Snubbing Segolene - Newslinks Hillary Watch

David Seaton's News Links

If you are trying to locate Hillary Clinton on the political map, this news may help. In Europe Segolene Royal is considered center-left and there are those who fear she may be another Tony Blair, (center-right posing as center-left). But Segolene is too hot for Hillary. Stay tuned. DS
Clinton and Royal - Sharing ambitions not handshakes? - Reuters
Abstract: One is French. One is American. Both may become the first female presidents of their country. But will Segolene Royal and Hillary Rodham Clinton support or snub each other in their battle? Speculation about the power women's relationship rose in France after a newspaper said Royal had postponed a U.S. trip planned for this month because Clinton did not want to see her. Socialist regional leader Royal, 53, a relative political newcomer with little foreign policy experience, has made little secret of the fact she would like to meet Clinton to bolster her international credentials. But after gaffes by Royal on a trip to the Middle East, the Democratic Senator from New York, who is believed to be eyeing a White House bid in 2008, was less than enthusiastic about being seen together with the French candidate, Le Parisien daily said at the weekend, quoting a Clinton adviser. "Hillary, whose candidature is far from assured, is very vigilant and cannot afford the slightest false move," it quoted the adviser as saying. "She does not want to be associated with Royal's recent comments. It wouldn't be good for her image." A spokesman for Royal said her trip, which was announced last month, had been postponed for scheduling reasons, declining to give further details. Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Clinton, said in Washington that: "There was never a meeting planned or scheduled." READ IT ALL

Pot is America's biggest cash crop

David Seaton's News Links

My grandfather was an Iowa farmer and the reality of farming is in my DNA. Long on food, short on cash. When I first heard the economics of modern American cannabis, I imagined him driving his Model-T into town one Saturday, doing his shopping and while drinking a cup of coffee having the following dialog with a neighbor.

Neighbor: 'Lo Frank
Granddad: 'Lo.
N: Hows things?
GD: Can't complain.
N: 'You heard about this maryjeewanna stuff them hippies smoke.
GD: Nope. Not very much. Nothing good.
N: City fellow came around here the other day and told me all about it. Seemed like a nice fellow. Interesting conversation.
GD: Yeah?
N: Yup. Fellow said it grows like a weed, don't even need to water 'em. Thousand dollars cash, per plant, in the field, no taxes. He'll take all you can grow, cash in your hand, give y' the seed free. Y' hide ten of 'em in the middle of 20 acres of corn, nobody but you'd know where they were. Thousand dollars a plant'd, pay the mortgage on my place. Damn.
GD: (Gulp).

I don't know what my grandfather would have finally done, but I'm sure he would have lost some sleep wrestling with his conscience... Family to feed, bank loans to pay back. Farming in Iowa, farming in Afghanistan or Colombia... Farming is farming. DS
Pot is called biggest cash crop - Los Angeles Times Abstract: For years, activists in the marijuana legalization movement have claimed that cannabis is America's biggest cash crop. Now they're citing government statistics to prove it. A report released today by a marijuana public policy analyst contends that the market value of pot produced in the U.S. exceeds $35 billion — far more than the crop value of such heartland staples as corn, soybeans and hay, which are the top three legal cash crops. California is responsible for more than a third of the cannabis harvest, with an estimated production of $13.8 billion that exceeds the value of the state's grapes, vegetables and hay combined — and marijuana is the top cash crop in a dozen states, the report states. The report estimates that marijuana production has increased tenfold in the past quarter century despite an exhaustive anti-drug effort by law enforcement. READ IT ALL

Middle East: getting worse and just beginning

David Seaton's News Links

Tony Blair is making his umpteenth trip to the Middle East, joining this endless stream of "leaders" who appear deus ex machina to be photographed shaking hands with the local "leaders" and recorded making encouraging noises. It reminds me of hospital visits to a dying relative who keeps getting thinner and thinner, while everyone gets more and more cheerful and 'positive'. It might be better if all these "leaders" were silent for awhile and everyone meditated on the size and intractable complexity of the tragedy that has been set in motion. The only way this universal pustulence, born in cupidity and greed, will ever begin to heal is if the United States and the former colonial powers, France, Turkey and Britain, all begin by admitting their failure and assume their responsibility for it... Confession, penitence and restitution. DS
Ending illusions - Leader - Guardian
Abstract: It speaks volumes about the dire state of the Middle East that a foreign head of government visiting Iraq dare not stray beyond the heavily fortified "green zone" in central Baghdad and that the entire Gaza Strip - the centre of the region's latest escalating crisis - is now strictly out of bounds on security grounds. Tony Blair's pledge that British troops will stay in Iraq "until the job is done" had an unreal air as he stood by Nuri al-Maliki yesterday with the disastrous mayhem of daily life - mass kidnappings, bombings and shootings - continuing unabated, with "terrorists fighting democracy" in Mr Blair's words. Flying on to Jerusalem, the prime minister took with him another unshakeable belief - that he can help find a way out of the deadly impasse in which Palestinians and Israelis are so dangerously trapped. Mr Blair is right to want to help. The world's most intractable conflict is too volatile to be left alone even if few Arabs believe he is qualified to act as an honest broker. Not only is he George Bush's sole significant ally in Iraq but he also delayed attempts to secure a ceasefire as Israel went on the offensive in Lebanon during the summer war against Hizbullah. The phrase "perfidious Albion" may have gone out of fashion, but the sentiment is alive and well. And the phrase "kick-start" beloved of Whitehall briefings about reviving the peace process seems spectacularly inappropriate - in the sense that kicking a corpse can achieve little. READ IT ALL

Grand strategies or delusions of grandeur

David Seaton's News Links

There is an interesting article in today's Washington Post by Professor Daniel W. Drezner of Tufts University where he outlines a series of "grand strategies" proposed by foreign policy analysts who he postulates as possible successors to George F. Kennan, the State Department analyst whose oft misinterpreted, but seminal article, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs, was the foundational document of the US policy of "containment." On reading the article Drezner will take you on a quick tour of a series of well argued ideas for how the US should conduct itself in foreign affairs. Drezner's "original sin" is having the hubris to compare today's America with the America of the late 40s and early 50s when America's cold war strategies were formed and to believe that America, instead of being driven by events, in fact continues to have the power to actually decide what path it will finally take. George Will quoting author Bill Bryson in the November 26th Washington Post, describes the America of the 50s:

"In 1951, when the average American ate 50 percent more than the average European, Americans(...) controlled two-thirds of the world's productive capacity, owned 80 percent of the world's electrical goods, and produced more than 40 percent of its electricity, 60 percent of its oil and 66 percent of its steel. America's 5 percent of the world's population had more wealth than the other 95 percent, and Americans made almost all of what they consumed: 99.93 percent of new cars sold in this country in 1954 were U.S. brands. By the end of the '50s, GM was a bigger economic entity than Belgium, and Los Angeles had more cars than did Asia."

Obviously anyone who still sees American power in these terms, or the role of America that flowed from that power in these terms today is delusional. You only need to compare the Marshall Plan with the pitiful effort in Afghanistan to get an idea of the slide. The world has changed a lot since the 50s or even the 70s as Christian Reiermann wrote in Der Speigel apropos the falling value of the dollar,

"The perils of a currency crash are not nearly as great as they were in the days of the dollar's absolute dominance 30 or 40 years ago. Globalization has led to the development of a number of growth centers in the world economy which share the burden of turbulence. Gone are the days when an American finance minister could boast: "The dollar is our currency, but it's your problem."

This quote, as well as any, describes the general situation. What about military power? Isn't the US the unchallenged hegemon? Certainly nobody is crazy enough to think of invading the USA, the question for everybody else is rather if the United State is going to invade them. French demographer Emmanuel Todd describes recent US power projection in Grenada, Panama and Kosovo as "theatrical micromilitarism", a strategy that neocon Michael Ladeen describes as, "Every now and then America needs to pick up some shitty little country and throw it against the wall just to show that it can". Obviously Iraq has proved that the all volunteer Army simply doesn't have the numbers to occupy and control a large, hostile country after it has been "thrown against the wall." To change that would mean a return to the draft would be necessary, with US draftees and "draftettes" playing the role of Israeli soldiers on the West Bank all over the Middle East and beyond... For a "generation. Never say never, but a return to the draft doesn't really look very likely. That leaves air power. America is unchallenged in the air, right? Again the problem America's possible adversaries face is not having to invade US air space, but to prevent the USA from invading theirs. In the case of Iran, one of the most significant, but little discussed, developments has been Russia's delivery of the Tor antiaircraft system, to quote the Israeli DEBKAfile,

"a weapon widely regarded as the most advanced of its kind in the world. Some Iranian and Russian air defense experts say its full deployment at Iran’s nuclear installations will make them virtually invulnerable to American or Israeli attack in the foreseeable future."

Also little noticed, if Google searches are any yardstick, is the Russian development of the Triumf anti-aircraft system, said to be the most advanced in the world. The Federation of American Scientist, FAS describes Trumf as,

"intended to detect and destroy airborne targets at a distance of up to 400 km (2- 2.5 times greater than the previous S-300PMU system). The Triumf system includes radars capable of detecting low-signature targets. And the anti-missile capability of the system has been increased to the limits established by the ABM Treaty demarcation agreements -- it can intercept targets with velocities of up to 4.8 km/sec, corresponding to a ballistic missile range of 3,500 km."

Then, of course there are China's advances in "passive radar" research and then even the invisible "stealth" technology that allows the USAF to bomb invulnerably around the world would be neutralized. "Theatrical micromilitarism" as a strategy of dominance would be finished. The United States would be as invulnerable to military attack by land sea or air as it always has, but would no longer be invulnerable or nearly invulnerable when attacking. At this point the American people might ask themselves, as many are doing already, the reason for spending so much of the US budget on "Full Spectrum Dominance" when some 40million of its citizens are without health insurance and the old-age pension system is said to be in danger of bankruptcy. DS

A Christmas story - #1

David Seaton's News Links

I couldn't risk your missing it. More than a tip of the hat, this is reprint ripped off directly from megablogger, "Lawrence of Cyberia's" post, complete with a fantastic drawing by "Mr Fish" of Harpers Magazine and this wonderful quote by my favorite American politician, Dennis Kucinich, who, because he speaks nothing but good sense and has lousy hair, is considered a hopeless nut. DS

While it is natural and appropriate for Americans to first focus upon the deaths of American service members in Iraq, it's astounding to consider that for every service member killed, 200 Iraq civilians have been killed....

What are the short-term and long-term implications of this massive number of deaths to Iraqi civil society? Will the millions of Iraqi children who have lost a parent ever forgive our country for igniting this violence? How do we make peace with the generations of Iraqis severely harmed by this unnecessary war of choice?

-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 11 Dec 2006. (via Informed Comment).

What if terrorists destroy Washington? - Los Angeles Times

David Seaton's News Links

Americans love to frighten themselves, anything will serve for this purpose: cholesterol, spinach, Armageddon..you name it. This enjoyment of being worried sick about anything and everything is a famous, American national trait; like French women eating all they want and staying thin. So there is a tendency to discount American hysteria. But, in the case presented in the article quoted below, its author, Yale professor, Bruce Ackerman, is really on to something. Wiping out the US political class at one blow would be so devastating, would so surely lead to a military coup d'etat, that if Osama doesn't ever try it than HE is just another American neurosis. DS

Abstract: The news media, politicians and observers are scrambling to speculate on how Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) medical emergency might change the composition of the Senate. But if the health of just 1% of one-half of one of the federal government's three branches can cause this much concern, what might happen in a real emergency? Specifically, imagine how the United States would react — or not — if terrorists succeeded in destroying Washington and, with it, all or most of the government. Chillingly, the Senate, which generated so much speculation this week, is actually in a better position to resume functioning than the other branches.(...) This isn't true of the House or the presidency. Under present House rules enacted in 2005, a tiny number of survivors could exercise power for months, even if they were formerly from the minority party. Moreover, their newly elected speaker could succeed to the presidency if an attack took both the president and vice president. Worse yet, the constitutional status of the speaker-turned-president would be problematic. The Constitution says a majority of each house "shall constitute a quorum to do business." It is a fair question whether the existing House rules, granting a rump the power to legislate after a terrorist attack, conform to this requirement. Under ordinary circumstances, we'd leave a question like that to the courts, but what if the Supreme Court were also swept away? Under existing law, the president has the power to give justices recess appointments that expire at the end of the congressional session. The acting president could well be in a position to pack the very court that would judge his or her own status. READ IT ALL

Imperial shelf life: paying the cost to be the boss

David Seaton's News Links

The window of American imperialism, militarism and hegemony is closing for the simplest of reasons. After the Second World War the returning American soldiers fathered many children. This phenomenon was known as the "war baby boom" and its children have come to be know as the "boomers". This massive generation whose consumer habits have driven the US economy since they were teenagers will, thanks to that frantic consumption, soon reach retirement age practically without savings. If defense spending continues as at present or, as will probably be the case, rises and Bush's tax cuts for the super rich are maintained, there will be no money for pensions and health care for the doddering (but voting) boomers. At that point something will have to give. As another name for the boomers is the "ME generation", it is very easy to imagine their passive enthusiasm for living in abject poverty in order to finance America's military hegemony. DS
E.J. Dionne Jr: A War Bush Wouldn't Pay For - Washington Post
Abstract: Until recently President Bush's refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was discussed as the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation's security? On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains. Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration's failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war -- and to pay them -- has put it in a corner. The president's options in Iraq are severely constrained because our military is too small for the foreign policy he is pursuing. Sending more troops would place even more excruciating burdens on members of our armed forces and their families. And the brass fears that an extended new commitment could, quite simply, break the Army. Yet, instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war.(...) By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, since 2001 we've offered $2 in tax cuts for every $1 we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And conservatives wonder why we have deficits. At least the libertarians, who are against both high taxes and an interventionist foreign policy, have their philosophical story (and their numbers) straight. It has always been true that the administration and its allies couldn't have it both ways. Their illogic has finally caught up with them. They claimed to be against big government so they could justify big tax cuts. But they were also for a big, activist foreign policy, especially after Sept. 11, 2001, which required a big military, and -- sorry to break it to you, guys -- a big military is a big part of big government. They were not willing to pay for a large enough military, and so now we, and especially our armed forces, are paying for their deficit in logic and courage. READ IT ALL

Ahmadinejad: why does he do it?

David Seaton's News Links
Why did Ahmadinejad organize the Holocaust "conference"? The short answer is because he can and to prove that he can and that nobody can do anything about it. The United States is tied in a knot in Iraq, if it attacks Iran, the beleaguered US army could be cut off from its supply lines and a blocking of the Persian Gulf would mean that America's entire position in the Middle East could collapse in a matter of days and with it... perhaps the world economy. Russia is supplying Iran with advanced antiaircraft missiles that would make that attack itself very costly and Russia and China will not hear of stiff UN sanctions. Why the Holocaust? The Holocaust is the greatest of all western taboos. To relativise its horror is to be struck dead by lightining on the spot. Ahmadinejad, like most Muslims, believes that the United States government is run by "the Jews". By flagrantly breaking the greatest of all western taboos he is rubbing the United State's nose in its own mess. This is what it means to be defeated. Ahmadinejad is clearly sending a message to the "west". The message is, "y'all can kiss my ass". Message received. DS

Tony Blair unmasked

David Seaton's News Links
Here is a picture of Tony Blair. It was taken shortly after his being the first serving British prime minister in England's long history to be questioned by the police in connection with a criminal inquiry into corruption. It is a picture of the real Tony Blair, the one who lied his and another's people into a bloody, useless war. As many that have died or been maimed is this man a criminal. This is the face of the Tony Blair that Steve Bell of the Guardian has been drawing for years, but this face, with its mask off hadn't been photographed so nakedly yet. Photographed with all its authoritarian arrogance and cruelty written clearly on it... and so, too, is a touch of fear. Mad, bad and dangerous to know. Bush's poodle? Or Bush's rottweiler? DS

Senator Tim Johnson: how history is made... "all for the want of a nail"

David Seaton's News Links

When Muslims say, "I'll see you tomorrow", they always add, "inshalla" and Spanish Catholics add, "si Díos quiere" to "hasta mañana". Both mean, "with God's permission." Bobby Burns famously said, ""The Best Laid Plans O' Mice and Men Gang Aft Aglay." Cut it any way you want, man proposes and God disposes. This is how history is written. A tiny blood vessel bursts and...

"For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a nail." DS

Jonah Goldberg wants a Pinochet for Iraq. Yecch.

David Seaton's News Links

Jonah Goldberg, syndicated neocon pundit, today recommends Augusto Pinochet for dictator of Iraq. Pinochet has only one outstanding qualification for the job: he is dead. Since the neocons, a vindictive, vengeful lot, were not received by the Iraqi people with "rice and sweets" as they expected, it has come to this. Pure hate. During Pinochet's reign of terror, many Chilean refugees came to Spain, I knew some and heard their stories. I find Goldberg's article too nauseating to quote, but I'll give you the (yechh) link. DS

Barack Obama: too much, too soon... much too soon

David Seaton's News Links

Barack Obama says all the right things. I even believe he believes what he says; in other words he seems to be a real liberal and not a "brown Blair". It also appears that he has got the brains and even the "world view" necessary to be fabulous President of the United States... but not yet. Just like in boxing, in government, bringing along a hot, young prospect too quickly can ruin them. If elected in 2008 he would become president having even less administrative experience in government then George W. Bush did in the year 2000. Bush, after all, had been the governor of complex, major state. It would be better for Obama to finish his term in the US Senate, which establishes his voting record on all the major national issues and then get elected governor of Illinois and to run that complex state, with its mixture of urban and rural problems and huge budget successfully for two terms. Then Obamamania would not be some self-indulgent, American, "feel good" fad, but a serious, transformational political movement. He might actually make a great president. Running him now would be like taking the young Muhammad Ali straight from his gold medal win in the 1960 Rome Olympics and feeding him directly to Sonny Liston. George Will, an extraordinarily intelligent, well read, paleo-conservative pundit, who opposes everything Obama stands for and has everything to fear if he succeeds, is urging him to run. Obviously Will finds Obama a liberal nightmare and wants him to fail and to disappear. That should be a clear enough signal. DS

Phil Weiss over at New York Observer has some very perceptive things to say about the 'Obama fever', which I've taken the liberty to underline:

"The Obama boom is the American way of turning the corner. The hero-worship Barack Obama experienced in N.H. and the endless references to JFK are, as the senator said, not about him, they're about us. It's a spiritual reclamation. Americans like to think of themselves as idealists, yet our country has been dragged in the moral mud for years by this filthy war. The neocons can talk forever about the necessity to knock off Middle East heads of state as a sniper takes out a hostage-taker (Perle & Frum); but Americans don't like to think of themselves as the authors of assassination, devastation, disease, emigration, etc. They want to think of the world in more hopeful ways. That's what Obama is all about, reimagining the U.S. as a country that embraces progress and idealism. More power to him. READ IT ALL

Litvinenko meets Sherlock Holmes - Chapter 3

David Seaton's News Links

The great detective and his faithful Doctor Watson are helping the Archangel Gabriel solve the Litvinenko case for Gabriel's mystified "employer", when we join them...

The great detective peers at the screen of his celestial computer and cries out, "By Jove Watson, this is fine work indeed, I believe this fellow Epstein in Slate Magazine is finally getting close to the heart of the Litvinenko matter". Watson and Gabriel, startled, jump from their chairs, "Gad, Holmes, do you really thinks so? Dash it, I can't find the piece you mention, I'm afraid I'm useless with these modern toys." Holmes sighs and replies, "There's a good chap Watson, here is the link."

Russia: what goes around, comes around

David Seaton's News Links

For me Bill Clinton is just a fly version of George W. Bush. Russia is even more important than Iraq and Bill Clinton played the saxophone while Russia burned. Probably the two most important things Clinton could have done and didn't do were, provide universal medical insurance for the American people and handle Russia and the needless suffering of its people differently. He failed in both tasks. Russia and by extension the former Soviet Union is one of history's great peoples. They have endless resources, both human and natural. They are brave, talented, tenacious and creative. People like that will never be down very long. The way Clinton handled them and encouraged the "shock therapy" that impoverished and embittered millions of Russians was frivolous, cruel and stupid and we will have to pay a high price for it. If any of the compassion and effort at easing the suffering of defeated Nazi Germany had been applied to the Russian case, at this moment we might even be looking at a true, "New World Order". DS

The breakup of the Soviet Union ended Russia's march to democracy - Stephen Cohen - Guardian
Abstract: The most consequential event of the second half of the 20th century took place 15 years ago at a secluded hunting lodge in the Belovezh Forest near Minsk. On December 8 1991, heads of three of the Soviet Union's 15 republics, led by Russia's Boris Yeltsin, met there to sign documents abolishing that 74-year-old state. For most western commentators the Soviet breakup was an unambiguously positive turning point in Russian and world history. As it quickly became the defining moment in a new American triumphalist narrative, the hope that Mikhail Gorbachev's pro-Soviet democratic and market reforms of 1985-91 would succeed was forgotten. Soviet history was now presented as "Russia's seven decades as a rigid and ruthless police state". American academics reacted similarly, most reverting to pre-Gorbachev axioms that the system had always been unreformable and doomed. The opposing view that there had been other possibilities in Soviet history, "roads not taken", was dismissed as a "dubious", if not disloyal, notion. Gorbachev's reforms, despite having so remarkably dismantled the Communist party dictatorship, had been "a chimera", and the Soviet Union therefore died from a "lack of alternatives". Most specialists no longer asked, even in the light of the human tragedies that followed in the 1990s, if a reforming Soviet Union might have been the best hope for the post-communist future of Russia. Nor have mainstream commentators asked if its survival would have been better for world affairs. On the contrary, they concluded that everything Soviet had to be discarded by "the razing of the entire edifice of political and economic relations". Such certitudes are now, of course, the only politically correct ones in US (and most European) policy, media and academic circles. A large majority of Russians, on the other hand, as they have regularly made clear in opinion surveys, regret the end of the Soviet Union, not because they pine for "communism" but because they lost a secure way of life. They do not share the nearly unanimous western view that the Soviet Union's "collapse" was "inevitable" because of inherent fatal defects. They believe instead, and for good reason, that three "subjective" factors broke it up: the way Gorbachev carried out his political and economic reforms; a power struggle in which Yeltsin overthrew the Soviet state in order to get rid of its president, Gorbachev; and property-seizing Soviet bureaucratic elites, the nomenklatura, who were more interested in "privatising" the state's enormous wealth in 1991 than in defending it. Most Russians, including even the imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, therefore still see December 1991 as a "tragedy". In addition, a growing number of Russian intellectuals have come to believe that something essential was lost - a historic opportunity to democratise and modernise Russia by methods more gradualist, consensual and less traumatic, and thus more fruitful and less costly, than those adopted after 1991. One common post-Soviet myth, promoted by Yeltsin's supporters, is that the dissolution was "peaceful". In reality, ethnic civil wars erupted in central Asia and Transcaucasia, killing hundreds of thousands and brutally displacing even more, a process still under way. It is hard to imagine a political act more extreme than abolishing what was still, for all its crises, a nuclear superpower state of 286 million citizens. And yet Yeltsin did it, as even his sympathisers acknowledged, in a way that was "neither legitimate nor democratic". Having ended the Soviet state in a way that lacked legal or popular legitimacy - in a referendum nine months before, 76% had voted to preserve the union - the Yeltsin ruling group soon became fearful of real democracy. And indeed Yeltsin's armed overthrow of the Russian parliament soon followed.(...) So why did so many western commentators hail the breakup of the Soviet Union as a "breakthrough" to democracy? Their reaction was based mainly on anti-communist ideology and hopeful myths.(...) Since the late 1980s (the most influential pro-Yeltsin intellectuals) had insisted that free-market economics and large-scale private property would have to be imposed on Russian society by an "iron hand" regime using "anti-democratic measures". Like the property-seeking elites, they saw Russia's newly elected legislatures as an obstacle. Admirers of Chile's Augusto Pinochet, they said of Yeltsin: "Let him be a dictator!" Not surprisingly, they cheered (along with the US government and mainstream media) when he used tanks to destroy Russia's popularly elected parliament in 1993. READ IT ALL

Israel: a personal statement - News Links

David Seaton's News Links

Since I write a lot about the Middle East and especially Israel (not all very complimentary, I'm afraid) some readers might be interested in what I actually know about that country and what might be the background for the opinions I hold. Not that long after the "Six Day War", during the "War of Attrition" , when Golda Meir was prime minister, I lived and worked as a journalist for a year in Tel-Aviv. I wasn't a tourist "volunteer" on a Kibbutz. I worked on an equal footing and on a day to day basis with Israelis. I had many friends and no enemies I know of. Shortly after arriving in the country a young Israeli girl and I fell in love and it is one of the nicest memories I carry from my youth. We were together all the time I was there. When my work took me away, we were too young for our relationship to endure separation and we went our own ways. She is now happily married and so am I. However, whenever I see pictures of young Israelis manning checkpoints in "Judea" and "Samaria, I always think how easily they could be sons or daughters of mine. Nurit (not her real name) was the daughter of prominent journalist from the left-wing of the Israel labor movement. He and my girlfriend's mother had immigrated from Poland to British Palestine before WWII and helped found a kibbutz, where they lived and where my girlfriend and I visited them on weekends. We had a wonderful time. We were "young and healthy" and in love. I thought Israel was Paradise. I heard and participated in the best political conversations in the world. Israel was a socialist country at that time and I met hundreds of people and heard their stories, from the French resistance, the Spanish Civil War and service in the Red Army at Stalingrad... And of course the Holocaust... I already knew that had happened before I arrived. As a small child my life was saved by a German-Jewish lady doctor, a refugee who could barely speak English and who walked across the village where we lived in the dead of a ten below (Fahrenheit!) Midwestern winter, with the roads blocked with snow, to give me a penicillin shot. On the following day, when I had regained consciousness and she was examining me, I was fascinated by the numbers tattooed on her arm. There was an awkward silence in the sick room and later my mother explained what the tattoos were and how they got there. So, to cut to the chase: I am not a Holocaust denier or someone who finds Jewish people either physically, intellectually or spiritually repellent. I loved Israel and bought the whole, "Beautiful Israel" and "a land without people for a people without land"... stuff. Later beginning with the first Intifada, I had some doubts, but my mind was on other things. Really, my personal epiphany, began when the Internet came in and I began to read the Israeli press (in English) again on a daily basis, listening to the voices. Then again, thanks to the Internet, I discovered the revisionist historians like Ilan Pappe and then many strange stories, with even stranger silences, came back to my memory and finally made some sense. So what is my final opinion on a place and people that I love, an opinion that, correct or not, is validated by what the junk mail "universities" term "life experience"? I believe that today's Israel bears the same relationship to the United States as French Algeria bore to France. The Israelis are America's "pied noir". I am just waiting for an American president to tell them, "Je vous ai compris". I believe that Jewish settlement in Palestine was a tragic mistake, with the Jewish people left "holding the bag" of western imperialism. Like the slogan of the Sam Peckinpah western, "The Wild Bunch", "they came too late, they stayed too long". I truly believe that the "Promised Land" of the Jewish people, from the Haredim on out to the far left is the United States of America, where as Tony Judt so accurately puts it the Jews have never in their history been so welcomed, so powerful and so secure and I am very worried that the coming disintegration of America's power due to the Iraq fiasco and the "who lost the superpower?" witch hunt to follow may even spoil that promised land. I believe that there was a brief window of opportunity for peace and survival of the Zionist dream after the first Gulf War and that Bush/Baker were prepared to drag the Israelis kicking and screaming through it. The window no longer exists and Bush/Rice don't have the chops to drag the Israelis even if the window were still there. Is there a solution? Finally I think it would be cheaper and better for the United States to give every man woman and Israeli child a million dollars apiece and a green card and resettle them anywhere in the USA they wish, with a Cuban style fast track to citizenship. Is that an antisemitic idea? I still think that if Israel were an Island off the coast of the Carolinas it would be a paradise. I hope this post helps my possible Jewish readers understand my little 'rants" in the future. DS

Blair and Ahmadinejad: the pot calling the kettle black- Steve Bell - Guardian

David Seaton's News Links - Cartoon Corner

Ahmadinejad is the new P.T. Barnum

David Seaton's News Links
Gideon Rachman writes in his first class blog in the Financial Times, "Mr. Ahmadinejad is a rather sinister figure. Or a complete clown." Sinister he may be, but in my opinion, crazy he isn't. What Ahmadinejad is doing by publicity stunts like the "cartoon contest" and the "Holocaust conference", with its endless shocking headlines and photo-ops with rabbis included, is to get lots of media exposure for the central idea he is peddling, which is the question: "Why should the Palestinians be the ones to pay the price for Europe's persecution of the Jews?" The idea that the Holocaust has been thus hijacked has quite a lot of resonance in the 3rd world and even among westerners who don't question in any way the tragic reality of the Holocaust itself. Drilling by repetition the idea that the Holocaust is merely being used to justify the suppression of the Palestinians and that this misappropriation is central to Israeli hasbara or PR machinery. Ahmadinejad is successfully using the headline hungry western media as a sounding box to propagate and repeat the question over and over again. The bait has been taken hook line and sinker. As P.T. Barnum said, "there is one born every minute". DS

Wise words on war - George F. Kennan

David Seaton's News Links

Mark Danner has a fine article on Iraq in the New York Review of Books. In it he quotes George F. Kennan, who with Dean Acheson was perhaps the greatest American diplomat of the 20th century. In the fall of 2002, at the age of 98, he is quoted saying one of the wisest and most succinct things I've ever read about war or conflict in general... even to level of harsh words. Let me share it with you. DS

"Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before. In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it."
George F. Kennan -October 2002

Dollar: up in smoke?

David Seaton's News Links
The most interesting point this article that I'm featuring from Der Spiegel makes is that the dollar is not just depreciating against the euro, which would be terrible for Europe; it is falling against many other important currencies too. The pound sterling, the Thai Baht, the South Korean Won and the Chinese Yuan are all rising in value against the dollar. This means that they are holding value in relation to each other. This in turn means that contrary to times past if the dollar crashes today it wont drag the rest of the world down with it. The world economy will just chug along buying and selling manufactured goods to each other, while US software, services and agricultural products will be dirt cheap on the world markets. If an American looks underneath any manufactured thing he finds within his reach he or she will probably find that it was made in a foreign country. Let her have a good look, because it may be some time before she can afford to buy it again. DS

The Fall of the Mighty Dollar - Der Spiegel
Abstract: Experts have been predicting for some time that the dollar would eventually go into a nosedive, and now that time seems to have come. The US currency has lost five percent of its value against the euro since late October, and 13 percent since the beginning of the year. The euro is currently fluctuating around a value of $1.33, which is only 3 cents away from its all-time high in 2004. And yet Trichet's counterpart Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has done nothing but look on as the dollar plunges. A sea change appears to be taking place on the international financial markets. For years, global capital flowed in only one direction, with $2 billion going into the United States every day. Investors viewed the world's largest economy not only as a bastion of stability, but also as a place that promised the best deals, the most lucrative returns and the highest growth rates. The Americans, for their part, welcomed foreign investment. For them, it was almost a tradition to save very little and spend more than they earned -- essentially achieving affluence on credit. Foreigners financed the Americans' almost obsessive consumer spending, which spurred worldwide economic growth for years. Because the US government was unable to fall back on the savings of its citizens, it too was forced to finance its budget deficit with foreign capital. Both consumer spending and the federal deficit kept the dollar high, because the rest of the world was practically scrambling to invest in the United States.(...) Investors worldwide are becoming sceptical and starting to pull their money out of the United States. They have realized that a people and a country cannot live beyond their means in the long term. The US dollar's exchange rate is starting to crumble as a result of this withdrawal. The depreciation is causing growing concern about what will happen to the global economy if the United States loses its role as an engine of growth. (...) The consequences of a declining dollar for the German and European economy will be determined in large part by the way other currencies develop relative to the dollar. "It would be fatal if only the euro were to rise," says DIW analyst Steinherr. "Then it would only be the euro zone that would have to bear the burden of adjustment." But the foreign currency markets suggest a different development, as the dollar is also losing value in relation to other important currencies. The British pound, for example, rose to new highs last week. Even more importantly, the currencies of east Asian growth regions are also appreciating against the dollar. The Thai Baht, for example, gained about 15 percent against the dollar in 2006, while the South Korean Won gained 10 percent. Even the Chinese Yuan, which slavishly followed the dollar in the past, gained more than three percent. Virtually every economy is bearing part of the burden of adjustment.(...) The perils of a currency crash are not nearly as great as they were in the days of the dollar's absolute dominance 30 or 40 years ago. Globalization has led to the development of a number of growth centers in the world economy which share the burden of turbulence. Gone are the days when an American finance minister could boast: "The dollar is our currency, but it's your problem." READ IT ALL

Kucinich to run for president: go for it!

David Seaton's News Links

Full disclosure: I confess I really like Dennis Kucinich. He and Howard Dean got it right on the war in Iraq... so of course they are a pair of nuts, right? The Democrats chose a "winner", John Kerry, who triangulated himself into knots over Iraq and lost. If they were going to lose anyway, wouldn't it have been better to run with people who had the most important world issue after the fall of the Berlin wall correctly diagnosed? At least the Democratic Party would have had some moral capital left. Howard Dean is rebuilding the grassroots of the party, which is a very subversive thing to do. A broad activist base and micro-financing might save the party and, who knows? the republic itself. Dennis Kucinich is hanging in there, fighting the good fight. Miracles happen... I wish him all success. DS
Abstract: Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2004, said Monday he is planning another bid because his party isn't pushing hard enough to end the Iraq war.In a statement, Kucinich said he plans to formally announce his candidacy on Tuesday at Cleveland's City Hall, where he served as mayor of his hometown in the 1970s. The liberal, anti-war Ohio congressman said he was inspired to run because he disagrees with the way some of his fellow Democrats are handling the war, including approval of a proposal to spend $160 billion more on the conflict. "Democrats were swept into power on Nov. 7 because of widespread voter discontent with the war in Iraq," said Kucinich, 60. "Instead of heeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediate change in policies and direction, the Democratic congressional leadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of the war."(...) He won re-election to his House seat in 2006 with 66 percent of the vote. He based his campaign on job creation and criticizing rising gas prices. He also was an outspoken critic of his own party, saying Democrats have lost their soul by moving away from liberal ideals. READ IT ALL