"10 strategies of manipulation" by the media

Anonymous
Based on the work of Noam Chomsky

Renowned critic and always MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, one of the classic voices of intellectual dissent in the last decade, has compiled a list of the ten most common and effective strategies resorted to by the agendas “hidden” to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.

Historically the media have proven highly efficient to mold public opinion. Thanks to the media paraphernalia and propaganda, have been created or destroyed social movements, justified wars, tempered financial crisis, spurred on some other ideological currents, and even given the phenomenon of media as producers of reality within the collective psyche.

But how to detect the most common strategies for understanding these psychosocial tools which, surely, we participate? Fortunately Chomsky has been given the task of synthesizing and expose these practices, some more obvious and more sophisticated, but apparently all equally effective and, from a certain point of view, demeaning. Encourage stupidity, promote a sense of guilt, promote distraction, or construct artificial problems and then magically, solve them, are just some of these tactics.


Denying Palestinians Fair Access to Water

Stephen Lendman


A Palestinian boy drinks water in the southern Gaza Strip
town of Rafah Oct. 21, 2009. Palestinians face dire water
shortage because of both bad management and Israeli
restrictions. (Xinhua/Khaled Omar)

Water is essential to life. Denying it is criminal. Water and sanitation are recognized as indispensable human rights.

In July 2010, the General Assembly's Resolution 64/292 affirmed it. It called on member states and international organizations to:

"provide financial resources, build capacity and transfer technology, particularly to development countries, in scaling up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all."

Dozens of countries incorporated water rights in their constitutional or statute laws. Most, however, haven't fulfilled promised goals.

In her 2002 book titled, "Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit,” activist/ecologist Vandana Shiva called water rights natural and "usufructuary....water can be used but not owned."

It belongs to everyone as an essential "basis of all life. (U)nder customary laws, the right to water has been accepted as a natural, social fact."


Occupy Wall Street, Faces Of Zuccotti Park: The Woman In Pink

Saki Knafo & Adam Kaufman

Melanie Butler was watching a news clip about Occupy Wall Street in late September when she noticed that all of the demonstrators talking to the reporter were men. "I just kept waiting," she said. "I was counting in my head. Finally a woman came on." The final count: one woman, nine men. "I was enraged," Butler said. "But I knew from myself that when there were reporters in the park or a press conference was called, I wasn't saying, 'I want to speak.' And I'm not a shy person."

Butler, 30, is an organizer for CODEPINK, an anti-war group founded during the run-up to the Iraq War by a cadre of female activists, including Jodie Evans, who ran Jerry Brown's campaign for the presidency in 1992. (Medea Benjamin, another founder, has blogged for The Huffington Post.) Its members are known for their high-profile disruptions of congressional hearings, which occasionally result in arrests, and for their color scheme, which Butler described as disarming. As she put it, "It's really hard to be angry at someone who's wearing a neon-pink feather boa."

After seeing the news clip, Butler held a media training just for women, and it was there that she learned that the problem was even bigger than she'd thought. "It wasn't just the media," she said. "Women were having trouble speaking out anywhere, in any of the discussions."

Butler and Evans stood in Zuccotti Park recently talking about their efforts to get more women involved in the movement. Evans wore a knee-length pink jacket, a pink scarf covered with peace signs, a pink shoulder bag, a floppy pink hat, a pink hip-pouch containing a pink iPod, and a black T-shirt with a Grace Paley quote in pink lettering that read, "The only recognizable feature of hope is action."

Butler was dressed more conservatively: jeans, olive-drab parka. She did have on a pink scarf, which she said she'd found in a box of pink clothes in CODEPINK's New York office.


Blind Obedience to the State: The Sheep Are Now Ready for Slaughter!

Gary D. Barnett

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers…. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. ~ Aldous Huxley

Men are born with free will, so why do they behave as slaves? Most in this country believe that the politicians are civil or "public" servants, while the common man is king. Most believe because they cast a ballot to choose their "leaders" that they are free, but the politicians among us are really the masters of a population of slaves. To paraphrase Charles de Gaulle, the politician simply poses as a servant, in order to become the master.

In America today, the many are ruled by the few. The many allow this tyranny voluntarily, and with open arms. The only men who can be reduced to servitude are those who choose to do so. For men who cling to liberty with passion can never be ruled, and will never allow their freedom to be taken from them. These are men of truth and character, and sadly, they are the extreme minority. These men of integrity are now directly in the crosshairs of this oligarchy called America, and without them, the rest of society is doomed to a life of serfdom.


Russia Bashing

Stephen Lendman

On December 4, parliamentary elections were held to fill 450 State Duma seats, Russia's Federal Assembly lower house.

With nearly all votes counted, RIA Novosti said Medvedev/Putin's United Russia party won 238 seats, falling slightly below a majority with 49.67% of the vote.

It added that it's "a far cry from the commanding two-thirds constitutional majority the party held in the State Duma for the past four years" based on tabulated results so far.

United Russia is the nation's dominant party. In December 2001, it was founded by merging the Unity and Fatherland-All Russia parties.

Vladimir Putin served as acting President after Boris Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999. From May 7, 2000 - May 7, 2008, he was President. Dmitry Medvedev succeeded him. Putin now serves as Prime Minister. He's United Russia 2012 presidential candidate. On March 4, presidential elections will be held.

After a decade in power, it's common for incumbent parties to lose strength. Nonetheless, despite likely coalition agreements on some issues, United Russia remains dominant. Moreover, Putin's heavily favored to win in 2012.


USrael and Iran

William Blum

One must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington's policies fades away.

There's no letup, is there? The preparation of the American mind, the world mind, for the next gala performance of D&D — Death and Destruction. The Bunker Buster bombs are now 30,000 pounds each one, six times as heavy as the previous delightful model..

But the Masters of War still want to be loved; they need for you to believe them when they say they have no choice, that Iran is the latest threat to life as we know it, no time to waste.

The preparation of minds was just as fervent before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. And when it turned out that Iraq did not have any kind of arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) ... well, our power elite found other justifications for the invasion, and didn't look back. Some berated Iraq: "Why didn't they tell us that? Did they want us to bomb them?"


US Senate backs military detention of American citizens

Bill Van Auken

The US Senate voted Thursday night to approve a military funding bill that codifies into law the criminal state practices begun under Bush—and continued under Obama—in the name of the “global war on terror.”

It explicitly authorizes the military’s indefinite detention without trial of American citizens and mandates that all non-citizens charged as terrorists—including those arrested on US soil—be detained indefinitely by the military rather than brought to trial in a civilian court.

The legislation was part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which provides $662 billion to finance the US military machine and its multiple wars abroad. The act passed the Democratic-controlled body by an overwhelming margin of 93 to 7, underscoring once again that there exists no serious constituency for the defense of democratic rights within any section of the American ruling elite or its two big business parties.

Thrown out by this legislation is the right guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution for all those accused of a criminal offense to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” and the core provision of the Fifth Amendment declaring that no person shall be deprived of liberty “without due process of law.” It legalizes the abrogation in practice over the past decade of the bedrock principle of habeas corpus, which requires that the state bring a detained individual before an independent court and show just cause for imprisonment.

The bill also bars the use of any funds authorized for the Pentagon to shut down the infamous prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and restricts the release of anyone currently detained there. It thus permanently enshrines within US law an institution that has turned the United States into a pariah nation around the globe.


The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

Brandon Smith

As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger’s day is never quite done. In my recent article ‘The Essential Rules of Liberty’ we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let’s examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…


Fascism in America

Stephen Lendman

A better world is possible. Going for it is goal one.

In 1932, Mussolini declared the 20th century a "Fascist century," saying:

"It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century." He claimed it would "sav(e) Western civilization." For what he didn't explain.

Post-WW I, Fascim's roots emerged. At the time, Western civilization was thought to be decadent, destructive, and in decline.

In his book titled, "The Decline of the West," Oswald Spengler said "liberalism, democracy, socialism (and) free-masosnry" weakened it. Only fascism could save it.

In his essay titled, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Mussolini said, "Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective responsibility."

He called it the "complete opposite" of Marxist belief in class struggle as the driving force for social progress and justice. He said "(f)ascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

His definition applies now. Corporatism's alliance with political Washington reflects his ideology. It's been building for decades.


64th Anniversary: War, Ethnic Cleaning Unleashed

William James Martin


Daily life in tents for 6,000 Palestinian residents of Nahr
Al-Barid Refugee Camp in Tarablus, Lebanon, 1952.
Today, the population of the camp is more than 40,000...

One thing is certain: Israel is not the victim.

November 29, 1947 was the date the UN passed the Partition Resolution partitioning Palestine, more or less equally, into a Jewish and an Arab state.

In fact, the ethnic cleansing commenced the very next morning when the 75,000 Arab citizens of Haifa were subjected to a campaign of terror jointly by the terrorist group, the Irgun, under Manachem Begin, and the Haganah, the regular militia under David Ben Gurion. The Jewish settlers who had arrived during the previous decade had built their homes higher up the mountain and thus occupied a higher topographical space. From the superior height, they could snipe at the villagers at will. They began doing this while the Jewish troops rolled barrels of burning oil down their roads and then ignited them. When the terrified residents came out to try to extinguish the rivers of fire, they were sprayed with machine gun fire. Another techniques was to deliver cars filled with explosives to Arab garages to be repaired, and then to detonate the cars in the garages.

On its website, the official historian of the Palmach (a special unit of the Haganah) states, “The Palestinians [in Haifa] were from December onwards under siege and intimidation.”

This was the beginning of the ethnic cleansing and occurred six months before the first regular soldier from a surrounding Arab state entered Palestine, which was on May 15, 1948.

I remind you that the Deir Yassin massacre occurred on April 9, 1948, and also that by May 15, all of the major cities of Palestine had been cleansed of Arabs and about one half of the 750,000 to 800,000 Palestinian refugees has been ethnically cleansed.

This was the beginning of the expulsion of the Palestinians Arabs from Haifa and from Palestine. The ending for Haifa’s Arabs came on Passover evening of April 21, when the British commander, Stockwell, called four Arab community leaders in to this office to inform them that the British army would be evacuating the city and advised the Arabs that they could not be protected.


Understanding the U.S. Torture State

Anthony Gregory

The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse edited by Marjorie Cohn (New York University Press: 2011), 342 pages.

When I was a child in Reagan’s America, a common theme in Cold War rhetoric was that the Soviets tortured people and detained them without cause, extracted phony confessions through cruel violence, did the unspeakable to detainees who were helpless against the full, heartless weight of the communist state. It was torture as much as any evil that differentiated the bad guys, the commies, from the good guys, the American people and their government. However imperfect the U.S. system was, it had civilized standards rejected by the enemy.

In April 2004, the world was shocked to see photos exposing the torment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, one of Saddam Hussein’s most infamous prisons, which was taken over and used by the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Well, most of the world was shocked. Some, mostly conservative commentators, dismissed or defended the barbarity, even comparing it to frat-boy hazing. Others were disgusted but shrugged it off as the work of a few bad apples, not something that should draw judgment down on the whole of U.S. policy and the brave men and women in uniform. Still others of us were horrified but did not see the mistreatment as any sort of aberration — we expected such torture to occur in a war of aggression, figured we had not seen the worst of it, and even argued that what goes on in America’s domestic prisons easily compares with some of the milder photos dominating the nightly news.

A national debate arose out of that scandal. More than one question was pondered: Do these photos depict torture? Is this an anomaly or a systemic problem? Who should be held accountable? Should torture always be illegal?

Over the next few years, more torture controversies came up. The question of whether water-boarding actually constitutes torture was particularly disheartening. Some defenders of the U.S. government said the United States should not and does not torture, but waterboarding doesn’t count. Others said that even if the United States does torture, it is doing so in service of a greater good.

We have actually come to the point where the rhetoric of Reagan’s day no longer holds: American exceptionalists and conservatives no longer claim emphatically that the United States does not and never will torture, as they did before (however disingenuously). An AP poll in June 2009 found that 52 percent of Americans thought torture was justified in some situations — up from only 38 percent in 2005. In Obama’s America, torture is now normalized.


America Lurches Toward Full-Blown Tyranny

Stephen Lendman

Post-9/11, America's moved steadily toward eroding democracy entirely. Justification given is war on terror hokum. Incrementally, international, constitutional and statute laws have been trashed.

Equity, justice and other democratic values long ago were abandoned to advance America's imperium. On May 26, the House voted to abolish freedom entirely - HR 1540, 322 - 96.

On December 1, the Senate did likewise - S. 1867, 93 to 7. Both versions assure no one anywhere is now safe, including law-abiding US citizens.

Senate no votes were cast by Thomas Harkin (D. IA), Rand Paul (R. KY), Thomas Coburn (R. OK), Jeff Merkley (D. OR), Ron Wyden (D. OR), Mike Lee (R. UT), and Bernie Sanders (I. VT).

Of the Senate's 51 Democrats, only one voted no.

At issue are Sections 1031 and 1032 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act - NDAA (S. 1867).

Section 1031 authorizes indefinitely detaining US citizens without charge or trial. It exceeds previous police state laws. The provision refers to US citizens or lawful resident aliens even though the Constitution protects them. No longer.

Enactment means anyone anywhere, including US citizens, may be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all.

No reasonable proof is required, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Under subsection (b)(1), indefinite detentions can follow mere membership (past or present) or support for suspect organizations.

Presidents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

Constitutional, statute and international laws won't apply. Martial law will replace them.


Netanyahu Tries to Hide the Occupation

Jonathan Cook
Jonathan Cook Blog

Sham or shame? Israel's policy on aid groups is both

As protests raged again across the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, offered his assessment of the Arab Spring last week. It was, he said, an "Islamic, anti-western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, undemocratic wave," adding that Israel’s Arab neighbors were "moving not forwards, but backwards."

It takes some chutzpah – or, at least, epic self-delusion – for Israel’s prime minister to be lecturing the Arab world on liberalism and democracy at this moment.

In recent weeks, a spate of anti-democratic measures have won support from Netanyahu’s right wing government, justified by a new security doctrine: see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil of Israel. If the legislative proposals pass, the Israeli courts, Israel’s human rights groups and media, and the international community will be transformed into the proverbial three monkeys.

Israel’s vigilant human rights community has been the chief target of this assault. Yesterday Netanyahu’s Likud faction and the Yisrael Beiteinu party of his far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, proposed a new law that would snuff out much of the human rights community in Israel.

The bill effectively divides non-governmental organizations (NGOs) into two kinds: those defined by the right as pro-Israel and those seen as "political," or anti-Israel. The favored ones, such as ambulance services and universities, will continue to be lavishly funded from foreign sources, chiefly wealthy private Jewish donors from the United States and Europe.

The "political" ones – meaning those that criticize government policies, especially relating to the occupation – will be banned from receiving funds from foreign governments, their main source of income. Donations from private sources, whether Israeli or foreign, will be subject to a crippling 45 per cent tax.


We Are All Palestinians

Gilad Atzmon

Most solidarity activists in this country would agree that the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign) is potentially an invaluable institution. Yet, the National Office, under its current leadership, has made some serious mistakes.

The PSC’s task is not easy. We all operate in a Zionised environment and we’re subject to constant pressure and abuse. Moreover, it’s not always clear what we should do for Palestine. It is obvious that Palestinian resistance is more than just single political perception or a vision of conflict resolution. Palestine is basically a dynamic discourse of negation with Palestinians themselves divided on different issues to do with their struggle and their fate. Consequently, Palestinian solidarity is also far from being a rigid or monolithic discourse. Furthermore, the enemy also is far from being any obviously singular identity or monolithic political discourse. The Jewish national project is a varied discourse, driven by many conflicting thoughts such as Zionism, Israeli patriotism, Israeli escapism, Jewishness, Jewish messianic militancy, pseudo-peaceful propaganda, pre-traumatic stress and so on. So it makes sense that Palestinian solidarity must encompass many voices reflecting the immense complexity of the conflict and its possible resolution.

Initially, the PSC was an attempt provide an umbrella for diverse intellectual and political thoughts, ideas and tactics. However, because of internal political struggles and a relentless internal Jewish campaign, its national office has become a policing operation, engaged mainly in restricting the discourse and stifling freedom of speech, thought and expression. The organisation that was founded to fight for the rights of the expelled Palestinians, has itself, started to expel and abuse its most notable and dedicated activists and thinkers.


Central Bank Intervention: Much Ado About Nothing

Stephen Lendman


A BIG LIFT Key Wall Street stock indexes rose 4 percent
or more after the central banks acted, but skeptics remained.

On November 30, the Fed, ECB, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Bank of Canada and Swiss National Bank acted together to cut the rate on dollar liquidity swap arrangements by 50 basis points. Markets surged. Irrationally trumped reason.

What, in fact, was accomplished? Swap lines were always available. From 2007 - 2009, they were initiated or expanded globally four times.

Lowering the price modestly was done to ease pressure on troubled Eurozone countries. However, funding isn't the problem. It's solvency. Nonetheless, the ECB perhaps agreed to be lender of last resort, at least to some degree.

Expanding its balance sheet may lower sovereign debt yields. At issue is the ECB's ability and willingness to tackle a $6 trillion debt problem when serious restructuring is needed. Kicking the can further down the road won't work.

Fundamental problems remain. Adding more to unsustainable levels compounds crisis conditions. Radical monetary surgery is wrongheaded. At best, short-term gains will cause far greater trouble ahead. Analyst Yves Smith asked, “Does Anybody Who Gets It Believe Central Banks Did All That Much Yesterday.” Comments below followed:

Economist Paul Krugman commented, saying:

The November 30 announcement "looks to me like a non-event. Yet markets went wild. Are they taking this as a signal that substantive action - like the ECB finally doing what has to be done - is just around the corner? Are they misunderstanding the policy? Was this cheap talk that nonetheless moved us to good equilibrium?" If so, it's not enough. Italian bonds still top 7%.

Pimco's Tony Crescenzi believes

"liquidity is no substitute for other actions that Europe must take to solve its current woes. The world continues to wait on European actions on fiscal rules, discipline, and enforcement, as well as use of the balance sheet that matters most in the current situation: the European Central Bank."

Smith also wondered why markets reacted so positively to what little, in fact, was done. He also focused on two underreported issues, including acute withdrawal of dollar funding from Eurobanks.


US/Pakistan’s Toxic Alliance

Stephen Lendman

Partnering with America has a price. Pakistan has paid dearly. Post-9/11, it has been harmed economically, politically, and strategically. Has its military now had enough and want out? More on that below.

At issue is the latest incident involving NATO forces killing 24 Pakistani soldiers and injuring 13 others in two remote posts along Afghanistan's border.

Army spokesman General Athar Abbas called the attack "unprovoked and indiscriminate. There was no reason for it. Map references of all our border posts have been passed to NATO a number of time."

General Ishfaq Nadeem called them unprovoked blatant aggression, adding that attacking border checkposts deliberately violates coordination procedures.

Internal calls for investigating these type incidents usually follow. Not this time, except, of course, by NATO to whitewash its responsibility.

Abbas said NATO strikes killed 72 Pakistani troops since 2009. Another 250 were injured. Calling them accidental doesn't wash. Pakistan's Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) denied NATO's claim about responding to live fire on Pakistan's side of the border.

NATO's attack lasted two hours. Senior officers in Peshawar regional headquarters and GHQ Rawalpindi were informed when it started. They immediately asked NATO to stop, saying army troops were targeted. The request was denied.

Following the attack, rage gripped Pakistan. Thousands protested outside Washington's Karachi consulate. People shouted "Down with America." Effigies of Obama were burned. So were US flags.


Muslim stereotypes in FBI training manuals

Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg

American Muslims have long complained about being singled out for negative profiling and unjustified surveillance by law enforcement agencies in the United States. Last week, one source for this mistreatment was revealed during a routine three-hour-long Senate hearing.

On Nov. 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing on “Oversight of the US Department of Justice.” The main witness was Attorney General Eric Holder.

Way down in the third hour, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois expressed concern about how FBI training manuals negatively portrayed Islam and Muslims. He pointed out that agents receiving counterterrorism training were taught stereotypes of Islam and Muslim Americans, such as, “Islam is a highly violent, radical religion,” “Mainstream Muslim Americans are likely to be terrorist sympathizers,” “The Arabic mind is swayed more by ideas than by fact.”

Durbin also mentioned how training manuals referred to wearing traditional Muslim attire, growing facial hair, and frequenting mosques as indicators of extremism. He then questioned the apparently unjustified, widespread surveillance of mosques and innocent Muslim Americans.

As expected, Holder distanced himself from such explicit bigotry, although he admitted that the statements were in fact part of an FBI training program. He said they were flat out wrong and did not reflect the views of the Justice Department or the FBI. Holder said the person who prepared the guidelines was no longer with the department and that a review of the material was underway to ensure that such misinformation was not in the guidelines.


Callous and Cruel to the Vulnerable and the Poor

Adnan Al-Daini

George Osborne, the British Chancellor’s autumn statement may be many things, but fair and just it is not.  Some of the poorest members of our society, public workers, who do valuable work that distinguishes a caring society from one that is not, are to carry a heavy load for dire economic conditions not of their making.  The disastrous economic outlook is to be remedied by public sector workers accepting substantial cuts in their meagre wages, and additionally by a cut of 710,000 jobs in the next four years.  An acknowledgment that his plan A is not working came in the shape of a paltry £5bn investment in infrastructure, with the hope that an additional £20bn would be invested by pension funds. 

People can accept hardship and cuts if they perceive that the load is being shared fairly and justly, with those most able shouldering a heavier load. David Cameron, a month after taking office (June 2010), made his "we are all in this together" speech in which he said:

"I want to make sure we go about the urgent task of cutting our deficit in a way that is open, responsible and fair. I want this government to carry out Britain's unavoidable deficit reduction plan in a way that strengthens and unites the country. I have said before that as we deal with the debt crisis we must take the whole country with us - and I mean it. George Osborne has said that our plans to cut the deficit must be based on the belief that we are all in this together - and he means it...But this government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help, that divides the country or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services. Freedom, fairness, responsibility: those are the values that drive this government, and they are the values that will drive our efforts to deal with our debts and turn this economy around."

I think any objective assessor of reality would see the hollowness of the above rhetoric.

If one is to judge the health of society, two measures stand out. One is the level of unemployment, and the other is income inequality.  The lower these are, the healthier a society is.  The autumn statement fails on both counts.  The actions proposed widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and they increase the level of unemployment.  Society will pay dearly for such short-sighted ideologically driven policies. Research shows that alcoholism, drug addiction, crime, antisocial behaviour, mental illness, and family break ups will rise as a result of these measures.


Truth and Falsehood in Syria

Jeremy Salt

As insurrection in Syria lurches towards civil war, the brakes need to be put on the propaganda pouring through the western mainstream media and accepted uncritically by many who should know better. So here is a matrix of positions from which to argue about what is going on in this critical Middle Eastern country:

1. Syria has been a mukhabarat (intelligence) state since the redoubtable Abd al Hamid al Serraj ran the intelligence services as the deuxieme bureau in the 1950s. The authoritarian state which developed from the time Hafez al Assad took power in 1970 has crushed all dissent ruthlessly. On occasion it has either been him or them. The ubiquitous presence of the mukhabarat is an unpleasant fact of Syrian life but as Syria is a central target for assassination and subversion by Israel and western intelligence agencies, as it has repeatedly come under military attack, as it has had a large chunk of its territories occupied and as its enemies are forever looking for opportunities to bring it down, it can hardly be said that the mukhabarat is not needed.

2. There is no doubt that the bulk of people demonstrating in Syria want peaceful transition to a democratic form of government. Neither is there any doubt that armed groups operating from behind the screen of the demonstrations have no interest in reform. They want to destroy the government.

3. There have been very big demonstrations of support for the government. There is anger at the violence of the armed gangs and anger at external interference and exploitation of the situation by outside governments and the media. In the eyes of many Syrians, their country is again the target of an international conspiracy.


America's Illegal Chemical Weapons Stockpile

Stephen Lendman

On November 28, the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) opened its 16th session in The Hague, Netherlands.

Information on it can be found on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) web site.

OPCW is mandated to implement their elimination, and "to provide a forum for consultation and cooperation among States Parties." Its work includes:

(1) Demilitarization: destruction of all chemical weapons and precursors.
(2) Non-Proliferation: ensuring against proliferation of toxic chemicals and their precursors.
(3) Assistance and Protection: Member States able to protect their populations pledge to help others that can't.
(4) International Cooperation: ensuring chemicals are used for peaceful, not destructive purposes.
(5) Universality: promoting adherence to Chemical Weapons Convention provisions.
(6) National Implementation: establishing National Authorities to assure State Parties meet their CWC obligations.

CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It mandates their destruction. Earlier it called on all member states to do so by April 29, 2007. Russia and America requested a delay until April 2012.

Washington now wants it extended through 2020. It's one of the few countries obstructing CWC provisions. It has no intention of destroying illegal weapons. America maintains huge chemical, biological, nuclear stockpiles. New more dangerous weapons replace older ones.


<< Previous :: Next >>

Health topic page on womens health Womens health our team of physicians Womens health breast cancer lumps heart disease Womens health information covers breast Cancer heart pregnancy womens cosmetic concerns Sexual health and mature women related conditions Facts on womens health female anatomy Womens general health and wellness The female reproductive system female hormones Diseases more common in women The mature woman post menopause Womens health dedicated to the best healthcare
buy viagra online