My story Troubled Galaxy Destroyed dreams: A Mossad Daughter Jailed

A Mossad Daughter Jailed
For Refusing Military Service

By Omer Goldman
Source: Financial Times
Omer Goldman's ZSpace Page

in middle of middle coulmn:
http://www.powerpointparadise.com/
This article was published
in the Financial Times, November 22, 2008.

As told to Sarah Duguid. (GOD BLESS HER!)
SOME ISRAELIS WAKING UP TO THEIR UNGODLY CABBAL

I first went to prison on September 23 of this year and served 35 days.
By the time you read this, I will be back inside for another 21.
This is going to be my life for the next two years:
in for three weeks, out for one. I am 19 years old now
and by the time the authorities give up hounding me, I will be 21.
The reason? I refused to do my military service for the Israeli army.

I grew up with the army.
My father was deputy head of Mossad and I saw my sister,
who is eight years older than me, do her military service.
As a young girl, I wanted to be a soldier.
The military was such a part of my life that I never even questioned it.

Earlier this year, I went to a peace demonstration in Palestine.
I had always been told that the Israeli army was there to defend me,
but during that demonstration Israeli soldiers opened fire on me
and my friends with rubber bullets and tear-gas grenades.

I was shocked and scared.
I saw the truth. I saw the reality. I saw for the first time
that the most dangerous thing in Palestine is the Israeli soldiers,
the very people who are supposed to be on my side.

When I came back to Israel, I knew I had changed.
I told my dad what had happened.
He was angry that I had been over to the occupied territories
and told me I had endangered my life.
I have always discussed history and politics with my father
but on this subject -- my rejection of the military
and my conscientious objecting -- we can't speak.

My parents divorced when I was three and my father has a new family.
My mother is an artist and she is very supportive of me.
But my father has been horrified by my decision. I think he thought
that I was going through a stage that I would grow out of.
But it hasn't happened.

In prison, I wake up at five and clean all day, inside and out.
It's a military prison so we are made to do ridiculous stuff.
They painted a white stripe across the floor, and I have to keep
the stripe glowing white and clean. I have to wear a US army uniform.

The uniforms were given as a present to the Israeli army
by the US Marines.
I feel stupid. I am anti-military.
I am against the whole idea of wearing the uniform.
The other prisoners are women from the army.
They are in for silly things such as playing with their guns,
smoking dope, running away from the army.
None of them is really a criminal.
And then there are five girls like me who are conscientious objectors.

We talk to the other girls, tell them things
they have never heard about before. Like that everyone is a human,
no matter what religion they are. Some of them are really ignorant.
They have never heard of evolution theory,
or Gandhi or Mandela, or the Armenian holocaust.
I try to tell them that there have been a lot of genocides.

Of course I get scared when I am in prison. Three times a week,
I have to help guard the prison at night. But also,
it's frightening that my country is the way that it is,
locking up young people who are against violence and war.

And I worry that what I am doing may damage my future.
The worst part is that I have a taste of freedom
and then I am back inside, back to my mundane prison life.
It's hard to go from being a free girl who can decide things for herself -
- what to wear, who to see, what to eat -- and then go back
to having every minute of the day timetabled.

Last time I was out of prison, I went to see my dad.
We tried not to talk politics. He cares about me as his daughter,
that I am suffering, but he doesn't want to hear my views.

He hasn't come to visit me in prison. I think it would be
too hard for him to see me in there. He is an army man.
I suppose, actually, we have similar characters.
We both fight for what we believe in.
It's just that our views are diametrically opposed.

=================
U.S. World War II Veteran warns of similarities

between todayï¿½s America and Nazi Germany
http://www.blog.agoracosmopolitan.com/?p=247

I am 81 years old and a veteran of World War II.

I remember what the Naziï¿½s were doing in Germany very well.

Here in America our government is getting dangerously close

to acting just like the Naziï¿½s were in Germany and

the Germans were doing it for ï¿½better securityï¿½ as we are doing.

The Germans got more and more paranoid (of their own people)

and began watching all Germans and tightened security,

and made Germans carry and show identity papers

whenever the police and soldiers wanted to see them.

They had German kids telling on their parents.

It was a horror.

We are starting down the same path.

The excuse is that we need to do this to protect our Citizens

but the trouble is more and more of our freedoms are going

and we are beginning to be like a gigantic outdoor prison.

It is not like the America I love and fought for.

I fought for the freedom of Americans and not for a selfish

ï¿½United States of Corporationsï¿½ which is more interested

in money and power than it is in the People of America.

I donï¿½t look and see a kindly Uncle Sam anymore.

I see a bullying Big Brother. Sorry to be so blunt but it is how I feelï¿½

by Jack Aiken Lancaster

About the author:

Jack Aiken Lancaster is the founder of

People for Freedom, Grants Pass, Oregon.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007 at 11:28 am

and is filed under U.S. Foreign Policy.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

13 Responses to ï¿½U.S. World War II Veteran warns
of similarities between todayï¿½s America and Nazi Germanyï¿½
Paul E. Coughlin Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Totally agree, totalitartianism being firmly set in place. The full picture is worse, much worse. 9/11, 7/7, mysterious suspicious multiple killings, false wars, phantom enemies, media now under operation mockingbird control, complicity of other western (UK, Europe) ALL MUST know what is going on at the ï¿½intelligenceï¿½ hence government level. The only truth is coming from conspiracy theorists, just about. If it is not stopped then it can only get worse. It will not stop of itï¿½s own accord. Intelligent intervention is required by thinking individuals. I wish I could be wrong - I keep double-checking - I just wish I am wrong. Check the facts. Do your own research. The real situation IS much worse.
Mary Hartman Says:

June 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
God Bless you, Sir, for your service and for your courage in speaking the truth about what it is that is taking place. On February 12, 2002, 63 citizens from a town with a population of 270+ turned out at a city council meeting upon invitation from their Mayor. At issue was the public safety hazard caused by an exotic animal farm operating in illegally and irresponsibly in their midst. The meeting was called to order and the Mayor announced that anyone who attempted to speak would be escorted off the premises by a Mower County, MN Deputy. A woman rose to speak and the deputy was summoned. As it turns out, the business was part of a organized criminal enterprise that involves the CIA and FBI in Minnesota. They ran drugs, guns, and money through this exotic animal ï¿½sanctuaryï¿½ and had plans to make 50 more of these so they could centralize their operations. It used to be that the press would scream and the FBI would jump when those types of blatant violations occurred. But not anymore. The #2 guy for Minnesotaï¿½s Department of Public Safety is also a CIA agent and complaints like the civil rights violations go to the attorney in the AGï¿½s office who represents the DPS soï¿½..no one could see the problem with those abuses of power. Weï¿½re in the midst of a soft coup in this country, and the people are too dumbed down to see it. I am both angry and sad to see and understand what is happening, in large part because it degrades and devalues the sacrifices made by those who died (and killed) to preserve our freedom and the integrity of the Constitution.
Oscar Ladner Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I agree with Mr. Jack Lancaster 1000%. I am an 84 year old former combat infantryman in WWII in Gen. Pattonï¿½s 3rd Army and served in Pattonï¿½s Raiders. Here in Mississippi we have the redneck Organized crime, Dixie Maffia, the Italian Mafia, and others, all of them using Hitlerï¿½s tactics and worse. Black mail, extortion, set ups, lying, stealing and just about any dirty thing you can think of without regard to any person. I have fought it without much assistance because I could see it happening. We have a fight on our hands to save this Nation. God Bless America. Oscar Ladner
fascistUSA Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Where to begin? Gestapo literally translates to ï¿½Homeland Securityï¿½.
I can state facts all day long about how Amerika/Nazi Germany/Fascist Rome are all similar - even the same damn Salute!
Oh, yeah. Fluoride is Poison. That junk added to our water to ï¿½make our teethï¿½ better. It was used in Nazi Germany to control the Population. Makes you Submissive and lowers your IQ. Donï¿½t believe me? Google search ï¿½fluorideï¿½ and ï¿½toxicï¿½ or even ï¿½poisonï¿½.
TV is Brainwashing. Sorry, I thought I better add that Fact. Your Brain works on Waves: Alpha, Beta, ect. TV puts you into Alpha Relaxed state. Makes it easier to Influence a person. Words like ï¿½conspiracyï¿½ and ï¿½theoriesï¿½. When you hear someone repeating the ï¿½wordsï¿½ thereï¿½s a good chance that person is TV Brainwashed. Letï¿½s not even mention all The Subliminal Messages.
I can keep spouting Facts all day, but Why? I give you something better. Almost all the Answers.
Illuminati, Empire of Cities : Ring of power, Zeitgeist (zeitgeistmovie.com), and Esoteric Agenda. ALL on Google Video.
John Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 am
When I first started thinking the same thing a few years ago, everyone told me I was paranoid. I didnï¿½t understand how anybody could miss it. Then I saw a story in the paper one day about a woman who had survived Auschwitz. She was old, in her eighties I guess, but she was leaving America, where she had lived for the last fifty years I guess, and going back to live with relatives in Germany, because what she saw happening here reminded her of what happened when the Nazis started to take over in Germany. She said that she could never go through that again, and the signs were unmistakable.
It must have been at least three years ago when I saw that story, and knew for certain that I was right.
Since then Iï¿½ve read maybe three or four stories about and articles by older people, some German, some American, who remember that terrible time very well, and have tried to warn us today about what they see happening.
These people know what they are talking about. They know how these things happen, how bit by bit, day by day things get just a little bit worse until one day, it is too late.
There is a book edited by Marvin Mayer that is a collection of interviews done with German civilians who lived under Nazism, titled ï¿½They Thought They Were Free.ï¿½
If youï¿½re reading this, you ought to get the book if you can, but if you canï¿½t at least go to Amazon and read the excerpts from the book. I recall that one man said that every day, bit by bit, the government a little more secretive, a little more distant from the people.
The reasons offered were the same ones we hear. National security. Alleged terrorists, who at the time were the communists.
And things began to change around him. There were book burnings back then, and renewed emphasis on Christianity, and the German race as being unique and superior of course.
The man was a professor, and he said that he kept waiting for the big event, the big injustice that would draw everyone into the streets protesting the government. But things didnï¿½t happen like that. Instead it was a steady encroachment upon the peopleï¿½s rightï¿½s, day by day, and often in such incremental ways that it was easy to rationalize them, and to say to oneï¿½s self well, this is really not all that much.
He was a professor and he was very involved with his work, and so it was easy for him to be distracted.
I remember one quote. He said ï¿½Please believe me, to live under this is not to know it is happening, until one day something happens that forces you to face it, to face what you have become. But then it is too late.ï¿½
He said in his case he was walking home with his young son one day and they saw a man who lived in their neighborhood and he heard his son mutter
ï¿½Dirty Jewï¿½.
And then he realized that he was living in a different country, that the forms were still the same, he still did the same things every day, but the emotions behind those forms had changed, and it was now a culture of hate.
He says there were a number of people he knew who committed suicide when they understood what was going on.
He didnï¿½t have any advice for how others could recognize the process in time, and stop it.
And truthfully, I think it is too late now here. You have to challenge people when they start telling lies. When they start to turn every converstation into a screaming match, when they lie about other politicians you canï¿½t let them get away with it. You have to call them out in public, and humiliate them as liars and show what their intent is.
Because Abraham Lincoln was wrong. You may not be able to fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of the people enough of the time for long enough to get into power. And once there, in a position to control what people hear, read, and see; and to punish your enemies, who is going to stop you?
Jacob L Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 am
This man is totally un-american - there is a real and terrible danger out there, far worse than the Nazis ever were, and itï¿½s threatening to destroy the ENTIRE WORLD, never mind America, and itï¿½s called ISLAM. Thereï¿½s a global islamic consipracy out there, and theyï¿½re working with the communists in China Im pretty sure, and theyï¿½re going to destroy us all - we need to strike first - lock up the moslems, and any sympathisers - thatï¿½s why weï¿½ve been building concentration camps - WE SHOULD USE THEM!

Alex in Toronto Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 am
Ignorance and apathy are at the root of this precarious cancer in the American body politic. Unfortunately, Americans donï¿½t care about the state encroaching on their civil rights because they are too scared or too busy with work to think that by opposing they can make their government do the will of the people.
A revolution is needed. Itï¿½s supposed to be a government of the people for the people, as in France, where the government is afraid of what the people can do when their desires are not met, and not of the rich corporations for the wealth of the big corporations.
Pity.
Jake Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Sadly, I agree. I too fought for my country during the current war. When I enlisted in 1997 America was still an admirable country to look up to. Unfortunately I no longer feel proud of the service I have given to my country. So much has changed since that short time ago. Our citizens have become spoiled and desensitized to the sacrifice given by the members of our armed forces. Corporations run politics and our leadership is shameful and embarrassing. Lets all hope that changes for the better are coming and we can see the wrong of our ways.
Atheus Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Sounds to me like you just read 1984 and your a crazy old bastard who was probably a water boy in the army and now your still trying to impress someone.
Todd Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Jack,
All though i respect what you are saying, i couldnï¿½t disagree with you more.
The united states has never been better. There are perfect checks and balances in this great country. And in the last 200+ years not once has it
failed its people. 9\11 will not change the country. Sure there have been changes to our security, but thatï¿½s so insignificant that you really cant notice it. Just long airline linesï¿½.no big deal.
America has never lost a war. Sure we have left vietnam, but never lost.
To be honestï¿½..Iï¿½m glad that America went to war. You can always feel good when america goe to war. I guess iï¿½m one of those people that likes that America is the police of the world. Cause thereï¿½s nothing i canï¿½t stand more than bullies.
David McInnis Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Fortunately Bush hasnï¿½t shown signs of aligning the military with him, and also fortunately, heï¿½s a pretty pathetic and unconvincing public speaker. For the longest time, I was expecting him to declare himself dictator (or fuhrer - if thereï¿½s much of a difference) as Mr. Lancaster might suggest.
Sure, he (or someone on his behalf) was savvy enough to have a USAPATRIOTACT that was doctored at the last minute to be voted on and passed.
Yes, we ARE being scrutinized as individuals more than any time in American history!
RealId in the works.
But since EVERY DAMN TIME I APPLY for anything, they want my SSN (even though that should be only between myself, the SSA, my employer and the IRS), isnï¿½t it already a unique national ID? It can be used to access my credit history. It can be used to steal my identity (as if anyone would want it).
If the ridiculous notion of all citizens having RFID chips embedded in their skin ever receives any serious consideration, as much as I love this country, I will be gone in a heartbeat. Iï¿½m damn near 100% Canadian-French (with a nod to Canadian-Scottish) by heritage (all my great-grandparents moved from Canada to Massachusetts). I would go north, and if that silliness ever starts, I hope Canada would open its border to dissenters.
But theyï¿½d be overrun, so possibly not.
To sum up and to offer a better possibility, I think the Idiot-In-Chief hasnï¿½t really drummed up the backing he needs to make a move in that direction permanently. But McCain could. Vote Obama!!
Arlene Johnson Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Dear Mr. Lancaster,
Thank you for risking your life and well being to go to war in the 40s. You were used, however, by the forces who are hidden, and I have devoted one of my editions to all of you who have served in the military. These forces are called the Illuminati, and they fund both sides of war and then collect the usury from both sides.
They want people to believe that they are fighting for democracy, but that is a lie, because the USA was not created as a democracy. It was created as a Republic, and they are not the same at all.
The Illuminati want three wars, WW I, WW II, and next WW III. After that, they will have their New World Order, which is also known as the One World Government. This is not what the Framers of our Constitution wanted. Yet this is what we have now.
There is much more that I could say, but hope you will log onto my Web site and read the editions that are at the icon that says Magazine, because they are the Godï¿½s truth, and so documented that no one has been able to sue me for libel.
I am an American; see the icon on my site that says About Us. I now live in Sweden, a country thatï¿½s not perfect, but at least is not a dictatorship as ours is now and has been since May 21, 2007 when Bush signed the National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51).
We did have a president who wanted peace. We know him better as John F. Kennedy. This is why I normally sign off my letters or Emails withï¿½
Peace,
Arlene Johnson
Publisher/Author
http://www.truedemocracy.net
Trex Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Aa an interesting note, Georgie Wï¿½s grandfather funded the Nazis before and during WWII through a little entity called ï¿½Union Banking Corpï¿½. Herbert Hoover uncovered the money laundering scheme and had UBC siezed under the ï¿½Trading with The Enemy Actï¿½.
It is no surprise to me that once again the US is under threat of a Nazi take over. (albeit a far less direct and more subversive seizure) The Nazi party even had small followings in the US before the war. They were a very determined lot then and their persistence still burns as does the resistance to it.
The Nazi spirit lives on in the Bushs, Arnold Schwarzenegger and a cast of many others. To bad Prescott wasnt made an example of and executed like the traitor he was. It might have made some other corrupt individuals think twice before betraying our country. Then again when your rich and have powerful friends you can buy yourself out of and into and situation you want. How else would George Herbert Walker have become Director of the CIAï¿½ï¿½.. but thats another story.

Subject: Bush's final

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24991066/bushs_final_fu/print

Rollingstone.com

Back to Bush's Final F.U.

Bush's Final F.U.

The administration is rushing to enact a host of last-minute regulations that will screw America for years to come

TIM DICKINSON

Posted Dec 25, 2008 11:55 AM

With president-elect Barack Obama already taking command of the financial crisis, it's tempting to think that regime change in America is a done deal. But if George Bush has his way, the country will be ruled by his slash-and-burn ideology for a long time to come.

In its final days, the administration is rushing to implement a sweeping array of "midnight regulations" — de facto laws issued by the executive branch — designed to lock in Bush's legacy. Under the last- minute rules, which can be extremely difficult to overturn, loaded firearms would be allowed in national parks, uranium mining would be permitted near the Grand Canyon and many injured consumers would no longer be able to sue negligent manufacturers in state courts. Other rules would gut the Endangered Species Act, open millions of acres of wild lands to mining, restrict access to birth control and put local cops to work spying for the federal government.

"It's what we've seen for Bush's whole tenure, only accelerated," says Gary Bass, executive director of the nonpartisan group OMB Watch. "They're using regulation to cement their deregulatory mind-set, which puts corporate interests above public interests."

While every modern president has implemented last-minute regulations, Bush is rolling them out at a record pace — nearly twice as many as Clinton, and five times more than Reagan. "The administration is handing out final favors to its friends," says Véronique de Rugy, a scholar at George Mason University who has tracked six decades of midnight regulations. "They couldn't do it earlier — there would have been too many political repercussions. But with the Republicans having lost seats in Congress and the presidency changing parties, Bush has nothing left to lose."

The most jaw-dropping of Bush's rule changes is his effort to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. Under a rule submitted in November, federal agencies would no longer be required to have government scientists assess the impact on imperiled species before giving the go-ahead to logging, mining, drilling, highway building or other development. The rule would also prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account in weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions — effectively dooming polar bears to death-by-global-warming. According to Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, "They've taken the single biggest threat to wildlife and said, 'We're going to pretend it doesn't exist, for regulatory purposes.'"

Bush is also implementing other environmental rules that will cater to the interests of many of his biggest benefactors:

BIG COAL In early December, the administration finalized a rule that allows the industry to dump waste from mountaintop mining into neighboring streams and valleys, a practice opposed by the governors of both Tennessee and Kentucky. "This makes it legal to use the most harmful coal-mining technology available," says Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. A separate rule also relaxes air-pollution standards near national parks, allowing Big Coal to build plants next to some of America's most spectacular vistas — even though nine of 10 EPA regional administrators dissented from the rule or criticized it in writing. "They're willing to sacrifice the laws that protect our national parks in order to build as many new coal plants as possible," says Mark Wenzler, director of clean-air programs for the National Parks Conservation Association. "This is the last gasp of Bush and Cheney's disastrous policy, and they've proven there's no line they won't cross."

BIG OIL In a rule that becomes effective just three days before Obama takes office, the administration has opened up nearly 2 million acres of mountainous lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for the mining of oil shale — an energy-intensive process that also drains precious water resources. "The administration has admitted that it has no idea how much of Colorado's water supply would be required to develop oil shale, no idea where the power would come from and no idea whether the technology is even viable," says Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado. What's more, Bush is slashing the royalties that Big Oil pays for oil-shale mining from 12.5 percent to five percent. "A pittance," says Salazar.

BIG AGRICULTURE Factory farms are getting two major Christmas presents from Bush this year. Circumventing the Clean Water Act, the administration has approved last-minute regulations that will allow animal waste from factory farms to seep, unmonitored, into America's waterways. The regulation leaves it up to the farms themselves to decide whether their pollution is dangerous enough to require them to apply for a permit. "It's the fox guarding the henhouse — all too literally," says Pope. The water rule goes into effect December 22nd, and a related rule in the works would exempt factory farms from reporting air pollution from animal waste.

BIG CHEMICAL In October, two weeks after consulting with industry lobbyists, the White House exempted more than 100 major polluters from monitoring their emissions of lead, a deadly neurotoxin. Seemingly hellbent on a more toxic future, the administration will also allow industry to treat 3 billion pounds of hazardous waste as "recycling" each year, and to burn another 200 million pounds of hazardous waste reclassified as "fuel," increasing cancer-causing air pollution. The rule change is a reward to unrepentant polluters: Nearly 90 percent of the factories that will be permitted to burn toxic waste have already been cited for violating existing environmental protections.

Environmental rollbacks may take center stage in Bush's final deregulatory push, but the administration is also promulgating a bevy of rules that will strip workers of labor protections, violate civil liberties, and block access to health care for women and the poor. Among the worst abuses:

LABOR Under Bush, the Labor Department issued only one major workplace-safety rule in eight years — and that was under a court order. But now the Labor Department is finalizing a rule openly opposed by Obama that would hamper the government's ability to protect workers from exposure to toxic chemicals. Bypassing federal agencies, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao developed the rule in secret, relying on a report that has been withheld from the public. Under the last-minute changes, federal agencies would be expected to gather unnecessary data on workplace exposure and jump through more bureaucratic hurdles, adding years to an already cumbersome regulatory process.

In another last-minute shift, the administration has rewritten rules to make it harder for workers to take time off for serious medical conditions under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In addition, the administration has upped the number of hours that long-haul truckers can be on the road. The new rule — nearly identical to one struck down by a federal appeals court last year — allows trucking companies to put their drivers behind the wheel for 11 hours a day, with only 34 hours of downtime between hauls. The move is virtually certain to kill more motorists: Large-truck crashes already kill 4,800 drivers and injure another 76,000 every year.

HEALTH CARE In late August, the administration proposed a new regulation ostensibly aimed at preventing pharmacy and clinic workers from being forced to participate in abortions. But the wording of the new rule is so vague as to allow providers to deny any treatment that anyone in their practice finds objectionable — including contraception, family planning and artificial insemination. Thirteen state attorneys general protested the regulation, saying it "completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services."

In a rule that went into effect on December 8th, the administration also limited vision and dental care for more than 50 million low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. "This means the states are going to have to pick up the tab or cut the services at a time when a majority of states are in a deficit situation," says Bass of OMB Watch. "It's a horrible time to do this." To make matters worse, the administration has also raised co-payments for Medicaid, forcing families on poverty wages to pay up to 10 percent of the cost for doctor visits and medicine. One study suggests that co-payments could cause Medicaid patients to skip nearly a fifth of all prescription-drug treatments. "People who have nothing are being asked to pay for services they rely upon to live," says Elaine Ryan, vice president of government relations for AARP. "Imposing co-pays on the poorest and sickest people in the United States is cynical and cruel."

NATIONAL SECURITY Under midnight regulations, the administration is seeking to lock in the domestic spying it began even before 9/11. One rule under consideration would roll back Watergate-era prohibitions barring state and local law enforcement from spying on Americans and sharing that information with U.S. intelligence agencies. "If the federal government announced tomorrow that it was creating a new domestic intelligence agency of more than 800,000 operatives reporting on even the most mundane everyday activities, Americans would be outraged," says Michael German, a former FBI agent who now serves as national security policy counsel for the ACLU. "This proposed rule change is the final step in creating an America we no longer recognize — an America where everyone is a suspect."

John Podesta, the transition chief for the Obama administration, has vowed that the new president will leverage his "executive authority" to fight Bush's last-minute rule changes. But according to experts who study midnight regulations, there's surprisingly little an incoming executive can do to overturn such rules. The Bush administration succeeded in repealing just three percent of the regulations finalized before Bill Clinton left office in 2001. "Midnight regulations under Bush are being executed early and with great intent," says Bass of OMB Watch. "And that intent is to lock the next administration into these regulations, making it very difficult for Obama to undo what Bush just did."

To protect the new rules against repeal, the Bush administration began amping up its last-gasp regulatory process back in May. The goal was to have all new regulations finalized by November 1st, providing enough time to accommodate the 60-day cooling-off period required before major rule changes — those that create an economic impact greater than $100 million — can be implemented.

Now, however, the administration has fallen behind schedule — so it's gaming the system to push through its rules. In several cases, the Office of Management and Budget has fudged the numbers to classify rules that could have billion-dollar consequences as "non-major" — allowing any changes made through mid-December to take effect in just 30 days, before Obama is inaugurated. The administration's determination of what constitutes a major change is not subject to review in court, and the White House knows it: Spokesman Tony Fratto crowed that the 60-day deadline is "irrelevant to our process."

Once a rule is published in the Federal Register, the Obama administration will have limited options for expunging it. It can begin the rule-making process anew, crafting Obama rules to replace the Bush rules, but that approach could take years, requiring time-consuming hearings, scientific fact-finding and inevitable legal wrangling. Or, if the new rules contain legal flaws, a judge might allow the Obama administration to revise them more quickly. Bush's push to gut the Endangered Species Act, for example, was done in laughable haste, with 15 employees given fewer than 36 hours to review and process more than 200,000 public comments. "The ESA rule is enormously vulnerable to a legal challenge on the basis that there was inadequate public notice and comment," says Pope of the Sierra Club. "The people who did that reviewing will be put on a witness stand, and it will become clear to a judge that this was a complete farce." But even that legal process will take time, during which industry will continue to operate under the Bush rules.

The best option for overturning the rules, ironically, may be a gift bestowed on Obama by Newt Gingrich. Known as the Congressional Review Act, it was passed in 1996 to give Congress the option of overriding what GOP leaders viewed at the time as excessive regulation by Bill Clinton. The CRA allows Congress to not only kill a new rule within 60 days, but to do so with a simple, filibuster-immune majority. De Rugy, the George Mason scholar, expects Democrats in the House and Senate to make "very active use of the Congressional Review Act."

But even this option, it turns out, is fraught with obstacles. First, the CRA requires a separate vote on each individual regulation. Second, the act prohibits reviving any part of a rule that has been squelched. Since Bush's rules sometimes contain useful reforms — the move to limit the Family and Medical Leave Act also extends benefits for military families — spiking the rules under the CRA would leave Obama unable to restore or augment those benefits in the future. Whatever Obama does will require him to expend considerable political capital, at a time when America faces two wars and an economic crisis of historic proportions.

"It's going to be very challenging for Obama," says Bass. "Is he going to want to look forward and begin changing the way government works? Or is he going to look back and fix the problems left by Bush? Either way, it's a tough call."

[From Issue 1068-69 — December 25, 2008 - January 8, 2009]

Related Stories:

More from Issue 1068-69
Same-Sex Setback by Tim Dickinson
Make-Believe Maverick: The Real John McCain by Tim Dickinson

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR ***

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.

Please check http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2 for more real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts)

free book download: http://www.lulu.com/content/165077 or http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/165000/165077/21/print/165077.pdf

http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999

'Can I meet Kasab and ask him what he has gained'
Font Size -A +A
Shweta Desai
Posted: Dec 19, 2008 at 1434 hrs IST

Mumbai Is it possible for me to meet that boy?” asks Karuna Thakur Waghela, her eyes swollen, as if she has been crying for a very long time. “Or can you ask him what he has gained by doing this? In a single night he stole my family’s happiness, shattered all our dreams, took away the father of my children.”
That boy is Ajmal Ameer Kasab, the only terrorist caught alive by the Mumbai police for the 26/11 attacks. One of the men he and his partner Ismael gunned down was Thakur, Karuna’s 33-year-old husband who was a sweeper at GT hospital.

On the night of 26/11, Thakur was all set for his late shift at GT Hospital. He was sharing a meal with his son Yash in their ramshackle quarters, when Kasab entered their home from the lane behind GT Hospital. Almost as soon as he sauntered in, Kasab shot and killed Thakur.

Thakur’s mother, who lived next door, saw the two men walk in with their rifles. “He’s my son, don’t do anything to him,” she shouted, only to be shot at by Ismael. She ducked, escaping the bullet.

Now, Thakur’s children cope with the tragedy in different ways. While seven-year-old Dhaval is angry and wants to avenge his father’s death, his four-year-old brother, Yash, suffers from terrible nightmares. He saw his father die. The eldest, 11-year-old Roshni, meanwhile, has taken on the role of a caretaker, often consoling her younger brothers. All three children manage to get through the day, but when night sets in, so does uncontrollable anxiety.

“The kids weren’t afraid to stay out of the house until late, but now they cannot even venture out after 6 pm. They know that the terrorists came and killed their father in the dark,” says Karuna, adding that the family plans to seek the help of a psychiatrist for the two boys.

“We had so many plans for the children. We wanted them to study in an English-medium school. Thakur would say that he wouldn’t mind giving up one meal a day if it would help get them English-medium education,” says Karuna.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Can-I-meet-Kasab-and-ask-him-what-he-has-gained/400158/

Selected Writings by Nadesan Satyendra - ?????? ?????????????

Sathyam Commentary
12 June 1998
The Buddha Smiled [also in PDF]

Question: "The Buddha is the most awesomely solemn of beings. Why then does he smile?" Reply: "There are all manner of causes and conditions whereby one may smile. There are those who are delighted and therefore smile. There are those who are afflicted with anger and therefore smile. One may feel contempt for others and therefore smile. One may witness strange events and therefore smile. One may observe embarrassing situations and therefore smile. It may happen that one sees strange customs from other lands and therefore smile. It may also happen that one witnesses rare and difficult undertakings and thus is caused to smile". (The Buddha's Smile - from the Sutras T25.112b8-113a8 [fasc. 7])Translation Copyright © Bhikshu Dharmamitra)

[ 8 years later on 17 November 2006: US Senate backs India nuclear deal "Energy-hungry India needs nuclear power. The US Senate has overwhelmingly voted to pass a controversial deal to share civilian nuclear technology with India. Under the deal, which was proposed more than a year ago, India must allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. US President George W Bush hailed the move as bringing India into the "nuclear non-proliferation mainstream". However, the bill still has to clear a number of hurdles before it becomes law and is implemented. One condition would require India to fully and actively participate in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear programme." more]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

India's first nuclear test, carried out in May 1974, was code named the 'Smiling Buddha'. After its success, Indian nuclear scientist Kalam (a Tamil and a Muslim), reportedly told India's Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, that the Buddha had smiled.

Twenty four years later, the fall out from the series of nuclear tests carried out by India in May 1998, has served to expose the many faces (smiling, or otherwise) of the emerging multi polar world.

Here, it may be useful to look back a few decades.

Background

Prior to World War I, it was said that the sun never set on the global British Empire and that Britannia ruled the waves. Great Britain was the World's super power. But, two World Wars contributed to the eclipse of Great Britain, and the eventual emergence in 1945 of a bi polar world with the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the two super powers.

The United Nations Charter signed in San Francisco in June 1945, was structured to give the victors of World War II (United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, China, and France) a permanent place in the Security Council, each with the right to a veto. It is perhaps, no accident that eventually, these five states also became nuclear powers.

Member states of the United Nations often proclaim their faith in democracy. They even call for democracy within armed resistance movements which cannot possibly put in place institutional structures for elections, whilst being engaged in battle to secure stable boundaries for a state-to-be. But democracy finds little encouragement within the structure of the United Nations itself - a structure which continues to perpetuate the control of its affairs by the five victors of World War II. It is now more than fifty years since the end of World War II and, unsurprisingly, the system that the world was persuaded to accept in 1945, is increasingly at odds with political reality.

It is not simply that with the collapse of the Berlin wall, the old style division between the First World and the Second World, together with the resulting 'alignments' and 'non-alignments', has become less meaningful. It is not simply that the collapse of the bi polar world structure led to a uni polar one with the United States playing the role of the sole super power. History teaches that a uni polar world will eventually give birth to a multi polar one. And, today, within the womb of the uni polar world, a multi polar world has begun to take shape.

Germany and Japan (the 'defeated' in World II) have emerged as major economic powers. France, since Charles de Gaulle, has not been slow to assert its own sovereignty. China perceives itself as a world power. The Islamic world is giving expression to a togetherness rooted in its past. Great Britain would like to retain its identity, extend its influence in the English speaking world, and 'contribute' by drawing on its reservoir of experience and expertise gathered by having 'managed' a global Empire for a century and more. Again, countries which have gained independence from colonial rule are asserting their right to participate and be involved in decisions taken in the international arena - decisions, which in the end, affect the lives of their own citizens.

And India with a population of more than a billion, has called for a proportionate voice in world affairs. Indian Foreign Secretary J.N.Dixit delivering a lecture on September 16 1993, at the influential German Society for Foreign Policy made it clear that India wants a seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. He said:

''If Japan and Germany alone are inducted as Permanent members of the Security Council, we will not agree. We have already written to the Secretary General of the United Nations''

In its official submission to the UN Secretary General in 1993, India proposed that the Security Council be expanded from its current five permanent and 10 non permanent members to 10 or 11 permanent members and 12 or 14 non permanent members.

International response

It is against this backdrop that the international response to India's nuclear tests may be usefully considered. The position taken by each country, although couched in the language of 'principle' is more often than not, a reflection of that which it perceives to be its own 'permanent interest'.

The US, given its self perception as the 'super power' has been quick to respond with 'sanctions' - an urgency which, for instance, it did not feel in the case of sanctions against the South African apartheid regime which had imprisoned President Nelson Mandela for more than twenty years.

The US points out that 146 countries have signed up to the non proliferation treaty and insists that India should 'put the brakes on its slide away from the international mainstream'. But, the US itself has not yet ratified the treaty. Furthermore, it has carried out over a thousand nuclear tests as against the five carried out by India, and at the latest count had a stockpile of over 8000 nuclear devices - enough to destroy the earth and all its inhabitants, several times over.

France and Russia have deplored the Indian nuclear tests but have stopped short of outright condemnation and have dragged their feet at imposing sanctions. They are not in the business of giving an entirely free hand to the US to set the agenda in world affairs.

Pakistan and China have been vociferous in their condemnation of India. Both Pakistan and China are India's immediate neighbours. At the same time, each of them have close ties with the United States. The closeness of US-Pakistan military links was strengthened during the Soviet - Afghanistan conflict. In the case of China, the intimacy of the relationship is shown by an example of 'co-operation' in 1979, given by President Carter's former National Security Adviser Brzezinski. He writes:

"I informed the President that Deng (the Chinese leader) told Vance and me that China approved of our decision to support the Shah in Iran, that in the Chinese view the United States should be more active in strengthening Pakistan, and - somewhat ominously - that Deng wished a private meeting with the President on Vietnam.

I sensed from the tone in which Deng asked for this that we would be hearing something significant, especially given mounting indications that the Chinese would not sit back idly as the Vietnamese continued their military occupation of Cambodia. when we sat down together in the Oval office, I had a general sense of what was coming...

None the less, there is a difference between anticipating a situation and actually experiencing it. There was something grave and very special in the calm, determined and firm way in which Deng Xiaoping presented the Chinese case. China, he said, had concluded that it must disrupt Soviet strategic calculations and that 'we consider it necessary to put a restraint on the wild ambitions of the Vietnamese and to give them an appropriate limited lesson'.

Without detailing at this stage what the lesson specifically would entail, he added that the lesson would be limited in scope and duration. He then calmly diagnosed for us various possible Soviet responses, indicating how China would counter them. He included among the options 'the worst possibility', (a Soviet nuclear response) adding that even in such a case China would hold out. All he asked for was 'moral support' in the international field from the United States". (Zbigniew Brzezinski - Power and Principle, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983)

When China invaded Vietnam in February 1979 - a twenty day invasion to 'teach Vietnam a lesson', the US stance in the international arena helped to stall any adverse resolution by the Security Council on the Chinese invasion.

Sri Lanka’s response

Again, unlike China and Pakistan, Sri Lanka, another neighbour of India, was quick to declare that it had no objection to India becoming a nuclear power.

Soon after the Indian General elections (in February 1998) which saw the election of supporters of the Tamil Eelam struggle, such as the PMK and Gopalaswamy's MDMK to the Lok Sabha, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister visited New Delhi. On his return, the Sri Lanka newspapers proclaimed that the Indian Prime Minister had assured Sri Lanka 'not to worry about Tamil Nadu.' That, ofcourse left open the question as to what it was that Sri Lanka should worry about.

The decision by India, on 11 June 1998 to extend the ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, for a further period, on the ground that LTTE was a threat to the unity and integrity of India, must have been received with some satisfaction by Sri Lanka.

The US whilst, ofcourse, understanding the special reasons which may have influenced Sri Lanka's decision to support India, may nevertheless have been concerned at the effect that such an open declaration by a signatory to the non proliferation treaty, may have on other signatories. This may explain the somewhat circumspect, but pointedly public, US response:

"A US embassy official in Colombo says the American Ambassador has requested a meeting with Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister to learn Sri Lanka's position on India's nuclear tests. The embassy spokesperson says the ambassador is seeking an explanation of a foreign ministry statement that supports India's nuclear test series - because Sri Lanka is a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. US embassy officials say the United States is interested in finding out why Sri Lanka chose to support India so openly." (Voice of America, 19 May 1998)

Sri Lanka's private response to the American Ambassador, would no doubt have taken into account Sri Lanka's structural dependence on foreign aid. The Paris Aid Consortium (including Japan), at its meeting held on 27 May 1998, did pledge 780 million dollars of aid to Sri Lanka, though the Western donors trimmed their contribution by 10%.

Here, it may be useful to remember the words of Sardar K.M.Pannikar who served as, Indian Ambassador to China from 1948 to 1952:

''The public habit of judging the relations between states from what appears in the papers adds to the confusion. It must be remembered that in international affairs things are not often what they seem to be. .. A communique which speaks of complete agreement may only mean an agreement to differ. Behind a smokescreen of hostile propaganda diplomatic moves may be taking place indicating a better understanding of each other's position. ...'' (Sardar K.M.Pannikar - Principles and Practice of Diplomacy,1956)

Complex power balances

The world wide web of power balances is an increasingly complex one. President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote perceptively in 1983::

".... The population of the world by the end of this century will have grown to some 6 billion people.... moreover most of the increase will be concentrated in the poorer parts of the world, with 85% of the world's population by the end of this century living in Africa, Latin America and the poorer parts of Asia....

Most of the third world countries... are likely to continue to suffer from weak economies and inefficient government, while their increasingly literate, politically awakened, but restless masses will be more and more susceptible to demagogic mobilisation on behalf of political movements... it is almost a certainty that an increasing number of third world states will come to possess nuclear weapons.... . the problems confronting Washington in assuring US national security will become increasingly complex..." (Zbigniew Brzezinski - Power and Principle, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983)

It is not clear whether Brzezinski saw the irony in his statement that as the peoples of the third world become 'increasingly literate' and 'politically awakened' they will be 'more and more susceptible to demagogic mobilisation'. Surely, literacy and political awakening will render people not more but less susceptible to demagogy.

Be that as it may, Brzezinski's perception that the political awakening of the so called 'third world' (in reality, the 'majority world') was a threat to US 'national security' though understandable, also reflects a failure by the US to develop a principle centred approach to international relations - a principle centred approach which seeks genuine win-win answers to conflicts between the US and other states, instead of the US being seen as attempting to impose its own diktat on the world.

In the context of an 'increasingly literate' and 'politically awakened' multi polar world, the old techniques of 'balance of power', 'divide and rule' and 'my enemy's neighbour is my friend' may be seen for what they are - techniques designed simply to out wit your opponent. And, they may not work. No one has a monopoly of wit. Again, as Sardar K.M.Pannikar, has pointed out:

''Foreign Ministers and diplomats presumably understand the permanent interests of their country.. But no one can foresee clearly the effects of even very simple facts as they pertain to the future. The Rajah of Cochin who in his resentment against the Zamorin permitted the Portuguese to establish a trading station in his territories could not foresee that thereby he had introduced into India something which was to alter the course of history. Nor could the German authorities, who, in their anxiety to create confusion and chaos in Russia, permitted a sealed train to take Lenin and his associates across German territory, have foreseen what forces they were unleashing. To them the necessity of the moment was an utter breakdown of Russian resistance and to send Lenin there seemed a superior act of wisdom...'' (Sardar K.M.Pannikar - Principles and Practice of Diplomacy,1956)

The danger is that in a nuclear world, a miscalculation may result in mutually assured destruction. It was Arthur Koestler who remarked in the 1950s that if he was asked: what was the most important date in history, he would say without hesitation that it was the day when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, because on that day mankind had for the first time acquired the know-how to annihilate the entirety of the human species.

Need for Principle Centred Approaches

The old style 'command - control' method of leadership will yield diminishing returns in an increasingly 'politically awakened' world. Hierarchical authority may secure a measure of compliance in the short term but it will fail to foster genuine commitment and stability. Perhaps, the time has come for the US government, as a government of a country that is regarded as the home of private enterprise, to itself start practising some of the leadership methods which the likes of Stephen Covey and Peter Senge have advocated to successful Fortune 500 companies:

"From a very early age, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole. When we then try to 'see the bigger picture', we try to reassemble the fragments in our minds, to list and organise all the pieces. But as physicist David Bohm says, the task is futile - similar to trying to reassemble the fragments of a broken mirror to see a true reflection. Thus, after a while we give up trying to see the whole altogether.

....When we give up this illusion (that the world is created of separate, unrelated forces) - we can then build 'learning organisations,' organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together." (The Fifth Discipline : The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization - Peter M. Senge, Massachusetts Institute Technology)

There may be a need to see the bigger picture. If the US aspires to world leadership, it will need to recognise that leadership will not come simply by the display of military might and economic power. It is the marriage of power with principle that will secure leadership. A leader needs to secure the trust and respect of those whom he seeks to lead - trust in his integrity and respect for the skills that he is able to bring to the task of achieving shared goals. This is true of individuals. It is true of business organisations. It is also true of countries.

The glaring weakness in the US stand on nuclear non proliferation is that it is not willing to engage in discussions about the reduction of nuclear weapon stockpiles as a part of an agreement on nuclear non-proliferation. It is an approach that says: "We will continue to have, what we have. But no one else shall have, what we have."

The US argument that 'the Indian government at this point appears to care more for narrow political interests, than for its role in the international community." (Rediffusion News Report, 16 May 1998) would have carried more weight, if it was not self evident that the US stand was itself directed to secure that which the US perceives to be its own 'national security' interests.

Nothing is gained by the visceral language that some US commentators have used:

"In some of the sharpest commentary heard so far, former Under Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger did not want "pipsqueak countries" like India to be recognised as nuclear powers. His colleague Robert McFarlane was even more visceral in the New York Times. 'We must make clear to the Indian Government that it is today what it was two weeks ago, an arrogant, over reaching cabal that, by its devotion to the caste system, the political and economic disenfranchisement of its people and its religious intolerance, is unworthy of membership in any club" (Indian Express 31 May 1998)

The comments by ex President Carter which appeal to reason and principle deserve the attention of a wider audience.

" 'It's hard for us to tell India you cannot have a nuclear device when we keep ours -- 8,000 or so -- and are not ready to reduce them yet," he (ex President Carter) said during a commencement address at Trinity College in Hartford yesterday. The U.S policy on nuclear weapons and landmines "smacks of hypocrisy," Carter noted. The former President also pointed out that U.S advises India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but it has not ratified it yet. Condemning the superpower's claim to reduce nuclear arsenals, he said, "the Start-II treaty was passed about eight years ago and has still not been ratified by the U.S or Russia." (PTI, 18 May 1998)

Again, there are those who take the view that India's nuclear tests moves India away from Gandhi. The logic of such a viewpoint may also lead them to call upon India (with the fourth largest army in the world) to abandon its conventional armed forces as well.

Here, the story of the wandering sadhu (holy man) who visited an Indian village where many had died as a result of being bitten by a snake, comes to mind. As the story goes, the sadhu advised the snake against killing and persuaded the snake to give up its evil habits. An year later, the sadhu returned to the village to find the snake shrivelled up and in agony and pain as a result of the injuries caused by stones thrown by villagers who were no longer afraid of it. The snake told the sadhu: " I followed your advice - and see what has happened to me." The sadhu replied: "I told you not to bite - but I did not tell you, not to hiss."

David Landes has analysed the First World's phenomenal wealth and power, in a new book titled 'The Wealth and Poverty of Nations : Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor ' Landes suggests that one of the three main reasons that Europe earned its wealth was that Europeans mastered the power to kill. They learnt about gun powder from Asia - China originally - but they learnt to make it better and their guns fired straighter and farther. Perhaps the time has now come to level the playing field, to right the balance - and at the same time, move towards a world wide reduction in nuclear and conventional weapons of destruction.

India’s strength will lie not in the nuclear bomb, but in its peoples

Having said that, New Delhi will need to recognise that, in the end, the strength of India will lie not in the nuclear bomb, but in its peoples. The economy of India will not grow unless the different peoples of India are energised to work together to achieve their shared aspirations. Here, the failure of successive Indian governments to openly recognise that India is a multi-national state, has served to weaken the Indian Union rather than strengthen it. The European Union (established albeit, after two World Wars), may serve as a pointer to that which may have to be achieved in the Indian region in the years to come. There may be a need for India to recognise the force of reason in that which Pramatha Chauduri declared more than 70 years ago:

"It is not a bad thing to try and weld many into one but to jumble them all up is dangerous, because the only way we can do that is by force. If you say that this does not apply to India, the reply is that if self determination is not suited to us, then it is not suited at all to Europe. No people in Europe are as different, one from another, as our people. There is not that much difference between England and Holland as there is between Madras and Bengal. Even France and Germany are not that far apart. If some of our politicians shudder at the mention of provincial patriotism, it is because their beliefs smack of narrow national selfishness....

To be united due to outside pressure and to unite through mutual regard are not the same. Just as there is a difference between the getting together of five convicts in a jail and between five free men, so the Congress union of the various nations of India and tomorrow's link between the peoples of a free country will be very different. Indian patriotism will then be built on the foundation of provincial patriotism, not just in words but in reality."

Nuclear capability will not guarantee unity. The nuclear bomb did not prevent the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the non-nuclear states of Latvia, Estonia and Georgia. Peoples speaking different languages, tracing their roots to different origins, and living in relatively well defined and separate geographical areas, do not easily 'melt'.

Here, it may be useful to remember the words of Sardar K.M.Pannikar who served as, Indian Ambassador to China from 1948 to 1952:

Complex power balances

The world wide web of power balances is an increasingly complex one. President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote perceptively in 1983::

Need for Principle Centred Approaches

Nothing is gained by the visceral language that some US commentators have used:

The comments by ex President Carter which appeal to reason and principle deserve the attention of a wider audience.

India’s strength will lie not in the nuclear bomb, but in its peoples

A people's struggle for freedom is also a nuclear energy and the Fourth World is a part of today's enduring political reality. India may need to adopt a more 'principle centred' approach towards struggles for self determination in the Indian region. A myopic approach, apart from anything else, may well encourage the very outside 'pressures' which New Delhi seeks to exclude. And, if India can grasp this, then, the Buddha may have cause to truly smile.
http://www.tamilnation.org/saty/9806buddhasmiled.htm
Gen. Kayani suspects foreign hand in assassination to destabilize and denuclearize Pakitan
Posted on January 4, 2008 by Moin Ansari
Babar disclosed that the slain PPP chairperson had personally informed him of threats to her life at the hands of some influential elements within Pakistan.”Sophistication of the operation carried out to assassinate the PPP chairperson is beyond the capability of criminal gangs,” Babar said.

Benazir Bhutto before her homecoming after ending her self-exile in October last year had also written a letter to President Musharraf and named three senior officials who, she alleged, were after her life.

Neither Benazir Bhutto nor the president ever disclosed these names; however, media reports while quoting sources discussed different names, including that of a spymaster and two former chief ministers.

It was perhaps Benazir’s own apprehensions that she had shared with her close relatives and associates that her spouse and presently the co-chairperson of the PPP told The Guardian on Monday that the government by blaming al-Qaeda for the Benazir killing wanted to muddy the waters.

“Al-Qaeda has nothing to fear, why would they fear us? Are they our political opponents?” he was quoted as saying by the British newspaper, within days after he blamed the Pakistani Gorbachev (without identifying him) of destabilising Pakistan.

Meanwhile, a source who, too, had frank interaction with Benazir told this correspondent that she was aware of an international conspiracy to destabilise and de-nuclearise Pakistan. He said that many things that she used to say in public during the last few months of her life were far from her conviction.

She, the source said, had the realisation what was brewing in certain parts of Pakistan, particularly in the tribal belt could be properly addressed through dialogue and political means that she wanted to pursue once she got into the corridors of power.

However, contrary to these revelations about her real objectives, Benazir Bhutto’s return from self-exile was full of risks because of Washington’s overt support for her to be the next prime minister of Pakistan.

Despite strong anti-US feeling, the US authorities, including the State Department officials, issued repeated statements in her favour, knowing well that the post-9/11 policies had increased the anti-US feelings to an all-time high in the Muslim world, especially in Pakistan.

However, against the general perception, things were not smooth between Benazir Bhutto and Washington as has now been confirmed by veteran Washington Post journalist Robert D Novak, who wrote in the prestigious US newspaper on Monday that before her death Benazir Bhutto had distanced herself from a US-brokered power-sharing deal between her and President Musharraf.

Robert revealed that Ms Bhutto had sent a written complaint to a senior State Department official, saying her camp no longer viewed the backstage US move as a good faith effort towards democracy. The US paper also wrote that in return to her several pleas, seeking US assistance for better security, the US reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that President Musharraf would not let anything happen to her.

Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kayani, who was amongst those serving generals at the time who had voiced their opposition to the post-9/11 Islamabad’s war on terror policy, when contacted told this correspondent that Pakistan’s nuclear programme had been the main target of the world’s most influential capitals, who wanted to see this country unstable and chaotic so that they could get hold of our nuclear assets.

Kayani, who had the reputation of a professional soldier and had also served the ISI, besides holding key military positions, believes that Benazir’s killing was part of an international conspiracy executed with active connivance of local players to create such a situation in Pakistan that suits those hell-bent on de-nuclearising Pakistan.

A government official told this correspondent that there were many pointing fingers at someone sitting in Islamabad or the country’s indefinable establishment for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. He believed that although only a fair, independent and thorough probe would possibly solve the riddle as to who was behind Benazir’s assassination, no one in the government could draw any benefit out of this horrendous act and the post-Benazir situation had proven that rulers were actually at the receiving end.

The source said though some local players might be involved in this, the mastermind seemed to be sitting in a distant foreign land.

The source, while quoting an intelligence report submitted well before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by one of the country’s leading intelligence agencies, said the government was astounded when it was reported that an international player, apparently friendly with Islamabad, was funding certain extremist elements in tribal areas through Afghanistan to cause destabilisation.

On Wednesday, a New York datelined story published on the back page of The News while quoting a website developed by the US Homeland Security and the intelligence news disclosed that US special squads were all set and ready to take into their possession Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event of a political upsurge or the dissolution of the government.

“The US special squad has been ordered to stay on alert to capture Pak nuclear warheads in case of political instability there,” the report said, adding special squad comprising 10,000 soldiers and headed by two major-generals was entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding these weapons.

After Benazir Bhutto’s death, there are now serious concerns being raised about the safety of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, whose name was disclosed by the interior ministry as being on the hit list of al-Qaeda.

Although, Benazir Bhutto’s appearance on the hit list of al-Qaeda would have been a possibility for her pro-American statements, many are surprised here to find Nawaz Sharif on it. Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N have been critical of most post-9/11 US policies and never did anything to invite the ire of al-Qaeda.

They have been opposing and condemning the military action in tribal areas.

It is feared even by official circles that if Nawaz Sharif (God forbid) meets the same fate as that of Benazir Bhutto, it would be chaotic and a serious threat to the integrity of Pakistan, which is already facing serious challenges because of the assassinati

If we are so sure of business cartels, why aren’t we busting them? If we have evidence of cartelisation, why isn’t that being made public to expose them? Why haven’t we pinned down the blame and penalised cartel members? The near-defunct Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is believed to have instituted some inquiries into cartels and the government has proclaimed it is examining its legal and administrative powers to act against cartels. But the perpetual debate raging for several years is so much up in the air that the repeated references to cartels is now bordering on fatigue. The government has a moral responsibility to ensure that the term doesn’t gather comical intensity. It reminds me of captivating TV documentaries of the mythical 20 Saddam Hussein look-alikes. Apparently, they never existed. Or, for that matter, an entire cover story in an international magazine (with illustrated graphics) of Mullah Omar’s lavish air-conditioned mountain-side bunkers — with miles of motorable tunnels — in Afghanistan that could withstand nuclear bombs.

Don’t be surprised if the next cartel announcement from a minister is followed by peals of laughter like every reference to the ‘foreign hand’ did in the Parliament in the 1980s. At the current hit rate of cartel exposure, some day, the epitaph of the ‘cartel’ would proclaim that these were mysterious creatures like the Yeti or the extra-terrestrial that were never discovered on the face of the Earth.

While the ministries themselves have done little else but threaten action, what is ironic is that the Competition Commission — the regulator that has been authorised by the Parliament to investigate and recommend (not act, unfortunately!) into competition issues such as the cartels — has been left in a state of disuse since the Act was passed in October 2007. So much so that the enthusiastic one-man member of the Competition Commission Vinod Dhall is now nearing retirement in November.

Dear ministers, please take some radical steps before cartels gain mythological significance. Raid companies, jail a CEO or book him under the Essential Services and Maintenance Act. But please don’t let cartels go down in history as a CIA-like lore — mythical and mystical.

If we can’t, then let’s take this to another level of intellectual frustration. Let’s blame the CIA.

rajeevdubey@abp.inThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

(Businessworld issue 13-19 May 2008)
http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/Columns/Blame-The-CIA.htmlContested Meanings: India's National Identity, Hindu Nationalism, and the Politics of Anxiety
Journal article by Ashutosh Varshney; Daedalus, Vol. 122, 1993

Journal Article Excerpt
Contested meanings: India's national identity, Hindu nationalism, and the politics of anxiety

by Ashutosh Varshney

THE PRIMARY IMPULSE OF THIS ESSAY is explanatory, not normative. It is important to keep this distinction in mind because the subject--the rise of Hindu nationalism--generates strong emotions. While dealing with Hindu nationalism, the customary intellectual tendency is to denounce or celebrate, not to explain. For an academic analysis, however, explanation must take clear precedence over denunciation or celebration.

The essay makes three arguments. First, a conflict between three different varieties of nationalism has marked Indian politics of late: a secular nationalism, a Hindu nationalism, and two separatist nationalisms in the states of Kashmir and Punjab. Hindu nationalism is a reaction to the two other nationalisms. In imaginations about India's national identity, there was always a conceptual space for Hindu nationalism. Still, it remained a weak political force until recently, when the context of politics changed. The rise of Hindu nationalism can thus be attributed to an underlying and a proximate base. Competing strains in India's national identity constitute the underlying base. The proximate reasons are supplied by the political circumstances of the 1980s. A mounting anxiety about the future of India has resulted from the separatist agitations of the 1980s, and from a deepening institutional and ideological vacuum in Indian politics. India's key integrative political institution since 1947, the Congress party, has gone through a profound organizational decay, with no centrist parties taking its place. And secularism, the ideological mainstay of a multireligious India, looks pale and exhausted. Claiming Ashutosh Varshney is Associate Professor of Government at Harvard University. to rebuild the nation, Hindu nationalists present themselves as an institutional and ideological alternative.

Second, India's secularism looks exhausted not because secularism is intrinsically unsuited to India and must, therefore, inevitably come to grief. That is the principal claim of the highly influential recent writings by T. N. Madan and Ashis Nandy.(1) Insightful though their arguments are, Madan and Nandy do not sufficiently differentiate between different varieties of secularism. The secularism of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi was not a logical culmination of the secularism of Nehru. Politics over the last decade discredits the kind of secularism practiced by the various regimes in the 1980s. It does not discredit secularism per se.

Third, though a reaction to separatist and secular nationalisms, Hindu nationalism poses the most profound challenge to the governing principles and intellectual maps of an independent India. Hindu nationalism has two simultaneous impulses: a commitment to the territorial integrity of India as well as a political commitment to Hinduism. Given India's turbulent history of Hindu-Muslim relations, it is unlikely that Hindu nationalism can realize both its aims. What happens to India, therefore, depends on how powerful Hindu nationalism becomes, and the way in which this contradiction is resolved.

The national question is, of course, not the only contentious issue in India. Apart from the national order, two other orders--social and economic--have been challenged in recent times. The traditional caste hierarchy of the Hindu social order, slowly eroding due to the political equality of liberal democracy, has been explicitly confronted by politics emphasizing the mobilization of lower castes. The Fabian socialist core of the economic order is in its death throes, being attacked by an emerging market orientation and international openness in the country's economic policy. Some of this change is welcome in India, but much of it has come suddenly and simultaneously. Because of the simultaneity of change at several levels, and especially because of threats to the nation's integrity--the most serious since independence--Indian politics in recent years have been experienced by a large number of Indians as an anxiety, as a fear of the unknown, and on occasions such as the demolition of the Ayodhya mosque, even as a loss of inner coherence. A yearning for reequilibrating designs that can impose some order on anxieties is unmistakable. Politics remains central to this enterprise.

THE CONTEXT: THREE CONTESTING NATIONALISMS IN INDIA

People everywhere have an idea of who they are and what they owe

themselves .... The liberation of spirit that has come to...
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JLdD8QMH5rjGJSn7Z2b9DlLQzlG5W1qtQ34VY5GZjlyTTwFy2GFM!-1211074435?docId=5000149893

on of one of two top-most popular leaders in the country.

There is, however, an admission by these official circles that the kind of security that should have been provided to Benazir Bhutto was not there; thus, making it easy for the assassins to get her.

It was not only Benazir Bhutto who was dissatisfied with the security provided to her by the government but Nawaz Sharif, too, on Monday voiced serious concern over his security
http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/04/gen-kayani-suspects-foreign-hand-in-assassination-to-destabilize-and-denuclearize-pakitan/

BUSINESS BEAT
Blame The CIA...

If we are so sure of business cartels operating in the country, why are we not exposing them?

BY RAJEEV DUBEY
09 May 2008

We have a favourite punching bag these days — industry cartels. We trust them as much as the US’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). And, like in the Indira Gandhi era of CIA-bashing, we blame them for anything and everything. If Indira Gandhi’s politicians held the ‘foreign hand’ responsible for India’s foreign exchange crisis as much as for Lal Bahadur Shastri’s mysterious death, our leaders and bureaucrats pick on cartels for anything from commodity price increases to food shortage. In current popularity, they could outdo the Indian Premier League cheerleaders. But rightly or wrongly, industrialists have begun fearing the term as much as the dreaded FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act).

The problem is that the ghost of the cartels has now become bigger than the cartels, if any. Even without revealing a single cartel, the analysis around them has reached ridiculous proportions: their amorphous nature and their ability to come together and disintegrate at will; their vice-like grip over the industry and pricing; their secret meetings; their leaders and the lack of them. Short of having a cult following, they are everything.

Getting into the act, the prime minister has raised concerns about cartels. The finance minister and the commerce minister have both hurled numerous arrows in the dark in the form of public threats to these amorphous entities and their possessors, saying that industries such as cement and steel are “behaving like a cartel” and that if their “behaviour” doesn’t change, the government would take strict measures. At different points in time, sugar and grains have also borne the brunt of such threats. But rarely have these been acted upon as publicly as they have been issued. Now that the spiralling raw material prices are causing a slowdown in the economy, the threats are back.

But as the din around these nebulous entities gets louder and louder, the inaction over them has exposed the small talk.

If we can’t, then let’s take this to another level of intellectual frustration. Let’s blame the CIA.

rajeevdubey@abp.inThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

by Ashutosh Varshney

THE CONTEXT: THREE CONTESTING NATIONALISMS IN INDIA

People everywhere have an idea of who they are and what they owe

themselves .... The liberation of spirit that has come to...
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JLdD8QMH5rjGJSn7Z2b9DlLQzlG5W1qtQ34VY5GZjlyTTwFy2GFM!-1211074435?docId=5000149893

My story Troubled Galaxy Destroyed dreams

Friday, December 19, 2008

A Mossad Daughter Jailed

No comments:

SHARING MY LIFE

Welcome to My galaxy

Participation

Empowerment

Organize!

Awakening

Blog Archive