Wednesday, February 27, 2013

German General Pleas No Misdemeanor

What about a felony?


German Brig. General insists, no “misdemeanor” of ISAF troops in killing of Afghan civilians

ISAF spokesman Gunter Katz, denies “misdemeanor” after civilian death. Photo, ISAF

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) Only one day, after the spokesperson of President Harmid Karzai said, that Afghanistan´s National Security Council  had given American Forces two weeks to leave the Maidan Wardak province in central Afghanistan, the spokesman for the NATO-led ISAF, Brig. General Gunter Katz, denied any “misdemeanor” by ISAF forces in the recent killing of civilians in an air-strike.

Gunter Katz told media in Kabul, that the ISAF-forces were unaware of, that Afghanistan´s National Security Council had given US-American forces two weeks to leave the central Maidan Wardak province. Katz denied that there was any evidence of “misdemeanor” of American troops in the province, and insisted, that all operations in Maidan Wardak had been coordinated with Afghan Defense Forces.

The row between the Afghani government and ISAF arose shortly after the US-Air force had mounted an air-strike, which supposedly should target four Taliban fighters, and which resulted in the death of several unarmed Afghani non-combatants. Among the Afghan population, the USA is notorious for killing non-combatants in drone attacks, and ISAF forces in general, have since 2001 been criticized for the unlawful killing of thousands of Afghani civilians.

Skeptics among Afghanistan analysts however, view the assertiveness of President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan governments National Security Council, in demanding that US troops should leave the province, as a political PR-maneuver,  and doubt the seriousness or sincerity of Karzai´s demands.

After a two-day meeting at NATO in Brussels last Friday, Afghanistan´s Defense Minister General Bismillah Mohammadi informed international media, that delegates of fifty NATO member states and other states contributing to the ISAF forces had declared, that their nations will continue  “supporting Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) well beyond 2018″. Many analysts state, that the USA is likely to plan a US presence well beyond 2025, and that the USA is using Afghanistan as a base for destabilizing Pakistan´s Baluchistan province and other Pak-regions.

The message, that NATO and ISAF members will stay well beyond 2014, has led to protests in large segments of Afghanistans population who see especially the presence of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan as a destabilizing factor, a threat to national sovereignty, national security, and a menace for Afghanistan´s civilian population. The sudden assertiveness of the Karzai administration is widely perceived as a PR exercise rather than a genuine assertiveness which would be representative of Afghanistan´s population.

The statements of the German Brigadier General Gunter Katz indicate, that ISAF takes the Karzai administrations demands, that US-troops should leave the province rather nonchalant. To the question whether foreign troops would leave the province, Katz dodged answering and replied, “I cannot say the claims are correct. The evidence we have doesn´t support the allegations“.

Katz stated, that ISAF was working together with Afghan government representatives on addressing the public complaints, and he insisted, that all operations conducted in Maidan Wardak were coordinated with the Afghan forces.

Related articles:

NATO/ISAF Meeting In Brussels, No Withdrawal from Afghanistan before 2018

NATO`s 25th Summit in Chicago in Preparation of Global Full Spectrum Dominance, Interventionism, Possible Preparations for A Regional War Directed against Russia and China, and Developments in Global Security.

The volatility of Gas, Geo-Politics and the Greater Middle East. An Interview with Major Agha H. Amin

The Baluchistan Belt. US-Saudi Funded Terrorists Sowing Chaos in Pakistan.

About the Author

 - Dr. Christof Lehmann is the founder and editor of nsnbc. He is a psychologist and independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and a wide range of other political issues. His work with traumatized victims of conflict has led him to also pursue the work as political consultant. He is a lifelong activist for peace and justice, human rights, Palestinians rights to self-determination in Palestine, and he is working on the establishment of international institutions for the prosecution of all war crimes, also those committed by privileged nations. On 28 August 2011 he started his blog nsnbc, appalled by misrepresentations of the aggression against Libya and Syria. In March 2013 he turned nsnbc into a daily, independent, international on-line newspaper.

Monday, February 25, 2013

The Oscars

THE ABSURD TIMES





    Someone who shall remain unidentified told me that I remind her of Lincoln after she had seen the movie.  Naturally, this made the movie the best picture of the year, but the academy did not think of it that way.

    I missed the show, but clips from it looked pretty disgusting.

    We do need PBS to stay and improve.

    You really didn't think I had any more to say on such a meaningless ceremony, did you?

    We expect a great deal of snow here, certain to be more meaningful than the show I did not see.

    Good Luck!

Friday, February 22, 2013

A Pale Celebration for the revolutionary Succubae--Libya



THE ABSURD TIMES



I really wish I could send this whole first entry, but it is worth it to link to it.  If you have to, just clink of the link and then come back in 5 minutes or whatever it takes.  It is worth it.

How was this fiasco sold to us?  The Secretary of Defense was even against it at first – the hearing was televised, but this is what we did:


New post on nsnbc


Libya, the Aniversary of a Fraudulent Season – A Pale Celebration for the revolutionary Succubae

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) 17 Febryary 2013 the new Libyan regime celebrated the second anniversary of its Arab Spring Revolution. About 3,000 flag-waving celebrants marked the photo opportunity at Tripoli´s Green Square. It is a far cry from the tens of thousands of Libyans who marched to the Green Square to hear Muammar or Said Islam Ghadafi speak. The celebration looked [...]


Immediate action needed to ensure Israel respects hunger-strikers’ rights

(IMEMC) (Joint Press Release H.R. Groups) Ramallah-Jaffa, 20 February 2013 – Addameer, Al-Haq and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-Israel) express their grave concern for the health of four Palestinian hunger-strikers and outrage at the continued use by Israel of administrative detention as a widespread practice to punish and suppress Palestinian dissent against the Israeli occupation. [...]

Pope, Lent, SCOTUS, Patents, Latin


Die absurde TIMES




Ich habe gehört mehr über die Details des Papstes Resignation, und sie müssen geteilt werden. Eine Sache ist, dass in der gleichen Nacht legte er die Bascillica durch Blitzschlag getroffen wurde. Wer an Omen glauben, sollten feststellen, dass interessant, obwohl bedeutungslos. Wir wissen, dass Katholiken sollen etwas aufgeben für die Fastenzeit, aber ist das nicht ein bisschen extrem?

Ein weiterer interessanter Punkt ist, dass der Papst seine Ankündigung in Latein. Als Ergebnis, wusste nur ein Reporter, was zur Hölle (wenn das das richtige Wort ist) wurde er spricht.

Allerdings fanden die Obama-Administration sich über dies und beschlossen, alle ihre wahrheitsgemäße Angaben in Latein zu machen. Die jüngste ist "Ego servus defectu divites. Uxor mea pinguis fuerit. Donec et electus tradidit ipse fidem mentiti sunt. "Es bedeutet vielmehr, Obama ist das Werkzeug der Reichen, seine Frau ist dick, und er log während der Kampagne.

Der Oberste Gerichtshof ist hier zu entscheiden, ob Monsanto kann einen Bauern wegen Patentverletzung verklagen, wenn ihre Samen auf seinem Grundstück zu bekommen, indem Fehler! Und die Leute sind der Meinung, dass sie das Recht hatten! Wie zum Teufel willst du etwas Mais Saatgut aus fliegen durch die Sir und langing in Ihrem Bereich zu stoppen? Und, und, bekomme, und die meisten Kapitalisten denken Monsanto hat jedes Recht, diesen armen Kerl bankrott. Wer will, um Mais sowieso pflanzen?

Es wurde weiteres in den Corporate Medien über Gaspreise und warum sie so hoch sind. Die Antwort in der Regel gegeben ist, dass es, weil sie die Umstellung werden die Raffinerien für den Sommer Gemisch ist. Sie tatsächlich erwarten die Menschen zu glauben. Eine Wahrheit ist, dass je höher die Preise steigen, desto mehr profitieren die großen Ölgesellschaften machen. Um die Medien zu hören, ist es die Schuld der Ökologen. Nein, es ist Gier.

Darauf angesprochen, sagte das Weiße Haus "Ego servus defectu divites. Uxor mea pinguis fuerit. Donec et electus tradidit ipse fidem mentiti sunt. "

Hier ist mehr über die Monsanto crap (Warn-es ist schwer zu glauben, dass wir es tolerieren:

THURSDAY, 21. Februar 2013
Bowman v. Monsanto: Indiana Farmer der Oberste Gerichtshof Challenge Corporate Control der Food Supply
Ein David-gegen-Goliath Fall dem Obersten Gerichtshof verhandelt diese Woche Gruben ein 75-jähriger Bauer aus Indiana gegen Monsanto, der weltweit größten Saatgut-Unternehmen. Der Streit begann, als Soja Bauern Vernon Bowman gekauft und pflanzte einen Mix aus unmarkierten Korn normalerweise für Tierfutter verwendet. Die Pflanzen, die aus den beliebten herbizidresistenten Erbanlage als Roundup bekannt Bereit, dass Monsanto Wachen eng mit Patente enthalten wuchs eingeschaltet. Monsanto beschuldigt Bowman der Verwendung ihrer Technologie ohne dafür zu bezahlen. Die Verträge mit den Landwirten ihnen die Exklusivrechte an der Roundup Ready Sojabohnen liefern. Sie verklagt Bowman wegen Patentverletzung. Wir diskutieren den Fall mit Debbie Barker, Programm-Direktor von Save Our Seeds und internationaler Direktor des Center for Food Safety. [Beinhaltet Ansturm transcript]
Filed under Food, Supreme Court, Debbie Barker
GUEST:
Debbie Barker, Programm-Direktor von Save Our Seeds und internationaler Direktor des Center for Food Safety. Sie einen neuen Bericht namens Co-Autor "Seed Giants vs US Farmers."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
Das Transkript ist kostenlos erhältlich. Allerdings helfen Spenden Sie uns bieten Untertitel für Gehörlose und Schwerhörige auf unseren TV-Sendung. Vielen Dank für Ihre großzügige contribution.DONATE>

Abschrift
Juan Gonzalez: Wir beenden die heutige Show mit einem Blick auf David gegen Goliath, ein Fall vom Obersten Gerichtshof Dienstag, dass ein 75-jähriger Bauer aus Indiana entsteint gegen Monsanto, der weltweit größten Saatgut-Unternehmen gehört. Der Streit begann, als Soja Bauern Vernon Bowman gekauft und pflanzte einen Mix aus unmarkierten Korn normalerweise für Tierfutter verwendet. Die Pflanzen, die aus den beliebten herbizidresistenten Erbanlage als Roundup Ready bekannt, dass Monsanto bewacht eng mit Patente enthalten wuchs eingeschaltet. Monsanto beschuldigt Bowman der Verwendung ihrer Technologie ohne dafür zu bezahlen. Die Verträge mit den Landwirten ihnen die Exklusivrechte an der Roundup Ready Sojabohnen liefern. Sie verklagt Bowman wegen Patentverletzung.
AMY GOODMAN: Nun, am Mittwoch, sprach ich über diesen Fall, wie könnte es Auswirkungen auf Corporate Kontrolle der weltweiten Nahrungsmittelversorgung, mit Debbie Barker, Programm-Direktor von Save Our Seeds und internationaler Direktor des Center for Food Safety. Sie einen neuen Bericht namens Co-Autor "Seed Giants vs US Farmers." Ich sprach mit ihr, zusammen mit Nermeen Shaikh von Democracy Now! Dies ist, was sie zu sagen hatte.
DEBBIE BARKER: Natürlich, der Fall ist, ist es schwer, genau zu wissen, wie der Oberste Gerichtshof landen Urteil, ob es eng oder breit sein. Aber der Grund, warum wir schrieb einen amicus brief und schrieb dann diesen Bericht unterstützen Hugh Bowman ist auf die Tatsache hinweisen, dass leider, dies ist ein Mikrokosmos einer größeren Ausgabe von Saatgut Patentierung und die Frage, wer das Recht vor, Produkte zu besitzen ist Leben, wenn man so will, oder lebenden Organismen. So, zum Beispiel, hat Monsanto bereits rund-rund 144 Klagen mit etwa 406 Bauern und 50-plus kleine landwirtschaftliche Betriebe in 27 Staaten verklagt. Und sie haben-Landwirte haben bereits Monsanto in diesen Fällen zahlten ca. $ 28 Millionen. Und dann, natürlich, es gibt Tausende von Fällen, die von Gericht, wo Monsanto kommt nach Bauern angesiedelt sind, um sie für Saatgut zum Patent angeblichen seed Patentverletzungen untersuchen. Und sie haben Tausende von Fällen, unseren Bericht und Untersuchung hat Tausende von Fällen außergerichtlich in dem vertraulichen Vereinbarungen beigelegt gezeigt. So hat diese Folgen nicht nur für die Landwirte, sondern ländlichen Amerika, und auch, wie ich schon sagte, die Frage, wer soll den Besitz Samen. Und gerade jetzt, eine Handvoll Konzerne sagen, die ersten drei agrochemische Unternehmen-control 53-rund 53 Prozent der kommerziellen weltweiten Verkauf von Saatgut. Und wir denken, dass das breitere sozioökonomische Probleme hat. Und das ist, was dieser Bericht und unsere amicus brief im Fall von Bowman diskutiert.
Nermeen SHAIKH: Und, Debbie Barker, einer der Anwälte für Monsanto, Seth Waxman, sagte er während der Supreme Court Anhörung, Zitat: "Ohne die Fähigkeit zur Reproduktion von Sojabohnen mit diesem patentierten trait begrenzen, Monsanto konnte nicht seine Erfindung kommerzialisiert haben und hätte nie produziert haben, was ist, von jetzt an, die beliebteste Landtechnik in Amerika. " Könnten Sie darauf reagieren?
DEBBIE BARKER: Nun, zunächst einmal, denke ich, über was rede ist, dass die beliebteste landwirtschaftliches Erzeugnis ist, eine der Situationen, die wir haben, ist aufgrund der aktuellen Saatgut-Patentierung Regime, das ausschließliche Recht gibt Unternehmen wie Monsanto, Du eine Situation, wo, wie ich schon sagte, es gibt eine Handvoll von Unternehmen steuern die Rechte an Samen und Keimplasma, und dies führt zu offensichtlich, Marktkonzentration. Und damit haben wir eine unglaubliche Steigerung der Preise für Saatgut gesehen. Beispielsweise in Soja, im letzten Jahrzehnt hat es eine 325 Prozent Samen.
Nun, was viele Landwirte uns gesagt, in unserer "Seed Giants" Untersuchungsbericht ist, dass sie nicht unbedingt, ich meine, sie sind Art Geiselhaft, die nicht nur die Preise für Saatgut gestiegen, aber wenn sie nicht möchten diese Art von Samen, und vielleicht wollen sie zurück zu anderen Samen oder konventionellem Saatgut, die verfügbar sind, bevor die GV-Soja Samen waren, ist es nicht wirklich auf dem Markt erhältlich. Also, wenn die Unternehmen-they've viel investiert in Innovation oder der Forschung und Entwicklung auf diesem GE Soja, so amortisieren die Investition, eine der Möglichkeiten zu tun, die Art, den Markt oder machen Sie sicher, dass das ist, fast die einzige Möglichkeit für die Landwirte.
AMY GOODMAN: Der Bericht hat diese beeindruckende Zahlen: 86 Prozent der Mais, bewirtschaftet 88 Prozent Baumwolle, 93 Prozent der Sojabohnen in den USA sind nun gentechnisch?
DEBBIE BARKER: Das ist richtig, ja.
AMY GOODMAN: Making-so, wenn Sie nicht gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen wollen, ist es sehr schwierig, sie hierher gekommen?
DEBBIE BARKER: Ja, es ist sehr schwierig. Wir hatten, wissen Sie, anekdotische Geschichten mit den Landwirten, dass wir, dass gesprochen wird sagen: "Wissen Sie, wenn wir unser Saatgut Lieferanten, unsere Lizenznehmer gebeten [unverständlich], um uns nur herkömmliches Saatgut, und sie wird sagen, 'Oh, gut, vielleicht sind sie bereit, aber Sie könnten einen Pflanzsaison verpassen. "Und kein Bauer kann es sich leisten, das zu tun. Also das ist die Art von Situation, dass sie setzen in. sind
AMY GOODMAN: Lassen Sie mich Ihre Antwort auf Monsanto Aussage über diesen Fall. David Snively-ich bin nicht sicher, wie man seinen Namen ausspricht, könnte Snively-Executive Vice President und General Counsel für Monsanto, sagte der Fall, Zitat, "unterstreicht die Bedeutung des Schutzes geistigen Eigentums bei der Unterstützung Amerikas fortgesetzten Investitionen in bahnbrechende 21. Jahrhundert Technologien, die den wachsenden Anforderungen unseres Planeten und unseres Volkes zu unterstützen. " Debbie Barker, Ihre Antwort?
DEBBIE BARKER: Nun, ein paar Antworten. Man ist, wie gesagt, in unserem Bericht versuchen wir und zeigen diese umfassenderen sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen. Man würde diese Erhöhung der Preise für Saatgut, und wir denken, dass eine solche Erhöhung, wenn es das ist das Modell, nicht nur, dass es verheerende Auswirkungen auf viele Landwirte in den USA, aber wenn wir ein Modell, in dem wir wollen wir sagen, wollen den Planeten mit solchen Kulturen zu ernähren, und es ist teuer für die Bauern, um diese Samen zu kaufen, extrahieren Sie das Modell oder exportieren, um den Entwicklungsländern, wo die Bauern, die früher gespeicherten eigenen Samen und musste nicht für Saatgut zahlen jetzt mit diesen enormen Kosten für das Saatgut zu zahlen, zusätzlich zu den Chemikalien, die hohen Kosten der Chemikalien, die sie braucht, um diese Kombination zu haben, glauben wir, dass das nicht wirklich das beste Modell, vorwärts zu gehen, um die Welt zu ernähren.
Aber oben auf, dass, würden wir sagen, dass bis heute und wir hatten zwei Jahrzehnten in den USA von GE Ernten und gab es nur: Es gibt keine Züge verbesserte Ernährung. Es gibt keine Merkmale für Dürre-resistenter Pflanzen. Es gibt in der Tat, auch in dem Fall, in der Sitzung gestern, sagte der Anwalt in der Tat, dass die Sojabohnen haben keine erhöhte Ausbeute. So diese Art von nimmt den Dampf aus-they've räumte ein, dass sie nicht die Erträge zu steigern, und daher ist es nicht wirklich eine Pflanze, die Welt zu ernähren konnte, weil es nicht in erhöhten Ausbeuten, sagen wir, im Vergleich zu einem konventionellen oder dann, natürlich, auch eine organische oder nachhaltige agroecological System.
AMY GOODMAN: Debbie Barker, Programm-Direktor von Save Our Seeds und internationaler Direktor des Center for Food Safety, einen neuen Bericht namens Co-Autor "Seed Giants vs US Farmers." Wir es auf unserer Website verlinken auf democracynow.org.

Der ursprüngliche Inhalt dieses Programms ist unter einer Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License lizenziert. Bitte zuschreiben legale Kopien dieser Arbeit democracynow.org. Einige der Arbeit (en), dass dieses Programm integriert, kann jedoch separat lizenziert werden. Für weitere

Pope, Patents, Supreme Court, SCOTUS


THE ABSURD TIMES




I have been hearing more about the details of the Pope's resignation, and they need to be shared. One thing is that the same night he resigned, the Bascillica was struck by lightening. Those who believe in omens should find that interesting, although meaningless. We realize that Catholics are supposed to give up something for Lent, but isn't this a bit extreme?

Another interesting point is that the Pope made his announcement in Latin. As a result, only one reporter knew what the hell (if that is the right word) he was talking about.

However, the Obama administration found out about this and decided to make all its truthful disclosures in Latin. The most recent one is “Ego servus defectu divites. Uxor mea pinguis fuerit. Donec et electus tradidit ipse fidem mentiti sunt.” It rather means Obama is the tool of the wealthy, his wife is fat, and he lied during the campaign.

The Supreme Court here is to decide whether Monsanto can sue a farmer for patent infringement if its seeds get on his property by mistake! And people are arguing that they had the right! How the hell are you going to stop some corn seed from flying through the sir and langing in your field? And, and, get this, and, most capitalists think Monsanto has every right to bankrupt this poor guy. Who wants to plant corn anyway?

There has been more ado in the corporate media about gas prices and why they are so high. The answer usually given is that it is because they are changing over the refineries for the summer mixture. They actually expect people to believe that. One truth is that the higher the prices go, the more profit the big oil companies make. To hear the media, it is the fault of the ecologists. No, it is greed.

When asked about this, the White house said “Ego servus defectu divites. Uxor mea pinguis fuerit. Donec et electus tradidit ipse fidem mentiti sunt.”

Here is more about the Monsanto crap (warning—it is hard to believe that we tolerate it:

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2013

Bowman v. Monsanto: Indiana Farmer’s Supreme Court Challenge to Corporate Control of Food Supply

A David-versus-Goliath case heard by the Supreme Court this week pits a 75-year-old farmer from Indiana against Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. The dispute began when soybean farmer Vernon Bowman bought and planted a mix of unmarked grain typically used for animal feed. The plants that grew turned out to contain the popular herbicide-resistant genetic trait known as Roundup Ready that Monsanto guards closely with patents. Monsanto accused Bowman of using their technology without paying for it. Their contracts with farmers give them the exclusive rights to supply the Roundup Ready soybeans. They sued Bowman for patent infringement. We discuss the case with Debbie Barker, program director of Save Our Seeds and international director of the Center for Food Safety. [includes rush transcript]
FILED UNDER  FoodSupreme CourtDebbie Barker
GUEST:
Debbie Barker, program director of Save Our Seeds and international director of the Center for Food Safety. She co-authored a new report called "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.DONATE >

Links

Editor's Picks

Related



Transcript

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We end today’s show with a look at David versus Goliath, a case heard by the Supreme Court Tuesday that pitted a 75-year-old farmer from Indiana against Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. The dispute began when soybean farmer Vernon Bowman bought and planted a mix of unmarked grain typically used for animal feed. The plants that grew turned out to contain the popular herbicide-resistant genetic trait known as Roundup Ready, that Monsanto guards closely with patents. Monsanto accused Bowman of using their technology without paying for it. Their contracts with farmers give them the exclusive rights to supply the Roundup Ready soybeans. They sued Bowman for patent infringement.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, on Wednesday, I spoke about this case, how it could impact corporate control of the world’s food supply, with Debbie Barker, program director of Save Our Seeds and international director of the Center for Food Safety. She co-authored a new report called "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers." I spoke with her, along with Nermeen Shaikh of Democracy Now! This is what she had to say.
DEBBIE BARKER: Of course, the case, it’s hard to know exactly how the Supreme Court will end up ruling, whether it be narrow or broadly. But the reason why we wrote an amicus brief and then wrote this report supporting Hugh Bowman is to point out the fact that, unfortunately, this is a microcosm of a bigger issue of seed patenting and the question of who should own the right to products of life, if you will, or living organisms. So, for example, Monsanto has already sued around—has about 144 lawsuits involving about 406 farmers and about 50-plus small farm businesses across 27 states. And they have—farmers have already paid Monsanto in these cases about $28 million. And then, of course, there are thousands of cases that are settled out of court, where Monsanto comes after farmers to investigate them for seed patent—alleged seed patent infringement. And they have had thousands of cases—our report and investigation has shown thousands of cases settled out of court in confidential arrangements. So, this has implications not only for farmers, but rural America, and, as well, as I said, the question of who should be owning seeds. And right now, a handful of corporations—say, the top three agrochemical corporations—control 53—approximately 53 percent of commercial global sale of seeds. And we think that that has broader socioeconomic issues. And that’s what this report and our amicus brief in the case of Bowman discusses.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Debbie Barker, one of the lawyers for Monsanto, Seth Waxman, he said during the Supreme Court hearing, quote, "Without the ability to limit reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait, Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention and never would have produced what is, by now, the most popular agricultural technology in America." Could you respond to that?
DEBBIE BARKER: Well, first of all, I think, to talk about why is that the most popular agricultural product, one of the situations we have is, because of the current seed-patenting regime that gives exclusive rights to companies like Monsanto, you have a situation where, as I said, there’s a handful of companies controlling the rights to seeds and germ plasm, and this leads to, obviously, market concentration. And with that, we’ve seen an incredible increase in the price of seeds. For example, in soybean, in the last decade, there has been a 325 percent increase in seeds.
Now, what many farmers told us in our "Seed Giants" investigation report is that they’re not necessarily—I mean, they’re kind of held hostage, that not only have the seed prices gone up, but when they don’t want these kinds of seeds, and maybe they want to go back to other seeds or conventional seeds that were available before the GM soy seed, it’s not really available on the market. So, when the companies—they’ve invested a lot in the innovation or the research and development on this GE soybean, so to recoup the investment, one of the ways of doing that is kind of cornering the market or making sure that that is almost the only option available to farmers.
AMY GOODMAN: The report has these stunning figures: 86 percent of corn, 88 percent of cotton, 93 percent of soybeans farmed in the U.S. are now genetically engineered?
DEBBIE BARKER: That’s correct, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Making—so if you want non-genetically engineered crops, it is very difficult to get them here?
DEBBIE BARKER: Yes, it’s very difficult. We’ve had, you know, anecdotal stories with the farmers that we talked to that will say, "You know, when we’ve asked our seed supplier, our licensee of [inaudible], to get us just conventional seeds, and they’ll say, 'Oh, well, perhaps they're ready, but you might miss a planting season.’" And no farmer can afford to do that. So that’s the kind of situation that they’re put in.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me get your response to Monsanto’s statement about this case. David Snively—I’m not sure how you pronounce his name, might be Snively—executive vice president and general counsel for Monsanto, said the case, quote, "highlights the importance of intellectual property protection in supporting America’s continued investments in breakthrough 21st century technologies that support the increasing demands of our planet and our people." Debbie Barker, your response?
DEBBIE BARKER: Well, a couple responses. One is, as I said, in our report, we try and show these broader socioeconomic implications. One would be this increase in the price of seeds, and we think that such an increase, if that’s the model, not only has that been devastating to many farmers in the U.S., but if we have a model in which we want to say we want to feed the planet with such crops, and it’s expensive for the farmers to buy these seeds, you extract that model or export it to developing countries, where farmers who formerly saved their own seeds and didn’t have to pay for seeds are now having to pay this huge cost for the seeds, in addition to the chemicals, the high cost of the chemicals it takes to have this combination, we feel that that’s not really the best model to go forward to feed the world.
But on top of that, we would say that, to date—and we’ve had two decades now in the U.S. of GE crops, and there have only been—there are no traits of enhanced nutrition. There are no traits for drought-resistant crops. There are—in fact, even in the case in the hearing yesterday, the attorney said, in fact, that the soybeans do not have any increased yield. So that kind of takes the steam out of—they’ve admitted that they don’t increase yields, and therefore, it’s not really a crop that could feed the world, because it doesn’t show increased yields, say, compared to a conventional or then, of course, even an organic or sustainable agroecological system.
AMY GOODMAN: Debbie Barker, program director of Save Our Seeds and international director of the Center for Food Safety, co-authored a new report called "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers." We’ll link to it on our website at democracynow.org.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


Thursday, February 21, 2013

From Occupy Washington

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:08 AM, October2011.org <info@october2011.org> wrote:
Because a sustainable future depends on the people willing to see the truth for what it is, and for those to stand up in unison in order to make a difference.
— Jake Edward Keli'i Eakin

Stop the Machine! Create a new World! October2011.org
October 2011
This week we focus on one issue in the newsletter to encourage you to take action on it. There are many other important resistance actions going on too. Please visit ourwebsite to see those. We hope you will join in nationwide actions on the issue discussed in this newsletter.
 
One thousand days when one is too many.
 
Think of that, count it off . . . 1,000 days; that is how long Bradley Manning has been incarcerated without a trial.
 
Even though he has been incarcerated for nearly three years most Americans have no idea what he did, why he did it or how he has been mistreated coming from the commander-in-chief to the courtroom at Fort Meade.

[Painting by Jeff Patterson of theBradley Manning Support Network.]

The mass media has made sure to keep Americans ignorant about what is going on and why it is important.  But many do see through the misinformation and are standing with Brad.  We take action because like Brad, we want the truth to be told, the truth to be known and understood so we can improve the country.

In more than 55 cities this weekend and around the world, people will rally, hold forums, protest – take whatever action they can to lift the veil and expose the truth.  Join them or create your own.

What are some of the truths? There are so many. In this short newsletter, we want to focus on one – Hillary Clinton.  She is the most popular woman in the world, according to polls. If she wants the presidency, the media tells us, it is hers. Yet, what do the Wikileaks documents which whistleblower Bradley Manning released show us? They show us she is not fit to be president and rather than being admired, she should be prosecuted.  That will sound extreme to the ears of Americans who have had the truth hidden from them, but it is a factual statement.

The United States houses the United Nations.  This gives the US great opportunity to spy on UN diplomats when they come to New York for meetings.  It is against the law to spy on diplomats when they come to such meetings.  But, the Wikileaks documents show that in 2009 Hillary Clinton orderedthat foreign diplomats be spied on. Sheeven ordered US diplomats to obtain DNA data, biometric data, iris scans and fingerprints as well as credit card and frequent flier numbers and so much more. Her orders, sent to 30 embassies, were fulfilling the request of the CIA for all sorts of information.  The General Secretary, Ban Kai Moon (who was also spied on) called Clinton in for a meeting about this violation of law.  Did this get any media attention in the US? Were there calls for an investigation or a special prosecutor? No. Inside the US Empire there was silence from the mass media and political elite.

When the Arab Spring in Egypt was on the verge of success, what role did Clinton play? She urged support for Omar Suleiman. Then Manning’s Wikileaks documents exposed who Suleiman was.  Suleiman was the man who did the dirty work for the authoritarian dictator of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak.  Not only did he do Mubarak's dirty work, but he was the go-to guy for Israel in dealing with Egypt, making all sorts of deals that allowed theabuse of Palestinians. He was the one who did the dirty work for the US Empire. He was the CIA liaison for the source of the misinformation campaign on WMDs in Iraq and people targeted by the US were renditioned to the torturous abuse of Omar Suleiman.  But Clinton, who certainly knew all this, called on Suleiman to investigate Egypt’s violence and thought he’d be the perfect replacement for Mubarak. When this all came out in Egypt, not much was said about it in the US but Clinton’s pick, Suleiman, was no longer a viable candidate.

Clinton announced last week that she will be doing public speaking after she rests from her arduous job as Secretary of State.  No doubt she will reap the pay-off for her years of hard work for the transnational corporations for whom US foreign policy is designed. The Wikileaks documents again show the truth of that fact. Of course, the American people are told we go to war for democracy, protection of human rights and the rights of woman in Afghanistan.  Sadly, the mass media says these things over and over so Americans learn to believe them, even though the Wikileaks documents show US foreign policy is of, by and for big corporations.

Anyone who has followed the Manning case has seen his mistreatment by the government from his initial incarceration to his abusive prosecution.  Under military law, Manning was supposed to be arraigned within 120 days of his arrest but it took well over 600 days to do so.

During that 600 days Manning was driven to near suicide. First he was kept in abusive conditions in Kuwait: kept awake at night and only sleeping during the day, his cell searched regularly, torn apart by guards and he was kept away from other prisoners. Manning thought he was going to die in an 8 by 8 animal cage in Kuwait.

He rejoiced when he was being put on a plane, not knowing where he was going, but knowing it was better than where he was. When he landed at BWI airport, he was so happy to be in the United States – to be home.  But, he soon learned things would not get better as he was held in solitary confinement for nine more months at the abusive Quantico Marine Base, where every five minutes he was required to respond to the question, "Are you alright?", and throughout the day not allowed to lie down or sit leaning against the wall in his cell. These are only two examples of many abuses he suffered.

No one else will ever suffer at the Quantico brig because it is now being closed, no doubt in part due to the notoriety Manning supporters heaped on the base with repeated protests until Manning was released and finally treated appropriately.

That’s right, activists made a difference. It was after our final protest where dozens were arrested and paramilitary units, helicopters and horses were turned against us that he was put in appropriate pre-trial confinement.Occupyveterans and other activists have consistently supported Manning.We are in solidarity because we all want transparent and peaceful government.

That is why what we do this weekend makes a difference. 1,000 days. It needs to be memorialized, forced into the consciousness of Americans misled by mass media propaganda that prefers to focus on Manning's sexuality rather than the facts contained in the documents he released.

Really, that is the essence of it. Manning took on the heart of American corporatocracy – the Empire. The media cannot even let us know how big the national security state really is, always understating the real annual cost of our $1.3 trillion security state; never acknowledging that the US has more than 1200 bases and outposts around the world. In fact, no one in the media or political class ever even acknowledges that the US is an Empire.

It is almost amusing because it is so absurd.  We live in the largest Empire in world history but the media, political class and the plutocrats behind them never acknowledge the US is an Empire.

That is why Manning has been mistreated from the initial release of the “Collateral Murder Video” showing the US military killing journalists and others in Iraq, Manning became a target of the Empire. He has lifted the veil so the truth can be seen. And, no doubt it will. As the US Empire fades, as all empires do, people will examine the Wikileaks documents and be amazed at what they contain – a daily history of the Empire’s military and diplomatic corps. That treasure trove will show a very corrupt, abusive and violent empire. Manning will be on the right side of history and so will those of you who stand with Brad.

Let’s make his 1,000 days in prison something all Americans are aware of byjoining on of the events this weekend and if there is no event in your area, create one. Go to your local paper and ask them to report on Manning, the Wikileaks documents and to start a discussion about US Empire.  Manning said in chat logs that he hoped to start a debate in the US so we could improve the countryLet’s use this weekend to help make that a reality.

In peace and solidarity,
Kevin, Margaret and October2011/OccupyWashingtonDC
Copyright © 2011 October 2011, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
October 2011
PO Box 102011
Washington, DC 20001