Friday, September 18, 2015

Ralph Nader on the Primaries

THE ABSURD TIMES


Not much point to even discussing the Republican Primaries, but here is a good comment on Trump:

Following the mounting criticism over Donald Trump's statements during and after a town hall meeting in New Hampshire Thursday, at which he did not contradict a question by one of his supporters about when the United States could "get rid of" Muslims, we speak with Ralph Nader about Donald Trump and xenophobia. "What if the man had said that about Jews instead of Muslims? About Christians instead of Muslims?" Ralph Nader asked.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.orgThe War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. Our guest is Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, ran for president of the United States a number of times. Ralph, I want to start by asking you about the latest meeting yesterday, town hall meeting, Donald Trump held in New Hampshire. During the Q&A, the first person to stand up said President Obama is Muslim, not even American, and asked when the U.S. could get rid of Muslims. This is what the person said. He's called on by Donald Trump, who responds.
DONALD TRUMP: OK, this man. I like this guy.
TRUMP SUPPORTER: I'm from White Plains. Amen, OK? We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims. We know our current president is one.
DONALD TRUMP: Right.
TRUMP SUPPORTER: You know he's not even an American. Birth certificate, man.
DONALD TRUMP: We need this question; this is the first question.
TRUMP SUPPORTER: But anyway, we have training camps brewing where they want to kill us.
DONALD TRUMP: Mm-hmm.
TRUMP SUPPORTER: That's my question: When can we get rid of them?
DONALD TRUMP: We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. And, you know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Donald Trump. And I want to get to what he then said afterwards, what his—what his campaign said. They issued a statement to The Washington Post saying, "The media wants to make this issue about Obama. The bigger issue is that Obama is waging a war against Christians." So he certainly didn't back off his response or what his supporter said in this Q&A. Your response to this, Ralph? And then, overall, just talk about what we've witnessed this week with the Republican debate. But respond to Trump first. What should he have said?
RALPH NADER: Well, what would he have said if the man said Jews instead of Muslims? What would he have said if he said Christians instead of Muslims? So, obviously, Donald Trump is tone deaf about the rights of Muslims in this country. We have—supposed to have equal rights under the law. What kind of stereotype racism does he require in his audience before he stands up against it? Donald Trump—
AMY GOODMAN: Would you call him a racist?
RALPH NADER: Pardon?
AMY GOODMAN: Would you call him a racist?
RALPH NADER: Well, we'll let him answer that question. He certainly is not rejecting racist comments that are made, and that's the first sign that he—
AMY GOODMAN: What about his call for 11 million immigrants to be deported from this country?
RALPH NADER: Well, that is so absurd. But, you see, he gets away with absurdity. He has an immunity that would tank any other political candidate, because he's so outrageous, and the press thinks he's outrageous, so they give him a pass. It's really amazing. It's sort of like the way the media did with Ronald Reagan: They had such low expectation levels of him that when he exceeded them, you know, it was a surprise.
But Donald Trump is fulfilling some important functions, Amy. He's disrupting the slick corporatism of the other candidates. He, for example, has said, "Why do we, the big rich guys, why do we give money to politicians? Well, because then they do whatever we want them to do." That's a great quote. And he was asked, "Well, why did your companies go bankrupt four times?" He said, "Well, that's a competitive advantage. All the other companies do that." So, you know, he's exposing the fraud of bankruptcy law when it comes to corporations, compared to student loan defaults. And so he's making these statements which are very valuable.
Who knows where it's going to end up, but it's all a circus. He's the chief circus barker, clearly. And all these issues that you talk about on your program, and other serious programming, go by the wayside. I mean, we've trivialized the campaign to select the leader of the so-called greatest power in the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we just have a minute. We talked to you right after Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for the president. Now he is ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls in New Hampshire and in a number of polls in Iowa. Your response to what this means?
RALPH NADER: Well, he's tapping in to what we all knew: There is a left-right coalition behind Main Street, against Wall Street. They don't like crony capitalism. They don't like violation of civil liberties. They want criminal justice reform, whether it's left or right. They're very worried about empire abroad and all the waste in the government, in the Pentagon and elsewhere. So he's tapping into it.
He now needs to broaden out. He's got to have a corporate crime policy, not just a Wall Street—anti-Wall Street policy. And he's got to deal with military and foreign policy. Everybody that I know of in the progressive world are waiting to see how he's going to take on Hillary Clinton, the master corporatist and the master militarist, the latest being the turmoil in Libya, spilling over Africa. That was Hillary's war, against the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, I want to thank you for being with us.


Fwd: [New post] Too Good to Pass Up.


New post on THE ABSURD TIMES -- STILL

Too Good to Pass Up.

by @honestcharlie
On the arrest of a kid with a clock:
[tonight] RUBIO Police were right to detain Ahmed
BUSH I outlawed time in Florida
CRUZ I once punched a stopwatch
TRUMP Clocks are losers
@honestcharlie | September 16, 2015 at 12:27 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pt2r1-Ri
Comment    See all comments    Like
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from THE ABSURD TIMES -- STILL.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
https://czardonic.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/too-good-to-pass-up/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


Monday, September 14, 2015

The Western Revolution: Tarik Ali, Our Ruminations



THE ABSURD TIMES





Illustration: Israel and its view of Religion.  They celebrated one of their many holidays by attacking a Mosque.  By Latuff

The Western Revolution

by

Zarathustra



            Clearly the corporate oligarchy has been exposed despite its power and influence.  It is obvious that people are aware of it and don't like it.  Beyond that, many are not clear as to how to express it or how to act properly.  There is no easy or glib answer to this other than to avoid any action suggested by that elite.

            Even though David Cameron was elected as boss of Britain as head of the Conservative Party, that "victory" actually revealed some other real signs.  For example, Scotland is now governed by a Socialist, or at least "liberal" party and this was the result to a great extent by people deserting the Liberal Democrat Party which seemed to be a somewhat effete group at best, the "Yuppie Liberals", so to speak.

            In the United States, a bright force is Bernie Sanders who brags that he is "socialist,' (whatever that means anymore.  He first gave a twelve hour speech in the U.S. Senate elaborating on his principles, especially on the inequality of distribution of wealth.  While the corporate drums away at the evils of mentioning the "Redistribution of Wealth" as "Communistic" and thus frightening ill-informed people in the country, they actually did engage is a vast redistribution of wealth, only upwards to the point where jot only the top 1%, but the top 1% of the 1% has gained most of the wealth in this country.  Sanders' popularity is an expression of peoples' anger and disaffection with the corporate state and politicians owned by it (including Hilary Clinton).  The best one can say about her right now is that she is not a Republican! 

            That brings us to the Republicans.  The popularity of Donald Trump is extremely misguided because that only virtue he has is that he is not a politician and politicians are seen as instruments of the corporate party.  The same is true of Ben Carson, another alternative who can also speak in complete and coherant sentences.  He will never be nominated for the Republicans because he is African-American and much of the rabble that supports that party thinks of people with different hued skin as enemies who are trying to take things from them (so they have been taught by the corporate party).  Also, the country did elect an African American President and despite his late found abilities, most of the opposition to him is based on his color.  Also, a woman will not be nominated because an African American did not work out and no more "first" people -- we want real people, which actually means people how will do good for society, or, in other words, 'socialists;.  So far, at least, it must be clear that all of the support from voters in the country are fed up with the Corporate Elite.

            The current uprising about immigration is spreading world-wide and, insofar as possible in German, Merkel is showing a conscience.  In the United States, it is one more tool used to keep the disaffected and uneducated in line.

A fine example is an anecdote: Seems a woman was speaking on her cell phone in a different language down in Texas when the redneck behind her said, after her call was finished, said "Lady, if'n youal wanna be in this country, yall should use the language, English"

            She replied, "I was speaking Navajo -- if you want to speak English, go to England."  [We refrain from a linguistic analysis at this pont.]

            Now we come to the next revolution, a very real one: the Labour Party in England.  Leremy Corbin was overwhelmingly elected head of the party.  He is decidedly in favor of the people, insisting on the people owning the transportation system, free higher education, free health care, and so on: in other words, socialism.  Rather than attempt to correctly describe him here, Tarik Ali, who has known him for over 40 years, has explained and his entire interview follows:


MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015

In Upset, Socialist Jeremy Corbyn Elected as U.K. Labour Leader on Antiwar, Pro-Refugee Platform

Longtime British socialist MP Jeremy Corbyn has just been elected leader of the opposition Labour Party after running on an antiwar, anti-austerity platform. When Corbyn first announced his candidacy three months ago, oddsmakers put his odds of winning at 200 to one. But on Saturday, Corbyn won in a landslide, receiving 59 percent of the vote. He will succeed Ed Miliband, who quit after the Conservatives retained power in May's election. Corbyn addressed supporters at a victory celebration on Saturday. "Let us be a force for change in the world, a force for humanity in the world, a force for peace in the world, and a force that recognizes we cannot go on like this, with grotesque levels of global insecurity, grotesque threats to our environment all around the world, without the rich and powerful governments stepping up to the plate to make sure our world becomes safer and better," said Corbyn during his victory speech. Corbyn then left the celebration to attend the #RefugeesWelcome rally in London.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today's show in Britain, where a longtime socialist MP, Jeremy Corbyn, has just been elected leader of the opposition Labour Party after running on an antiwar, anti-austerity, pro-refugee platform. When Corbyn first announced his candidacy three months ago, oddsmakers put the odds of his winning at 200 to one. But on Saturday, Jeremy Corbyn won in a landslide, receiving 59 percent of the vote. He'll succeed Ed Miliband, who quit after the Conservatives retained power in the May elections. Corbyn addressed supporters at a victory celebration on Saturday.
JEREMY CORBYN: This week, the Tories will show what they're really made of. On Monday, they have the trade union bill, designed to undermine even the ILO conventions and shackle democratic unions and destroy another element of democracy within our society. We have to oppose that. They're also pushing the welfare reform bill, which will bring such misery and poverty to so many of the poorest in our society. I want us, as a movement, to be proud, strong and able to stand up and say, 'We want to live in a society where we don't pass by on the other side of those people rejected by an unfair welfare system; instead, we reach out to end the scourge of homelessness and desperation that so many people face in our society.' We're strong enough and big enough and able to do that. That is what we're about.
There are many, many issues we face, and many people face desperation in other parts of the world. And I think it's quite incredible the way the mood in Europe has changed over the past few weeks of understanding that people fleeing from wars, they are the victims of wars, they are the generational victims of war, they're the intergenerational victims of war, end up in desperation, end up in terrible places, end up trying to gain a place of safety, end up trying to be—exercise their refugee rights. They are human beings just like you, just like me. Let's deal with the refugee crisis with humanity, with support, with help, with compassion, to try to help people who are trying to get to a place of safety, trying to help people who are stuck in refugee camps, but recognize going to war creates a legacy of bitterness and problems.
Let us be a force for change in the world, a force for humanity in the world, a force for peace in the world, and a force that recognizes we cannot go on like this, with grotesque levels of global inequality, grotesque threats to our environment all around the world, without the rich and powerful governments stepping up to the plate to make sure our world becomes safer and better, and those people don't end up in poverty, in refugee camps, wasting their lives away when they could be contributing so much to the good of all of us on this planet. We are one world. Let that message go out today from this conference center here in London.
AMY GOODMAN: After his victory speech, Jeremy Corbyn went to the #RefugeesWelcome rally in London, where he called on the British government to do more to help refugees seeking safety in Europe.
JEREMY CORBYN: The refugees move on and on. And there are whole generations of refugees around the world that are victims of various wars. So those desperate people in camps in Lebanon, in Jordan, in Libya and so many other places, desperate people trying to cross into Turkey and other places, they are all, in a sense, victims of wars. So, surely, surely, surely, our objective ought to be to find peaceful solutions to the problems of this world.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015

"A Political Insurrection in Britain": Tariq Ali on Election of Jeremy Corbyn as New Labour Leader

Jeremy Corbyn has been a member of the House of Commons since 1983 and has a long history of voting against his Labour Party, which had moved considerably to the right under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Corbyn's victory presages the prospect of a return to the party's socialist roots, championing the renationalization of public transportation, free university tuition, rent control, and a national maximum wage to cap the salaries of high earners. We speak to longtime British editor and writer Tariq Ali, who has known Corbyn for 40 years. He calls Corbyn the most left-wing leader in the history of the British Labour Party.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Corbyn has been a member of the House of Commons since 1983. He has a long history of voting against his Labour Party, which had moved considerably to the right under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Corbyn's victory presages the prospect of a return to the party's socialist roots, championing the renationalization of public transportation, free university tuition, rent control, and a national maximum wage to cap the salaries of high earners.
Well, for more, we go to London, where we're joined by Tariq Ali, who has known Corbyn for 40 years. Tariq Ali is a British-Pakistani political commentator, historian, activist, filmmaker, novelist and editor of the New Left Review. His latest book is The Extreme Centre: A Warning.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Tariq. Can you talk about this 200—what did the oddsmakers put it at?—200-to-one odds, three months ago, that Jeremy Corbyn would win the Labour Party leadership?
TARIQ ALI: Amy, I would have agreed with them, actually. I'm just sort of cursing I didn't put 10 or 20 pounds on it—I'd be rolling in it if I had. In fact, nobody expected Jeremy to win, including Jeremy himself. What happened was a political insurrection in Britain, that young people poured out after hearing him speak on television and radio, packed his rallies, and what we saw was an English version of the Scottish uprising that swept the Scottish National Party to power earlier this year. So it's been a very exciting campaign, and it's grown and grown and grown. And it wasn't 'til, I think, a few weeks ago that we realized that he really was going to win. And even still, we couldn't believe it.
But his victory marks a huge shift in English politics. And the big problem here now is the following, that we have the most left-wing leader in the history of the British Labour Party in power as leader, and we have a very right-wing parliamentary Labour Party, which has been effectively created by Blair and Brown, by ending democracy in the party, by parachuting office boys and office girls to become members of Parliament, so that they have no one of note in Parliament today. That's the contradiction that Jeremy faces. And I think one of the things he will have to do is to restore democracy in the party, give party conferences once again real meaning, and move forward. But, you know, that will happen, and it will take some time. In the meantime, we are all rejoicing, those of us who have been participating in progressive politics for years, that we have a leader of the opposition, that for—after many, many decades, England, or Britain, has a leader of the opposition. And that is a huge step forward.
AMY GOODMAN: For our American audience, Tariq, is Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party with these 200-to-one odds about three months ago equivalent to Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination for president, the socialist senator from Vermont?
TARIQ ALI: Well, it is very similar, Amy, except that Jeremy is very good on foreign policy issues. I mean, he has been very strong attacking all the imperial wars. He has been very strong on the right of the Palestinians to national self-determination. He has denounced wars, and, as we heard earlier, he has linked the refugee crisis to the wars that are creating refugees. And Bernie has, of course, been very good attacking the corporations and the oligarchic aspects of American political and social life, so in that sense he is similar, but he has been very reluctant on foreign policy issues. Nonetheless, it would be the equivalent, you're right, that if somehow Bernie Sanders became the official candidate of the Democratic Party to take on the Republicans, I mean, they would be—people would be squealing with anger, the traditional elites, but it would be a step forward. And that step has already been taken now in England.
AMY GOODMAN: Tariq, we're going to break, then come back to this discussion. Tariq Ali is British-Pakistani political commentator, historian, activist, novelist, editor of the New Left Review. We'll be back with him in a moment.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Billy Bragg singing "The Red Flag," the semi-official anthem of the British Labour Party. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, as we talk about the shocking election victory of MP Jeremy Corbyn as head of Britain's opposition Labour Party. Let's turn to some voters who supported Corbyn in Saturday's election.
CORBYN SUPPORTER 1: I grew up to Blair. That was my—I'm 23 years old, so my—you know, my entrance into adulthood, all of my kind of conscious life was Blair and New Labour. And I think it's incredibly exciting that we have a meaningful alternative in mainstream politics. I think that's something that I think is extraordinary.
CORBYN SUPPORTER 2: I'm just—just I'm very, very, very, very happy that he's won. I feel like it's the start of something new and something much fairer and better for the world.
CORBYN SUPPORTER 3: He is able to engage with young people, because he's a conviction politician. I think there's a lot of young people who have become disengaged with politics, and I think he's someone that young people can relate to.
CORBYN SUPPORTER 4: I think it's a change for the Labour Party. I think it's a change for Britain. I think it's a positive change. I think it's positive politics, which I can identify with. It's not the—you know, it's not the politics of envy. It's not the politics of fear. It's the politics of hope. And it's somebody that I think we seriously have a chance with in the Labour Party.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of the people who supported Jeremy Corbyn. He got an overwhelming 59 percent victory in the election that makes him now the leader of the Labour Party. Our guest is Tariq Ali, the British political commentator, activist, historian, filmmaker, editor of the New Left Review. His latest book, The Extreme Centre: A Warning. Tariq, talk about who he beat, who he ran against, and also then Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and what the Labour Party had become. He often opposed his own Labour Party.
TARIQ ALI: Yes, Jeremy was a very consistent member of Parliament. As a lawmaker, he voted against all the wars. He voted against any attempt by Labour to support the austerity policies of the current Conservative government. He didn't succeed in winning the party [inaudible], because the bulk of them—most of them, I would say—agree with austerity and have not opposed Cameron. So, Jeremy has been, you know, all the time I have known him—and I say this about very few politicians, Amy, as viewers will recall, but he has been one of the most honest politicians I know. He has got integrity. He has been consistent. And he has fought for the causes which large numbers of progressive people all over the world believe him—believe in. And he's been like this for 40 years. I mean, the causes he's espoused and spoken for, he has attended meetings where there were only 30 or 40 people present, just to make sure that there was a lawmaker there to explain to them what was actually going on. So he's a very impressive guy, and he's completely different from these spin-doctor-tutored politicians. That's what people like about him, that he says it. He just gives it to you straight. There's no [bleep]. He goes on and tells people what he believes in. And I think he's been amazed himself by the response, because there's no demagogy, it's fairly straightforward stuff.
And the big question now is: Can he, or can Labour under Corbyn, win the next election? His enemies are all saying he can't, and this is a disaster, the Labour Party has committed suicide. I'm not so sure. I believe that if the campaigns he has espoused continue, especially taking back the railways into public ownership, and some of the utilities, instituting free education so that people with, you know, small amounts of money don't have to pay tuition fees for their kids, improves public housing, gets rid of Trident—these are nuclear missiles, part of Britain's NATOresponsibilities, and they've created a huge panic, because the prime minister, David Cameron, has said that Jeremy Corbyn's election has made Labour a national security risk, which is outrageous. What's the logic of that? I mean, a few weeks ago, British drones killed their own citizens in the Arab world. So what? Are we going to have the Labour Party droned? I mean, it's bad, unpleasant, irresponsible talk, trying to seal off a debate, which is only beginning. The candidates who opposed him were visionless, unimaginative, people created by a system which didn't believe in politics or democracy anymore. That's, in my opinion, who they were. And that's why lots of people rejected them. I mean, the day Corbyn was elected, 14.5 thousand people, just on that day, joined or rejoined the Labour Party. So he has energized Labour's base like no one has been able to do for a very long time. I mean, Blair was a warmonger. Brown was a neoliberal supporting the banks and the corporations. Jeremy Corbyn represents a huge break with that. And we will see how he proceeds.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn back to January 2003, when British MP Jeremy Corbyn spoke at an antiwar rally here in the United States in Washington, D.C. We featured a part of his address on Democracy Now!
JEREMY CORBYN: And I have to say, as a member of the British Parliament from the Labour Party, that there is overwhelming public opposition to British involvement in a Bush's war over Iraq, because we recognize this war for what it is. It's not about peace. It's not about democracy. It's not about justice. It's a war about oil, and it's a war where the main beneficiaries will be the arms manufacturers, who have made so much out of so much misery for so long.
We are in one of the richest countries in the world, and I also represent another very rich country in the world. If all we can say to the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world, suffering water shortage, health shortage, a pandemic of AIDS and so many other injustices, all we can offer is weapons of mass destruction and further wars, all we do is spawn the conflicts of the future. A world—a world at peace can only be achieved if we are a world based on social justice. So our message to the Capitol, to the White House, to Downing Street in London and all the others is: Pull back! Bring the troops home! Bring about peace in the region! No more wars for oil!
AMY GOODMAN: That was Jeremy Corbyn, a British MP, in 2003 in Washington, D.C., at a major antiwar protest. Again, it was just a few months before the U.S. attacked Iraq. Now, well, there are thousands of refugees coming from Iraq and Afghanistan, joining Syrians and Nigerians and others. Tariq Ali, yesterday—or this weekend, Saturday, right after Jeremy Corbyn won as leader of the Labour Party, he said he had to go, in giving his acceptance speech, because was racing off to the #WelcomeRefugees rally, where he also spoke. Can you talk about his position on refugees right now and what is Britain's official position, David Cameron's position?
TARIQ ALI: Well, David Cameron has limited the number of refugees allowed into Britain, compared, for instance, to Germany. Though Germany, too, we should recall, has now ended free entry into that country. I think the European Union is in a huge crisis on the refugee question.
And Jeremy's position, as stated by him at the rally, is very clear: You make wars, you bomb other parts of the world, you destroy their social infrastructure, you make life so miserable for them that they have no alternative but to leave their countries; and when they knock on your door, you pat them on the back and say, "Not so many of you." Why didn't you think about that when you were dropping bombs on them, that created the refugees? So he has linked the imperial wars waged by the United States and its European allies, or some of them, to the refugee question, and that is absolutely correct, Amy. And he has argued strongly against any new wars or bombing raids on Syria or Iraq or whoever and on whatever pretext, because he knows it will make things worse. So, his position has been very strong on these questions.
And, you know, just what you showed on the screen, a newly elected leader of an opposition party in a European country immediately going and joining a huge demonstration, welcoming refugees, that has not happened for a very long time, not just in Britain, but in the whole of Europe. So the impact Jeremy's election as leader of the Labour Party, in Europe, will be worth watching, to see how they're going to react to this.
AMY GOODMAN: Your book, Tariq Ali, is called The Extreme Centre: A Warning. Explain what you mean.
TARIQ ALI: What I mean is, Amy, that people have often talked, you know, about the extreme left, the extreme right, or the populist left, the populist right, without discussing what has become a huge problem in global politics, but especially in the European Union and North America and Australia, which is that it doesn't matter which party you elect. When it comes down to it, on the fundamentals of the day—waging war, imposing austerity, helping out the big corporations, sucking up to the rich—there's no big difference between them. They might use different language, but their politics are the same. And that this is no longer acceptable to large numbers of people, which is why, when the young see possibilities of an alternative, whether in Greece or Portugal or Spain or Ireland and now Scotland and England, they do something about it. And Jeremy really has broken with extreme-center politics. He was never part of that mess. And this is what is so exciting in this country today.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Jeremy Corbyn talking about socialism. The election of Jeremy Corbyn as the new leader of Britain's Labour Party has many believing this will mean a return to the party's socialist roots. This is Corbyn debating at the venerable Oxford Union in November of 2013 that socialism works.
JEREMY CORBYN: If you want to live in a decent world, then is it right that the world's economy is dominated by a group of unaccountable multinational corporations? They are the real power in the world today, not the nation-state. It's the global corporations. And if you want to look at the victims of the ultimate of this free market catastrophe that the world is faced with at the moment, go to the shantytowns on the fringes of so many big cities around the world. Look at those people, migrants dying in the Mediterranean trying to get to Lampedusa. Why are they there? Why are they dying? Why are they living in such poverty? I'll tell you this: It's when the World Bank arrives and tells them to privatize all public services, to sell off state-owned land, to make inequality a paragon of virtue. That is what drives people away and into danger and poverty.
And I will conclude with this thought: Think about the world you want to live in. Do you want the dog to eat the dog, or do you want us all to care for each other, support each other, and eliminate poverty and injustice? A different world is possible. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Jeremy Corbyn. By the way, his argument won.


The 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.

             
-->

Sunday, September 06, 2015

Putin v. Isis

THE ABSURD TIMES


Illustration: Think about all the refugees. Does anyone still seriously think that attacking this man was a good idea for anyone except arms manufacturers? One of our proudest moments was FACEBOOK labeling our post on the subject at the time as “objectionable”. It isn't easy to get objectionable on Facebook.  However, we are making this available to the public on Facebook -- perhaps we will get another such honor?


Putin v. Isis
by
John Wick

It is about time to straighten a few things out, see?

Ok, now, the rumors are that Putin is going to put Russian Troops in Syria and do battle with ISIS, ISIL, DAESH, or IS, whatever your mood is at the moment. There is little point in wondering about it for these reasons, put in the form of questions:
      1. Do you know of any time, ever, that Putin has simply given up on a Russian base, especially one that is Internationally recognized such as the two in Syria which are is two ports on the Mediterranean?
      2. If he is going to send many Russian troops to Syria, do you think he would announce it ahead of time?
      3. If he is not going to send such troops, would you expect him to say so?

Now, another thought that needs to be considered when thinking about whether such a move would be successful: think back and remember all the pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia. Once, these pirates took a Russian vessel. The Russians reacted. Since then, there has not been one single pirate attack. It may not have been a pleasant experience for the Russians immediately involved, but such attacks have ended forever.

If you still think he may not take such action, you can ask yourself if you really think that he will abandon Crimea.

Finally, the mention of this has reached the corporate media. Of course, it has been denied by our administration, but, of course, we are ever vigilant. This brings to mind that long truism that one should never believe a rumor to be true until it is officially denied. Russians are embedded with Syrian soldiers in Damascus and they will strenuously defend their two ports. That's that.

There is more, but that is enough for now. We can observe that none to the gulf Arab states are helping the refugees from Syria. Only people who speak German are.

Finally, we've re-opened the Absurd Times to the public on Facebook. Maybe they will honor us by calling it “objectionable” again.

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Yemen, Israel, Palestine, Saudi, Wahabbi, God


THE ABSURD TIMES





Caption: School in Yemen.  See? Schools in Chicago ain't so bad.


            Quite overwhelming is the amount of absurdity today, so much so that it is difficult to know where to begin.  One thing is certain, to begin at the beginning is even more absurd.



            We can start with Yemen, the country that Obama pointed to as his model for dealing with terrorism.  Yet who is going to believe that he actually thought of it that way?  Well, the same people who remember that he called ISIS the "Junior Varsity".  The rest, well, they will simply either have to take our word for it, or search though back issues here to find the documentation.  There is no eagerness to relive all of that.  All that need be said is that all of what follows is an accurate reflection of what we have been told by our government and what we know is true, although not always at the same time.



            Saudi Arabia likes us because we believe in God.  They did not like the Soviet Union because they did not believe in God, at least not officially.  Our Constitution makes it official that we do not have to believe in a God, but it helps.  So, we are friends.  Everybody with us so far?  Ok. Good.



            Now Yemen is our model for combating terrorism,  or at least was.  Al-Quaeda is evil, but they believe in God and has a center in Yemen.  The thing is, they don't like us, so they try to bomb us with underwear and such stuff.  They even have the nerve to have people on the Web talking about God.  We do too, but our people are good -- you just have to take our word for it.  If not, we have drones. 



            But then there is a group called "Houtis", and the closest I can find of an Arabic word for that is "whale," and this is entirely unrelated to these people, as is the case with everything else with everybody else.  The Saudis (remember them?), good, don't like the Houtis because they have an Iranian God.  Now how did Iran get into this, you ask.  They used ships, we are told.  Right.  So our Christian ships often block the Shiite ships to protect the Sunni, or Wahabbi, really, bombers.  Or, to paraphrase, "God is Great"! 



             So, in order to preserve democracy, remember Democracy?, good, we have to support Israel.  That gets us into another problem because Israel says it is a "Jewish" state.  However, it is imposed on a Palestinian State.  Palestinians are basically secular, except for those in Gaza, so they are bombed in violation of any of the International laws one can think of.  Moreover, Jews can not be Israelis and Zionists at the same time (according to the original Zionist beliefs and most current Jewish beliefs).  Being Apartheid in nature, Jesus would not like the whole idea, but then Jesus never met Netanyahu.  One of our ex-Presidents, Jimmie Carter, who teaches Sunday School, called it apartheid and worse than ever, but then he is getting very old, so he doesn't count anymore.  See how it all fits together?  No?  Well, then, next paragraph.



            We carried out sanctions against south Africa because they were Apartheid, but at the time we supported Mandella staying in prison.  The only country to support South Africa towards the end was Israel because that is what God wanted.  See how it all fits together now?  Yep.



            So, Ukraine.  How did we get here?  Well, Ukraine is not Russia, you see.  Now, the Government in Kiev that we installed is called fascist by many, but according to those who are currently demonstrated, not fascist enough.  Some have called them "Neo-Nazis," but they do not like the "neo" part of that.  Hitler, after all, considered himself a good Catholic.



            Therefore, Putin snapped into action, distributing a video of himself and Medydev (as close as we are going to get to the spelling) exercising using weight machines and then having a barbeque.  Clearly, sacrilegious behavior. 



            So, who is going to straighten out all of this?  Donald Trump recently interviewed online by Sarah Palin.  She did not ask him what newspapers he read and he did not ask her to be his Vice President. 



            There is a God.



            But not in Chicago.  Rahm Emmanuel is the worst mayor Chicago has had since Kennelly, the guy who thought reform meant reform.  No understanding of Chicago at all.  Calamity Jane Byrne, Michael Blandeck, none of them come even close to Rahm Israel Emmanuel, and none had a more foul mouth, either (that was his one good trait -- at least you could communicate with him.  He is also the reason Obama's first term was such a disaster and why so many sane people left the staff as soon as possible.  Rod Blagojevich could probably get elected if an election were held today.  After trying to sell off the school system, he appeased the populace by calling out a mass of law enforcement offices to pursue cop killers near Fox Lake, north of Chicago.  The Fox River Valley extends all the way from there, past Chicago, and down towards rural Illinois.

 



             Here is some documentation on Yemen (remember Yemen?), good.:




TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

Despite Global Ban, Saudi-Led Forces Kill Dozens in Yemen Using U.S.-Made Cluster Bombs

Human Rights Watch has accused Saudi Arabia of using U.S.-made cluster munition rockets in at least seven attacks in the Yemeni city of Hajjah between late April and mid-July. Dozens of civilians were killed or wounded, both during the attacks and later, when they picked up unexploded submunitions that detonated. Neither the United States, Saudi Arabia or Yemen have joined the global convention banning the use of cluster munitions. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch criticized the U.S. stance on cluster munitions. "The U.S. thinks that cluster munitions are legitimate weapons," Roth said. "The U.S. still hasn't signed onto the landmines treaty. So, the U.S. is very much behind the rest of the world."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn right now to Yemen. We turn to Yemen because, well, a Saudi-led airstrike killed 36 civilians working at a bottling plant in the northern province of Hajjah on Sunday. Another attack on the Yemeni capital Sana'a hit a house and killed four civilians. The news comes amidst new evidence the Saudi-led forces have used cluster munitions in Yemen. Human Rights Watch said it found U.S.-made cluster munition rockets likely used in at least seven attacks in Hajjah between late April and mid-July. Dozens of civilians were killed or wounded, both during the attacks and later, when they picked up unexploded submunitions that denotated. Neither the United States, Saudi Arabia or Yemen have joined the global convention banning the use of cluster munitions.
Yesterday I spoke to Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth and started by asking him what Human Rights Watch found in Yemen.
KENNETH ROTH: As you note, the fact that the relevant countries have not ratified the cluster munitions treaty, while it would be helpful to do so, it's not decisive, because all of them have ratified the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit indiscriminate warfare. And cluster munitions are, by definition, indiscriminate. They scatter over wide areas, so they should never be used in civilian-populated areas to begin with. Plus they leave a residue. Not every munition explodes on contact with the ground, and they become antipersonnel land mines for people to just stumble upon and die. So the U.S. should be using pressure on the Saudis not to be using these weapons at all, but certainly not to be using them in populated areas where, as we're seeing, Yemenis are being killed.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what these weapons are and what they do.
KENNETH ROTH: They're essentially area-denial weapons. There is a canister with, you know, upwards of 200 submunitions, little bombs, inside. The canister opens in the sky and spreads these submunitions over a wide area. Each one of those is lethal, so you don't want to be in that area as these things rain down on you. You also don't want to walk through that area afterwards, but it becomes effectively a land mine field, because these cluster munitions are unreliable and a significant number don't initially explode. They only explode later, when somebody touches them or stands on them.
AMY GOODMAN: How do they affect the human body?
KENNETH ROTH: They're devastating. They're like standing on a land mine. They, at minimum, will rip off your limbs, and they very frequently are completely lethal.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a video released by Human Rights Watch featuring interviews with victims of cluster munitions in Yemen.
AZIZ HADI MATIR HAYASH: [translated] We were together, and a rocket hit us. It exploded in the air, and cluster bombs, submunitions, fell out of it. Before we left the house with the sheep, two submunitions fell down while others spread all over the village. One exploded, and the other still remains. My cousins and I were wounded.
FATIMA IBRAHIM AL-MARZUQI: [translated] Three brothers were killed—two children and one adult. It hit us while we were sleeping, and we were all wounded, including my brothers. I can't walk. My mother carries me. She gets me out, washes me, as well as my brother. My whole body is wounded. My dress was burned that night. My hands were burned, and my bones were broken.
AMY GOODMAN: Those were victims of cluster munitions in Yemen. Ken Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch, which put out this video. So, talk about what Saudi Arabia is doing right now in Yemen.
KENNETH ROTH: Well, Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition which is fighting the Houthi rebel forces in Yemen, and it's repeatedly using indiscriminate forms of warfare. A big part of the problem has been these cluster munitions, but we've seen time and time again that even more targeted weapons are being targeted in the wrong place. These are sophisticated weapons; the Saudis should be able to target them only at military targets. But we're finding often that they're not. And that's why we're seeing such a significant civilian toll.
AMY GOODMAN: So they're being used to terrorize.
KENNETH ROTH: Well, they're being used at least without much care as to who is hit. There is a sense that, particularly in the northern areas, which are predominantly Houthi, that there's not so much concern about civilians.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the U.S. just sealed a deal with Saudi Arabia for military weapons and jets that's the largest deal in the world.
KENNETH ROTH: The U.S. obviously views Saudi Arabia as a major supporter of the U.S. military complex, you know. And airplane producers and the like need these contracts—think they need these contracts, in order to continue to be profitable. That shouldn't be happening at the expense of civilians on the ground. The U.S. should be willing to live by the principles that it is theoretically signed up for in the Geneva Conventions and ensure that anybody it sells arms to is not using those arms to indiscriminately kill civilians, as the Saudis have been doing.
AMY GOODMAN: Human Rights Watch is calling for a U.N. inquiry into violations on all sides in Yemen?
KENNETH ROTH: Absolutely. In fact, there is a conference coming up reviewing compliance with the new cluster munitions treaty. And one of the problems is that the U.K., Canada and Australia, all of which had joined the cluster munitions treaty, are pushing to water down this inquiry. They're trying to put "allegedly" in front of the evidence we have that Saudi clusters have killed civilians in Yemen.
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
KENNETH ROTH: They're doing the U.S. bidding.
AMY GOODMAN: Why does the U.S. want to water this down?
KENNETH ROTH: Well, I mean, the U.S. thinks that cluster munitions are legitimate weapons. The U.S. still hasn't signed onto the land mines treaty. So, the U.S. is very much behind the rest of the world. As most nations of the world want to ban these inherently indiscriminate weapons, the U.S. has a huge arsenal of them, it doesn't want that arsenal limited, and it hates the idea of treaties that are restraining the Pentagon on humanitarian grounds. It lives with the Geneva Conventions because it understands that those help to fight a better war. But the add-ons that Human Rights Watch and others have pressed—the land mines treaty, the cluster munitions treaty and the like—the Pentagon hates and has prevented Obama from signing onto them, and is trying to undermine enforcement, using U.S. allies around the world to do that.
AMY GOODMAN: How much difference does mass protest make around something like this?
KENNETH ROTH: I think it makes all the difference in the world. In other words, Obama doesn't want to be seen as underwriting indiscriminate warfare, even if it is on the other side of the world. If it happens under the radar screen, if the Pentagon is able to push this quietly, there's no big political cost to Obama. But I think rabble-rousing and publicity helps make Obama responsible, and he's going to have a hard time standing up and saying, "I don't really care about indiscriminate warfare."
AMY GOODMAN: Just to be clear, the land mine treaty that the U.S. also has not signed onto, that's the one that Princess Di was pushing so many years ago, right, among many other people?
KENNETH ROTH: Precisely. And, in fact, the U.S. government is—has limited the use of land mines. And even though it hasn't joined onto the treaty, it recognizes that these are weapons that are extremely difficult to use because of public relations problems. And so, there has been a real shift at the Pentagon. We haven't seen that shift yet, in any significant way, with cluster munitions.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you have this situation where people are being struck, civilians are being struck, by cluster munitions by the Saudi-led attacks on Yemen, yet Saudi Arabia continues to lead a blockade against people leaving. Can you explain what's happening there?
KENNETH ROTH: Well, there's an enormous humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It is already a country that is very dependent on international assistance for basic things like water and the like. And because the Saudis have been blockading the country, trying to prevent fuel and other things from getting into Yemen as part of its effort to fight the Houthi rebels, the Yemeni people are suffering. And we're seeing enormous numbers of people who are facing malnutrition and even starvation because of the deprivation caused by this blockade.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the figures are amazing. According to the U.N., 21 million Yemenis, a staggering 80 percent of the population, need assistance. And half the population is facing hunger, famine. More than 15.2 million people lack access to basic healthcare, and over 20 million lack access to safe water.
KENNETH ROTH: Yeah, I mean, it's absolutely horrendous, and it really underscores the importance of making clear that if you're going to go to war, yes, you shoot at the other side's combatants, but you can't use means that cause the entire civilian population to suffer. And that's what the Saudi-led coalition is doing in Yemen today.
AMY GOODMAN: Human Rights Watch executive director Ken Roth speaking here in New York. This is Democracy Now! 


The 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.

-->