Boycott the "Greater" Israeli Apartheid Regime!

Boycott the "Greater" Israeli Apartheid Regime!

Învaţă, Cunoaşte-te pe tine însuţi, Schimbă-te... Învaţă de la oameni, Cunoaşte-i, Schimbaţi Împreună Lumea!

Wednesday, 27 October 2010


Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000






US Senate climate change deniers and Tea Party favourites including Jim DeMint and James Inhofe are being funded by BP and other polluters. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.

An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.

The report, released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."

Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates.

"Oil companies and the other special interests are spending millions on a campaign to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards, jeopardising the health and prosperity of this state," Obama told a rally in California on Friday night.

Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the mastermind of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. An NBC report warned that Rove was spearheading an effort to inject some $250m in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the 2 November elections.

But Rove, appearing today on CBS television's Face the Nation, accused Democrats of deploying the same tactics in 2008. "The president of the US had no problem at all when the Democrats did this," he said. "It was not a threat to democracy when it helped him get elected."

The Cane report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more even than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party bankrollers, David and Charles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns.

The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate, such as Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax.

The foreign corporate interest in America's midterms is not restricted to Europe. A report by ThinkProgress, operated by the Centre for American Progress, tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern oil coal and electricity companies.

Foreign interest does not stop with the elections. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

By Richard Black

Environment correspondent, BBC News

Some 13% of birds qualify for inclusion on the Red List

One fifth of animal and plant species are under the threat of extinction, a global conservation study has warned.

Scientists who compiled the Red List of Threatened Species say the proportion of species facing wipeout is rising.

But they say intensive conservation work has already pulled some species back from the brink of oblivion.

The report is being launched at the UN Biodiversity Summit in Japan, where governments are discussing how to better protect the natural world.

Launched at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, the report says that amphibians remain the most threatened category of animals, with 41% of species at risk, while only 13% of birds qualify for Red-Listing.
 
The highest losses were seen in Southeast Asia, where loss of habitat as forests are cleared for agriculture, including biofuel crops, is fastest.

"The 'backbone' of biodiversity is being eroded," said the eminent ecologist, Professor Edward O Wilson of Harvard University.

"One small step up the Red List is one giant leap forward towards extinction. This is just a small window on the global losses currently taking place."

However, the scientists behind the assessment - who publish their findings formally in the journal Science - say there is new evidence this time that conservation projects are having a noticeable global impact.

"Really focused conservation efforts work when we do them - many island birds are recovering, lots of examples like this," said Simon Stuart, chair of the Species Survival Commission with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Fundamental changes are needed to prevent widespread decline, the study says
 
"We can show for sure that when we focus conservation efforts and really address the threats and put enough money into it, then you see positive results."
 
Species that have benefited from such action include three bred in captivity and returned to the wild - the California condor and black-footed ferret of the US, and Przewalski's horse in Mongolia.

The ban on commercial whaling has led to such a swiftly increasing population of humpback whales that they have come off the Red List entirely.

Meanwhile, a parallel study, also published in Science, asks where trends of increased risk, but also increased conservation effort, will lead the natural world in future.Researchers analysed a range of scientific studies and global assessments. Although projections varied, all found that fundamental changes are needed in order to avoid declining populations across many types of plant and animal species.


United front

"There is no question that business-as-usual development pathways will lead to catastrophic biodiversity loss," said research leader Paul Leadley from the Universite Paris-Sud.

"Even optimistic scenarios for this century consistently predict extinctions and shrinking populations of many species."

This picture is, in large part, what the CBD meeting is supposed to prevent.

One of the many debates currently ongoing at the meeting here is what the global target for 2020 should be - to completely halt the loss of biodiversity, or something less ambitious.

Dr Leadley's analysis backs up the view of many that a complete halt is not feasible.

But governments do at least appear united in their desire to do something, according to Dr Stuart, one of a large IUCN team monitoring developments here.

"They've said that they want to see improvements in status, especially in those species that are most at risk," he told BBC News.

"That to us is a very good target - we think it's achievable with a lot of effort.

"There doesn't seem to be much disagreement between countries on that issue - on other issues, yes, but on the species issue they're pretty solid."

However, on financing for species protection there is a lot of disagreement.

Some developing countries want a 100-fold increase in current rates of spending by the West. Other nations are arguing for a 10-fold rise.

But given that the world is in recession, that climate change is also supposed to see a huge and rapid increase in spending, and that no-one knows what the current spend on biodiversity actually is, all bets are currently off on what wording delegates will eventually arrive at.

More on This Story/From other news sites:
Mail Online UK
A fifth of the world's animals face oblivion: Scientists fear 'sixth mass extinction' has begun

Mirror.co.uk
Threat to natural world highlighted

CBC
20% of vertebrates threatened, scientists warn

Guardian.co.uk
One-fifth of world's back-boned animals face extinction, study warns

New Scientist
Air of defeat at Japan's biodiversity summit

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Cateva ganduri despre Muller, Schlattner si rusinea celorlalti

de Dan Tapalagă/ HotNews.ro


Fosta profesoara din Nitchidorf preda cu incapatanare coerenta dizidentei, cu dramele ei. Preotul din Rosia propovaduieste curajul spovedaniei oneste, cu dramele lui. Destine radical opuse, Hertha Muller si Eginald Schlattner se intalnesc undeva in marea literatura. Cei doi inseamna doua atitudini publice slab frecventate de scriitorii romani. Nobelul pentru Hertha Muller ar trebui sa fie un moment de rusine pentru noi toti, nu de mandrie patriotarda.

Hertha Muller nu apartine literaturii romane, doar tema si personajele au legatura cu mizeria universului romanesc sub comunism. Noi i-am livrat, si inainte si dupa '89, motive autentice de oroare, am cutremurat-o apoi cu indiferenta noastra fata de trecutul totalitar. Literatura romana n-a reusit sa nasca nici o Muller, nici un Schlattner.

O cultura minora, scrisa de oameni cu destine aproximative, nici nu putea scrie autentic despre o mare tema - anularea individului in lumea totalitara. Ne salveaza totusi eseistica unor Virgil Ierunca si Monica Lovinescu, memorialistica fostilor detinuti politici, o mana de mari dizidenti, pretioasele recuperari de la Sighet, raportul Tismaneanu si alte cateva reparatii istorice.

Dar literatura a sarit peste dramele comunsimului sau, daca s-a intalnit cu ele, n-a produs mari capodopere. N-a reusit sa puna o mare tema - individul strivit de totalitarism - in circuitul literaturii universale, asa cum au facut-o Hertha Muller sau Eginald Schlattner.

Poate v-ati intrebat, citindu-i pe toti marii scriitori romani care astazi ii aduc elogii: Ei de ce n-au avut curajul Hertei Muller inainte de '89? De ce le lipseste colaborationistilor onestitatea unui Eginald Schlattner, fie si tardiva?

Am vazut-o intr-un interviu la TVR realizat prin 2007 si prezentat in reluare joi seara, cand i s-a decernat premiul Nobel. Hertha Muller punea in incurcatura intelectuali, scriitori si societate civila din Romania ridicand probleme fundamentale: de ce tema colaborationismului cu trecutul e atat de absenta in spatiul romanesc? De ce, in comparatie cu Germania, problema dosarelor lor la Securitate e atat de putin discutata? De ce oamenii nu sunt framantati de detaliile vietii lor sub comunism?

Lipseste, din puzderia de scriitori romani colaborationisti - turantori de profesie sau victimele terorii - un Eginald Schlattner onest, povestindu-si chiar si tarziu viata de antierou impacat cu destinul sau. Avem, poate, mari constiinte fara geniu sau genii pustii, fara constiinta literara puternica.

Nemtii Hertha Muller si Eginald Schlattner sunt turnesolul acid al societatii romanesti, oglinda dureroasa pentru multi scriitori. Hertha Muller a ales sa paraseasca Romania, traumatizata de infernul din ea, si sa-l denunte continuu. Schlattner a ramas in locurile care i-au mutilat viata si se spovedeste calm, marturisind totul, in detalii semnificative.

Noi le-am livrat materia prima, Raul, iar ei l-au povestit altora, in germana. I-am recuperat timid dupa ce opera lor a fost recunoscuta afara si s-a bucurat de succesul total. I-am tradus in tiraje confidentiale in Romania dupa ce au ajuns autori de best-seller in Germania. Astazi ne amintim din nou ca exista pentru ca, nu-i asa, intre timp au luat si un Nobel. I-am ignorat cat am putut in tara sau i-am confiscat ipocrit, intonand imnul national.

La sfarsitul interviului acordat TVR, Hertha Muller isi expune in cuvinte simple un fel de crez scriitoricesc tipic nemtesc: "Trebuie sa facem treaba. Asta este motto-ul meu: Trebuie sa facem treaba, in toate locurile unde este cazul, trebuie sa facem treaba. Si atunci se schimba multe. Si nici nu e greu". Ei, si Herta Muller si Eginald Schlattner, si-au facut-o. Noi, ceilalti, spre rusinea noastra, nu.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010



by Gilad Atzmon / September 28th, 2010

Haaretz reported this week that a boat carrying Jewish activists from Israel, Germany, the U.S. and Britain set sail on Sunday for Gaza, hoping to breach Israel’s blockade there and deliver aid.

9 Jews will participate in this brave mission: amongst them is Rami Elhanan, an Israeli peace activist whose daughter Smadar was killed in a suicide bombing in 1997. Elhanan rightly maintained that it was his moral duty to act in support of the Palestinians in Gaza because reconciliation was the surest path to peace. “Those 1.5 million people in Gaza are victims exactly as I am,” he said.

Refusnik Israel Air Force pilot Jonathan Shapira, another passenger aboard the ship, told Haaretz that “we hope that the soldiers and officers of the Israeli navy will think twice before they obey orders to stop us.” Shapira also reflected on recent Jewish history: “Let them remember the history of our people, and those who followed orders and later said we were only following orders.”

Elhanan and Shapira make a lot of sense, for they speak in the spirit of humanism and universalism.

However: when it comes to Jewish political activism, there is always one ‘righteous person’ who insists on providing a glimpse into what is still a deeply Judeo-centric agenda.

Richard Kuper, an organizer with the U.K. group, ‘Jews for Justice for Palestinians’, said “one goal is to show that not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”

Well done Richard. Let me get it right: amongst the Jewish population of 18 million people, worldwide — all you have managed to apparently represent, speak for and collate, is 9 humanist souls who are not happy with Israeli policies.

I suggest to Jews — and humanist Jews in particular — to once and for all, drop the ‘not in my name’ strategy: it is not going to work, and it doesn’t make any sense either. Implementing such a tactic is as racist as the Zionist project, for it affirms the Zionist racial and collective attribution to Jews. It basically says, ‘look at me, I am nice in spite of being a Jew’. This common Jewish left tactic is, unfortunately, not as forceful as Zionism for Zionism is supported by the vast majority of world Jewry institutionally and spiritually.

Also, I would like to advise Mr. Kuper that the goal of a humanitarian mission to Gaza should aim at helping Gazans rather than make Jews look better.

I should be clear here: of course I wish the Jewish boat all success in accomplishing its sacred mission. I certainly go along with Shapira and Elhanan’s call. It is very impressive to see heroic Israelis opposing their criminal government. Shapira and Elhanan are the seed of a future reconciliation. It is also important to see Jews around the world standing up against Israel.

However, if these Jewish activists are true humanists, they had better operate as ordinary people within the emerging solidarity movement. If these Jews are humanists, they had better accept the true meaning of universalism and stop buying into, and retaining aspects of Zionist racist philosophy and perhaps they should consider not solely operating in Jews only political cells.

Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He lives in London and is the author of two novels: A Guide to the Perplexed and the recently released My One and Only Love. Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. He can be reached at: atz@onetel.net.uk. Read other articles by Gilad.

“To the Finland Station"


by Lesley Chamberlain

The American critic’s masterpiece on the roots of communism — To the Finland Station — continues to have great resonance today.


Edmund Wilson's To the Finland Station is a 20th-century classic by a great American critic about the origins of the Soviet Union. First published in 1940, the book only gained proper recognition in the 1960s, when a new generation began to ask why the Russian Revolution had failed. Its power became legendary, though it was always more admired than understood.

Initially, it looks like a series of vignettes dramatising the lives of leading revolutionary players in France, Germany and Russia in the period between 1789 and 1917. But then the few pages about French historians are followed by what is in effect a small book about Marx and Engels. Their lives act as a stage on which Lenin and Trotsky suddenly appear. Marxism became a script for life, spawning Bolshevism in Russia and dividing politics in new ways.

Because Wilson's book is not straight history but rather a writer's impression of figures from history, it continues to resonate today. It is, says one of Wilson's biographers, Jeffrey Meyers, the "biography of an idea". The writing is typically restrained, shapely and individualistic in spirit - for Wilson's subject is moral passion rather than politics. In Edmund Wilson: a Life in Literature (2005), Lewis M Dabney declares the result to be the greatest imaginative work of American literature of the 1940s, rivalled only by the early novels of William Faulkner.

Wilson's story begins with the great French 19th-century historian Jules Michelet. After reading Giambattista Vico's New Science (1725), Michelet realised that, following centuries of subordination to the church, humanity was now free to design society according to its own needs and wishes. Michelet had a stroke in 1871 when he heard how, in the last echo of the revolution, the Paris Commune had plunged France into civil war. And it is the successive defeats of the "human spirit" (but the persistence of hope) that unify Wilson's project.

Marxist commentators used to criticise Wilson for starting with Michelet and for neglecting Hegel. After all, they pointed out, it was from Hegel that Marx had borrowed the dia­lectical and materialist theory of history. Wilson's critics were unsettled by his simultaneous sympathy for and deviation from the orthodox story. However, his writerly independence made him much more likely to be right in the long term.

Michelet, who rose from humble beginnings to become France's greatest historian, expressed in his very being what Hegel struggled to put into theory about the possibility of living a fulfilled life in modern times. "Life" and "work" are highly charged values in Hegel, but few readers will be willing to wade through pages of abstraction by the philosopher to discover that. In Michelet, however, the masters and the slaves are real people, finding new freedoms in a changing society.

The theme running through the stories that Wilson tells - of Michelet and his academic successor Ernest Renan, the "utopian socialists" Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, and ultimately Marx - concerns the uncertain role of the individual as an instrument of social and political change. The utopians believed in noblesse oblige and the public good. But which individuals should lead? What are their qualifications to set standards? How are they to motivate others to live charitably?

To these philosophical questions, Wilson brings not answers, but tales of experience. The alternative moral communities founded by the followers of Fourier, Owen and Saint-Simon were bickering dystopias that destroyed the spirit of the participants and bankrupted their founders. Wilson offers wonderful portraits of "persons unworldly and persistent" who were already committing many of the dictatorial sins that communism would later practise. "Intransigents" of the kind that succumb to their own neo-religious zeal occur in every generation - Ferdinand Lassalle and Mikhail Bakunin were two such in Marx's day.

For Wilson, Marx's insight was to see that the utopian socialists were wasting their lives. To be effective, change had to come from within society itself, and not be driven by outsiders. But how? Who teaches the teachers? "Where to begin and who [is] to be trusted to do the beginning?" These were problems that Marxist theoreticians tried to solve. In the end, as Lenin understood, there would have to be a party to lay down the law.

Though a revolutionary industry seized his name, Marx was much more cautious than his followers. At the heart of To the Finland Station is an unprecedented portrait of Marx the man. He was the outsider who thought he had spotted the mechanism by means of which, sooner or later, capitalist society would undo itself. However, according to Wilson, Marx was wrong to believe in dialectical materialism.

His celebrated claim to have set Hegel the right way up was a matter of hope, not "science". And his belief that the proletariat can "become self-aware" was itself utopian. The blow to that submerged idealism was what hurt most when the faith of his last ideological followers finally collapsed, along with the Berlin Wall, in 1989. They experienced a disillusionment that their founding hero had avoided.

The entire Marxist revolution, for Wilson, was built on faith. This did not mean that the vision of a fairer and more equal society was misplaced; only that the way of getting there was no more scientifically grounded than any other. Nonetheless, the author admires the antagonistic, oppositional power of Marxism: "Marx brought into play . . . dialectical materialism to blight the shimmering mirages of the utopians and to make the blood of the bourgeois run cold."

In what must be the most idiosyncratic claim in the book, Wilson asserts that Marx was misled by his own outsider status as a Jew. Because Jews had been deprived of an equal place in society, Marx was able to sympathise with the deprivations suffered by workers in a capitalist state. But he failed to recognise how differently these two exclusions related to the individual. The excluded but revolutionary-minded Jew could become self-aware and end his unfair oppression, but the pro­letarian could not - or, at least, not easily, because he had no suppressed cultural tradition to draw on. Marx, therefore, lacked any credible notion of what the triumph of the proletariat might mean.

The Russian chapters in To the Finland Station are not the best; they must be read against the background of the sudden and intense disillusionment with Trotsky that his followers suffered in the United States in the late 1930s. Trotsky had appealed to New York intellectuals as the protector of Lenin's legacy against the evils of Stalinism - but as the ink dried on his masterpiece, Wilson conceded that "sympathisers with Trotsky may have invested him with qualities he didn't possess".

He put more into his portrait of Lenin, who simplified Marxism to suit his needs (his aim was to get people to act). He learned Russian and travelled down the Volga to Ulyanovsk - the town of Simbirsk, renamed in Soviet times after its best-known son. Wilson wanted to experience for himself the project to build a fairer world. And he understood that the fate of Russia and that of the west were entwined. Later he apologised, when To the Finland Station was reissued in 1971, for continuing to harbour illusions about the Soviet Union.

Wilson's work has recently begun to appear in the prestigious Library of America series, so it is likely that, in the next few years, To the Finland Station will receive a more wide-ranging assessment. But what is already clear is the resonance, at a time when most critical or oppositional activity is so rapidly absorbed into the mainstream, of its account of the struggle to find the right vehicles and mechanisms for social change.

“To the Finland Station" is published by Phoenix (£8.99)

Lesley Chamberlain is the author of "The Philosophy Steamer: Lenin and the Exile of the Intelligentsia" (Atlantic Books, £9.99)

Get the full magazine for just £1 a week with a trial subscription. PLUS get a free copy of Why Britain Is At War by Harold Nicolson

John Ruskin was an enemy of democracy, writes Tim Abrahams.

British Pavilion
Venice Architecture Biennale


Britain's contribution to the Venice Architecture Biennale has been praised by critics, with good reason. The exhibition, housed in a small, neoclassical pavilion in the Giardini in Venice, explores the relationship between the Victorian art critic John Ruskin and Venice in a questioning way. Dominated by a huge scale model of the London 2012 Olympic stadium, made by Venetian gondola builders and converted into a drawing studio, the exhibition poses some important questions about Ruskin's relationship with architecture's role in contemporary society.

Venice is a city that the English art critic, who was born in 1819, catalogued assiduously. (A small collection of his notebooks is included in the exhibition.) With his book The Stones of Venice, published in 1851, Ruskin made an immense contribution towards establishing architecture as an art form. He posits Venice as a text, which he goes on to decipher, with a specific purpose in mind: he uses the city to make an impassioned defence of the Gothic style - at whose heart he places Venice - as the morally superior form of European architecture. Ruskin's argument is that the Gothic is produced by master builders, dedicated in their tasks to a collective sharing of skill (often in directly venerating God, but not exclusively so), and working in semi-autonomous units throughout Europe.

Up until the end of his life, there remained in this favouring of the Gothic - this transmission of God's word through the tactile language of stone - a mistrust of the centralised authority of the papacy. Though Ruskin was raised as a Protestant by evangelising parents in the 19th century, he found the same sense of brotherhood in the work of masons of the late medieval period. To him, the Renaissance was a period in which mankind regressed morally.

Why should this talk of the Gothic and morality engage us in the present day? Because the focus of Ruskin's argument is not ultimately the evils of the Renaissance, nor even Catholicism. The real enemies, for Ruskin, were democracy and industry. Of particular import to his thinking was the essayist Thomas Carlyle's comparison between the Bury St Edmunds of his day and the same town in the 12th century. Through this juxtaposition, Carlyle extrapolates the need for an industrial aristocracy: a noble feudalism that would protect the working man. Ruskin believed in this.

The Stones of Venice, published in the middle of the 19th century, is a late call for a benign feudalism. The Gothic tradition, Ruskin believed, permits the mason to dictate scale and structure, as opposed to the neoclassical approach, which lends itself to political grandstanding and overly ornate detailing.

To Ruskin, the Renaissance was a time of moral turpitude and Venice was more than simply Venice. "Since first the dominion of men was asserted over the ocean, three thrones of mark beyond all others have been set up on its sands: the thrones of Tyre, Venice and England. Of the first of these great powers, only the memory remains; of the second, the ruin; the third, which inherits their greatness if it forgets their example, may be led through prouder eminence to destruction," he wrote.

The Stones of Venice asserts that the British should care for the Italian city or else be destroyed. At the Biennale exhibition, Ruskin's notebooks are contrasted with a photography project by Alvio Gavagnin, a working-class Venetian. There is a tacit proposition here: Britain does not own and define the city of Venice. The drawing studio, which was modelled on the Olympic stadium, was made to be handed to a group of local anarchists called Rebiennale, which recycles art and architecture installations, to be reused by the city.

Liza Fior, who created the pavilion, has suggested that Ruskin was a radical. Fortunately, her installation is more nuanced. Although Ruskin depicted the way in which the industrial age restricted free expression, that does not make him a revolutionary. But what makes the British Pavilion show such a success is that it captures the rigour and brilliance of his observations while setting his more questionable ideas in context.


Tim Abrahams is associate editor of Blueprint

Get the full magazine for just £1 a week with a trial subscription. PLUS get a free copy of Why Britain Is At War by Harold Nicolson