Thank you Debra
Urbano
Today George Bush announced to the world that Iran is the "single biggest threat" to peace in the Middle East. What country surrounds Iran with military bases on all sides? What is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons?
Yesterday I was on Iranian TV sending a message that we reject Bush's threats. See the PressTV show on May 12.
Wednesday the Chicago City Council will vote on a resolution against a US attack on Iran. See more at NoWarOnIran-chicago.org.
Blackwater base in San Diego
Blackwater evil
As a follow up to the report on the Blackwater base in San Diego, which
talked about their campaigns to "win the hearts and minds" of the people,
including parachuting over sporting events with gigantic US flags, see
below an excerpt from the CodePink DC blog from Sat, May 10.
"On Saturday, we went to a US-Italy polo game because one of the
sponsors was Blackwater. Two of us got inside (I got in as press, Tighe
bought a ticket that was refunded when they kicked us out). When
Blackwater paratroopers were skydiving with US and Italian flags (gross
site), we unfurled our Blackwater Makes a Killing banner and ran up and
down yelling that they were mercenaries and killers until they kicked us out.
Meanwhile, Liz and Des -- with their megaphones -- were talking to EVERY
CAR that came in, as there was only one entrance."
See video of the Blackwater parachute team with the Italian flag (near the
bottom of the page):
http://www.americaspolocup.com/theevent.php
CodePink was also there with a No Dal Molin flag! See photo:
http://tinyurl.com/3mtol5
The most disturbing part of all this is they participate as if they were just
another branch of the service! If you´d like to send comments to any of the
event's sponsors, here´s a list (I wouldn´t bother with the magazine called
Garden & Gun!): http://www.americaspolocup.com/officialpartners.php
Two of the sponsors have an Italian connection:
Birra Moretti: info@birramoretti.it
National Italian American Foundation: information@niaf.org
See also Bob Koehler´s latest column on Blackwater below.
Stephanie
http://www.commonwonders.com/archives/col445.htm
Apology Denied
Once we recognize their humanity, we've lost
By ROBERT C. KOEHLER
Tribune Media Services
May 8, 2008
"I want you to feel that Iraqi life is precious," he told them.
Well, that´s not going to happen. Here, at the level of basic humanity, the
occupation of Iraq -- indeed, the entire Bush administration -- begins to
unravel. We can see this with excruciating clarity as requests for an apology
waylay the smooth, legal cover-up (one in a series) of the latest spasm of
panic and target practice by Blackwater thugs, which left 17 Iraqis dead in
Baghdad´s Nisoor Square in September.
Even the embedded media, so valiant in their attempts to cast the
American presence as well-intentioned and, you know, doing the best it can
(under the circumstances), couldn´t help but convey, as they reported on
the investigation of the Blackwater killings, the humanity of the grieving
Iraqis. In so doing, the coverage hinted, unavoidably, at the truth about the
occupation: that we are, to put it mildly, the bad guys, that what we´re doing
there is barbaric, racist, insane.
Nothing drives this truth home quite as blatantly as America´s mercenary
army in Iraq, which is immune from prosecution under either Iraqi or U.S.
law. And the baddest of the American privateers are the Blackwater guys,
about whom a rival security contractor told Fortune magazine: "They always
shoot first and ask questions later. When we´re out in country, we often fear
Blackwater more than the Iraqis."
Back on Sept. 16, Blackwater personnel -- not for the first time -- convulsed
the people to whom we are bringing democracy with an unprovoked
shooting rampage. While providing security for a U.S. embassy mission,
they opened fire in the crowded square. By the time they stopped, 17 Iraqis
lay dead and another several dozen were wounded. These were just
ordinary people going about their lives. No one had fired at the security
team first, witnesses insisted. But apparently something spooked them, and
when you´re not accountable under any law, why take chances?
The incident, or massacre, as the Iraqis call it, was outrageous enough to
require some sort of investigation by the occupying authorities -- albeit a
meaningless one, if you measure the seriousness of an investigation by the
potential consequences that would flow from it. In the middle of it, the State
Department renewed Blackwater´s contract in Iraq, indicating that, whatever
the result, nothing was at stake.
The U.S. also tried to buy its way out of this sticky wicket by offering money
to the injured and the relatives of the dead. For some reason, the Iraqis
refused their envelopes full of cash; they wanted apologies.
It´s hard for me to read anything about Iraq in the mainstream media
without being tormented by the way it´s written: especially by what I would
call the requisite spin and omission. Thus every travesty of our occupation,
every hellish mishap, every stealth brutality that somehow finds its way into
the spotlight, is presented to us context-free. This is the media´s ongoing
gift to George Bush (and John McCain).
The Los Angeles Times, for instance, in its May 4 story about the
investigation of the Nisoor Square massacre, doesn´t trouble us with
references to other Blackwater shooting sprees; much less the larger
context of invasion, mission accomplished, and five years of occupation in
which more than a million Iraqis have died; much less the ample testimony
of returning vets that "the hadjis" of occupied Iraq are routinely belittled,
mistreated and dehumanized. If it had done so, the massacre in question
would suddenly be a piece in a far larger picture that would make almost all
Americans recoil in shame.
The story does, however, report the awkwardness of Iraqis´ turning down
cash settlements as a reflection of "the deep disconnect between the
American legal process and the traditional culture of Iraq, between the
courtroom and the tribal diwan."
Ah, so that´s it. Here in America, when someone is killed by a burly goon
wearing wraparound sunglasses as he walks through a public square, our
cut-and-dried system of justice spits out a cash payment to the parents and
they go away happy. In primitive Iraq, however, "The perpetrator admits
responsibility, commiserates with the victim, pays medical expenses and
other compensation, all over glasses of tea in a tribal tent."
In other words, as a U.S. diplomat is quoted as saying, "Our system is so
different from theirs."
But the story in spite of itself refutes this explanation and cuts through to
the human core that knows neither national nor cultural boundaries by
quoting the Iraqis themselves, who are the only ones speaking in plain
language: "Let them apologize by saying those were innocent people," said
the father of one of the dead. "Then we will be ready for understanding."
At some point the wall of denial and lies that is the U.S. occupation of Iraq
will give way and world -- including American -- outrage will demand its
cessation. I believe the collapse will begin with an apology, which is why
that´s the one thing Iraq´s grieving survivors cannot have.
Dear all,
The 7th season of our Eyes Wide Open film series concludes this Sunday,
May 18 at 8pm with "The War on Democracy" by John Pilger. The award-
winning journalist examines Washington's role in manipulating Latin
American politics over the past 50 years.
The War on Democracy (2007)
Sunday, May 18, 8pm
Arcobaleno
Via Pullino, 1 (metro Garbatella, see directions below)
Film synopsis:
"The War on Democracy demonstrates the brutal reality of America's notion
of 'spreading democracy.' As award-winning journalist John Pilger
documents, America is actually conducting a war ON democracy, and true
popular democracy is now more likely to be found among the poorest of
Latin America, whose grassroots popular democratic movements are
bursting forth despite U.S.-backed suppression. Interviewees in the film
include President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as well as U.S. government
officials who ran the CIA's wars in Latin America in the 1980s--who reveal
more about U.S. policy than any official statement.
The War on Democracy, however, is a hopeful film, for it sees the world not
through the eyes of the powerful, but through the hopes and dreams and
extraordinary actions of ordinary people. Although set mostly in Latin
America, it is a metaphor for all the world."
See a review at the Documentary Blog:
http://tinyurl.com/4unvjt
Join us for this interesting documentary followed by a lively discussion!
Arcobaleno requires a 5 Euro/year membership card, which is good for
discounts at exhibitions, theatres, etc.) Drinks and/or a light dinner available
during the screening.
GETTING TO ARCOBALENO (see map: http://tinyurl.com/2cfl3m)
By metro: Take the B Line to the Garbatella stop, exit towards via Pullino,
turn right and continue (200mt) across Piazza Albini to Arcobaleno.
By bus: Buses 673 from the Colosseum area and 716/715 from Piazza
Venezia. See the ATAC web site for more options: http://www.atac.roma.it/
See our web site for more information:
http://www.peaceandjustice.it/film-series7.php
See you this Sunday!
Madness
Going into maelstrom
| Sunday, 26 August 2007 |
|
8/25/07: Film maker Robert Greenwald has produced this frightening video showing the glaring similarities between the media's current attempts to sell a war on Iran with its support in 2003 for a war on Iraq (including by repeating the lies from the Bush administration). Check out the video below, and think about the urgent need to stop whatever the Bush regime is planning to do to Iran.
|
Going in the maelstrom
Fallon for President
Vhy not?
The Bush program is shaping the world
Urbano
This past weekend, World Can't Wait held a national meeting in Berkeley CA. Here is how I began the meeting:
About six weeks ago, Bush got approval and funding from the Congress for a secret directive authorizing a range of operations, including assassinations, against the Iranian government. According to Andrew Cockburn on May 2, the area "covers actions across a huge geographic area - from Lebanon to Afghanistan - but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines - up to and including the assassination of targeted officials… A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4." That's tomorrow. It'll take them about a month to get there.
This preparation is real, the threat of a new attack must be taken extremely seriously - and there is NO opposition to this coming from within the halls of power or from the democratic presidential contenders. Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran and Obama's only objection was that "using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results… I think the Iranians can be confident that I [too] will respond forcefully." Vanity Fair wrote a month ago that the only thing standing between the US and an attack on Iran was General Fallon - and just days later he was forced to resign.
The Bush program is still shaping the world - and everything they have put in place for the last seven years is what is setting the stage and the terms for all of official politics today.
As we said in January, "George Bush is unrelenting in his determination to drive the savageness of his agenda into the next administration". Politics as usual will not meet the enormity of the damage that has been done. Can the world wait? Hell, no! And do we still need to bring to a halt this whole program and direction? Hell, YES!
This is a time for moral clarity and fearless determination. The horrors that we came together to stop are not over - and we can't be over either. Read more.
World Can't Wait made these plans to raise the alarm on US plans v Iran:
Hold meetings and forums everywhere schools are still in session.
Get Emergency response networks organized in case of an attack.
Encourage showings of the new film: Iran Is Not the Problem
Stay tuned for a one page handout you can use....and more plans from World Can't Wait on this and other key issues.
Debra Sweet, Director, The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime
Doomsday
Doomsday. I could not find a different term to define the events that took place between 13 and 14 April, 2008.
I guess there has been some (or perhaps a lot) of talk in the rest of the world about Italians going to the polls one more time (the last was two years ago) to elect a new Parliament, and, consequently, a new government, the sixty-second in 60 years of Republican history. The outgoing Romano Prodi government, in charge since 2006, collapsed after only two years, killed by its inherent contradictions. Today’s electoral outcome is largely the result of such contradictions.
Now, to make a long story short, of the many contesting parties, only six were likely to win at least one seat:
· the Democratic Party (PD), resulting from the unification of the Democrats of the Left (mainly consisting of former Communists) and the “Margherita” (“daisy”, like the flower, consisting of more progressive Catholics) and led by Rome’s former mayor, Walter Veltroni, a big fan of Barack Obama and John Kennedy’s, backed by American movie star George Clooney;
· PD’s ally “Italia dei Valori” (IDV), led by former prosecutor Antonio di Pietro, hero (or, in the opinion of many, villain) of the so called “Mani Pulite” (Clean Hands) age, when a group of prosecutors challenged the entrenched corruption of the Italian political system;
· the electoral cartel Popolo delle Libertà (PDL, Freedom People) led by Silvio Berlusconi, made up of Forza Italia (Berlusconi’s party) and Alleanza Nazionale (former foreign minister Gianfranco Fini’s party);
· Umberto Bossi’s Lega Nord (LN, Northern League), allied to PDL, whose strongholds are in the Northern part of Italy;
· Pierferdinando Casini’s l’Unione di Centro (UDC), formely allied with Berlusconi, defender of Catholic values and morality: so much so, that last July one of its deputies, Cosimo Mele, was discovered to have enjoyed one entire night partying and sniffing cocaine with two prostitutes, while his pregnant wife was waiting for him at home, and the story became public just because one of the girls had OD’d and had to be hospitalized; so much so, that Sicily’s former President, Salvatore Cuffaro, better known as “Vasa-vasa” (Kiss-kiss, in Sicilian dialect, due to his habit of kissing everybody), who had been forced to resign after being sentenced to five years in jail for abetting the mafia, and was photographed while celebrating the “light” sentence with a bunch of cannoli, a typical Sicilian pastry: he was obviously the candidate leading the UDC list for the Senate in Sicily, and got elected: great job, Pierferdinando!;
· The Socialist Party (PS), which has refused to join PD;
· la Destra (the Right), made up of Fascists who had left Alleanza Nazionale, plus more tiny extreme-Right groups; and,
· Sinistra-l’Arcobaleno (Left-the Rainbow, SA), consisting of Italy’s two main Communist parties (I am not quite sure how many there are ...), the Green Party, and Sinistra Democratica, the left wing of the former Democrats of the Left, who have refused to join PD.
In Italy, dozens of parties have traditionally competed in the electoral arena, resulting in the atomizing of political representation. In the past, Christian Democrats would normally be the pivot of any majority, by means of alliances with other parties, big or small, to its left or right or both ways. Such parties, especially the smaller ones, would continuously blackmail the rest of the coalition by making demands out of proportion to their real electoral weight, actions resulting in continous power shifts and majority changes. To simplify, the situation resembled that of France’s third and fourth Republic. Thus, when the political system collapsed at the beginning of the ‘90s after the “Tangentopoli” (literally, Kickback town) scandals, the Christian Democrats, the Socialists and other traditional parties were practically erased. The blame was almost unanimously cast on proportional representation. Therefore, after a couple of popular referenda, the voting rules were changed and the so-called “Mattarellum”, as dubbed by political scientist Giovanni Sartori (that is the latinization of Sergio Mattarella, his main drafter), was passed by Parliament: its main features, 75 per cent of seats allotted through first-past-the-post, and 25 per cent through proportional vote. This new electoral law, which stimulated the creation of wide electoral alliances, seemed to be pushing Italy towards a two-coalition system, though unsteady, as the only government actually capable of lasting five years (the maximum duration of a parliamentary term) has been Berlusconi’s, from 2001 to 2006. And the Prodi government’s fall has shown its limits.
First of all, the unsolved question of the electoral system: right before the 2006 election the “Mattarellum” was changed by the Berlusconi majority, by then sure of its own oncoming defeat, obviously without the opposition’s involvement (involving the opposition should be the rule, when you are dealing with the rules of the game), and the new formula was devised to “poison the well”, that is, to make it more difficult to obtain a majority in both Houses of Parliament. However, much to the chagrin of Berlusconi, his allies and his supporters, post-election studies in 2006 discovered that the Center-right would have won with the old electoral law.
Now, the new law was dubbed by one of his creators, former Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli, one of LN top members, a “porcata” (pigswill). Thus, this law is generally known now as “porcellum”, the latinization of the word “porcello”, piglet, after Calderoli’s remark. It should be noted that this is the same Calderoli who one night sparked street riots in front of the Italian consulate in Bengasi, Lybia, with eleven people dead, many wounded, and countless cars burnt down, by showing up on a live TV show with a T-shirt depicting one of the controversial Mohammed caricatures, previously published on Danish newspapers. And it is the same Calderoli who, in order to prevent the building of a mosque in the city of Bologna, stated that he would make one of his pigs walk on the construction ground, apparently believing such an act would desecrate it. I guess that proved nothing more than Calderoli’s familiarity with pigs.
Briefly, “porcellum” works this way: the vote is proportional; parties present blocked lists of candidates, that is, voters cannot express any preference; at the House, a coalition needs to pass a 10 per cent threshold, a party within a coalition a 2 per cent one, and for a party going it alone the threshold will be 4 per cent, and whatever coalition wins the majority of votes will also get a substantial majority prize, so that it may reach 340 deputies; at the Senate, the mechanism is different: the threshold is on a regional level, and it is 20 per cent for a coalition, 3 per cent for a party within a coalition, and 8 per cent for parties going it alone, and the majority prize is on a regional level as well. Thanks to such differences, there might be a majority at the House and a different one at the Senate (even though Berlusconi this time got a wide majority in both Houses); or, the majority at the Senate might be very thin, as in Prodi’s case, as his coalition consisted of 159 senators against 156 of the opposition. Furthermore, one of the majority senators, Sergio De Gregorio, made a deal with the opposition and left the coalition right away in exchange for the chairmanship of the Defense Committee, which was supposed to be conferred upon Communist ex partisan and pacifist Lidia Menapace; two Communist senators, Sergio Turigliatto and Fernando Rossi, got expelled from their parties (Rifondazione Comunista and PDCI) after abstaining, on 21 February 2007, on a foreign policy government motion confirming Italy’s commitment in the Afghan war, an act that forced Prodi to resign (he was eventually reappointed after that episode); and one of the senators elected in South America, Luigi Pallaro, would not always guarantee his votes. For such reasons, Prodi often had to avail himself of the votes of those “senators for life”, that is, former Presidents of the Italian Republic, who automatically become members of the Senate as soon as their term ends, and people appointed by the President for particular merits (think, for example, of Nobel Prize winner Rita Levi Montalcini), amidst the opposition’s howls, probably oblivious of the fact that Berlusconi back in 1994 owed the existence of his first government to the votes of Senators for life.
Now, Berlusconi. If I were to tell you in detail about
· his conflicts of interests;
· his relationship with the mafia;
· his thousands of gaffes, like when he claimed during an interview with the London Spectator that Mussolini had never killed anybody and that by interning his opponents he was actually offering them a vacation;
· his thousands of poor, disgraceful shows, in Italy but especially abroad, as when, during an informal EU meeting in Spain, in February 2002, he extended the first and fourth fingers over the head of Spanish foreign minister Josep Pique during the ritual picture; or when in July 2003, during the opening of Italy’s semester of EU presidency (the EU presidency rotates every six months, following member states’ alphabetical order), after being questioned by German Socialist deputy Martin Schultz on his conflict of interests, he replied: “Mr. Schulz, I know of a movie director currently shooting a film in Italy about Nazi concentration camps: I will propose you for the role of kapo. You would be perfect”, to then call Euro MPs “turisti della democrazia” (I think there is no need to translate this one); or when in June 2005 Berlusconi claimed that the renunciation of Finnish claims to hosting the newborn European authority on food safety, and its consequent awarding to Italy, was the result of his skills as a playboy and his courting of Finnish President Tarja Halonen: the Italian ambassador in Helsinki was eventually summoned by the Finnish government, as it might be that in more civilized countries sexist jokes are hardly tolerated);
· his thousands of lies;
· his thousands of unfulfilled promises: one example was his hilarious “Contract with the Italians”, apparently inspired by Newt Gingrich’s Contract wth America, presented on national State TV, obviously without any opposing politician around, when he promised that he would not run again should he not be able to achieve at least four of the five goals there outlined: of course, he accomplished none, not even one, but he is still around;
· the laws passed by his majority to save him from prosecutions and trials and legally and economically favor his firms;
· the capable journalists kicked out of RAI, the State TV, and replaced by inept lackeys: among the victims, Enzo Biagi and Michele Santoro, two of Italy’s finest and most loved journalists, especially the former, who received his dismissal notice through a certified mail letter, after working at RAI for decades;
· the economic disaster caused by his government: according to data from the Italian Central Bank, the country’s public debt increased again towards 110 per cent of GDP in 2005, after falling constantly for years; the primary surplus (that is, what is left before paying off the debt), which was 5.6 per cent of GDP in 2001, dropped to 0.6 per cent in 2005; the deficit/GDP ratio went up to 4.1 per cent in 2005 from 3.2 per cent in 2001 (the EU Stability Pact requires Member States not to exceed 3 per cent). Thanks to this situation Italy was constantly reprimanded by the European Union, almost on a daily basis, for five, very long years;
· Italians getting poorer and poorer, and Berlusconi and his cronies getting richer and richer;
· several individuals indicted and even convicted for very serious crimes being confirmed on party lists for public offices (mostly within his party and coalition). I would say that having a clean criminal record represents a handicap, rather than advantage, if one wants to pursue a political career in Italy nowadays;
· parliamentary committees of inquiry set up to destroy political opponents, by accusing them, for example, of taking kickbacks or having been KGB collaborators, through the hearing of “reliable” witnesses, that is notorious crooks and conmen, including a mythomaniacal self-proclaimed Polish count, guardian of the Holy Sepulchre and vice-chairman of the Vatican bank, already involved in several cases of fraud, whose real job was unloading cases at Brescia’s fruit and vegetable market. The evidence introduced by these “witnesses” was so outrageously false that it led nowhere;
· and so much more, which could certainly not be summarized here.
Books may be written, and many have, some of which absolutely hilarious, about the man who, by quoting famous investigative journalist Marco Travaglio, “has been fooling Italians for the past 12 years: Napoleon Berlusconi”, dubbed that way, undoubtedly, out of the man’s unstoppable delusions of grandeur (by the way, Travaglio is one of those people who disappeared from State TV during the five years of Berlusconi’s regime).
Now, it should come as no surprise that Silvio Berlusconi represents a massive threat to democracy. A man who owns basically everything, from soccer teams to publishing firms, from land to insurance companies, but most of all a man who owns private TV channels and newspapers and controls RAI: during his five years’ reign, he broke the unofficial agreement under which the spoils of RAI, to be carved up between parties, should be unequally divided between the majority (two channels) and the opposition (one channel), as he took everything and packed State TV with incompetent toadies, thus controlling, even during his two years at the opposition, 90 per cent of the Italian media; a man who uses his media to brainwash the people (not even Orwell would have been able to conceive some of Berlusconi’s pre-electoral TV ads in past years); a man who defines the “equal opportunity law”, a set of feeble rules aimed at counterbalancing Berlusconi’s preponderance in the media, “illiberal” and “democracy-killer”; a man who picks journalists and questions before a press conference or a TV show; a man who never conceded defeat two years ago, has been speaking of rigged elections until now, without a shred of evidence, even though the imposed recounting of large samples of ballot papers has completely belied Berlusconi’s claims (there has been a lot of speculation, and even a documentary shot by journalist Enrico Deaglio, that Berlusconi might have actually been the one trying to rig the 2006 election, as data mysteriously stopped flowing from Berlusconi-controlled Ministry of Interiors during election night, Interior Minister Pisanu left the building during the counting to have a night meeting with Berlusconi, and the number of blank ballot papers enormously dropped if compared with previous elections, thus reducing the enormous advantage that Prodi’s coalition had earlier in the day); a man who will not accept a public debate with his opponents; a man who shows his contempt for the rest of the world, whether it is the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano or the beggar on the streets: when questioned by a young female student, a few days before the 2008 election, on how to solve the problem of job insecurity, his response was: “You could either marry my son or a millionaire”; a man who accuses critics of either being anti-Italian, as the object of criticism is the leader of the government democratically elected by the Italian people (which did not prevent him from criticizing the Prodi government basically every day … oh well, I forgot, the election had been rigged …), or a Communist: even The Economist, which could be hardly defined as the Bolshevik party’s house organ, was dubbed “The Ecommunist”, after a couple of poisonous articles on him; a man who, during a press conference with Vladimir Putin in Sardinia, a few days after the latest election, raised his fingers, mimicked a machine gun, aimed at a Russian journalist who had just asked Putin a question about the credibility of rumors concerning his divorce, and said: “Pum! Pum!”, a pretty insensitive joke if you think that dozens of journalists have been murdered in Russia since Putin’s rise to power, that in most cases no culprit has been found, and that the involvement of the Putin Administration in the murders cannot be excluded with full certainty; with a man like this, such a master of gaffes and deceit, a real pro who would make Bush and his cronies pale in comparison and look like amateurs, what sort of guarantee could we have that he will put general interests ahead of his own? We have none, and experience tells us that there is no hope he will ever do. However, the Center-Left had years to solve the problem, but did not have the guts to do it. On the contrary, they helped Berlusconi whenever he was in trouble. I will try and summarize.
The first Prodi government, elected in 1996, did nothing. When Massimo D’Alema replaced him on 21 October 1998, Berlusconi was politically dead. Therefore, D’Alema had the brilliant idea of resurrecting him by setting up the Bicameral Committee for constitutional reforms, which gave Berlusconi an aura of statesmanship. Obviously, as soon as Berlusconi realized that the thing he cared about the most, the rigid separation between prosecutors and judges (in Italy both categories belong to the Bench, and enjoy the same guarantees of independence), the first step towards prosecutors’ subjugation to the executive power, he torpedoed the whole thing, including all of the other possible reforms. D’Alema was then replaced by Giuliano Amato, Bettino Craxi’s former heir apparent, after the Left had won seven regions and lost eight in April 2000 regional elections (when the Center-Left won twelve regions out of fourteen in 2005, Berlusconi obviously did not believe it appropriate to resign). Nothing happened during Amato’s brief tenure.
The presence of three different Prime Ministers in five years was certainly one of the reasons that led to the defeat of 2001. Center-Left politicians have usually found it hard to understand that progressive electors are sick and tired of their representatives fighting one another all the time, more or less secretly conspiring in order to gain power to the detriment of other party members and comrades, saying one thing in the morning to then be repudiated by somebody else in the afternoon. Animated, sometimes harsh discussions are a necessary part of a democratic party’s life; but so is transparency, on the one hand, and clarity of ideas, on the other. Discuss, make a definitive decision, and then let ONLY ONE person explain it to the people: is that too much to ask? The Left has never got it, unfortunately, and quarrelsomeness is one of the reasons why Berlusconi almost managed to be reconfirmed in 2006, though his government had caused some of the worst disasters in the history of the Italian republic. Not that Berlusconi’s coalition was not quarrelsome and chaotic, but the leader’s figure, his phony smile and his massive propaganda machinery were a pretty efficient buffer against the sorrows of reality. Prodi did not have such an advantage, and the problems of his coalition, ranging from Rifondazione Comunista on the far Left to hyper-centrists Lamberto Dini and Clemente Mastella on the Right, where all too evident, beginning with the dozens of different interpretations given to the often mystifying, 281-pages long electoral manifesto.
It is undeniable that the Prodi government obtained a few good results, especially with regard to the balancing of Italy’s disastrous finances, and the struggle against tax evasion, a real calamity in a country where the sum of resources withheld from public coffers reaches an astounding 100 billion euros per year, amounting to about 7 per cent of GDP, that is nearly what is annually spent on health care. Other important actions have been the signing of the legislative decree on security in the workplace on 1 April 2008, which innovates legislation and tries to check the endless stream of industrial deaths resulting from the extremely frequent disregard for the most basic safety rules, with 5,253 casualties between 2003 and 2006; and a batch of liberalizations aimed at increasing the power of customers as opposed to banks and businesses and the enhancement of certain services, as in the case, for instance, of taxi licenses (however, a lot more could have been done here, and the government’s action was certainly restrained by the fear of category protests, as in the case of the strike staged by taxi drivers, who, by the way, represent a very conservative part of society). The Prodi government also definitely managed to improve Italy’s international reputation, spoiled by five years of bad jokes, gaffes and back slapping, in addition to the disgraceful decision to dispatch troops to Iraq, with an overwhelming majority of Italians opposed to the invasion, just to allow Berlusconi to get an invitation to Ranch Crawford and play the important guy, even though he had not been invited to the summit between Bush, Blair and Aznar that took place in the Azorres on 16 March 2003, four days before the beginning of the invasion (and it should also be noted that Berlusconi changed his mind on this issue about 100 times in a few months, and even stated, clearly undaunted by the prospect of becoming an object of ridicule, that, before any attack on Iraq, Bush would first consult him, and that he would convince Bush not to attack thanks to his moral authority): in particular, noteworthy and appreciated by progressive voters was Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema’s “equicloseness policy” between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the frequent criticism of the former’s actions, after five years of supine uncritical acceptance of US and Israeli policies in the Middle East.
However, what was missing in the former government’s action was the resolute pursuit of those more tangible results the common people are interested in, a fact that doomed the Left, which basically abided by each and every Centrist diktat, and at times even appeared to support certain stances. It is commonly said that Italians reason with their bellies, rather than with their heads. Thus, since the tax rate on financial rents amounts to 12.5 per cent in Italy, whereas it is no less than 20 per cent in the rest of Europe, why keep postponing the equalization, and not use the accruing revenues, together with the funds obtained through the fight against tax evasion, to decrease the tax rate on the lower incomes, reducing it from 23 per cent to 20 per cent, this way creating consent among the vast majority of the population and stimulating consumption? However, such steps, repeatedly insisted upon by the Left, were never taken.
The Prodi government, though its electoral manifesto promised the opposite, preferred to increase military spending (we spend more than Germany on a per capita basis, and are the eighth country in the world for military budget, with an annual expense of some 30 billion US dollars, buy new aircraft carriers and planes, keep troops in Afghanistan and say yes to the extension of US military facilities in Vicenza, all of which was accepted by the Left out of a feeling of “coalition duty”. The Prodi government was not courageous enough to push for the passage of another of the actions promised in the electoral manifesto, that is, civil unions, because of Catholic Church diktats. The Prodi government, in spite of what promised in the electoral manifesto, did not repeal some of the Right’s worst laws: for example, the Giovanardi-Fini law on drugs, which makes it possible to be arrested for being in possession of even a single joint; the Bossi-Fini law on immigration, which, by eliminating “sponsors” and relying on repression and expulsion, has paved the way for massive illegal immigration; and all the so called “shame-laws”, rammed through Parliament for the sake of Berlusconi and his cronies and the good economic health of his firms. The Prodi government also promoted the indulto (pardon), which requires a 2/3 vote in each House and, though aiming at decreasing the unbearable number of inmates in the Italian prison system, was nevertheless directed not just at those poor devils languishing in jail for stealing a sandwich, but was extended to those guilty of financial crimes, tax-evasion, taking bribes, violation of rules on safety at the workplace and consequent injuries or deaths of workers, etc., which was a move intended to get Berlusconi and his henchmen to support the action (however, it should be noted that those guilty of such crimes hardly ever go to jail, and the extension was needed to prevent any risk of future imprisonment …). The Prodi government sparked, together with the opposition, controversies over wiretapping, whose use by investigators and prosecutors has been very important in helping to discover some of the worst frauds in Italian history, which the Prodi government wanted to limit as much as to making them useless, just because some politicians had recently been involved, Center-Left ones as well. Justice Minister Clemente Mastella hindered the request of Italian prosecutors to the US for the extradition of those CIA agents involved in the kidnapping of Egyptian mullah Abu Omar in Milan, who was then renditioned to a secret prison in Egypt where he was tortured for months. The Prodi government failed once more to solve the anomaly of Berlusconi’s conflicts of interests once and for all, thus leaving Italy in the hands of a monopolist no different, and I would say worse, than Thai media tycoon Shinawatra. The Prodi government paid for the trash disaster in Naples, even if not directly involved.
I would also like to mention one more thing. The Prodi government, except for a paltry reduction in government members’ salaries, did not seriously tackle the issue of the squandering of public money, especially the flow of cash ending up inside the pockets of elected politicians, which makes them a privileged “caste”, “La Casta”, which is also the title of a best-seller by journalists Sergio Rizzo and Gian Antonio Stella, where interesting data can be found: for example, an Italian MP makes almost 12,000 euros per month, plus some 4,000 for daily allowance, plus another 4,000 for aides, plus free travelling on trains, planes, buses etc.; European MPs are paid by their own EU Member State, and therefore Italians are the most paid of all, with 149,215 euros per year, whereas German, British, Dutch, French, Spanish and Hungarian MPs make 84,108; 82,380; 66,782; 63,093; 39,463; 10,080 euros respectively. Now, it is true that Leftist MPs give no less than 50 percent of their salary to their party. However, what would you say if you were a factory worker making 1,200 euros per month, or a call-center employee making 500 euros per month with a one-year contract, and saw your representatives, claiming to have been elected to protect and improve the standard of living of the working class, voting unanimously with the Right to further raise their wages, while talking about economic justice at the same time?
In the end, we can say that the Prodi government largely disappointed its voters. It is true that it lasted only two years, but it is also true that so many of its actions broke those promises made in the electoral manifesto, which was urned into toilet paper a few days after the election. It certainly was not the Left’s fault, but, rather, the work of Centrists, Clemente Mastella and Lamberto Dini above all, who scuttled the Prodi government while throwing the blame on the Left, accused of obstructing the executive’s work, a mantra adopted by Veltroni as well in order to justify his claims that PD should go it alone without the Left, though that did not prevent him from allying with IDV and the Radicals. It would be interesting to note that the Radicals have absolutely nothing in common with the rest of the coalition, as they are stalwart enemies of the Catholic Church, favoring euthanasia, the right to abortion, soft drug consumption, and civil unions, and are extremely pro-business and pro-America, even more than Veltroni himself.
Veltroni. Like his party colleague, D’Alema, he has managed to resurrect Berlusconi, who was at loggerheads with most of his former allies and on his way to retirement, by trying to involve him in a deal for reforms, in particular of the electoral law. Obviously, Berlusconi feigned interest but then torpedoed the whole thing, as it did not tie in with his personal interests. Furthermore, Veltroni refused an electoral alliance with SA, pushed the “useful vote” mantra, and accused Bertinotti, the SA candidate, of being like Ralph Nader. So, while Berlusconi dragged in anybody and anything in his coalition, Veltroni claimed he would not, he eventually did, left SA out, and lost. Great job!
The outcome was dramatic for SA. In 2006, with an electoral turnout of 83.61 per cent of voters, the sum of the four parties exceeded 10% at the House and 11% at the Senate (a precise computation of votes is impossible as Sinistra Democratica was at the time part of the Democrats of the Left), with 2,229,464 votes for Rifondazione Comunista; 884,127 for PDCI; 784,803 for the Greens, exceeding, if we also take Sinistra Democratica into account, 4 million votes. The same was true of the Senate, where Rifondazione Comunista got 2,518,624 votes and PDCI and the Greens (forming a single list) got 1,423,226 votes.
Now, if we take into consideration the so-called “useful vote” for PD, directed at preventing Berlusconi’s victory, 6-7 per cent of votes going to SA would have been a reasonable estimate. However, in 2008, with an electoral turnout of about 80,50 per cent, valid votes suffered a 4.5 per cent decrease, equivalent to some 1.7 million fewer votes, according to the Istituto Cattaneo. Berlusconi’s coalition massively increased its ballot percentage and won a wider number of votes, enjoying a 1.5 million growth, mostly in favor of LN, which basically doubled its size, boosting its paltry 4.479 per cent in 2006 to about 8 per cent, with peaks of 25 per cent in the region of Veneto. La Destra won some 885,000 votes, whereas UDC lost 530,000. The Center-Left coalition basically held, compared to 2006. However, the presence, in Veltroni’s list, of the Radicals without the Socialists makes a precise comparison difficult, as they presented a single list back in 2006. However, if we consider, as the Istituo Cattaneo does, the votes obtained by the Socialists this year, the Center-Left apparently won some new 185,000 votes, that is, 1.3 per cent more than 2006.
Therefore, SA lost almost 2.4 million votes compared to 2006, that is, 61.5 per cent of its consent, winning only 3.084 per cent of votes cast, and collapsing even in historically “red” regions, such as Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna. The result is that, for the first time in republican history, the extreme Left will not be represented in Parliament. Of these 2.4 million votes, about 208,394 went to the Workers’ Communist Party (0.571 per cent), and 167,673 (0.459 per cent) to Sinistra Critica (Critical Left), with the latter also enjoying the support of Noam Chomsky and Ken Loach. With regard to the remaining two million votes lost, according to an analysis of electoral flows carried out by Consortium on behalf of RAI and Sky TV, only 38.4 percent of traditional Rifondazione Comunista voters cast their ballot for SA, whereas 40.3 per cent shifted to PD and 6.3 per cent to IDV, for an overall 46.6 per cent; for PDCI, the figures are 20, 48.1 and 6.4 respectively, for an overall 54.5 per cent; and for the Greens 24.8, 45.1 and 11.3 respectively, amounting to 56.4 per cent. It even appears that traditional leftist voters might have directed their votes towards Berlusconi’s coalition, 5.1, 5.6 and 8 percent respectively. Thus, should such data be confirmed, it would ensue that, without the votes of traditional Leftist electors, PD-IDV would have won at least 5 per cent fewer votes, meaning that the former Center-Left coalition has lost votes in favor of UDC (13.6 per cent, according to Consortium), or Berlusconi’s coalition, including LN. Had all those votes been cast in favor of SA, Berlusconi would have still won. But at least the Left would be represented. It is better not to listen to the siren call of the “useful vote”.
Now, according to the latest comments, there is satisfaction even in the PD entourage, as the parliamentary scenario appears simplified, without the presence of SA. However, all those who have been making such claims have not fully figured out the drama of the situation, because PD won something from the Left, but lost a lot towards the Center; there will be nobody in Parliament left of PD working as a liaison with workers, especially in case of social tensions; and many workers in the North voted for a racist and xenophobic party like LN. And the scenario is not at all simplified: it has been only a few days since the election, and trouble is already under way: apparently, the Radicals have claimed they do not consider themselves bound to the electoral manifesto, though they had vowed to obey it, and IDV has affirmed its willingness to create a separate parliamentary group; on the other side, Berlusconi, Bossi and Fini have already begun to harshly quarrel over ministerial positions.
What will the Left do now? The critics of the SA project, especially those unwilling to give up the hammer and sickle, as Bertinotti had proposed, have already declared the project dead. However, I believe that having a Left split into three micro-parties and a slightly bigger one is definitely counterproductive and will cause harm to the Left itself and the country, as it will imperil the future presence of the Left in Parliament due to the threshold, which nowadays appears to be quite high, especially at the Senate, all things considered. Besides, what kind of pressure could four separate and quarrelsome little parties put on the far larger PD and its large centrist component?
This project was wrongly conceived, because it gave sympathizers, activists and voters the impression of an unconvinced scotch-taped electoral alliance between party leaders, an impression proved true by the rigid selection of candidacies, strictly proportional to each party’s electoral weight, following the best practices of Italian political carve-up. What’s more, we should not forget about the unconvinced and unconvincing candidacy of Fausto Bertinotti as Prime Minister. Why not present instead the popular President of the region of Apulia, Nichi Vendola, who is gay, Catholic, Communist, and much younger than Bertinotti, honest and charismatic and has a very strong appeal on all progressive activists and voters?
I think we can all learn from the mistakes that have been made. And I do believe that the project should be resumed and improved, taking more time and involving party activists. There is no logical reason to preserve two separate Communist, one micro-Socialist and one Green parties. The values of environmentalism, civil and social rights, economic justice, sustainable development, pacifism and opposition to the Catholic Church’s diktats all represent a common heritage of the whole Left. I believe people will continue to consider themselves Communists rather than Socialists or Greens and the other way around. It should not be forgotten, though, that there are many different ideas and factions even within those very groups called the Communist, Socialist or Green Party. Differences in viewpoints may often represent a problem, but they also constitute a source of enrichment for a party that claims to be progressive. All differences need to be worked out together, to advance a certain kind of society. It might be difficult without MPs. Nevertheless, it might even be beneficial, as those who have become too inured to leaving in the ivory towers of power will feel the need and necessity to go back to the people and the streets. At least, let us hope that will happen, because we all need the Left.
The shell game of Steve Alten
PROLOGUE
Washington, DC
November 23, 2007
The hotel suite is richly decorated in cream-colored fabrics and matching carpet, the turquoise drapes drawn, blocking out the view of downtown Washington. A series of aluminum steam table pans situated on warming trays cover a small side table, the aroma of scrambled eggs, bacon, and hash browns filling the room.
Ignoring the hunger pangs growling in his stomach, Colonel Graeme “the Bull” Turnbull, U.S. Army, directs his harsh, blue-eyed gaze at the two civilians seated directly across the small conference table. Ryan Gessaman,
a rugged man in his forties, wearing a dark suit and matching bow tie, is a senior assistant to Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Perle, known around Washington power circles as the “Prince of Darkness,” is himself a close personal advisor to former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and a major investor in a number of defense companies. Perle is also co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a political think tank, established in 1997, that promotes
American dominance in world affairs.
Turnbull does not recognize Gessaman’s companion, an as-yet unidentified woman with thick, shoulder-length, blonde, curly hair and penetrating hazel eyes, her navy business suit partially concealing what appears to be an athletic physique.
“Colonel, are you sure we can’t interest you in some breakfast?”
“No, thank you, sir.”
“Well, if you change your mind . . .” Gessaman opens a sealed file. “I understand you’re currently stationed at Camp Anaconda. How long have you been in Iraq?”
“Since the beginning. I started in Afghanistan with the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team, the ‘Rakkasans.’ We were the first boots on the ground. Same for Iraq. Ne desit virtus—”
“—let valor not fail,” the woman translates. “When did Military Intelligence recruit you?”
“The day Psy Ops found out I spoke fluent Arabic.”
“So you were with MI two years, then Counterintelligence. Looks like you were quite busy . . over one hundred interrogations.” The woman’s
eyes narrow. “Tell me, Colonel, what’s the most interesting thing you ever learned from these ‘sessions’?”
Turnbull frowns. “You don’t want to know.”
“Try me.”
“Back in 2005, I reported that Bin Laden had escaped to the Hadhramaut
of Yemen, that he was being protected by Sayyid tribesmen. The info went up the food chain, but nothing ever happened. Seems the Sayyids of the Hadhramaut are allied with members of the Saudi Royal Family . . to go after him would have insulted our Saudi friends. Better to just pretend the number-one bad guy’s hiding in a cave in Afghanistan than confront the real enemy, huh?”
The woman nods. “I share your frustration, Colonel. Off the record, CIA ran an assessment of the blowback of a Bin Laden capture. Sometimes
bad guys are better left alive than dead.”
“Is that why we’re funding Sunni insurgents with ties to Al-Qaeda?” Turnbull watches their expressions drop. “Yeah, I know about that, most of the other grunts in MI do too. Fact is, 45 percent of these foreign fighters
are Saudis, and half of them are involved in suicide bombings. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out where these guys are getting their money and weapons.”
“It’s a complicated situation, Colonel,” Ryan Gessaman replies.
“Not when you’re getting shot at.”
“Shiite radicals must be contained.”
“Look, friend, let’s get something straight: I ain’t in politics and the old ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ policy doesn’t fly with me, unless your definition of history is any period of time less than five years old. We supported Bin Laden to keep the Soviets in check, we supported Saddam to keep the Iranians in check . . now we’re supporting Al-Qaeda to keep Iraq from turning into a Shi’ite nation? Ever wonder why we’re not exactly being embraced these days?” (pag.1-2)
Pages 1-23 here
Zinn Speaks
April 19 / 20, 2008
An Interview with Howard Zinn on the State of the Empire
Zinn Speaks
By WAJAHAT ALI
At 85 years old, the indefatigable Howard Zinn still maintains the prolific activist and academic jab fueled by his political and social activism nurtured during The Civil Rights Movement. The esteemed historian and controversial rabble rouser’s seminal work, The People’s History of the United States, taught in high schools and colleges across the nation, has been adapted as a documentary, The People Speak, featuring readings by Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Viggo Mortenson and Marisa Tomei. Still touring and giving lectures, Zinn shows no signs of stopping, however his hectic schedule has slowed to devote more time for his family obligations. After nearly a month of back and forth emails and missed opportunities, Professor Zinn agreed to an interview reflecting on his historic and memorable time at Spelman College in the ‘60’s, his thoughts on the Democratic Party, his philosophy of dissent as democracy, and his hope for America’s future.
ALI: Your experiences and acts of civil disobedience at Spelman College are, by now, thoroughly well known. However, in the 21st century, one could look at the student body at many liberal college campuses and see that fiery protest and consciousness replaced by apathy and materialism. Where has that fighting spirit gone? You spoke against “discouragement” at the 2005 Spelman College commencement speech - what of it now?
ZINN: What you describe as the difference between the Sixties and today on campuses is true, but I would not go too far with that. There are campus groups all over the country working against the war, but they are small so far. Remember, the scale of involvement in Vietnam was greater – 500,000 troops vs. 130,000 troops in Iraq. After five years in Vietnam, there were 30,000 U.S. dead vs. today we have 4,000 dead. The draft was threatening young people then, but not now. Greater establishment control of the media today, which is not reporting the horrors inflicted on the people of Iraq as the media began in the U.S. to report on U.S. atrocities like the My Lai Massacre. In the case of the movement against the Vietnam War, there was the immediate radicalizing experience of the Civil Rights Movement for racial equality, whose energy and indignation carried over into the student movement against the Vietnam War. No comparable carry over exists today. And yes, there is more materialism, more economic insecurity for young people going to college – huge tuition costs putting pressure on students to concentrate on studies and do well in school.
ALI: You were heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement that dealt not only with racial empowerment and equality, but also re-examination of U.S. foreign policy and withdrawal from the brutal Vietnam War. Here we are now in 2008 with a seemingly unending, and many say illegal, occupation of Iraq. “Racism” has emerged as a contentious topic due to Obama running for President and his Reverend’s controversial comments. Yet, most say he and other candidates talk “pretty” but are unwilling to fundamentally confront and change the problems of race and foreign policy. As one who has observed this socio-political climate from the grassroots since the 1960’s, what has changed if anything in regards to racial enlightenment and the humanizing of non – American, “foreign others”?
Zinn: The Civil Rights Movement was an educational experience for many Americans. The result was more opportunities for a small percentage of Black people, perhaps 10% or 20%, so more Black youth going to college and going into the professions. A greater consciousness among White people - not all, but many - of racism. For most Black people, however, there is still poverty and desperation. The Ghettos still exist, and the proportion of Blacks in prison is still much greater than Whites. Today, there is less overt racism, but the economic injustices create an “institutional racism” which exists even while more Blacks are in high places, such as Condoleezza Rice in Bush’s Administration and Obama running for President.
Unfortunately, the greater consciousness among Whites about Black equality has not carried over to the new victims of racism – Muslims and Immigrants. There is no racial enlightenment for these groups, which are huge. Millions of Muslims and an equal number of immigrants, who whether legal or illegal, face discrimination both legally from the government and extra-legally from White Americans – and sometimes Black and Hispanic Americans. The Democratic Presidential candidates are avoiding these issues in order to cultivate support among White Americans.
This is shameful, especially for Obama, who should use his experience as a Black man to educate the public about discrimination and racism. He is cautious about making strong statements about these issues and about foreign policy. So, in keeping with the tradition of caution and timidity of The Democratic Party, he takes positions slightly to the left of The Republicans, but short of what an enlightened policy would be.
ALI: You said the democratic spirit of the American people is best represented when people are picketing and voicing their opinion outside the White House. How does this nature of dissent and protest serve as the crux of a democracy and a healthy, functioning civic society? Many would argue this is divisive, no?
ZINN: Yes, dissent and protest are divisive, but in a good way, because they represent accurately the real divisions in society. Those divisions exist – the rich, the poor – whether there is dissent or not, but when there is no dissent, there is no change. The dissent has the possibility not of ending the division in society, but of changing the reality of the division. Changing the balance of power on behalf of the poor and the oppressed.
ALI: The People’s History of The United States is now considered a seminal work taught in high schools and universities across the country. Why do you think the work has had such lasting, influential impact?
ZINN: Because it fills a need, because there is a huge emptiness of truth in the traditional history texts. And because people who gain some understanding on their own that there are things wrong in society, they look for their new consciousness; their new feelings to be represented by a more honest history.
ALI: Minority voters, like Hispanic Catholics, voted solidly for Bush in 2002, and some sons of immigrants have virulent anger and disdain against “illegal” immigrants. It seems many marginalized voices have forgotten their history and now side with those actively intent on keeping them either on the sidelines or in some form “oppressed.” How do we explain this discrepancy?
ZINN: It is to the interest of the people in power to divide the rest of the population in order to rule them. To set poor against middle class, White against Black, Native born against immigrants, Christians against other religions. It serves the interest of the establishment to keep people ignorant of their own history,
ALI: Most say that corporations now own American media. What is the proper outlet for democratic discourse and dissemination of information if indeed there is a biased monopoly over media?
ZINN: Because of the control of the media by corporate wealth, the discovery of truth depends on an alternative media, such as small radio stations, networks like Pacifica Radio, programs like Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now. Also, alternative newspapers, which exist all over the country. Also, cable TV programs, which are not dependent on commercial advertising. Also, the internet, which can reach millions of people by-passing the conventional media.
ALI: Will anything change in regards to US foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically on Palestine and Israel, if the Democratic Party wins in 2008?
ZINN: The Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, have not shown any sign of a fundamental change in the policy of support of Israel. They have not shown sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. Obama has occasionally referred to the situation of the Palestinians but as the campaign has gone on, he seems reluctant to bring this up, and instead emphasizes his support of Israel.
So, a change in policy will require more pressure from other countries and more education of the American people, who at this point know very little about what has been happening to the Palestinian people. The American people are naturally sympathetic to those they see as oppressed, but they get very little information from political leaders or the media, which would give them a realistic picture of the suffering of Palestinians under the Occupation
ALI: How can “the left” reconcile their assumed indifference to religion with the growing “religious” sector of society siding with the “conservative” parties? Can there be a peace between the two or is this a permanent schism? I’ve noticed bigotry on both sides, between the “secularists” and “religionists.”
ZINN: The Left needs to more clearly make a distinction between the bigotry of fundamentalism and the progressive tradition in religion. In Latin America, there is “liberation theology.” In the U.S., there were the priests and nuns who supported Black people in the South and who protested against the Vietnam War. So, it’s not a matter of being for or against religion, but of deciding whether religion can play a role for justice and peace rather than for violence and bigotry.
ALI: Most don’t know that you were a brigadier during WW2. Did this experience bring about the “anagnorisis” and epiphany catalyzing fundamental changes in your ideology?
ZINN: I did not know much history when I became a bombardier in the U.S. Air Force in World War II. Only after the War did I see that we, like the Nazis, had committed atrocities…Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, my own bombing missions. And when I studied history after the War, I learned from reading on my own, not from my university classes, about the history of U.S. expansion and imperialism.
ALI: You’re now a man in his golden years, and you look back at your many accomplishments. You’ve done amazing things. Any regrets? And also, if you could choose something that would embody your legacy – what would it be?
ZINN: I have no regrets about my political activity, only that I sometimes got carried away with it and didn’t find the right balance between obligations to my family and my need to be involved in social movements. As for a work of mine that embodies my “legacy,” probably it is not one book, but rather the combination of being a writer and an activist, being a public intellectual, by using my scholarship for social change.
ALI: Many look to the future horizons with bleak, cynical eyes foreshadowing disastrous scenarios resulting from our hubris and excess. Recession. War. Deficit. Extremism. Global Anti Americanism. Insincere Partisan politics. Will we implode? Can we move forward? Do you have hope for the future of America?
ZINN: The Present situation for the U.S. looks grim, but I am hopeful, as I see the American people waking up and being overwhelmingly opposed to this war and to the Bush regime, as I reflect on movements in history and how they arose surprisingly when they seemed defeated. I believe the American people have the capacity to create a new movement, which would change the direction of our nation from being a military power to being a peaceful nation, using our enormous wealth for human needs, here and abroad.
Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, "The Domestic Crusaders," (www.domesticcrusaders.com) is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com
http://danceawayblues.blogspot.com/2008/05/give-me-security-at-what-cost.html
May 5, 2008
Since Benito Berlusconi (sorry, I know his name is Frederick) came back to power, I haven't given myself time to process the horror or what it will mean for the future of Italy. At least Vicenza held up ag
ainst the lurch to the right. Perhaps the Italian people were constantly berated (via media, which is controlled by, hmmm?) by the fear card, causing them to vote for "stability" over those hoards of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans. But this is about two old buddies, sharing laughs and good times as they push their boots deeper into our backs.
George Bush Lauded By Berlusconi For Time 100
Mark @ 2:43 pm
Time Magazine has published it’s fifth annual list of the World’s Most Influential People. It’s a mixed collection with a few standouts for hilarity.
Rupert Murdoch made the list as a “Builder and Titan,” an honor he shares with Radiohead. Thom Yorke would make a great media mogul, and they could keep the band’s name as their corporate brand. Disney temptress Miley Cyrus is listed in a category where she challenges Tim Russert, the only “journalist” of the group. They are both listed under “Artists and Entertainers.” Which of these Russert is supposed to be, I don’t know. But Russert is apparently quite influential, as he has reportedly had Arianna Huffington banned from promoting her new book, Right Is Wrong, on any NBC program. [my bold]
Also on the list is George W. Bush under “Leaders and Revolutionaries.” I can’t see where he’d place in either group. But the truly creepy aspect of this is that the essay accompanying his inclusion was written by the Italian Murdoch, Sylvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi, media baron and Prime Minister, related his impressions of Bush as a leader who knows that…
“…justice, freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is security.”
Spoken like a true totalitarian fascist. He is, however, right about Bush, who has shown that he will sacrifice any Constitutional principle, civil liberty, or democratic process, in the pursuit of a false security predicated on fear and lies.
Having Berlusconi pen Bush’s bio for the Time 100 holds a unique significance in light of Berlusconi’s recent
electoral successes in Italy. He declared after the election that
“We are the new Falange.” The original
Falange was the Spanish fascist party of Francisco Franco.
[my bold]
Berlusconi’s supporters also hailed the victory of his party’s candidate for mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, a former neo-fascist youth leader, with Hitlerian straight-arm salutes and chants of
“Duce, Duce…”, Mussolini’s version of
“Fuhrer.” Bush must be proud to have his friend Berlusconi compose this touching tribute.
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=891
Pubblicato da free2be2cool a
Etichette:
Arianna Huffington,
censorship,
corporate media,
Duce,
Falange,
fascist,
Fuhrer,
George Bush,
Hitler,
Influential People,
Mussolini,
Rupert Murdoch,
Sylvio Berlusconi,
Tim Russert,
Time Magazine
Sacco and Vanzetti
Howard Zinn to speak on “The Meaning of Sacco and Vanzetti”
The noted historian and activist Howard Zinn will give a lecture on “The Meaning of Sacco and Vanzetti”, Monday, May 12, 2008 at 7:30 pm, DanteAlighieriSocietyItalianCulturalCenter, 41 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, MA.
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two Italian-born immigrants, workers, and anarchists, who were tried and convicted in 1921 for the armed robbery and murder of two payroll guards. After 7 years of legal appeals and international protest, the two men were finally executed on August 23, 1927 in Boston for a crime that many felt they did not commit and by a judicial system that was patently biased and unjust. In his lecture Howard Zinn will indicate the relevance of the Sacco and Vanzetti Case for America today.
Howard Zinn is a historian, playwright, and social activist. He was a shipyard worker and Air Force bombardier before he went to college under the GI Bill and eventually received his Ph.D. from ColumbiaUniversity. He has taught as a tenured professor at SpelmanCollege and BostonUniversity, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Paris and the University of Bologna. He has received among others, the Thomas Merton Award, the Eugene V. Debs Award, the Upton Sinclair Award, and the Lannan Literary Award.
The Sacco and Vanzetti Commemoration Society, the sponsor of this event, seeks to preserve the memory of Sacco and Vanzetti and to honor their efforts in trying to radically change the society they lived in. We wish to bring out their place in the history of radical Massachusetts, to help draw useful connections between the struggle of Sacco and Vanzetti and similar struggles today, and to inform our community about their living legacy, We stand against the death penalty, the persecution of political dissidents, as well as the persecution and scapegoating of immigrants. We hope that by raising a monument to Sacco and Vanzetti in Boston’s North End, a bronze bas-relief by the American sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, the same Borglum noted for his iconic sculptures of four American presidents in the hills of South Dakota, we can keep these issues fresh in the minds of our city, our state, and our nation.
Free admission. Get there early. Discussion and coffee to follow the lecture. Donations for a SaccoVanzettiMemorialMonument to be placed in Boston’s North End will be gratefully accepted.
The Dante Alighieri Society is conveniently located near Kendall Square, on the corner of Hampshire Street and Cardinal Medeiros Avenue. The Kendall Square / MIT stop on the MBTA Red Line is within ten minutes walking distance from the Center.
Contact: Sergio Reyes
Sacco and Vanzetti Commemoration Society
617-290-5614
info@saccoandvanzetti.org
www.saccoandvanzetti.org
SACCO'S LETTER TO HIS SON
If nothing happens they will electrocute us right after midnight
Therefore here I am, right with you, with love and with open heart,
As I was yesterday.
Don’t cry, Dante, for many, many tears have been wasted,
As your mother’s tears have been already wasted for seven years,
And never did any good
So son, instead of crying, be strong, be brave
So as to be able to comfort your mother.
And when you want to distract her from the discouraging soleness
You take her for a long walk in the quiet countryside,
Gathering flowers here and there.
And resting under the shade of trees, beside the music of the waters,
The peacefulness of nature, she will enjoy it very much,
As you will surely too.
But son, you must remember; Don’t use all yourself.
But down yourself, just one step, to help the weak ones at your side.
The weaker ones, that cry for help, the persecuted and the victim.
They are your friends, friends of yours and mine, they are the comrades that fight,
Yes and sometimes fall.
Just as your father, your father and Bartolo have fallen,
Have fought and fell yesterday. for the conquest of joy,
Of freedom for all.
In the struggle of life you’ll find, you’ll find more love.
And in the struggle, you will be loved also.
Words by Niccola Sacco (1927)
Music by Pete Seeger (1951)
Anti-Zionist Jews
"Anti-Zionist Jews are not and do not claim to be any more authentic or representative than any other Jews, nor is their protest against Israel any more valid than a non-Jew's. But "If I am not for myself", then the Zionists will claim to be for me, will usurp my voice and my Jewishness. Since each Israeli atrocity is justified by the exigencies of Jewish survival, each calls forth a particular witness from anti-Zionist Jews, whose very existence contradicts the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere."
-- The first time I was called a self-hating Jew, by Mike Marqusee; The Guardian, 4 Mar 2008.
Found here
Photo: Steven Feuerstein stands with members of the Chicago Palestinian community protesting the speaking engagement of Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2000, at the 13th Annual Dinner of the Chicago Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (AP Photo/Stephen J. Carrera).
