Blessed be thy caretakers. They are spinning Orwell in his grave.

You can say that again! ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Blessed be thy caretakers. They are spinning Orwell in his grave.

You can say that again! ;)

TSK! Stop all that loser talk Jeffrey, and come join the winners!

- "If you can't beat them, join them!" LOL

---

Stop all that loser talk Jeffrey, and come join the winners!

No thanks... I've already seen their folly... And I know their fate... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Putin fostering hostility among G8
Economic stability has enabled the Russian leader to denounce the West in language not heard since the end of the Cold War
DOUG SAUNDERS
The Globe and Mail
June 3, 2007



MOSCOW - Nine years ago, it looked like a union of likeminded comrades. When Russia was invited to join the G8 group of leading nations in 1998, the country seemed like a troubled but promising liberal democracy that was on its way to being a political and economic equal to Canada, the United States, Japan and the major European nations.


Today, the main thing Russia shares with its seven partners is hostility. On Wednesday, when the G8 leaders hold their annual meeting in northern Germany, the gathering will be dominated by one major theme: What to do about Vladimir Putin, who is making his last appearance with the group, and how to stop the escalating showdown with Russia, which burst into militant Cold War-style accusations and threats of a nuclear-arms race this week.


It is unlikely to be resolved because Mr. Putin poses a dilemma: Even as he has isolated Russia from the world, burning its relations with most allies and shocking observers with his aggressive suppression of democratic opposition, Mr. Putin, in the final year of a second term that the Russian constitution says should be his last, is at the peak of his popularity, with more than 70-per-cent support among Russian voters in recent opinion polls.


This is in large part due to Russia’s lucrative oil and natural-gas exports, most of which are sold to Europe. The windfall profits — Russia’s petroleum reserve fund now holds $113.7-billion (U.S.) and the country earns $600-million a day from energy sales — have created a new mercantile middle class and ended the chaos and poverty of Boris Yeltsin’s rule in the 1990s, allowing Mr. Putin to take much of the Russian economy back under government control and to abolish most forms of political and media opposition without angering voters.


“Due to the high price of oil, the Russian government can raise pensions, pay wages on time and maintain some economic stability,” says Alexander Latkin, editor of the Moscow online newspaper Gazeta. “People live better and they link those improvements to the President. Well, yes, there is economic stability, but of a rather peculiar sort, characterized by the growing role of the state in the economy.”


Mr. Latkin describes it as a “soft nationalization,” in which the state slowly reclaims parts of the economy into regime-controlled hands. It’s a contrast with the early years of Mr. Putin’s reign, when he aggressively seized control of private companies like the energy firm Yukos, sending its oligarch-owner to a Siberian prison.


But if there is enforced stability within Russia, there is nothing but anger and hostility on the borders.


This week, Russia tested a new missile that could strike neighbouring countries, a move that Mr. Putin subsequently announced was a response to the “imperialism” of the United States. He is angered by the U.S. plan to install an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe, which Washington says is aimed at preventing attacks from Iran on U.S. soil. It would include a radar base in Hungary and an anti-missile launch site in Poland.


On Thursday, Mr. Putin denounced those, presumably the U.S. administration, “who want to dictate their will to all others regardless of international norms and law.”


“It’s dangerous and harmful,” he said.


“Norms of the international law were replaced with political expediency. We view it as diktat and imperialism.”


This language, reminiscent of Cold War Soviet rhetoric, echoed a speech he made in Munich in February, when he said that the United States “has overstepped its national borders in every way” and denounced “the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.”


Relations with European nations are equally bad. In recent weeks, Mr. Putin has denounced the European Union for its efforts to give independence to Kosovo, the former Serbian region that has been under United Nations control since the 1999 NATO war against Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. He has sparred with Britain over a request to deport former KGB spy Andrei Lugovoi on charges that he poisoned his former partner, Alexander Litvinenko, in a London restaurant.


Gangs of Mr. Putin’s supporters rioted in Estonia last month in response to a move by that former Soviet country and current EU member to remove a huge Stalinist statue from a central square.


And Mr. Putin has loudly and repeatedly denounced the democratic revolutions in neighbouring countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, describing them as Western imperialist plots and telling voters that similar “orange revolutions” are being planned by spies and plotters within Russia who are seeking to reverse the country’s economic gains and impose foreign control.


Therein lies the dilemma for the other nations of the G8: Whenever Mr. Putin lashes out at the West, his popularity rises.


“Domestically, it’s received very well. The more confrontational Putin gets, the more he’s supported by his nation,” says Masha Lipman, an analyst with the Moscow Carnegie Institute. “And nothing can make the nation happier than seeing Putin standing up to others in a way that puts Russia on a par with them. After years of humiliation and being treated as inferior, finally we can talk back. We can say, ‘You don’t have the right to teach and preach, you have no right to meddle with our domestic affairs.’ Whenever he says these hostile things about the West, and he’s said this repeatedly over the past one and a half years, it is received very well.”


In Mr. Putin’s early years, he shut down independent TV stations and newspapers, withdrew the licences of foreign-financed organizations and charities, prevented foreign investors from owning more than small stakes in major Russian industries, and used trials and police actions to shut down major opposition parties and organizations.


In the past year, he has begun building a new political system that has the appearance of a one-party state. He created well-funded and heavily armed youth groups.

---

Containing Iran - Apply pressure, then wait

By Mark Bowden; author of “Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam.”

June 3, 2007

Evin Prison in north Tehran is such a sprawling complex that it cannot really be seen from any one vantage point.

I went looking for it on my last trip to Tehran in 2005, researching a book about the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, because it is where nearly all of the kidnapped Americans were ultimately held. What I remember are high stone walls that followed the steep contours of the hills, some up close, others in the far distance. Patches of the walls seemed to have been built recently, while some seemed ancient. Some parts were gray stone, others brick and mortar. The huge steel doors at the front entrance were painted powder blue.

It was hard to get more than a collection of glimpses, because my Iranian driver and friend was loath even to slow down as we drove past. It was in front of those powder-blue doors in 2003 that Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian Canadian photographer, was arrested for taking photographs, and subsequently died imprisoned behind its walls. She was beaten to death in custody. Evin has been a locus of fear in Tehran for many, many years, long before this Islamist regime.

The mullahs are just the last in a line of Iranian rulers to employ it. Evin is back in the news in the West because locked behind its walls is Haleh Esfandiari, a distinguished Iranian American scholar employed by the Woodrow Wilson Institute, an organization dedicated to fostering cultural understanding. Esfandiari is one of a community of liberal intellectuals who, at least from an American vantage point, are working to break down the ignorance and misunderstanding that have so often steered nations into war.

Iran has decided to define that work as an effort to foster “soft revolution,” that is, to encourage education, cultural understanding and a free international exchange of ideas – hence promoting notions that threaten the nation's 25-year theocratic rule. This is revolution very broadly defined, but given the rather narrow dimensions of “democracy” in Iran, simple enough to understand. Esfandiari and intellectuals like her worry the regime, because their writings and conferences encourage an appetite for real freedom. Her arrest will likely discourage other such Westernized, free-thinking Iranians from visiting, no matter how her case is resolved.

This episode is particularly troubling to liberal Americans because Esfandiari is not a flame-throwing neocon; she is a liberal intellectual. From an American viewpoint, her public statements and works would seem to be distinctly pro-Iran. During the 1990s, she was one of a number of academics with Iranian roots who fostered the idea that the Islamic Republic, given time and encouragement, would evolve toward true democracy.

Excited by the rhetoric of the reform movement there, and the early promise of former President Mohammad Khatami, they encouraged the American government to ease tensions between our countries, and even to open a dialogue with the mullahocracy, in the hope of hastening this process.

Friends and family of Esfandiari, American officials and her academic colleagues have expressed bewilderment over her arrest. Sen. Hilary Clinton has called it “inexplicable.” Lee Hamilton, the former congressman who heads the Wilson Center, has said: “There is not a shred, not a scintilla” of truth to the allegations against her.

But as wrong as her detention is, I see no mystery in it. It is very much in keeping with the clerical crackdown that has been going on in Iran for the last five years. It certainly comes as no surprise to the opposition Iranian politicians, activists and journalists who have been locked up, kicked out of their professions, and booted – often after public beatings by the Basij, the regime's fanatic religious brown shirts – off the public stage. I wince every time I hear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to as “the elected leader” of Iran. He is not. He serves Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and an all-powerful council of mullahs, and he was elected, along with the current Majlis (Iran's version of Congress), only after those judged insufficiently “Islamist” (most of them reformers) were crossed off the ballot. The pendulum has swung so far away from reform in Iran that even the benevolent efforts of Esfandiari are enough to get you a one-way ticket to Evin.

Iran is a confusing country. It encompasses many strong political traditions with deep roots, among them, at least in modern times, a kind of natural national proclivity toward freedom. This is why Westernized Iranian intellectuals such as Esfandiari were so enthusiastic about the reform movement. It is also why it would be a tragic mistake for the United States to attack Iran.

Not long after I returned from my last trip there, I was interviewing Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (who thought he was leaving his biggest problems behind when he moved to the World Bank), and he asked me what I thought the United States should be doing to encourage democracy in Iran. I am hardly an expert in the region, but I told him that any overt American involvement would likely set back the movement for decades, for the same reason that any American political movement endorsed by Iran would be dead in the water.

The best approach, which so far the United States has been taking, is to ratchet up international pressure to try to contain Iran – and wait. Tyrannies have been known to self-destruct.

While it is small comfort to Esfandiari and those who love and respect her, her detention illustrates that America is not the only country that blunders in the international arena. Her arrest is just the latest in a string of mistakes and embarrassments orchestrated by the clownish Ahmadinejad, from denying the Holocaust to touting Iran's nuclear ambitions. I may be overly optimistic, but even with my limited experience in Iran, I know his actions dismay most educated Iranians. Couple that with the nation's intractable economic problems, general dissatisfaction with religious rule and the mounting discontent of Iranian youth, and I suspect Ahmadinejad is hastening the end of the mullahocracy he seeks to defend.

Our policy, again, should be to keep the pressure on, and wait. When the monster is backing itself toward a cliff, the best policy is to stay out of his way.

---

me@rescam.org

Tunnel as tomb for radioactive waste hits wall
Next 18 months key in nuclear energy debate centered on Nev. site

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

LOL Doesn't that tell the story!

---

CNN show host in need of lesson on accuracy

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

June 4, 2007

We all make mistakes. But when we do, we should correct them, not skirt the issue by playing the victim and attacking those who bring the mistakes to light.

The Cable News Network should learn from that example. The network, which bills itself as having “the most trusted name in news,” refuses to correct the record – openly and unambiguously – about mistakes made on a show that has become one of its cash cows: “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Last year, the ex-financial-guru-turned-raving-populist was being accused by Latino activists of being anti-Mexican because of his inflammatory treatment of the immigration issue. Led by San Diegan Enrique Morones, founder of Border Angels, demonstrators picketed CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

Now others have joined in the criticism of Dobbs, including The New York Times editorial page, which blasted “this generation's Know-Nothings who bray against 'amnesty' from their anchor chairs...knowing that it gives hope to the people they hate.” The Times didn't mention Dobbs by name, but that didn't stop CNN's Wolf Blitzer from asking the host to respond to the editorial.

And then there is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has gone from monitoring hate groups to monitoring Dobb's show. The SPLC placed an ad in newspapers urging CNN to acknowledge that Dobbs “has been spreading false information about the prevalence of leprosy and its supposed links to undocumented immigrants.”

At issue is the claim by CNN reporter Christine Romans that “in the past three years, America has had more than 7,000 cases of leprosy.” It turns out this is the figure for the past 30 years, not three years. The correction came to light during a profile of Dobbs on “60 Minutes.” Even after CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl pointed out the actual number, Dobbs told her that he stands “100 percent behind” the claim. He also told Stahl: “If we reported it, it's a fact.” But it's not a fact. And, in a segment after the “60 Minutes” interview, an unrepentant Romans repeated the bogus figure. So, there.

When New York Times columnist David Leonhardt accused Dobbs of having a “somewhat flexible relationship with reality,” the CNN host played the victim. He called the column “scurrilous” and “primarily a personal attack on me.”

Dobbs feels the criticism he is catching is unfair. Ironically, immigrant activists say the same thing about his criticism of immigrants, both legal and illegal.

The issue is accuracy and accountability. CNN and Lou Dobbs have shown they're not wedded to the first, but they should get acquainted with the second.

---

me@rescam.org

Over at the club, Dobbs lost the respect of businessmen about a year-and-a-half ago, when he complained about outsourcing but failed to come up with any noteworthy solutions.

It's too bad, really. He started off well, then got lost down the road. I think pressure to keep up ratings had a lot to do with it. But then, all the traditional broadcast news have lost credibility. They all seem to have fallen to tabloid journalism.

<shakes his head>

---

Over at the club, Dobbs lost the respect of businessmen about a year-and-a-half ago, when he complained about outsourcing but failed to come up with any noteworthy solutions.

It's too bad, really. He started off well, then got lost down the road. I think pressure to keep up ratings had a lot to do with it. But then, all the traditional broadcast news have lost credibility. They all seem to have fallen to tabloid journalism.

<shakes his head>

Everything is about blah blahing opinions and showmanship...they don't do something which was their original reason for being, i.e., to accurately report the news and only the news.

---

Account frozen...

Over at the club, Dobbs lost the respect of businessmen about a year-and-a-half ago, when he complained about outsourcing but failed to come up with any noteworthy solutions.

It's too bad, really. He started off well, then got lost down the road. I think pressure to keep up ratings had a lot to do with it. But then, all the traditional broadcast news have lost credibility. They all seem to have fallen to tabloid journalism.

<shakes his head>

Everything is about blah blahing opinions and showmanship...they don't do something which was their original reason for being, i.e., to accurately report the news and only the news.

Right! And these organizations have HUGE numbers of staff worldwide: to get the stories and check the facts. They must've laid off the fact checkers, leaving only the reporters and the talking heads.

---

Excuse the pun but you hit the nail on the head..."talking heads."

Is it only me or do they hire alot of blond airheads as well...both male and female?

Then there's the Latino reporters who pronounce their names as if
they were teachers in a high school Spanish class...

Then there are the intrepid reporters questions asked of disaster victims, like,
"how does it feel to have your entire family wiped out?"

---

Account frozen...

Excuse the pun but you hit it on the head..."talking heads."

Is it only me or do they hire alot of blond airheads as well...both male and female?

Then there's the Latino reporters who pronounce their names as if
they were teachers in a high school Spanish class...

People need the news (they always have), and they need fact based news.

I fear that in order to get the real news, you'll soon have to subscribe to private networks that cost a fortune in subscription fees. I hope that doesn't happen. It would cause the "new ignorance" of the little guy.

Edit: That's why I'm so opposed to DRM and the like. The world wide web of free information and services is being broken up into private pay-for enclaves. And (slightly off-topic), that's what Vista is all about, imho.

---

Something like that...that's assuming that in a few decades college graduates can read without a computer doing it for them?

---

Account frozen...

Something like that...that's assuming that in a few decades college graduates can read without a computer doing it for them?

The only thing we can do, is to keep fighting to keep the world wide web free.

---

It would cause the "new ignorance" of the little guy.

... While making it much easier to spread propaganda and disinformation among their brainwashed followers... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

It would cause the "new ignorance" of the little guy.

... While making it much easier to spread propaganda and disinformation among their brainwashed followers... ;)

That too.

---