With the Oscar ballots safely ensconced in the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ vault, it’s time for movie buffs to wrangle the office pool from the sports fans for a week. And while pitting one film or performance against another is like comparing Junior Mints to Jello, that never stops pop culture pundits from making our annual best guesses on who will score Oscar gold.

With a couple of tight almost “too close to call” races, I admit a bit of trepidation surrounds this year’s predictions. And that’s actually good news for those of us who delight in the thrill of the upset.

Having said that, one thing is crystal clear: the 84 annual Academy Awards will surely be far more entertaining with Billy Crystal’s affable maestro’s touch replacing last year’s regrettable dip into the Fountain of Youth that unleashed the Anne Hathaway-James Franco hosting fiasco.

Now onto the predictions. Kick up some popcorn dust of your own; play along at home. Let’s meet back here back here Monday and compare scorecards.

Best Picture:

The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close- The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

In only the second year of the expanded (up to) 10 Best Picture nominees, the Academy only managed to eke out 9 contenders. Surely, they could have filled in that last spot with “The Ides of March” or “Albert Nobbs,” not to mention a cadre of acclaimed indies that are generally ignored like “Take Shelter” or “Martha Marcy May Marlene.” ( That the Spirit Awards, doled out on Oscar eve usually takes care of those gems is no excuse for Hollywood’s snub.)

But even with the larger field, Best Picture usually comes down to a two film race. This year it’s “The Artist,” that unexpected silent cinematic valentine vs. “The Descendants, ” an emotional, American masterpiece. But unlike last year when the showdown between early front runner “The Social Network” and inevitable victor, “The King’s Speech” came down to the wire and with some dramatic fanfare, this year should easily paint a pretty picture for the imported black-and- white celebration. In a match up of apples against oranges this one is a doozy. But the film is simply too inventive, too utterly delightful to ignore. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that its backed by the high-powered Weinstein marketing machine either. But so special–and exhilarating—-is “The Artist” that it really doesn’t need that big a push.

will win; “The Artist”

Best Director

The Artist
Michel Hazanavicius

The Descendants
Alexander Payne

Hugo
Martin Scorsese

Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen

The Tree of Life
Terrence Malick

This one appears to be a two-way battle between visionaries who paid homage to the golden years of classic cinema, Michel Hazanavicius for “The Artist” and Martin Scorsese for “Hugo.”

Hazanavicius won the primary predictor here, top honors from The Directors Guild, while Scorsese pulled off an upset by taking home the Golden Globe. But the beloved Scorsese won a better-late-than never Oscar for one of his lesser films, “The Departed.” And Hazanavicius also seems to be winning favor in Hollywood, continually expressing his earnest, just-happy-to-be nominated attitude.Such sincere respect often yields more of the same.

will win: Michel Hazanavicius

Best Actor

Demián Bichir
A Better Life

George Clooney
The Descendants

Jean Dujardin
The Artist

Gary Oldman
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Brad Pitt
Moneyball

The early money had George Clooney walking off with the Best Actor statuette for his powerful, emotional dance as the devastated dad in “The Descendants.” But after The Artist” star Jean Dujardin pulled off a whopper of an upset at the Screen Actors Guild, it’s a toss up. Could the ( oh, so expressive) face of that widely celebrated film win the Oscar, too?

I’m getting little help on this one. My trusty Magic 8 Ball keeps offering, “Reply hazy; try again later.” But Uggie–the suddenly famous dog from “The Artist“– who Jimmy Kimmel has anointed his official Oscar prognosticator, actually picked Clooney over his co-star.

I tend to agree. It’s hard to see Clooney, easily one of Hollywood’s favorite sons losing to a relatively unknown foreigner. Especially for such a career high performance. But hey, stranger things have happened. Remember Roberto Benigni?

It’s a really close call. Both actors are so strong. And while the SGA is usually the best predictor for the Oscar, I think Clooney’s Hollywood stock will inch him up to the podium. But just barely.

will win: George Clooney

Best Actress

Glenn Close
Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis
The Help

Rooney Mara
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep
The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams
My Week With Marilyn

This one is so tough, my 8 Ball delivers snarky pronouncements like “If I knew this, I wouldn’t be working for you;” “Go away, kid, you bother me, ” and the latest, “Rick Santorum.”

Viola Davis, the true heart of the beloved “The Help” was the early favorite. That was back in the summer. Before Lady Streep entered with her remarkable performance as Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady.” After all, Streep’s the Academy’s reigning queen, with 17 nominations ( the most ever). But, while she’s nominated almost every year or so, she hasn’t taken home a prize since “Sophie’s Choice.” And that was back in 1983. So there’s real sentiment for Streep to finally win again. And she deserves it. Again.

But Davis is so great here and she’s yet to score Oscar gold. It’s pretty even going in: Streep nabbed the Globe and the British Academy Award, but Davis snagged the Critics’ Choice and more importantly the Screen Actor’s Guild Award. That’s the one that usually calls it.

Interesting to note: Uggie’s Kimmel prediction: he chose both Streep and Davis. Start spinning the rare tie rumor. Unlikely, I know, but it happened back in 1969 when both Katherine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand won for “The Lion in Winter” and “Funny Girl” respectively.

Of course a real upset would find Glenn Close at the podium for her brilliant “Albert Nobbs” performance.

Will win: Viola Davis

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh
My Week With Marilyn

Jonah Hill
Moneyball

Nick Nolte
Warrior

Christopher Plummer
Beginners

Max von Sydow
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

It’s nice Jonah Hill got on base for “Moneyball,” but this one’s shaping up to be an unofficial lifetime achievement award. And it looks like second-time nominee Christopher Plummer will take home his first Oscar for his his heartrending turn as a fatally ill septuagenarian who’s just come out of the closet in “Beginners.” The venerable 80-something actor–who’s racked up SAG and Golden Globe victories– deserves the coveted statue on the merits of this performance in this under-the-radar gem, but adding his 100 plus career projects only makes his Oscar quest ever more irresistible. There’s been a little Max Von Sydow buzz too, but “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” took such a critical and box office swan dive, it’s amazing it made the Best Picture list. And Nolte, too, is overdo for Oscar’s appreciation, but it’s doubtful he’ll get it for “The Warrior”

Will win: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Supporting Actress

Actress In a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo
The Artist

Jessica Chastain
The Help

Melissa McCarthy
Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer
Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer
The Help

The easiest, breeziest pick of all comes from a category that used to be the annual wild card. Remember the early 90′s? Winners Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Whoopi Goldberg and Anna Paquin were wild upsets. But recent winners like Melissa Leo, Mo’Nique and Jennifer Hudson were front-runners from the get-go.

And an upset this year is about as likely as a Sarah Palin presidential run. Jessica Chastain may be Hollywood’s “it” girl of the moment, having turned in a year of weighty performances in “The Tree of Life,” “The Debt” as well as her nominated portrait of the boozy outcast in “The Help.” But it’s her co-star Octavia Spencer, who keeps mopping up the floor against the competition, winning the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and SAG awards for her performance as the tough-but-vulnerable, inventive pie-making maid Minnie. If Viola Davis is the heart of the film, Spencer’s the soul. Watch as she’ll likely add another piece of silverware to her mantel Sunday night.

Will win: Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

Best Original Screenplay
The Artist
Written by Michel Hazanavicius

Bridesmaids
Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig

Margin Call
Written by J.C. Chandor

Midnight in Paris
Written by Woody Allen

A Separation
Written by Asghar Farhadi

Woody Allen’s the easy money here. He already picked up the Writer’s Guild Award for his biggest commercial success, a film that pays homage to his both his literary icons and his own vintage films. Not to mention he hasn’t scored Oscar gold in decades either.
Will win: “Midnight in Paris”

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Descendants
Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

Hugo
Screenplay by John Logan

The Ides of March
Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon

Moneyball
Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Story by Stan Chervin

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Screenplay by Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

“The Artist” may have the Best Picture mojo, but Alexander Payne will settle for the same consolation prize he took home for “Sideways.”

Will win: “The Descendants”

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris
Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli

Chico & Rita
Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal

Kung Fu Panda 2
Jennifer Yuh Nelson

Puss in Boots
Chris Miller

Rango
Gore Verbinski

With the absence of “Gnomeo and Juliet” Trudi, my pint-sized pal with the crazy hairdo, wants me to boycott this category. All I can do is offer a prediction without comment.

Will win: “Rango”

Best Foreign Language Film

Belgium, “Bullhead”
Michael R. Roskam, director

Canada, “Monsieur Lazhar”
Philippe Falardeau, director

Iran, “A Separation”
Asghar Farhadi, director

Israel, “Footnote”
Joseph Cedar, director

Poland, “In Darkness”
Agnieszka Holland, director

Will Win: “A Separation”

Best Original Song

Another “Gnomeo and Juliet” snub with the omission of the catchy Elton John song “Hello, Hello.” Surely they had room. With only two nominations in this category it’s a toss up between
“Man or Muppet,” from “The Muppets” and Real in Rio,” “Rio”

will win: the Muppets!

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tintin
John Williams

The Artist
Ludovic Bource

Hugo
Howard Shore

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Alberto Iglesias

War Horse
John Williams

Will win:: “The Artist”

Best Documentary Feature

Hell and Back Again
Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky

Pina
Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel

Undefeated
TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Rich Middlemas

“Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” should win on its social activism alone. It is the latest in a series of films that actually helped right a miscarraige of justice, turning over the wrongful murder convictions of the Memphis 3. That it’s a compelling film only adds to its case for Oscar.

Will win: “Paradise Lost 3″

The 84 annual Academy Awards airs Sunday on ABC. Check out the official Oscar site for a complete list of nomniations and extras.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

One year ago, the voice of Marc parent suddenly went silent on the internet.  His online presence was extremely influential.  Marc was one of those hyperactive activists whose broadcasting was busy, intense, and focused on real change and reform to try to make the world a better place.  There was no better content aggregator and very few bigger influencers in the social media world.  Illness suddenly struck, and Marc Parent passed away on March 28th, 2011 at the age of 59.

I never met Marc personally.  I don’t even know what he looks like, and could not find a picture of him after an exhaustive search online.  That doesn’t matter.  Connecting with someone online is just as profound and powerful of an experience as knowing them in person.

Twitter

Marc was probably most famous online for his Twitter account at @mparent77772.  Over 82,000 people followed him there and he was important enough to be listed 2653 times.  His presence was huge.  He logged 119,219 tweets, most of which were links to a variety of subjects revolving around freedom, reform, politics, human rights, and world news.

His location was listed as “In front of my screen” reflecting the massive amounts of time he dedicated to online activism.  His profile read, “Blogger – Interwebber on politics, finance, news, media, society, government, the internets – CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER“.  Marc’s final online communication came on March 17th with this tweet: “Colin Powell demands answers over false Iraq intel http://bit.ly/fB5YwZ”

YouTube

Marc had a very popular YouTube channel under the name CrimesandCorruption.  Opened on the Winter Solstice of 2008, it had 392 subscribers, over 500 subscriptions, and had almost 200,000 channel views.  Marc never uploaded a video, and only listed to as favorites: “Philip Zimbado: A Study of Evil” about the the horrors of Abu Ghraib anda MoxNews recording of how Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

Digg

Digg was also a focal point for Marc’s efforts.  Although he was a member since the end of April 2007, I didn’t notice a massive uptake of activism there until later in 2008.  667 people followed him there, and he dugg up over 12,000 while submitting (sharing) a massive tome of 6288 articles.

Blip

Marc loved being a DJ on Blip.fm.  He played an eclectic mix of music that was heavy on the atmospheric electronica with sounds from BlueTech and Tosca.

Google Reader

You can get a feel for what inspired Marc’s activism on his reader list.

Blogging

The first reference to a blog by Marc that I could find was on blogspot starting in 2006.  That soon sprouted into a second blogspot blog and then a third one.  Others can also be found on his profile page.  This appears to have moved to LiveJournal in 2008 with another blogging venture at PrePosterous.

Facebook

Marc’s posted on his Facebook wall on February 9th, stating, “back again for who knows how long. i answer all personal facebook (only email) messages. comments msssages i answer only in a public way. i like news tips and such. so please feel free to write. miss you guys, terribly. best, marc“.

Two days later, Marc shared the tragic news that his life was coming to an end: “been sicker than a hound dog for several weeks. not convinced yet as a few tests, doctor interviews remain, but te latest medical guess by a doc who who gave me decent service for a few years is I have 2-3 months left to annoy critics online. looks like I’m headed to a better place sooner than expected. I’m at peace with that. thing is I have a lot of loose ends to tie up, and need to preserve enough wherewithal to accomplish them and still have some fun.”

The responses from his many online friends are heart felt.  His last posting was on February 17th, and then it was silent.

Online Funeral Announcement: PARENT, Marc Joseph Claude March 16, 1952 – March 28, 2011 On March 28, 2011, Marc Parent of Edmonton peacefully passed away at the age of 59 years. He is survived by his children, Ryan, Jason and Megan; mother Colette Parent-Savaria (Leo-Paul); two sisters, Suzanne (Len) Buchniak and Lorraine (James) Hook as well as one brother, Pierre, and nephews and nieces. Marc was predeceased by his father, Albert and his nephew John. A Funeral Mass will be held at 10:30 a.m., April 2, 2011 at St. Joachim, 9928 – 110 Street, Edmonton, AB.

You can view the obituary guestbook here, which contains voices from around the world.

StumbleUpon (SU) is a challenging social bookmarking site to get a large, loyal following and content traction. It is less ergonomic than the social news site Digg, less functional than Reddit, and less social than both, but since they are sites that cater to current news, SU eventually will be the place where content can get far more long term evergreen traffic. SU is similar to Delicious in that the focus is strictly on bookmarking sites, but is far larger with 20 million users. Where they differ is that SU encourages more exploration, has a superior interface design, although contains a less advanced organizational system.

In a very counter-intuitive design, there is no real SU homepage that displays fresh or popular content. The focus is on content discovery accessed from your profile page or the toolbar. SU went through an massive redesign in December 2011 which streamlined the interface but removed some functionality (such as blogging) which caused some long-time users to abandon the site in favor of social blogging sites such as Tumblr and Posterous (Delicious saw a similar rebellion after their redesign in Sept. 2011).

SU takes out a lot of the social element from social media. You can still leave comments, but conversations for articles are virtually non-existent. There is a built in messaging system that you can use to exchange messages with other users however.

General Strategies
Start by filling out your profile. Keep your bio brief and to the point, but list your other social media profiles using html. Connect to your Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin accounts.

Then start stumbling. Before you can expect to get strong support from anyone, you should try to have given a thumbs up to thousands of webpages (10k if possible). This requires a big investment in time initially, but most users are able to thumbs up about 200 things per day using the SU toolbar or mobile app (covered later), meaning that reaching this goal should only take a few months. Try focusing on one tag section each day and dive in. Be forewarned however that stumbling is highly addictive.

At this point, begin to seek out other strong progressives to befriend (suggested list below) and check out those who have already added you to see which ones you want to add back. Send everyone who you follow a short message saying hello and letting them know you are following them and accepting shares. Give a thumbs up on their profile page and review it (write a quick blurb saying why they’re awesome) using the tag ‘stumblers’.

Also at this stage, you can start to post more content to SU (called discovering). Use the appropriate tags (section below) and write a comment (called reviewing). Make sure to discover content from a wide variety of sources, nothing turns people off more than a user that only discovers and shares their own blog or one favorite website.

It is speculated that SU users are covertly weighted by an algorithm that depends on their contributions, particularly how many thumbs up/down they have given and other factors. Attaining a higher level along with a strong attentive following is the key to getting traction on SU.

Tools
While there are not many useful external websites to help your SU experience, there are 2 very important tools you must use. The first is the SU Toolbar.  This will take up a strip of real estate on your browser, but will have the needed buttons to stumble, thumbs up/down pages, show the number of things others have shared with you waiting your view, allow you to share pages, and other things. It is the essential way to use SU on your browser.

StumbleUpon has also developed an excellent app for your mobile device. Once you log in, you will see all of your favorite tags (interests) and can jump into pages in these sections.

Tags and Channels
When discovering content (being the first one to give a thumbs up to an article), use 5 tags (interests). Tags are used to file the webpage to a particular category where other stumblers can locate it by topic. For progressives, the top tag to use is liberal-politics.  Other suggested tags include:

politics
News(General)
Political Science
activism
humanitarianism
law
Government
drugs
liberties
anarchism
secularism
freethought
atheist-agnostic
atheist
atheism
agnostic
humanism
science
environment
nature
Ecology
green
conservation
Internet Tools

You can find content far easier if you subscribe to site channels  for the websites that feed you great information. This is still in the trial stage and there are not many progressive website channels available, but more should follow.

Sharing
When  you discover and review a webpage that you would like to get more eyeballs on, you can share it using SU. Hit Share on the toolbar, scroll down to Stumblers, then select those you would like to share this page with (write a couple words or a very brief message of thanks or about the article). Install the EasyCheckboxes GreaseMonkey Script to save time by checking every box to share at once (doesn’t work on the toolbar, share from your profile page, and this requires the Firefox browser). You can also share it on Facebook and Twitter this way (you will see the url on Twitter as an SU link).

While sharing is the biggest way to get the ball rolling for article traction, it must be used sparingly. If you try to share content too often, you will lose friends, or they will stop accepting shares from you, thereby defeating the point. There are a couple different strategies how you can maximize your impact.

Figure out who is sharing content with you on a regular basis. The general rule is the most active users can be sent a maximum of one share per day. For those who only share content with you occasionally, share one thing every 3 or 4 days. Others can be shared with once per week, and you can break down your friends list into 7 different groups, sharing one article per day with each group. There may even be a few casual users that you only share the most important articles with on a monthly basis.

Drop anyone who shares more than one link per day on average. With your other social media activities, you will find 5 of these SU users draining far too much of your time. You can see who is actually supporting your shares by looking at your Discoveries.  Put your pointer over Friends Who Like This (shown as an icon of a man with a username + x# friends) to see who is helping, but also go to ‘reviews’ since not everyone shows up. Not everyone will be helping you out, so feel free to only follow and accept shares from those who give you some support, but be patient with people too. The real world always takes precedence over the online realm.

Top Progressive Stumblers
There was a time when you could link up with other activists on the dozens of excellent groups on SU that facilitated the sharing of excellent content by theme, but these were discontinued in the latest version. As noted above, once you have reached the threshold of ~5000 stumbles, you can start adding folks and sending them an introductory hello. While it is best to bookmark users you like while doing your initial stumbling so you can add them at this point, below are some more that you might be interested in adding.
SU Icons
Spocko
sarahlee
yobaba
shihtzuman
saboma
pinkpackrat
tbhurst
Anomaly100
ouspensky
paulrfrank
mysticdave
cranelake
jMichaelEdwards
Darque
HughDB

Bold Progressives
jtucker65
wwsmith
lola775
ArbiInc
janinewallace
CaptainPlanet71
DireWolf11
RozAgain
PhilPerspective
theDudeDean
alapoet
johnnr2
dmegivern
LiberalTexan
LiamFox
polymath22

Content Discoverers
joshuastarlight
btrfly54935
graphictruth
stephencwebster
Cosmic-Surfer
toyotabedzrock
starfocus
mschase1972
davide2323
cyberdyno

That said, the situation has now festered so much that it has reached a point of no return. While the big regional and international players are interfering in Syria’s affairs by siding with either the Assad regime or the so called revolution, they are not addressing what should be a much bigger regional and global concern: Can the civil war in Syria be contained or will it spread to surrounding countries and ignite a full blown sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites? While the already precarious stability of the entire region is at stake, two countries are in the “direct line of fire” of a Syrian civil war domino effect: Lebanon and Iraq.

The Case of Lebanon

In a recent conversation with our Lebanese contributor, Anthony Zeitouni, this issue was addressed. Zeitouni said that “Lebanon is always five minutes away from a civil war”. Indeed, the balance in Lebanon between the three communities( Shiites, Sunnis and Christians) has been extremely fragile for decades. Hezbollah (Shiites) main backers are the Assad regime and Iran. The likely regime change in Syria will make them much weaker and they might be inclined to show they strength, both internally and towards Israel, while they still can. In return, Sunnis and Christians could wrongly assess that the Syrian crisis is a perfect opportunity to diminish the power of Hezbollah by attacking them. In Syria, the small Christian minority( always tolerated by the Assad regime) has already left, seeking refuge in Lebanon or preferably in Europe, Canada or America. But in Lebanon, the much larger Christian population could be caught in the middle of a civil war between Hezbollah and the Sunnis.

The Case of Iraq

If in Lebanon a civil war is always “five minutes away”, in Iraq the sectarian conflict between the Shiite majority and the Sunni minority is always present and doesn’t even need a spark to reignite. Since the official withdraw of the US military, the sectarian tensions have increased and could, at any given time, reach a boiling point. Even if Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government is officially an ally of the United States, al-Maliki must perform an increasingly tricky balancing act with Iran. Maliki has also to deal with the increasing power of the charismatic cleric al-Sadr who is closely aligned with Tehran. In any case, sectarian issues( al-Maliki is a Shiite) would quickly supersede any other consideration for  al-Maliki – including the alliance with the United States- any other choice would be suicide. Under the pressure of al-Sadr, and of Iraq’s Shiite community, al-Maliki might ultimately dropped his alliance with the United States and side with Iran.

How Syria’s Civil War Could become a War within Islam

Western powers assume that the Middle-East operates according to national borders and interests and always forget that the main divide is between Sunnis and Shiites. The West, and especially the United States, has fueled this tension  for decades by implementing a rudimentary geopolitical strategy of “divide and conquer” through the clumsy instigation of conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites. Syrians- Sunnis and Shiites alike- are now paying the ultimate price. The United States and its allies are now siding with Sunnis and their key Saudis backers. It is,needless to say, a “master plan” against Iran and its allies such as Hezbollah. But the collateral damage will be all the Shiite communities in the region. Engineering a war within Islam might not be the motive behind this disastrous geopolitical strategy, but it is likely- providing that the Syrian civil war spread-to be the outcome. Neither Sunnis nor Shiites and certainly not Islam have anything to gain from this.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Freedom House.

The notion of praxis has been largely worked upon, since the Greek Philosophers, but it was Marx who expanded the notion to economic, political and social levels of noisy polemic argumentativity, when the author defined it as a concrete human activity of production/reproduction and transformation of nature, of society and of men. Praxis literally means: action, activity. We act when we speak, we act when we think, when we feel, when we dream; our cells, the cells of every living being are in permanent activity.

In linguistic terms of pragmatic entanglement, to speak, to discourse are communicational interactive dynamics, taking place in intersubjectively shared communitary situational contexts: every human individual action/activity incorporates communicable cognitive/empirical dynamical syntheses that include what Kant designated by “sensus communis”, that is, a faculty of reflexive judgment that, in its reflexive activity, considers, “a priori”, the place of the other, understanding the other as any possible existent of a community of individuals capable of reason and feelings.

To think by oneself implies, in the postulated Kantian “sensus communis”, simultaneously, to think “placing” oneself in the irreducible topos of the other, in the sense of an irreducible reciprocity. The Kantian “sensus communis” carries a sense of irrecusable responsibility of connection to the others, understanding by “the others” the whole of the indeterminable generation in each present. We are doomed to live and die together, our survival kit includes, deterministically, an innate disposition towards sociability: we are capable of interpreting facts, events and experiences, attributing to them intersubjectively sharable senses and meanings. The responsibility is not a choice, it is a duty/imperative that places itself in face of the “arbitriu” of each one with an ontology of necessity of existence, necessity of life.

“Rhizomating” some notions of systemics, phenomenology, Marx and Varela, it is acceptable the statement that the intersubjective systemic activity of the relations of production and productive forces enacted the technoglobal interface of the current trans-subjective survival networks that are condensated in irresponsible Kafkian looping of recycling.

The secrets of life, the secrets of the world, the precarious apocalypses, the fears, the guilts, the regrets transhumate in the Babelonic web, zombified by a judicative inability, while, in the big screen, our indignity, our misery, our problems ritualize in the electromagnetic field the projectivity of Darwinian sustainability: unemployment, hunger, epidemics, global warming, extreme weather patterns, loss of biodiversity, ecological disasters, degradation of the soil, desertification, air, sea and rivers’ pollution,…, extinctions.

With some inspiration in André Leroi-Gourhan (“Le geste et la parole”), we question ourselves: how is it that protoplasmic mammals, like us, whose “archaic needs” constitute the engine of evolutionary sustainability, will push our transplanetary Sisyphic techno-rock, if we fail to do the communicational perceptive jump that allows us to understand that the things, the others, and ourselves, life, existence are not (we are not) reducible to the desiring egoticity of the precarious incipient and unreflected niches of powers?!

Images of water droplets causing subsequent ‘ripple effect’ by David Simonetti

Editors Note: Maria Odete Madeira is an Interdisciplinary Researcher in Philosophy of Science, Ontology, Systems Science, Cognition and Neurocognition.

Regime Change in Syria as a Preliminary Stage for an Attack on Iran

As the civil war in Syria intensifies, an intense diplomatic battle is on the way world wide between two blocks. On one hand are Israel, the United States and its European vassals, the UK, France and Germany and on the other hand are Russia and to a lesser extent China. The Western block is pushing for regime change in Syria on the ground of the humanitarian crisis provoked by al-Assad’s brutal repression of the opposition. But humanitarian concerns are, just like in the case of Libya, merely a smoke screen hiding a much darker agenda. There is no point in contesting that al-Assad is a dictator, but the civil war in Syria could have been avoided if pressure would have been put on Bashar al-Assad not to let his blood thirsty and border line lunatic brother Maher al-Assad be in charge of the brutal crackdown. The pressure on Bashar al-Assad to get rid off Maher should have been put on him months ago by the long term allies of the al-Assad’s regime which include Russia and Iran. The US empire is now seeking a UN resolution on Syria to reproduce the same scenario implemented in Libya. Russia and China will veto such a resolution, but it will not necessary prevent NATO to intervene militarily. The Obama administration’s rhetoric is now reflecting the possibility of an imminent intervention by the use of line such as “all options are on the table” which usually means that military plans- either direct or through various proxies- are at an advanced stage of preparation.

Egypt, Libya and  Syria: Proxy “Revolutions” for the Benefit of  Saudi Arabia’s Autocrats

A year ago, the Arab Spring brought down dictator Hosni Mubarak. A year later this jubilant mood has been replaced by frustration and a sense that little has been accomplished. The Egyptian army is still in charge, and the elections saw a victory of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis fundamentalists. Compared to last year, the crowd in Tahrir Square was anemic and the Muslim Brotherhood aligned itself with the military rulers by condemning a call for general strike. While  tension seems to be growing between the US and the top brass of the Egyptian military, the army and the Muslim Brotherhood, despite a rocky start, are becoming increasingly comfortable bed fellows. As the influence of the United States is fading in Egypt, it is in the process of being replaced by the growing leverage of Saudi Arabia on Egyptian affairs through their allies of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even so both, the Libyan and Syrian revolutions were started by genuine activists inspired by Tunisians and Egyptians, the West quickly saw an opportunity to change the geopolitical landscape in the Middle-East to serve their interests for resources in Libya, and in the case of the unfolding events in Syria further isolate Iran. But once again, the United States geopolitical scheme is deeply flawed. What happened in Iraq could happened in Syria but this time around in reverse and with several disturbing twists. The fact that both Qaddafi and al-Assad respectively were and are dictators is not contestable, but what is questionable is the genuine concerns about the fate of  Libyans and Syrians expressed by the United States and their European allies. In the case of Libya, the NATO intervention, backed by the UN, was not about helping the Arab revolution but about getting rid off an unpredictable ruler and, of course, oil. For Syria, it is not about helping the Arab revolution either but rather to fulfill three goals: isolate Iran, cut off  Hezbollah supply route for funding and arms- coming from Iran through Syria- and diminish Russia’s influence in the region. In the three cases of Egypt, Libya and down the line Syria, the winner is not the Arab revolution, but instead the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which can be considered as the most despotic regime in the region.

Geopolitical Blunders Which Could Trigger an all out War between Sunnis and Shiites

If Iraq was a gross miscalculation from the United States which in the end was beneficial to the Shiites and Iran, as noted above, the recent events in Egypt, Libya and now Syria will be a net gain for the Sunnis and Saudi Arabia. There is a sense of deja vu here in terms of America’s geopolitical limited acumen. In the 1980s, a similar strategy was implemented by the Reagan administration to use their then good friend Saddam Hussein to attack Iran. The carnage on both sides only made Iran stronger, but  it also revived the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. More recently the US invasion of Iraq had the same side effect of bringing to a boiling point the 600 year old sectarian conflict within Islam.

It is likely that both in Washington and Israel, some are considering the scenario of  creating a proxy all out regional war between Sunnis and Shiites as the ultimate master plan. Cynically the benefits from the Israeli and American stand point might be viewed as “killing two birds with one stone”. However, there are so many different and conflicting interests in this geopolitical conundrum that the end game is likely to be a global disaster. At the moment this is what seems to be the most likely case scenario. Once al-Assad is gone, Israel would strike Iran under the pretense of preventing Teheran from completing its nuclear program. Iran will retaliate by blocking the straight of Hormuz and attacking oil tankers. Saudi Arabia, if they are naive enough to take the bait, would then attack Iran. Iraq would quickly become under the control of al-Sadr, and side with Iran. In Lebanon, once cut off from their vital Iranian supplies coming through Syria, Hezbollah would attack Israel which would then in return bomb and invade Lebanon.

This cataclysmic chain of events would make oil prices go easily at $200.00 a barrels within weeks by interrupting not only production but transit. This, in return, would plunge an already shaky world economy (especially Europe ) into a depression worse than 1929. Europe has become the vassal of America both politically and economically, and neither Germany, the UK or even France will resist the will of their master in Washington DC. This leave only three big players to stop the madness of a war against Iran: Russia and China, in both cases militarily and economically and Central and South America, politically and economically in terms of resources. Many questions remain: will Russia and China combine their effort and use their strength and substantial military assets to stop a war against Iran or will they be weak just like in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will China, Germany, Japan, and Brazil-the biggest holders in US Treasury Bonds- will use the threat of a massive sale of their four trillions dollars in holding as the ultimate leverage against the United States? Will a major economic depression trigger real revolutions across the globe including in Western Europe and the United States? Indeed, “all options are on the table” for the US empire, but it is hard to foresee anything else than World War III if the ultimate folly of attacking Iran is not stopped by Russia and China.

Fifty medical doctors who favor a single payer health insurance system today urged the US Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate.

In a brief filed with the Court, the fifty doctors and two non-profit groups – Single Payer Action and It’s Our Economy – said that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is the provision of the ACA that requires Americans to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies if they do not otherwise have coverage.

The doctors are challenging the government’s claim that the individual mandate is necessary to reach Congress’ goal of universal coverage.

“The court should decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate based on the best available evidence,” said attorney Oliver Hall. “That’s why it is so important that these medical doctors provide the court with the information in their brief, which demonstrates that Congress can address the United States’ healthcare crisis by adopting a single payer system.”

“It is not necessary to force Americans to buy private health insurance to achieve universal coverage,” said Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action. “There is a proven alternative that Congress didn’t seriously consider, and that alternative is a single payer national health insurance system.”

“Congress could have taken seriously evidence presented by these single payer medical doctors that a single payer system is the only way to both control costs and cover everyone,” Mokhiber said. “Instead, Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), chair of the Senate Finance Committee which drafted the law that became the ACA, had two of those doctors – Dr. Margaret Flowers and Dr. Carol Paris – arrested and thrown in jail. Those doctors are now two of the 50 who have signed onto this brief challenging the Constitutionality of the ACA.”

“If the US Congress had considered an evidence-based approach to health reform instead of writing a bill that funnels more wealth to insurance companies that deny and restrict care, it would have been a no brainer to adopt a single payer health system much like our own Medicare,” said Dr. Margaret Flowers. “We are already spending enough on health care in this country to provide high quality universal comprehensive lifelong health care. All the data point to a single payer system as the only way to accomplish this and control health care costs.”

“People will have the greatest control of their own healthcare if the insurance industry is removed from between doctors and patients,” said Kevin Zeese of It’s Our Economy. “And, people will no longer be threatened with increased premiums, decreased coverage and financial ruin caused by a health crisis.”

Both Kevin Zeese and Dr. Margaret Flowers are organizers with the National Occupation of Washington, D.C. (nowdc.org).

The hypocrisy of US Foreign Policy is once again drawn into the spotlight as the worlds largest weapons exporter attempts to take the moral high-ground against brutal dictators armed with American weapons.

News Junkie Post’s Editor-in-Chief, Gilbert Mercier, joins US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, as well as Chris Hedges and WarIsBusiness.com Editor Corey Pein to explore the deadly escalation. Profit fueled motivations that exacerbate the geopolitical games being played around Iran take center stage in this dynamic discussion.

As reported by RT:

Amid fresh rebel atrocities, US criticism is ringing of arms sales to Syria are ringing hollow as weapons Washington sells to Authoritarian Gulf regimes fall within reach of the Free Syrian Army.

­The situation around Syria is being painted in comic book black and white for the public eye. There is evil Assad. There are his innocent victims. There are heroic countries eager to ride to the rescue in the shiny armor. And there are Russia and China abusing their veto right at the UN Security Council not to allow it. Out of greed or out of solidarity of dictators, depending on whom you ask.

When it comes to Assad, international law is apparently irrelevant for the US. Only morality is. And helping Assad, for instance, by selling arms to his regime, is immoral by default, believes Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN.

“They say there isn’t an international embargo on arms preventing them from doing that. That is a fact. But that doesn’t change the immorality of supplying a dictatorial regime that is killing its people in massive numbers every day. And we are deeply concerned about that and whatever else may have been motivating the Russian and Chinese decision to align themselves repeatedly with Assad and his brutal tactics,” she said in an interview on MSNBC.

The public scolding, however, comes from someone living in a tremendous glass house, critics say.

“The US is hugely hypocritical in this regard. They’ve long been the largest arms dealer and most of those weapons that the US has sold historically – more than $400 billion worth since the 1960′s – have gone to the Middle East. And you can’t argue seriously that it’s made that region any more stable in the past five decades,” Corey Pein, editor at warisbusiness.com, told RT.

In the past few years, nearly 50 per cent of US weapon exports have been flowing to the Middle East. Many countries with the biggest appetite for American weapons can be called anything but pillars of democracy and champions of human rights. Some of them, like Bahrain, have also made headlines for carrying out brutal crackdowns against dissidents and opposition groups.

The double standard approach is hard not to notice, says author and journalist Chris Hedges.

“If you’re our thug, you’re ok and if you’re their thug, you’re not. For all of us that have been overseas, the duplicity and hypocrisy of American foreign policy is painfully evident,” he told RT.

According to congressional figures, America has sold $1.4 billion worth of weapons to Bahrain since 2000. America struck its single biggest arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which ordered $60 billion worth of arms.

The US has long subsidized the Israeli military and recently supplied them with bunker-buster bombs. Those are handy for attacking other countries’ fortified sites, for instance, Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

Experts say this strategic arming of Middle Eastern countries is aimed at extending US dominance in the region. Iran coincidentally is the biggest regional force opposing America.

“The deal that is going on right now is a massive build-up against Iran. It’s not at all about human rights issues. It’s all about some geopolitical games,” Gilbert Mercier, editor-in-chief at newsjunkiepost.com, told RT.

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has accused America of playing particularly dirty while leading a campaign for regime change in Syria.

“It’s not some kind of simultaneous uprising situation, when people are rebelling and suddenly they are mysteriously armed and mysteriously arms are being smuggled into Syria from Turkey. Well who is providing these arms? Nobody is asking in the US media. Well these are US arms shipped to Turkey. And from Turkey, it’s being smuggled into Syria,” she claimed.

Flushed with record revenue, the American defense industry continues to lobby its interests on Capitol Hill.

“Arms manufacturers are some of the biggest companies in America. They’re some of the most powerful… They’re even involved in elections, in some ways. In the United States, if you step back and look at it, making weapons is really the last pillar of the manufacturing sector in this country,” Pein explains.

With the Middle East tension evidentially going from bad to worse, the world’s biggest arms seller is unlikely to drop out of business. Neither is it likely to stop advocating peace, especially when the competitors are facing criticism, not the US itself.

Most people would argue that the use of violence for the protection of self, their loved ones, or those more vulnerable, is justified.  Not as revenge, but as a necessary measure to combat a crime in progress.  A desire for revenge may be understandable, and even acceptable to some, but that’s not the topic.  The topic is defense.  The defense of others and ourselves.  The immediate interference in an assailants ability to inflict harm, or end a life, as the result of their current actions.

The state often uses a doctrine of preemptive measures to justify its violence.  Evidence of a crime is not necessary.  A perceived threat, or imagined potential of a challenge to the states ability to maintain control, is all that is required to warrant acts of violence ranging from human rights violations against individuals to military actions killing hundreds of thousands.  Even if a misguided sense of Nationalism causes you to agree with this doctrine, like revenge, preemptive action is not the topic.

Defense is the issue.  The right, even the necessity, to employ violence as a means of protection, is the point.  If someone is committing an act of violence against you, you have the right to use violence to stop them.  If someone is committing an act of violence against someone unable to defend themselves, you have the obligation to use any means necessary, even violence, to stop them.  Sometimes, employing violence as an act of self defense against an overwhelming enemy serves only to draw attention to your plight, or the plight of the defenseless, and bring others to your aid.  This too is a justified use of violence.

An argument over the definition of violence is often used to distract from the real issue.  The real issue is violence against humanity, or humans.  You may consider throwing a brick through a window violent.  You may be right.  However, if your value system equates a window, or a brick, or the corporation that owns the window that the brick flew through, with a human life, you may have much deeper issues to be resolved.

If your argument is simply that violence begets violence, you’re ignoring the fact that continued passivity has only encouraged increased violence.  Corporations, and States, have never ceased their acts of violence because of a lack of opposition.  They only stop once they get what they want.  To acquiesce, and accept their terms for your compliance, is not a victory for passivity.  The control and ownership imposed when we comply is a grotesque act of violence against humanity in and of itself.  By those rules, you must give up your life in order to keep it.  It’s a slave mentality.  Excuses not to defend oneself, or the vulnerable among us, are simply that, excuses.

There’s been a great deal of discussion about the ‘violence’ of Black Bloc tactics.  The unconscionable act of vandalizing the ill-gotten property of corporations and financial institutions, that fund the endless wars and exploit millions of workers, has received criticism from all quarters.  These institutions, that treat people as disposable, seem to have convinced many that they have the right, protected by the state, to have the resulting profits treated as unassailable while they remain unaccountable for their crimes.  Protesters, on the other hand, are held to a strict code of conduct not applied to the criminals that victimize us all. If this continues to be allowed, what does it say about our values?

State sanctioned crime, including brutality and murder by the police, the military, and the prison system, as well as corporate crime committed through depraved indifference, criminal misconduct, and intentional acts of violence, do not even find their way into the annual FBI crime statistics.  There is not one mention of a banker complicit in profiting from the scuttling of the economy in 2007, or the politicians that assisted them.  George Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, or companies such as Halliburton don’t make any ten most wanted list for the millions of lives they’ve destroyed through unjust military campaigns or war profiteering.  There’s no bounty being offered for Big Oil or Big Pharma executives, or their Boards of Directors, despite the damage they inflict on the environment and billions of people. But, somewhere in the FBI tomes that catalogue the sins of man, you’ll find a record of that single broken Bank of America window for which some poor schmuck was punished.

WalMart, the worlds largest corporation, exploits workers at home and abroad, both in manufacturing and retail, and destroys the communities it invades with impunity.  The very existence of a WalMart store is a guarantee that thousands, perhaps even millions, of  lives are been negatively impacted, exploited, and often irrevocably ruined.   Where is the outrage over that? Why are they allowed to continue?  An individual guilty of the same would be locked away.  WalMart gets tax breaks, and politicians lining up for ribbon cutting ceremonies for the next new super center.

If there is a criticism of Black Bloc tactics, perhaps it should be that they have been insufficient to stop the ongoing corporate and state violence.  What good is breaking a window, or spray-painting a wall, or rolling a dumpster into the street and setting it on fire, if nothing comes of it but negative press?  All the good intentions, the important message, and the righteous cause, are useless without a medium to communicate them to the masses.  Independent and social media have grown but they are nothing compared to corporate media.  What reach the new media does have, and the growth it has experienced, is being actively challenged by legislation designed to allow the state to censor, control, and even eliminate it.  Symbolic action alone is not getting the job done, and it faces even more barriers to its efficacy in the future.

If you are witnessing someone being assaulted, what good is yelling at a brick wall, wishing that those on the other side might hear you? Wouldn’t the best way to stop the assault be to stop the assault, by whatever means necessary?  Yelling at the wall, or spray-painting ‘HELP’ on it, may make you feel like you’re doing something, but what are you actually accomplishing?  Perhaps we need to judge actions based on their ability to achieve a necessary goal rather than simply on the statement they make.  Perhaps actions that bring an end to the crimes being committed will speak louder than actions that simply provide fodder for the mainstream media. Perhaps this should be the real criticism for Black Bloc tactics.  Not that they are too radical, but perhaps that they are not radical enough.

Black Bloc tactics have been the equivalent of a single courageous individual taking a stand against an overwhelming enemy, hoping that others will hear their plea and come to their aid.  As a society we’ve responded with cowardice.  We know that corporations are responsible for the ongoing assault on our environment.   We know that the State enables and supports them. We know that the State is becoming increasingly violent and oppressive.  We know that our government has been corrupted, purchased by the very forces it should be protecting us from.  We know that our rights and freedoms are being eroded by a state that monitors our every move and polices our every action. We know all this.  We know this despite the corporate mainstream media’s best attempts to stand as a brick wall between us and the truth. We know it is happening.   Yet, we stand by and allow the assault to continue.  We’ve become the crowd that stands around and criticizes the person who tries to stop the domestic violence. We are no better than the abuser we enable, perhaps worse for siding against those trying to do the right thing.

It’s ironic that those we know are responsible for killing both our planet and our fellow human beings are honored, while those that break a few windows, and spray a little paint, are characterized as a cancer.  CEOs responsible for countless deaths, and irreparable damage to our environment, have easy access to the President and are afforded all the protection the police, military, legislature, and judiciary can provide.  A protester will be granted only the wrath of the State if they come too close to the White House gate.

These values are backwards.  We protect those that would do us harm while we demonize those that fight for our protection, our freedom, and our emancipation.  Their actions pale in criminality compared to the State and the corporations they protest. In fact, it can be argued that their criminality only exists in the definition applied by the State, and the wealthy that control it. Are we shunning the cure while the real cancer is left untreated?  Is it because the cure needs to become more aggressive, and stop the spread of the cancer, in order to receive recognition for its true value?

We need to take an inventory of what we value before it’s too late.  We are trapped in a mindset of rewarding exploitation, corruption, and criminality – as long as it produces a profit – while condemning those with the courage to oppose it.  Somewhere deep down we know tis is wrong because we praise the courage of the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Syrians that are battling against corruption and oppression.  We just seem unable to show the same courage ourselves, and compound our sins by criticizing those that do.

We need to stop offering harsh judgment of Black Bloc tactics.  It does not speak well of our values. Those tactics, given the needed amount of support, can move beyond attempts to get our attention and potentially bring an end to the violence being perpetrated against humanity by the wealthy, the corporations they own, and the States they control.  In order to do this we need to join the struggle, not allow our cowardice to condemn it. There is right and there is wrong, and fighting to stop something that you know is wrong, is right.

all photos by Ap?s

In the Middle-Age, when courtly love-romantic love- started this notion had no correlation with material issues. Courtly love was a paradoxical experience of erotic desire and spiritual connection between lovers which today seems to be in complete opposition. Courtly love was a study in complexity and contrast, but not a futile exercise in contradiction. On one hand, on the erotic side it was often about breaking taboos, drifting into the irrational passion of lust without caring about humiliation and social stigma. On the other hand, it was pure, altruistic, of the highest moral order and almost transcendent.Romantic love was always dangerous, often secret and socially outside the norms.

Romantic love was never a “meat and potatoes” dinner, it was a feast reserved for the aristocracy. Marriage at the time, and one could argue that few things have changed, was mainly a business transaction. Within the aristocracy and amongst the European royal families marriages were not about love, but about wealth management and consolidation and political alliances between Kingdoms. The same logic was applied all the way down the social food chain. In India, until very recently marriages were arranged by parents with almost no say for the bride and groom to be in the matter.

In our time obsessed with money and social status, very little has changed as far as marriages being essentially business arrangements where the lust of sexual attraction serves as lure-at least for one of the partners- at the initiation and then as cement with a short life span if the lust element is the primary bond to the relationship. Currently, around 50 percent of all marriages, in the Western world where women can divorce freely, end up in divorces. Typically, couples fight and divorce over money and sex. However, since the economic crash of 2008, this ratio of marriages ending up in divorces has improved slightly. It is certainly not because couples with problems are going massively for couple counseling- as they should- but rather because economically they cannot afford a separation even less a divorce. Instead, they often have to live with “the enemy” under the same roof.

Real love-romantic love- is rare, it is harder to find than a needle in a hay stack. It is never about money or gain in social status, it is not to be confused with sexual attraction either. Both aspect, material gains and lust, have finite life spans. For real love, which is neither lust nor material arrangement, to last the bond has to be deeper than what most people call love. It has to be based mainly on a deep connection between two individuals, as if they were spiritually tied by an invisible umbilical cord. Only this type of love, unlike ordinary love, can transcend trivial notions such as money, lust and practicality. That said, most people settle for less, a lot less, because what they call love is only a crutch against loneliness.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Gilbert Mercier.