Hamid Karzai  [Afghanistan’s President] is effectively useless, there’s a beaten and wounded population, and no infrastructure. Do you regret that initial decision? Was it part of the pro war, patriotic fervor that gripped the nation post 9-11?

PAUL: Well, no, but if you go back and look at that authority, I’d probably vote for it again, but it does prove the point that even with the best intentions it doesn’t work out well. But precisely it didn’t work out well because the President didn’t do what he was asked to do. He was asked to go after Osama Bin Laden and catch the guys that had something to do with 9-11. That’s what we were targeting, and he didn’t keep his eye on the target. He dropped the ball at Tora Bora, they escaped into Pakistan, and then Bush went into nation building.

First in Iraq, then in Pakistan, and he’s been there ever since. That authority wasn’t to devise a foreign policy that ultimately was tremendously beneficial to Iran: he got rid of Saddam Hussein and he got rid of the Taliban. This was not beneficial for our interests. I would say the failure of that was because he didn’t do what he was supposed to do. The only argument against the vote would be that I don’t trust the President because he won’t use the authority right and he’ll blow it, and I’m not going to give him the authority to do this. But, under the circumstances, I thought we should’ve done something.

(Continue reading: CounterPunch)

By William Pfaff

The laws of physics say that actions produce equivalent counteractions, and in international relations these may not be what’s expected.

American policy in the Middle East under George Bush and Condoleezza Rice has sought to polarize the region’s forces in the belief that it benefits by promoting a clear confrontation between those, as President George W. Bush said in 2001, “who are with us and those who are against us.” Washington reckons that it wins because it is, in conventional terms, the more powerful.

But suppose the situation is not a conventional one, and the application of power produces ricochet, indirect or asymmetrical reactions. Take the case of Lebanon, whose modern history is one of compromise among the communities that make up the country, which are not automatically hostile to one another but have distinct and divergent interests, and historically have also been the object of foreign intervention and attempts to set the communities against one another.

American policy has never acknowledged the fact that, to exist as a nation, the divided Lebanese have to compromise. Washington and Israel have both consistently seen Lebanon as a country that could be divided, polarized and toppled into their camp, or made to serve their interests inside the Arab camp.

Both have promoted policies intended to put the Christians in power over the Muslims, and if that proved impossible (as it has), to promote an alliance of Sunni Muslims, Druze and Christians against the Syrian- and Iranian-supported Hezbollah.

Take what has just happened. Hezbollah, the movement that has mobilized what historically has been the poorest and least powerful Lebanese community, that of the Shiite population, has seen its power and prestige vastly increased by recent Israeli actions. Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Lebanon in 2006, provoked by Hezbollah, intended by Israel to destroy or decisively weaken Hezbollah by causing the other communities to hold it responsible for the war, was a failure.

This did not happen. Hezbollah was hailed as the victor over Israel. Lebanon nonetheless has since been in a political stalemate between what usually has been described as the “American-backed” prime minister and the hostile Shiite sympathizers of Hezbollah, over nomination of a new president.

In May, the prime minister ordered dismantlement of a secret Hezbollah-controlled communications network, clearly built to improve Hezbollah’s military performance in another war. Another crisis ensued, during which Hezbollah and allied Amal armed militants displayed their military strength by occupying western Beirut, and their political sophistication by going no further. They accepted a proposal by the secretary-general of the Arab League and the emir of Qatar for talks to settle the crisis.

This Arab intervention was an unpleasant surprise to Washington, but produced agreement for a new government under a new president, the former head of the carefully neutral Lebanese army. He has been sworn into office.

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

For some strange reason — it might have something to do with George W. Bush’s disapproval rating, which is the highest recorded for any president — John McCain’s campaign apparently doesn’t want its candidate seen in public with the president.

The two appeared together at a fundraiser in Arizona on Tuesday, but the fundraiser was closed to the press. Then, McCain accompanied Bush to the airport for the president’s flight out. Their time at the airport was the only moment when the press could capture images of the two together, and even then, according to Fox News, they were within camera shot for only 47 seconds, and were together on the tarmac for just 26 seconds. They gave each other a very quick hug, and an even quicker handshake, before Bush boarded Air Force One.

Video is below.

(Continue reading: War Room-Salon.com)

Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee’s 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee’s invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee’s summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him “an Ish Elochim,” or “a man of God.” Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year’s summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.

Hagee’s vitriolic condemnation of Catholicism, his jeremiad declaring Hurricane Katrina divine punishment for New Orleans’ hosting of a “homosexual rally,” and his generally disturbing apocalyptic theology became national news last February when John McCain accepted his endorsement in a widely publicized ceremony.

While initially resisting pressure to reject Hagee’s endorsement, McCain finally ended his relationship with Hagee when a sermon by the preacher describing the Holocaust as the will of God registered on the mainstream media’s radar (Hear the now-infamous sermon here).

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” McCain said on May 22.

(Continue reading: Huffington Post)

I’ve been watching the steady decline of journalism since the Internet began replacing print and television as the main provider of news, with a seething disgust.

Today’s CNN top story put me over the edge.

Here’s the title and article summary for those of you without images in their feed readers:

But if you read the actual article you see not a story about a 6-year-old being raped, but the following:

This bait-and-switch is so misrepresentative as to be grotesque. The story changes from “Humanitarian workers pay teenagers for sex” to the more sensationalist “6-year-olds forced into sex for food.”

The biggest problem with news being disseminated online is that there is no geographic isolation (as is the case with both print and tv), which means that every local news network is in competition with every other news site on the planet. Ratings are driven by attracting as large an audience as possible… and most people care more about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s married life than how many people vanished from a Darfur town this week (hint: all 30,000).

(Continue reading: Aviary)

The Rockefeller family built one of the great American fortunes by supplying the nation with oil. Now history has come full circle: some family members say it is time to start moving beyond the oil age.

The family members have thrown their support behind a shareholder rebellion that is ruffling feathers at Exxon Mobil, the giant oil company descended from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust.

Three of the resolutions, to be voted on at the company’s shareholder meeting on Wednesday, are considered unlikely to pass, even with Rockefeller family support.

The resolutions ask Exxon to take the threat of global warming more seriously and look for alternatives to spewing greenhouse gases into the air.

One resolution would urge the company to study the impact of global warming on poor countries, another would encourage Exxon to reduce its emissions and a third would encourage it to do more research on renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines.

A fourth resolution, which the Rockefellers are most united in supporting, is considered more likely to pass. It would strip Rex W. Tillerson of his position as chairman of Exxon’s board, forcing the company to separate that job from the chief executive’s job.

A shareholder vote in favor of that idea would be a rebuke of Mr. Tillerson, who is widely perceived as more resistant than other oil chieftains to investing in alternative energy.

The Rockefellers say they are not trying to embarrass Mr. Tillerson, also Exxon’s chief executive, but think it is time for the company to spend more of its funds helping the nation chart a new energy future.

“Exxon Mobil needs to reconnect with the forward-looking and entrepreneurial vision of my great-grandfather,” Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, a Tufts University economist, said in a statement to reporters.

“The truth is that Exxon Mobil is profiting in the short term from investments and decisions made many years ago, and by focusing on a narrow path that ignores the rapidly shifting energy landscape around the world,” she added.

The resolution on Exxon’s chairmanship was offered for several years before the Rockefellers became publicly involved and last year was supported by 40 percent of shareholders who voted. Royal Dutch Shell and BP already separate the positions of chairman and chief executive, as do many other companies.

“You need a board asking the tough questions,” Peter O’Neill, a private equity investor and great-great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, said in an interview. “We expect the company to figure out how in this changing world to adjust.”

Kenneth P. Cohen, vice president for public affairs at Exxon, said the shareholders pushing the resolutions were “starting from a false premise.” He added that the company was already concerned about “how to provide the world the energy it needs while at the same time reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Fifteen members of the family are sponsoring or co-sponsoring the four resolutions, but it appears that some have much more solid support in the sprawling family than others.

(Continue reading: New York Times)

Iraq faces a year in the soccer wilderness after FIFA suspended it from all international competitions on Monday and issued an ultimatum to Baghdad.

The executive board of world soccer’s governing body announced it had imposed the ban after the Iraq government dissolved its National Olympic Committee and national sport federations in breach of FIFA and Olympic regulations.

The board will recommend that the FIFA Congress, which meets in Sydney on Friday, suspends Iraq from all tournaments for 12 months, but left the door open for a reprieve if Baghdad reversed its decision by 1400 GMT on Thursday.

A suspension would destroy Iraq’s dream of competing at the 2010 World Cup finals in South Africa.

Iraq were due to play Australia in a qualifier in Brisbane on Sunday then again in Dubai next week and if they miss those matches, Australia would be given the points.

“The FIFA Executive Committee decided to suspend the Iraqi Football Association (IFA) as of today … following the governmental decree passed on May 20 which dissolved the Iraqi National Olympic Committee and all national sport federations, including the IFA,” FIFA said in a statement.

“The FIFA Executive Committee also decided … the case of the Iraqi Football Association would be presented to the FIFA Congress on May 30 for suspension until the FIFA Congress in 2009, namely one year.

“However, the suspension decided upon today may be lifted if FIFA receives by May 29, midnight (Sydney time), written confirmation from the Iraqi government that the decree has been annulled.”

In a bid to reverse FIFA’s decision, the Iraqi government notified the IFA on Monday that it was not affected by last week’s decree, although Baghdad stood by its decision to disband the administrative arm of the Iraqi Olympic Committee.

(Continue reading: Associated Press)

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

Admiral Mullen’s essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.

The essay is the first Admiral Mullen has written for the journal as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar “all-hands” letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.

The essay can be seen as a reflection of the deep concern among senior officers that the military, which is paying the highest price in carrying out national security policy, may be drawn into politicking this year.

The war in Iraq has already exceeded the length of World War II and is the nation’s longest conflict fought with an all-volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.

In particular, members of the Joint Chiefs have expressed worries this election year about the influence of retired officers who advise political campaigns, who have publicly called for a change in policy or who serve as television commentators on the war.

Among the most outspoken were those who joined the so-called generals’ revolt in 2006 demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as former officers who have written books attacking the Bush administration’s planning for and execution of the war in Iraq.

(Continue reading: New  York Times)

We are not engaged in a religious conflict with Jews; this is a political struggle to free ourselves from occupation and oppression

As the Palestinian people prepare to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Nakba (”catastrophe”) – the dispossession and expulsion of most of our people from our land – those remaining in Palestine face escalating aggression, killings, imprisonment, ethnic cleansing and siege. But instead of support and solidarity from the western media, we face frequent attempts to defend the indefensible or turn fire on the Palestinians themselves.

One recent approach, which seems to be part of the wider attempt to isolate the elected Palestinian leadership, is to portray Hamas and the population of the Gaza strip as motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment, rather than a hostility to Zionist occupation and domination of our land. A recent front page article in the International Herald Tribune followed this line, as did an article for Cif about an item broadcast on the al-Aqsa satellite TV channnel about the Nazi Holocaust.

In fact, the al-Aqsa Channel is an independent media institution that often does not express the views of the Palestinian government headed by Ismail Haniyeh or of the Hamas movement. The channel regularly gives Palestinians of different convictions the chance to express views that are not shared by the Palestinian government or the Hamas movement. In the case of the opinion expressed on al-Aqsa TV by Amin Dabbur, it is his alone and he is solely responsible for it.

It is rather surprising to us that so little attention, if any, is given by the western media to what is regularly broadcast or written in the Israeli media by politicians and writers demanding the total uprooting or “transfer” of the Palestinian people from their land.

The Israeli media and pro-Israel western press are full of views that deny or seek to excuse well-established facts of history including the Nakba of 1948 and the massacres perpetrated then by the Haganah, the Irgun and LEHI with the objective of forcing a mass dispossession of the Palestinians.

But it should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust. The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality.

(Continue reading: The Guardian)

CBS Evening News medical correspondent Dr. Jonathan LaPook calls out the New York Post today on the Couric & Co. blog on CBSNews.com, for their front page headline yesterday regarding Sen. Ted Kennedy.

“As a physician, I was deeply offended,” he writes. “Even if they don’t care about the feelings of the senator, his family, his friends, or any of the rest of us, there’s no reporting in the article to justify the headline.”

LaPook is currently fronting the series, “The War on Cancer: Where We Stand,” during the Evening News.

“If a patient’s illness turns right when I’ve predicted left, I’m always reminded of what I was taught in medical school over thirty years ago: ‘maybe your patient’s disease didn’t read the textbook,’” writes LaPook. “Now, I need to add, ‘or The New York Post.’”

(Continue reading: TVNewser)