Israeli ships attack aid flotilla, 2 dead- strains relations with Turkey

When reading the story of Israeli forces attacking and killing two peaceful demonstrators on the high seas, most Americans should ask how they would react if their own Navy opened fire on an unarmed boat full of civilians. This latest incident will further damage Israeli’s standing in the world community and hurts its relationship with Turkey.

As reported by The associated Press.

Israeli warships attacked at least one of six ships carrying pro-Palestinian activists and aid for the blockaded Gaza Strip, killing at least two and wounding an unknown number of people on board, an Arabic satellite news channel and a Turkish TV network reported early Monday.

The Israeli military spokesman's office denied that its forces attacked the boats but said they would enforce the decision to keep them away from Gaza.
However, other security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to report on the military operation, confirmed that activists were wounded, but did not give numbers.

They said the troops faced resistance and that soldiers were under orders only to use fire if their lives were in danger.

The al-Jazeera satellite channel reported by telephone from the Turkish ship leading the flotilla that Israeli navy forces fired at the ship and boarded it, wounding the captain. The Turkish NTV network also reported an Israeli takeover with gunfire, and that at least two people were killed.

The al-Jazeera broadcast ended with a voice shouting in Hebrew, "Everybody shut up!"
A Turkish website showed video of pandemonium on board one of the ships, with activists in orange life jackets running around as some tried to help an activist apparently unconscious on the deck. The site also showed video of an Israeli helicopter flying overhead and Israeli warships nearby.

The reports came just after daybreak, with the flotilla still well away from the Gaza shore. Israel had declared it would not allow the ships to reach Gaza.
Al-Jazeera footage showed soldiers descending from helicopters on ropes onto a ship and two men, apparently wounded, being carried away.

A violent takeover would deal yet another blow to Israel's international standing, already tarnished by war crimes accusations in Gaza and its three-year-old blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory.

Greek activists said people on board one of the ships in the flotilla told them that Israeli forces boarded two other boats — one Greek, another Turkish — from helicopters and inflatable speedboats and took them over.

They said the attack took place in international waters 80 miles (128 kilometers) from the Gaza coast and that the boat had refused to obey the Israeli navy's orders to halt.

Shortly after, activists on board the ship told them that Israeli commandos had boarded the Greek boat and that the last words they heard before the connection was cut were, "They're boarding the ship using hooks, we're under arrest."
The head of the Gaza Hamas government, Ismail Haniyeh, condemned the "brutal" Israeli attack.

"We call on the Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, to shoulder his responsibilities to protect the safety of the solidarity groups who were on board these ships and to secure their way to Gaza," Haniyeh told The Associated Press.
Turkish television stations said police blocked dozens of stone-throwing protesters who tried to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul. The CNN-Turk and NTV televisions showed dozens of angry protesters scuffling with Turkish police and shouting, "Damn Israel."

For the complete story, clink here.

Why progressive voters have stopped supporting Obama

Many progressive bloggers and supporters of Obama have begun to pull their support for Obama after realizing he is controlled more by money than being the democratic leader of the country. As Paul Woodward astutely points out in a recent article on War In Context, Obama is inconsistent, unimaginative, unengaged and just plainly over-stretched. For long time blog readers this will only vindicate the views that Opinione wrote before Obama was elected and knew he was incapable of delivering on the change he promised.

As Opinione wrote on September 2, 2008:

It is astonishing to read that both the Presidential candidates are using campaign themes of change and putting the country first in their respective campaign slogans. While I did not have the opportunity to hear the acceptance speeches of the democratic or republican candidates as I was sound asleep at 4 o’clock in the morning, (one of the best things about living in Europe), I did however learn that Palin and McCain are trying to cast themselves as outsiders to Washington politics. I do not know what kind of fool they think the average American is who will believe such an contemptible statement as that, but they sure don’t have this voter fooled.

What makes the McCain and Obama campaign platforms so preposterous is that both of these Presidential candidates are sitting US senators in one of the most exclusive clubs in the world.

Eight years after the 2000 Presidential election, neither the self-proclaimed Maverick from Arizona, nor the new kid in the Senate, Barrack Obama, has enacted or sponsored any substantial or meaningful election reform legislation.

If Barrack Obama and John McCain were true agents of change like they said they are, then they would support and demand from the US Congress, if elected, that election reform legislation be implemented for the 2010 election. Some of these election changes should require that any election be held on a Sunday, as in almost every other OECD country. Legislation should also be enacted where congressional districts are not drawn by political parties or based on social economic factors. Congressional districts should be drawn from pre-existing county and state boundaries. In some congressional districts, your neighbor across the street can be in a different congressional district.

The cavalier and condescending treatment of American voters by the two political parties in the American political system, forces me to declare that Americans should unite and form a viable third party in American politics. Until either political leader begins to mention implementing real change like balancing the federal budget, reducing the military budget, and changing a US foreign policy of unbiased support for the state of Israel, I will continue highlight that neither of these political leaders are different from each other. Neither of these candidates will bring any meaningful change to the benefit of the average hard working American, and will continue to put themselves and their political interests before the good of the country.

One of the reasons why Paul Woodward and other progressive voters have lost faith with Obama is that he has lost the political capital given to him by the people and ignored it in favor of money and the business as usual as politics of Washington DC.

As I said early on in this blog, the political analysis I offer is like an on-line depository of information. As the earlier predictions that Obama would not bring the needed change to Washington DC, Opinione will also take this opportunity to make a prediction for the 2012 election.

Due to Obama ignoring the political capital given to him by the people and playing by Washington’s political playbook, the status quo owners of society in America (banks, insurance, defense) will put their money behind the republican candidate in 2012. Along with Obama not being able to delivery on any of his campaign promises of change, Obama is pursuing the same kinds of policy towards the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the stand off with Iran as George Bush. Due to the inability to challenge the status quo powers in Washington and his desire to be a politician and not a leader, Obama has missed a historic opportunity to lead the country. These factors, along with millions of people who wanted to see the first black president in America who will not bother to vote in 2012, will all contribute to favor a republican candidate.

Obama has never been successful at getting re-elected and this will prove to be the case again in 2012.

How Political corruption infringes on gun ownership

One of the most fundamental reasons behind the decline of America is the amount of money in the political system. Instead of being concerned about the interests of the people they are supposed to represent as the founding father’s had envisioned, American politicians of today are more concerned about protecting and passing laws that benefit the people and political action committees (PACs) who give them money and gifts.

Often called legalized corruption, influencing peddling in American politics impacts every facet of American life from laws regulating the food we eat and laws protecting the environment, to amount of spending the American spend on the military. The recent outbreaks of E.coli deaths in several states due to government regulators not doing their job, to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are prime examples of how influence peddling corrupts a government. Even gun owners have been betrayed by their own lobbying group, the National Rifle Association.

A prime example of how a political action committee like the NRA has put its own interests first at the expense of the individual, is the Connecticut gun law requiring a resident who wants to own a handgun to take a handgun safety course. While this may appear to be a good law in itself, the required fee of $ 125 paid to a “licensed NRA instructor” proves without a doubt of how the NRA got legislation passed to benefit itself at the expense of the gun owner. This is evident in the fact that the entire $ 125 fee paid by the Connecticut resident goes entirely to the licensed NRA instructor and not a single dollar of that “fee” goes to the state. This “fee” is nothing short of a revenue-generating stream for the NRA, enabled by a corrupt political system, where the elected officials often act as agents for the people and groups they receive money and gifts from. This is one of the reasons why the United States is only ranked as the 17th most democratic in the world and the 18th least corrupt government.

If the NRA had the interests of promoting gun safety and promoting the efforts of reducing the flow of illegal guns, than the NRA would have supported some of that "fee" to go towards the government. This would allow the state government to have a revenue stream to fund public service campaigns promoting gun owner responsibility or ensure illegal guns be destroyed. If the American political process was less corrupt, the money generated from this gun ownership law could have helped prevent the accidental death of an eight-year-old boy in Jewett City, Connecticut in 2008.

Instead, the corrupt politicians of Connecticut enacted a law that takes the money from citizens who have the constitutional right to own a gun, and requires them to pay a fee to a political action committee. The money collected by the NRA licensed gun instructors in Connecticut is unconstitutional and another example of why Americans have fewer civil liberties than people living in Canada, Japan, and yes even Uruguay and Mauritius.

Annual quality of life index for 200 cities in the world

Mercer Consulting recently released its annual quality of life index for 200 cities in the world. The information should be embarrassing to most Americans who consider their country to be the best place to live and humiliating to Italians who like to consider themselves so fashionable and civilized. The poor showing for both of these countries reflects how corruption in government and misplaced government priorities can dramatically lower the living and quality of life standards for the citizens living in those countries.

Not surprising like almost every category related to international affairs, the northern Scandinavian countries score well in the overall Quality of living ranking with Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen all in the top 20. In the new eco friendly category which evaluates water availability and drinkability, waste removal, quality of sewage systems, air pollution and traffic congestion, Helsinki is ranked third, Copenhagen comes in at seventh, while Oslo and Stockholm share ninth place. For a political scientist in international relations the Scandinavian countries set the standard time and time again.

While America can boast the highest ranking for defense spending and the amount of money it takes to get elected to office, when it comes to living standards and quality of life rankings the United States does not even break the top thirty. I will have to check with my fellow blogger MikeB302000, but I am sure the US may be able to claim the top spot in the amount of gun deaths per 1,000 people.

Reviewing the list of American cities that make the top fifty, it is interesting to note that every city in the top fifty is a historically strong democratic city. Honolulu adapted home to President Obama is the top rated US city (31) while the very liberal (and educated) cities of San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago follow closely behind. While Washington, rich in culture and having some of the best infrastructure of a major US city, the high crime areas outside of the Beltway most likely lower the score for Washington DC. Likewise, New York most likely scores lower due to all the law enforcement and censorship its residents have to endure because of the perpetual war on terror and a legacy of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.

Please see below a copy of the top 50 cities in the world. Living conditions are analyzed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:

1. Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
2. Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
3. Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
4. Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
5. Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
6. Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion,
7. Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
8. Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
9. Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
10. Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)

1 VIENNA
2 ZURICH
3 GENEVA
4 VANCOUVER
4 AUCKLAND
6 DUSSELDORF
7 FRANKFURT
7 MUNICH
9 BERN
10 SYDNEY
11 COPENHAGEN
12 WELLINGTON
13 AMSTERDAM
14 OTTAWA
15 BRUSSELS
16 TORONTO
17 BERLIN
18 MELBOURNE
19 LUXEMBOURG
20 STOCKHOLM
21 PERTH
21 MONTREAL
23 HAMBURG
24 NURNBURG
26 CANBERRA
26 DUBLIN
28 CALGARY
28 SINGAPORE
30 STUTTGART
31 HONOLULU
32 ADELAIDE
32 SAN FRANCISCO
34 PARIS
35 HELSINKI
36 BRISBANE
37 BOSTON
38 LYON
39 LONDON
40 TOKYO
41 MILAN
41 KOBE
41 YOKOHAMA
44 BARCELONA
45 LISBON
45 CHICAGO
45 WASHINGTON
48 MADRID
49 NEW YORK CITY
50 SEATTLE

Another example of how the media breeds ignorance

Silvio Berlusconi once said that if something is not on television, than it does not exist.

As Great Britain recently disclosed that it has a stockpile of 225 nuclear weapons, there was no mention of Israel’s 200 to 250 nuclear weapons. This failure of the main stream media to ignore Israeli’s nuclear arsenal is the most blatant example of how the main stream media breeds ignorance. It was disappointing to read that even the Associated Press fails to report that Israel is a nuclear armed nation and that Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The following is an excerpt from a news article by the Associated Press which misses an opportunity to inform the reader of those two facts but for whatever reasons fails to include them in the article.

Countries that don't possess nuclear weapons have long demanded more openness from the nuclear-weapon states — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — about the size and nature of their arsenals as an essential step toward nuclear disarmament, which is a key plank in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Four other nations have or are suspected of having atomic arms — Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

While most Americans are told that Iran wants a nuclear weapon to attack Israel, the truth to the matter is that Iran may be trying to get a nuclear weapon in order to act as a deterrent for countries that surround Iran which do have nuclear weapons.

Freedom Flotilla to Gaza

While the American media focuses on the developments related to the sinking of a South Korean naval ship, another more important story related to international law and the Law of the Sea is unfolding off the coast of Israel.

Thanks to the blog War in Context and the Sydney Morning Herald, a dramatic confrontation is brewing with the Israeli Navy and a flotilla of ships carrying food and medicine to the Gaza Strip. It is a far more interesting story than the trivial and senseless stories currently on CNN.com such as a story about Larry King and a story about New York City hosting a Super Bowl.

With America preparing for Memorial Day celebrations, it would be interesting to see how may people know the story of the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, in which Israeli fighter planes and ships killed 34 Americans and wounded 173.

Please click on the following link to follow this story or watch a YouTube video on the flotilla.

Sydney Morning News

An interview with Noam Chomsky on Israeli television

Thanks to the blog War in Context, please find an interview of Noam Chomsky by an Israeli journalist. It was interesting to analyze the interview and notice how the media personality tries to frame Chomsky in a negative manner. An example of this is when the reporter declares that Chomsky makes statements against Israel; when Chomsky emphatically corrects the reporter and says that he makes statements for Israel.

Some of the more compelling portions of the interview are when the reporter brings up the “nuclear issue” and tries to ignore the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. In this part of the interview, Chomsky makes an excellent point in the interview when he says that if Israel was serious about reducing the threat of nuclear war in the region, than it would agree to a treaty of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. Instead, as Chomsky declares, Israel is more at risk from its own actions than it is by the actions of an external actor like Iran.

Another interesting portion of the interview is when Mr. Chomsky explains how intellectuals who have been critical of a regime or a government are often labeled as dissidents. People familiar with the bible will enjoy the closing segment of the interview when Chomsky discusses how the Prophet Elijah known as the hater of Israel, or any of the prophets like Jeremiah or Isaiah were seen at the time as a hater of their country, while centuries later they are vindicated as intellectuals.

It is a good opportunity to watch an interview of one of the most important intellectuals living today. For more on how Noam Chomsky relates biblical figures to modern politics, please see this article.

How Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to apartheid regime of South Africa

Although independent blogs and on-line news services on the Internet offer an amazing amount of unbiased information, most Americans still rely on the mainstream media to get their news. This over reliance on the mainstream media has promoted or inhibited the public’s understanding and perspective surrounding news events.

The most prevailing example of this was the run up to the Iraq War in 2003, where most Americans were mislead into believing that the terrorist attacks on September 11th were connected to Saddam Hussein. Other examples include framing the systematic torture of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 as only abuse and not the politically damaging description of torture. Both of these news events were allowed to be managed and then framed by communication officials within the Bush administration to attain their political objectives. The refusal of the mainstream press to discuss Israeli’s nuclear weapons arsenal is the latest example of the mainstream media in inhibiting the American public’s understanding of events related to Iran’s nuclear energy program.

In a recent blog posting on War in Context, the blog writes about a recent Guardian Newspaper article that details how Israeli offered nuclear weapons to the apartheid run government of South Africa in1975.

As reported by the Guardian Newspaper,

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The mainstream press in America needs to stop its own policy of ambiguity in how it covers the issue of Iran, Israel, and nuclear weapons. As over 5,000 American families who have lost a loved one serving in Iraq, the failure of the main stream media in covering this issue is a matter of life and death.

The start of the "Tough Oil Era"

At TomDispatch, Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, and Blood And Oil, has been warning for years that the easy oil and natural gas energy reserves on Planet Earth are quickly disappearing and that we’re entering a “tough oil” era. 

In a must read article for anyone wanting to get a spin free account of what will most likely be become known as the first natural catastrophe in the age of Tough Oil, the article by Michael Klare will put the Deep Water Horizon spill in its historical context.

The article by Michael Klare , The Relentless Pursuit of Extreme Energy- 
A New Oil Rush Endangers the Gulf of Mexico and the Planet is the latest publication from the professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. 

The Way of the World by Ron Suskind

The Way of the World by Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal journalist, revealed for the first time the falsehood underlying the Iraq War and the entire Bush presidency. While the book should have been a best seller and a cornerstone for any impeachment hearing, the book was largely ignored by the main stream media and the cable news outlets. Highlighting how bad things have gotten in America, it takes a comedian to interview and discuss issues with a a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist on how America attacked and invaded a country on a foundation of lies and deceit.

Although Bush may have escaped being impeached in America, he will undoubtedly not escape the critical analysis of future historians.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Suskind
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Noam Chomsky, Eyeless in Gaza

When former President Bush in 2001 warned the world, “You are either with us or against us”, the former President of the United States set forth a dangerous precedent. The remarks by Bush, gave a green light to countries around the world to treat people with opposing views in a combative and hostile manner. As editor of TomDispatch highlights in a recent posting, Israeli leaders took that precise approach with Noam Chomsky, when he tried to give a speech at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah.

Instead of allowing a forum to discuss the issues regarding the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, the Interior Ministry of Israel simply refused Mr. Chomsky the opportunity to speak by denying him an entry VISA. This is something that would be expected from authoritative regimes like North Korea and Saudi Arabia, rather than from a country, the United States closely supports and gives billions of dollars to a year.

While not covered by the mainstream press, the incident was covered by the blogs TomDispatch and War in Context. On the informative War in Context blog, Paul Woodward includes an interview Noam Chomsky has with the Israeli newspaper, Haaetz which merits attention.

Chomsky told Haaretz about the questions.

“The official asked me why I was lecturing only at Bir Zeit and not an Israeli university,” Chomsky recalled. “I told him that I have lectured a great deal in Israel. The official read the following statement: ‘Israel does not like what you say.’”

Chomsky replied: “Find one government in the world which does.”

“The young man asked me whether I had ever been denied entry into other countries. I told him that once, to Czechoslovakia, after the Soviet invasion in 1968,” he said, adding that he had gone to visit ousted Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek, whose reforms the Soviets crushed.

For more of a story you won't find in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, go to the blogs War in Context and TomDispatch for more.

Here is a link to a posting Noam Chomsky wrote on TomDispatch, “Eyeless in Gaza,” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in order for you to have a fair and balanced view of the issue.

If you cant't take the time to read the entire article, here is a portion of the article.

The leading academic specialist on Gaza, Harvard scholar Sara Roy, adds:

“Gaza is an example of a society that has been deliberately reduced to a state of abject destitution, its once productive population transformed into one of aid-dependent paupers.… Gaza’s subjection began long before Israel’s recent war against it [December 2008]. The Israeli occupation — now largely forgotten or denied by the international community — has devastated Gaza’s economy and people, especially since 2006…. After Israel’s December [2008] assault, Gaza’s already compromised conditions have become virtually unlivable. Livelihoods, homes, and public infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed on a scale that even the Israel Defense Forces admitted was indefensible.

“In Gaza today, there is no private sector to speak of and no industry. 80 percent of Gaza’s agricultural crops were destroyed and Israel continues to snipe at farmers attempting to plant and tend fields near the well-fenced and patrolled border. Most productive activity has been extinguished.… Today, 96 percent of Gaza’s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a March [22, 2009] decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of May 10, at best meeting 23 percent of required need. Israel now allows only 30 to 40 commercial items to enter Gaza compared to 4,000 approved products prior to June 2006.”

An Analysis of The American Power Act

While other economic competitors such as Germany and China formulate a well thought-out long-term strategy for developing a national energy policy to power their national economies in a post peak oil era, American political leaders continue to present piecemeal solutions to what should be the nation’s top national security priority. Rather than continuing to follow the 30-year-old Carter Doctrine of maintaining unhindered access to the world’s principal source of oil by military force as the centerpiece of its national energy policy, the United States should be creating a new national energy policy focusing more on economic growth through energy independence. The American Power Act by Joseph Lieberman and John Kerry falls far short in setting these kinds of strategic objections with its failure to put more emphasis on creating and supporting high-speed and light-rail transportation systems. America needs to retain, rebuild and expand her industrial base of manufacturing and change from a country of consumption to a country of production.

The failure to formulate a cohesive and unified national security policy, with the strategic objective of becoming less dependant on foreign sources of energy, is evident when political leaders in Washington D.C. put politics before the interests of the American people and the country. This was evident when Republican Lindsay Graham from South Carolina failed to co-sponsor The American Power Act. The repudiation of a moderate member of the Republican Party to support The American Power Act proves without a doubt how partisan party politics in Washington DC is undermining the long-term economic vitality of the United States and the long-term national security for the country.

Compounding the problem of either political party to work with the other in formulating a national energy policy, members within the Democratic Party are also pursuing contradicting goals and policies. This was evident when President Obama hosted a White House reception for the leader of Afghanistan and his administration’s support of the Carter Doctrine, while at the very same moment; Senator Lieberman and Kerry were presenting The American Power Act. While one group within the Democratic Party is calling for higher fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in America, another part of the Democratic Party is continuing to support a military operation that costs United States taxpayer an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft operating in Afghanistan.

If the energy bill proposed by Lieberman and Kerry was serious about reducing America’s need to import foreign oil, while at the same time creating millions of new jobs, than it should have stressed the creation of more mass transit systems running on renewable energy and nuclear power generated electricity. In addition to investing into more mass transit public transportation systems, Senators Lieberman and Kerry, should have centered their national energy policy proposal towards reducing the amount of money the United States is spending on its military budget.

The creation of more rail-based transportation systems in America is perhaps the best way for America to create millions of new white- and blue-collar manufacturing jobs and help turn this country around from a country of consumption to a country of production. In addition to helping to create millions of new jobs for Americans, the creation of more regional and national rail systems running on electricity would help contribute to the larger national strategic goal of reducing the need for foreign oil and the high military expenditures required to gain access to and control that dwindling and finite source of energy.

Zero Cost Politics

One of the greatest and most obvious flaws in the American political system is the lack of multiple political parties an American can choose from and the incorporation of money in the political process. The end result of nearly 160 years in power protecting their own interests first, followed closely by the interests of the people who helped them gain political office, has resulted in a dangerous collusion between the political establishment and the owners of capital in America.

Recent actions by members of both political parties have proven without doubt that the members from both political parties in America have gone from being a public servant to being a public master. As the fellow blogger Beppe Grillo said in a recent posting railing against the corruption, nepotism, and immoral behavior of Italian politicians, the (public) servants have become the masters of the people they are supposed to work for and represent. Instead of being servants of the people, elected leaders in both Italy and America are servants to wealthy individuals and powerful corporations.

While many of the Republican Party ,Tea Party activists, and some Democratic Party candidates (depending at how safe their district is in November), will all jump on the political band wagon of out of control Washington spending, none of these political parties or movements like the Tea Party will talk about how money has helped them get into power.

The corrupt and vile Italian political system is due to the over half a century involvement of the United States in Italy. The close relationship between American and Italian politics is evident in a recent blog posting by Beppe Grillo. One can easily read the following and think of how former executives in the defense and agricultural sectors in America, then become members of the government.

As Beppe Grillo writes:

The cost of politics has brought about the end of politics. People get into politics for money, to rescue those that are threatened by the courts, to provide their children with well-paid jobs, or to become wealthy in their own right (an objective that many of them actually achieve) or at least rather well-off. The more the costs of politics increases, the more these costs can be distributed, shared out amongst those involved in politics.

Like Opinione, the blog by Beppe Grillo not only highlights the ills of a society or the misguided priorities of a government, also offers ideas on how to change the system and the way the system works. In a small way, the members of the Five Star Movement are doing what they can to change the system. Instead of being corrupted by the system the Five Star Movement recently got elected to in two regions, the Five Star Movement members are honoring the wishes of the people who helped get them elected.

As Mr. Grillo explains in a recent posting:

By their own choice, the 5-Star Movement’s representatives elected to the Piedmont and Emilia Romagna Regional Councils will only be taking one third of their normal monthly salary: 2,500 Euro instead of 10,000 Euro before deductions. Being elected to public office is an honor, not an honorarium, and even less so a fat salary. For what? The 5-Star MoVement turned down their election reimbursement of 1,700,000 Euro. This is the same old public funding scheme for the political parties, which was rejected in a referendum and has now been re-introduced by the back door in the form of a reimbursement of expenses that were never incurred in the first place. The political parties would not be able to survive for a single day without these hundreds of millions of funding. They are made of money. When a politician talks about the cost of politics, he’s thinking of his own salary.

Although Mr. Grillo is often scoffed at in the Italian mass media, (greatly controlled by Silvio Berlusconi), his insight and ideas are refreshing to read and is one of the reasons why his Five Star Movement made a difference in the recent regional elections in Italy. Unlike the Tea Party Movement and Moveon.org, the Five Star Movement is a true grass roots political party not associated with any of the the main political parties in Italy. This is in stark contrast to the Tea Party Movement being influenced and corrupted by republican Party figures like Sarah Palin and supported by conservative media pundits like Glenn Beck.

While other countries, such as Great Britain recently demonstrated with three political parties participating in a general election, American voters are constantly forced to choose between only two political parties. The monopoly the two political parties in America have had over the last 160 years in America is one of the most fundamental reasons why the American polity has become so polarized both economically and politically.

To help restore the American Republic to the form of government the founding fathers envisioned, as Beppe Grillo says, Politics should be a zero cost process.

SNL Political Humor

More main stream news should be like the Weekend Update from SNL.

Military spending is destroying the U.S. economy

In commemoration of Hamid Karzai visiting the White House, the blog TomDispatch, posted a powerful article by David Swanson, discussing the upcoming $ 33 billion dollar defense supplemental bill. A bill that will undoubtedly be passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President without much debate or controversy.

Although state governments are slashing budgets and laying off teachers and other services, the federal government never has any trouble finding the money to continue funding a war that seems to never end. While Opinione and other anti-imperial authors try to bring awareness of the issue to their readers, most Americans remain ignorant to the economic and social dangers, these never-ending defense supplemental bills are having on their standard of living.

For anyone wanting to break out of the information cocoons and echo chambers of the main stream media, reading the latest posting by TomDispatch contributor David Swanson would be the first step down a new road of discovery and information.

Let the journey begin!!!

An excerpt for the blog readers not willing to click on the link to the full posting.

As economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz demonstrated in The Three Trillion Dollar War, their book on the cost of the Iraq war alone, adding in debt payments on moneys borrowed to fight that war, long-term care for veterans wounded in it, the war's impact on energy prices, and other macroeconomic impacts, the current tax bill for the Iraq War must be at least tripled and probably quadrupled or more to arrive at its real long-term cost. (Similarly, the cost in lives must be multiplied by all those lives that could have been saved through other, better uses of the same funding.) The same obviously applies to the Afghan War.

The fact is that military spending is destroying the U.S. economy. An excellent report from the National Priorities Project, “Security Spending Primer," provides a summary of research that supports these basic and well-documented facts:

*Investing public dollars in the military produces fewer jobs than cutting taxes.

*Cutting taxes produces fewer jobs than investing public dollars in any of these areas: healthcare, education, mass transit, or construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair.

*Investing public dollars in mass transit or education produces more than twice as many jobs as investing in the military.

*Investing public dollars in education produces better paying jobs than investing in the military or cutting taxes.

*Investing public dollars in any of these areas: healthcare, education, mass transit, construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair has a larger direct and indirect economic impact than investing in the military or cutting taxes.

The continuing link between the price of oil and the value of the US Greenback

As the stock market and the Euro go for another wild ride this week, be sure to watch the value of the U.S. dollar and its relationship to the price of oil. Just as before when the value of the U.S. dollar was tanking in the summer of 2008 while at the same time the price of oil was escalating, the opposite is now holding true with the stronger U.S. dollar resulting in a lower price for a barrel of light sweet crude.

While the international financial system is still sorting out all the shady and secretive deals made by Wall Street financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, the price of commodities, such as crude oil and gold are indicators of true value of wealth in the international system.

It is also interesting to note that the political rhetoric against Iran has quieted since the recent stock market turmoil and the decline of the Euro. While it is not common knowledge among the American population , since 2006,the Iranian regime has wanted to be paid for its oil in either yen or euros.

Ironically, the latest devaluation of the Euro is hurting the Iranian economy more than it is the countries in the Euro Zone.

Gender Politics and the inequality faced by women in America and around the world

In what should have been front-page news on Mother’s Day, a recent report by the non-profit 501(c) (3) organization, Save the Children, found that the health and welfare of mothers and children in the United States is significantly lower than other developed countries.

The report, State of the World's Mothers 2010, by Save the Children explores in detail the current social and political conditions women face in over 173 countries around the world and brings up the interesting topics of gender politics, the political economy, and international relations that warrants further discussion.

The report by Save the Children mirrors other reports and studies on gender politics by intergovernmental organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) report, Doing Better for Children, and World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2009. These reports document the ever-deteriorating level of health, educational and economic opportunities for women living in the world’s richest country.

The State of the World’s Mothers report by Save the Children and other publications by non-profit and intergovernmental organizations, are painting a familiar picture of women in the world’s richest economy enjoying a significant lower standard of living than women living in less wealthier economies. The data from these reports support the argument that the level of political participation by the overall American population, in combination with the amount of corruption in the political system, has contributed to an unequal distribution of wealth and social welfare protections for women living in America. Some examples of the unequal and distorted social welfare priorities of American political leaders include the quick passage of 2008 TARP financial rescue package and the numerous defense supplemental funding bills for the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, while the passage of the recent health care bill took over a year.

Although the quick passage of these legislative bills were due in large part to the amount of monetary influence the members in these institutions were able to contribute to the politicians responsible for passing the legislation and dispersing the funds, the variable of gender politics and the predominant male composition of these institutions should not be ignored.

As documented in another gender politics analysis, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2009, ranks the United States 31st in the world for dividing its resources and opportunities among the male and female population. This ranking closely matches the ranking of 28th, the United States earns in the Save the Children report. Although the United States ranks very high in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Index report in the educational attainment for women, this high ranking is not reflective in the level of economic participation and opportunity women in America enjoy. Canada however, while having the same amount of educational attainment for its female population, ranks as the 10th highest country in the economic participation category. From a regional perspective, Canada has become the country to set the standard for the United States to follow.

Although women in America make up for nearly half the population, this ratio is not reflected in the political process. Perhaps deceived by the leadership roles held by women in American politics over the last several years, such as several women serving as Secretary of State, (Albright, Rice, and Clinton) and the current position of Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, these high profile positions, do not reflect the proportion of women in the American population.

The chauvinistic and patronizing attitude towards women in the political process, is evident with women often getting cabinet level posts in the Department of Environmental Protection and the State Department, while the cabinet posts of Secretary of Defense and Treasury are regulated to men who have proven less than capable of handling the positions. One only has to look at the decisions made by the previous Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his handling of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the performance of Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, in the years leading up to the Great Recession of 2008. This is one of the reasons why the United States ranks closer to the less developed economies in the report by Save the Children and does not even break the top twenty in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index of 2009.

The political rhetoric of social conservative Republican Party candidates who espouse their support for family values and Democratic Party candidates, who proclaim their support for labor, does not translate into legislation protecting maternity and childbearing women in the American labor market.

The prospect for members of the American political establishment, who are increasingly wealthier every year, to pass legislation protecting women in the American workforce, appears to be unlikely. With Senators having a median reportable net worth of $1.79 million in 2008, and a House of Representatives median net worth of $645,503 in 2008, the political establishment in America is increasingly out of touch with the average hard working American. This is evident with the fact that while only one percent of Americans are considered millionaires, 44 percent of members of Congress were in that category.

Of the 50 wealthiest members of Congress, almost identical to the 20 percent ratio of women in the United States Congress, only 18 percent of wealthiest members of Congress were women.

Why media personalities cheat in their marriages

Thanks to Ben Hoffman and the team at InfoMania for crunching the numbers behind all the celebrity marriage stories in the media.

The oil spill that started in Washington

Preliminary evidence is indicating the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may have been prevented if the United States required the same type of safety standards and oil spill prevention regulations on the New Horizon rig as other countries mandate on deep-water oil drilling platforms operating in their territorial waters. Using the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe as a catalyst, the United States can take this tragic accident and take the lead to encourage the world community to enact a multinational treaty regulating offshore drilling. Utilizing international law precedents codified under the Law of the Sea, the global community needs to set up a uniform set of safety requirements and basic operating procedures for the thousands of offshore rigs operating around the planet.

Examining the issue of offshore drilling from an international affairs perspective, it is clear that international oil companies (IOCs) such as British Petroleum, need to be required to follow the same type of safety requirements and basic operating procedures regardless if the offshore drilling platform is in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caspian Sea, or off the coast of Angola.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal on April 28, two major oil-producing countries require secondary remote-controlled shut-off switches on offshore oilrigs operating in their territorial waters, which might have prevented the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon.

Norway, which has huge oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, since 1993 has required all off shore oil rigs operating in its territorial waters, to have secondary remote-controlled shut-off switches. Brazil, another large oil producing country, has required secondary remote-controlled shut-off switches on all offshore oil rigs since 2007, following an accident which like the recent Deepwater accident, also killed 11 workers.

While it was commendable for The Wall Street Journal to report on one of the most under reported aspects of the Gulf oil spill, the editors at the Journal missed an opportunity to expand on why the United States or Great Britain does not require the use of acoustic triggers. As in most instances in covering regulatory issues in Washington, all the journalists have to do with that part of the story, is to follow the money.

Helping to light the path of discovery for investigative journalists to follow the trail of money, was a recent report by the non partisan research group, The Center for Responsive Politics, which reported that in 2009, British Petroleum spent $16 million to influence legislation pending in Congress.

According to the research group, British Petroleum, during the first quarter of 2010, has kept up this pace by spending nearly $3.53 million on federal lobbying. With that kind of influence, it might explain why the United States does not require secondary remote-controlled shut-off switches in off shore oilrigs operating in American territorial waters.

British Petroleum is not alone in lobbying Congress for less regulation and oversight. According to The Center of Responsive Politics, the amount British Petroleum lobbied in 2009 is only a drop of dirty money in the well of influence running below Washington DC. Totaling more than $169 million, the money spent by British Petroleum pails in comparison to the amount of money spent by the entire oil and gas industry in 2009. Compared to the 22 million dollars a lobbied by the environmental industry in 2009, it is not surprising that oil companies won the battle not to be required to have more safety features and oil spill protection devices.

While sometimes takes a catastrophe to awaken the average American out of their bad habit of indifference and disinterest in politics, the ever-expanding oil slick could be an opportunity for the public to mobilize and become more engaged in how government regulation is enacted. Instead of just reacting to the news, the residents of the Gulf Coast should becoming more engaged in the political process and demand their elected leaders to enact tougher regulations concerning offshore drilling. Requiring secondary safety systems like blow out preventers and remote-controlled shut-off switches will protect both the oil industry and the public from costly oil recovery expenses.

World Press Freedom Day 2010

May 3 marks World Press Freedom Day 2010.

Started by the UN General Assembly in 1993, World Press Freedom Day aims to remind people, governments and institutions of what a free press means for a society and a nation. World Press Freedom Day also has the goal to demonstrate how press freedom strengthens democracy and contributes to development throughout the world.

Using World Press Freedom Day as an opportunity, the leading non governmental organization (NGO) in the world on press freedom, Reporters Without Borders, released a list of 40 countries, individuals, and organizations that are considered to be Predators of Press Freedom. Ranging from the Saudi Royal family in Saudi Arabia to the repressive regimes in Cuba, North Korea and Iran, the ranking by Reporters Without Borders also includes some countries, which many people would not suspect of being in the same category as these authoritarian regimes.

While most of the countries that have the worst Press Predators are predominantly located in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, perhaps the inclusion of Italy and Spain will be surprising to most readers. Although Greece is getting a lot of bad press coverage in the news because of its financial situation, Spain and especially Italy are the only European countries on the list with an organization or politician considered to be a predator of the press.

In Italy, due to the ever growing power of the four mafia clans in Italy, which control over 10 percent of the entire economy, ten Italian journalists who wrote investigative stories on the mafia, now work under 24 hour police protection. Compounding the problem in Italy is the counter productive , remarks by Italian Prime Minister who said in November 2009 that he wanted to “strangle” writers and filmmakers who give Italy a bad image by focusing on the mafia. While these types of remarks would surely cause any other western democratic leader a fire storm of controversy, due to Silvio Berlusconi de facto control of the media in Italy and his known connections to the Cosa Nostra Sicilian mafia, it barely made news in Italy and the international press.

In Spain however, continuing violence and intimidation tactics on the press by separatist movement Euskadi ta Askatasuna (Basque Homeland and Freedom) or ETA in the Basque region of Spain, prompted Reporters Without Borders to include Spain on its 2010 list of Press Predators. As reported by Reporters Without Borders in its Spain summary,

ETA has constantly targeted journalists, both in France as in Spain, since its creation in 1959. ETA’s media victims include José María Portell, murdered in 1978, José Javier Uranga, wounded in a shooting in 1980, José Luis Lopez de la Calle, murdered in 2000, and Gorka Landaburu, who sustained severe face and hand injuries when he opened a parcel-bomb in 2001. Several dozen Spanish journalists are still forced to have bodyguards because of ETA death threats.

In addition to the two European countries making the list, most Americans would be shocked to learn that two of America’s strongest allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Israel are also considered to be freedom of the press predators. While Saudi Arabia earns the distinction from Reporters Without Borders due to the Saud family’s hold on the state and the supremacy of its Wahabi ideology requiring total control over news and information, Israel makes the list due to the actions of its defense forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and its denial of the international media to access the Gaza Strip “for safety reasons” during Operation Cast Lead. This was the military offensive that ran from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, that killed over 1,200 Palestinians.

Please take this opportunity to explore the web site of Reporters Without Borders to get more in depth information regarding press freedom and the dangers faced by journalists, bloggers, and online dissidents. The web site offers an impressive assortment of information related to the Internet and even offers a handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents.

Politics in America is "The shadow cast on society by big business".

America's leading social philosopher, John Dewey, described politics in America as "the shadow cast on society by big business".

As a deep water well continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico, it appears that statement is still true today. The recent oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico where 11 workers were killed, follows a growing list of industrial accidents in the mining and energy sectors.

Empowered and protected by contributing to political campaigns, corporations are increasingly putting more Americans at risk and wielding ever greater power in American democracy. Like the 26 coal miners recently killed in West Virginia due to corporate negligence and the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed due to the corporate greed of the military-petroleum complex, Louisiana fisherman will be the latest victims of corporate greed and power.

While the press in America can not act as the independent watchdog as envisioned by the founding fathers of the US Constitution, a small yet vocal group of patriots like Opinione are not afraid to tell it like it is in America.

In the book, Taking the risk out of democracy,' (University of Illinois Press, 1995) the Australian social scientist Alex Carey summed up the evolution of political power in the last century as follows:

"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

The power of the corporation over the individual in American democracy is confirmed with the overwhelming amount of money corporations are allowed to contribute to the political process. According to a recent report by The Center for Responsive Politics, the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics, in 2009 British Petroleum spent $16 million to influence legislation pending in Congress. During the first quarter of 2010, it has kept up this pace after spending nearly $3.53 million on federal lobbying. With that kind of influence, it explains why the Obama administration has offered to help in the cleanup, even though it should be handled solely by the corporation.

Thanks to the investigative work by the Center for Responsive Politics, it appears British Petroleum is not afraid on any legal fines the US government may throw at the corporation. According to the article,

If BP faces heavy federal scrutiny, it's well-positioned to fight back: The London-based company has consistently spent top dollar to influence legislative and regulatory activity in Washington, D.C., the Center for Responsive Politics finds.

During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with BP -- a Center for Responsive Politics' "heavy hitter" -- contributed half a million dollars to federal candidates. About 40 percent of these donations went to Democrats. The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.
The oil and gas industry, of which BP is a member, reported $169 million in 2009 lobbying expenditures.

Comparatively, the entire environmental industry spent $22 million on lobbying in 2009 - not much more than BP alone spent for the year. The most active member of the environmental industry, the Nature Conservancy, reported $2.2 million in 2009 expenditures. Last year, BP was active lobbying on the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which allows increased oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, in areas closer to shore than current law allows.

The bill also calls for additional research and inventory of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who has received $14,000 in campaign donations during the past two decades from those associated with BP, the Center finds.

In 2009, BP also lobbied on the Oil Spill Prevention Act of 2009 and the Clean Water Restoration Act.

The oil spill, which has yet to be remedied, was caused by an explosion on a BP-leased oil rig on April 20.

A state of emergency has since been enacted in Louisiana, and the White House has designated it an event of "national significance." The oil well is reportedly leaking between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels a day, and rescue crews are trying to eliminate the oil by setting it on fire, breaking it up with chemicals and skimming it off the surface of the ocean. Already, questions are being asked about cause and responsibility.

Upon hearing the cry for help in the Gulf of Mexico, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Cal.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called for a "full blown investigation."

In 2009, individuals and political action committees associated with BP donated $16,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In addition, five of the all-time top 10 recipients of BP money in the House of Representatives sit on the House Energy Committee: John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) Joe Barton (R-Tex.), Ralph M. Hall (R-Tex.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Fred Upton, (R-Mich.).

All have received upward of $13,000 from BP-related individuals and political action committees during the past two decades. Dingell, the second most favored recipient of BP money in the House, has received $31,000.

iPad Tech Report

Opinione wanted to go on record stating that the iPad will go down as one of this years most over hyped tech devices. From the expensive price tag which makes the iPad nothing more than a oversized iPhone, the iPad also does not support Flash technology for Web video and on-line games. While Apple recently defended its decision not to support Adobe Flash Technology with a 1,685-word statement by Steve Jobs entitled, "Thoughts on Flash”, the defense given by Apple appears to deflect attention away from the iPad’s own shortcomings such as draining batteries too quickly, which has long been an Achilles heel for Apple products.

As Ben Hoffman shows in a recent episode of Current TV, the Apple iPad does not allow users to view videos on popular web sites such as MySpace and The Daily Show.