American Politics, Progressive News, Human Rights, Civil Disobedience, Foreign Policy, Current Events, Cultural Activism, and Social Justice.
http://www.dustcircle.com | http://www.facebook.com/dissentingheretic | http://www.twitter.com/dustcirclenews

Sunday, July 31

Christians Give Death Threats to Atheists Who Wish to Block the WTC Cross - Separation of Church and State - Religious Hate Speech



[REPRINTs]

Following his appearance on Fox News’s show, America Live w/Megyn Kelly, American Atheists’ Communications Director, Blair Scott received multiple death threats from Christians. Many even appeared on the Fox News facebook page.

These threats come on the heels of the Christian terrorist attack in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik. Since writing about the Norway Christian terrorist attack, I have received many comments and e-mails from Christians telling me that Breivik was part of an extremely small minority, wasn’t a real Christian, and/or doesn’t represent “True Christianity.” Yet, here in the United States we have multiple Christians making truly horrific threats against atheists.

These Christians are not some tiny minority; they appear to make up a significant number of Fox News viewers. If anyone questions their faith and belief in Christianity, contact them on facebook and challenge them on it. I think you will find that many are very passionate about their beliefs and will almost certainly be glad to defend them… possibly with threats apparently. There can be no doubt that these threats are motivated by religious belief.

The broadcast which started this cascade of death threats is in the sidebar along with a slideshow of a tiny minority of the threats made.



William Hamby
, Atlanta Atheism Examiner
July 29, 2011 - Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.

Here's a sampling of the responses posted on Facebook after American Atheists' Blair Scott appeared on Fox News in a segment on the group's court case involving the cross in the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
i say kill them all and let them see for themselves that there is a God -- Paul Altum

Shoot them. Shoot to Kill. -- Bob O'Connell

TO ALL ATHEIST DIE AN GO TO HELL HAHA IF I COULD ID SHOOT ALL OF YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A 12GAUGE -- Joe Martinez

thats easy shoot them -- Joseph Sneckenberg

Shoot em. At least we know where they're going, waste of oxygen -- Casey M Jones

Nail them to that cross then display it -- Mike Holeschek

I thinly (sic!) we should hang the leader of that group on the cross with nails through their hands and feet, place a crown of thorns upon their head, RAM a spear through their side all after being whipped and beaten publicly! Just so they can endure what Christ did so they understand the sacrifice behind what the cross symbolizes -- Chris Dunn.

Incidentally, 19 people liked Chris Dunn's post within a few minutes. Many more Christians are posting equally vicious and hateful comments on the FOX News FB Page. Though they're being taken down almost as fast as they're being put up, they are being saved for posterity by friends of American Atheists who have quick trigger fingers for the "Screenshot" button.

This brings up an interesting point. In a week or two, that Facebook page will be clean swept of any threats or incitements to violence. If anyone goes back to read it, they'll see Christians and atheists arguing -- not always politely, but without threats. The words on the page will be gone. But for me and my fellow atheists, they will live on as long as we live.

Every day, we have to live with the knowledge that there really are people who wish we were dead. They hate us. They think we are evil hellspawns deserving of nothing better than crucifixion, torture, and death.
Advertisement

What's worse, we have to spend hours defending ourselves to the "Good Christians" who would never do that kind of thing, and think we're awful people for trying to paint Christians with such a broad brush. How dare we call attention to the hateful Christians! How dare we suggest that we're a hated minority and that Christians are responsible? The gall of it all!

And the thing is, day in and day out, we see the hate. We get it in our inboxes. We get it on Facebook. We feel the icy stares when we have the temerity to wear an atheist shirt in public. And then we get shouted down when we wonder aloud why all the supposedly "loving Christians" aren't standing beside us against those who they claim are "Not really True Christians."

Well I'm wondering aloud. WHERE ARE YOU? If there are so many good Christians out there who think we atheists are decent people and that we deserve equal treatment under the law, where are you? Why aren't you helping?

If there are so many of you who believe in separation of church and state, where are you? Why aren't you outvoting that tiny little minority of Christians who are misinterpreting God's word?

Why is it that all we ever see is the hate?

To put it another way, there are really only two possibilities. Either most Christians really are hateful and vicious towards atheists, or most Christians are silent when they should be shouting at the top of their lungs, denouncing these evil people and voting with their feet against anything that would further divide this country.

Here's an easy experiment. Off the top of your head, name five famous Christian leaders who are at the forefront of the battle to keep church and state separate and preserve rights for all Americans, Christian or not.

If you can't do it... it might be time to rethink the old adage that "most Christians are tolerant, accepting, and loving."

FOX NEWS COMMENTS IN REAL TIME
Here are some of the Highlights!


Dustcircle Commentary:
I understand that these phrases don't represent all Christians, but I do hold ALL Christians responsible for not speaking out against your representatives. There is no way I'd sit in the shadows while people claiming my I.D. were doing bullshit. Speak against these people, Christians, or this can snowball. Remember the other Christian things done in Jesus name? Inquisition, Crusades, Oklahoma City, Ku Klux Klan, etc.
If you don't voice angrily against these haters, I only have one thing to say to you: Fuck you, your religion, your deity, and your family. Make you die slowly, in pain, weeping alone in a cold cellar. Keep this up, there will be an anti-religious movement that will rise up and slaughter you all, before you slaughter us. I have no problem with defending myself from attackers. I'll get you from behind while you're on your knees with your children.

Bill Maher: Why Is the Ft. Hood Shooter a "Muslim Terrorist," But the Norwegian Murderer Not a "Christian Terrorist"?

[REPRINT]

Bill Maher: Why Is the Ft. Hood Shooter a "Muslim Terrorist," But the Norwegian Murderer Not a "Christian Terrorist"?

On last night's episode of Real Time, Bill Maher talked about how violent religious extremists were in the news this week. There was Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo, who was arrested on Wednesday for his 2009 attack on Ft. Hood, and then of course Anders Breivik, the Norwegian man who killed dozens of people in his home country earlier this month. As Maher noted, "I'm sure the media would have no trouble calling the guy at Ft. Hood a Muslim terrorist, but they refuse to call Anders Breivik a Christian terrorist. But that's what he was. He is a Christian terrorist. He wanted to start a Christian onslaught against the Muslims. And it reminds me that this is not a problem with the Muslim religion -- it's a problem with religion. And Christianity is perfectly capable of coming out of its dormant phase and once again becoming the violent, blood-lusty religion it was under the Crusades." And a panel debate ensues.

Maher expressed some similar sentiments to New York magazine a few days ago, when a reporter there asked him about the controversy over the Ground Zero cross.

You can watch Maher's Real Time segment here, via Mediaite:



By Lauren Kelley | Sourced from AlterNet
Posted at July 30, 2011, 7:46 am

Friday, July 29

HELL NO - The Right To Dissent

HELL NO - The Right To Dissent


Michael Ratner: There is a North America-wide strategy to take away the right to mass protest

Thursday, July 28

US in Revolt: It Can Be Done. Now is the Time

US in Revolt:   It Can Be Done. Now is the Time.
(videos below can be accessed by following the link above)



It Can Be Done. Now is the Time. Americans Can Stop the Corporate Machine and Create a New World


By Kevin Zeese[REPRINT]

July 26, 2011 "Information Clearing House" --- October2011.org seeks to Stop the Machine and Create a New World. It can be done. Indeed, it must be done and now is the time to do it. The thousands who have joined October2011.org know the challenges we face but we also know that the disastrous direction the country is going is unacceptable. We have seen that the normal tools - elections, lobbying and education - do not work. The U.S. is facing a crisis on many fronts - economic, environmental and in foreign relations - and the government does not respond or even makes things worse.

We certainly understand the despair, lost hope and discouragement that many Americans feel about the U.S. political system. The system seems designed to make change impossible. We also see the power and sophistication of the corporate propaganda media machine. But, we also see people in the United States seeing through the propaganda, understanding the truth and getting angry. In every rebellion around the world that has occurred in the last year - from Egypt to Spain - the view that it can’t be done, the people will not rise up would have been the belief of 95% of the population before it happened. Predicting the future is not as easy as it looks. There is a lot of evidence that the time may be right for an American Awakening. The past is not always the future.

The organizers of October2011.org are well aware of the challenges we face and aware of the power of the U.S. police forces to stamp out dissent. We have faced them before. We are developing contingency plans to deal with those issues. And, we know if the police remove us on the first day, October 6, we will come back in the days that follow with even more people. We will not give up. Indeed, in Spain on the first day, the police cleared out a few hundred people, and then they came back two days later with thousands more and stayed for a month. They continue to pressure the government with their indignant independent movement demanding real, fundamental change starting with real democracy, not the phony two party charade they encounter in Spain as we also do in the United States.

October2011.org is a peoples led effort. The people who have signed up are doing their part: Spreading the word; Urging their friends and families to come; And, coming themselves. We all know we cannot let business as usual continue -- it is literally killing us and others, degrading the environment, destroying the middle class and creating massive transfers of wealth to the richest 1%.

Wednesday, July 27

Do People Follow the Ten Commandments? Behavior and Beliefs Often Don't Match

Do People Follow the Ten Commandments?
Behavior and Beliefs Often Don't Match


By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
[REPRINT]

There are lots of debates over the cultural and political status of the Ten Commandments, but in all of those debates there is a common assumption that devout religious people are already following them and everyone else should start. Is it true, however, that religious people currently follow the Ten Commandments with any degree of consistency?

Jews presumably do a fair job at trying to follow their Decalogue, but it’s Christians — and conservative evangelicals in particular — who do the most to promote these laws in civil society, so perhaps we should focus on them. When we do, we find something interesting: not only do they not consistently follow the commandments, but in fact a couple are broken so regularly and casually that it doesn’t even appear as though anyone really tries.

The second commandment, at least according to Protestants, is a prohibition against “any graven image, or any likeness of any thing.“ The more literally one reads this, the more that would have to be forbidden: crosses, crucifixes, statues of Jesus, status of saints, icons of any sort, even photographs and realistic paintings. Muslims adhere to such a rule strictly, and as a consequence, artistic decoration consists of abstract design rather than the human figures that one typically sees in many churches.

Most Christians today, if they accept this commandment at all (it’s not included on Catholic lists), don’t interpret it literally. At most they read it to mean that one shouldn’t make any idols designed to represent God (although statues of Jesus, who is also God, are somehow exempt from even this most mildest of readings). Once we allow this commandment to be interpreted mildly or metaphorically, however, what’s to stop us from doing the same with the others? Should the commands not to kill or steal be read metaphorically?

Even more significant is the breaking of the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments require that people work for six days and then rest on the seventh, which is Saturday. This is what Jews and some small Christian groups do. Almost all contemporary Christian denominations have placed their sabbath on a Sunday, however, which is the first day of the week.

This might not seem like such a huge issue — after all, Christians are still working six days and resting one, which is one of the points of this commandment. Another point of the commandment, however, is to commemorate God who worked six days and rested on the seventh; Christians who don’t rest on the final day of the week are quite simply getting things backwards. God certainly didn’t start off the grand task of creating the universe by taking a coffee break.

Furthermore, Christians today don’t adhere to the prohibition on working as strictly as orthodox Jews. Christian may go to church services and they may not go to the office, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t work. On the contrary, most do quite a bit of work on their sabbath: yard work, house work, school work, etc. Very few Christians actually refrain from any work whatsoever, and I doubt that you will find many who go to the same lengths as orthodox Jews who refuse to drive, turn on lights, light stoves, etc.

Suggested Reading

* Ten Commandments: Introduction
* Ten Commandments: Analysis
* Ten Commandments: Different Versions

Tuesday, July 26

Lingering Lies: The Persistent Influence of Misinformation: Scientific American

Lingering Lies: The Persistent Influence of Misinformation: Scientific American







The brain holds on to false facts, even after they have been retracted
| July 18, 2011

[REPRINT]


After people realize the facts have been fudged, they do their best to set the record straight: judges tell juries to forget misleading testimony; newspapers publish errata. But even explicit warnings to ignore misinformation cannot erase the damage done, according to a new study from the University of Western Australia.

Psychologists asked college stu­dents to read an account of an ac­cident involving a busload of elderly passengers. The students were then told that, actually, those on the bus were not elderly. For some students, the information ended there. Others were told the bus had in fact been transporting a college hockey team.

And still others were warned about what psychologists call the continued influence of misinformation—that people tend to have a hard time ig­noring what they first heard, even if they know it is wrong—and that they should be extra vigilant about getting the story straight.

Students who had been warned about misinformation or given the alternative story were less likely than control subjects to make inferences using the old information later—but they still erred sometimes, agreeing with statements such as “the pas­sengers found it difficult to exit the bus because they were frail.”

This result shows that “even if you understand, remember and believe the retractions, this misinformation will still affect your inferences,” says Western Australia psychologist Ullrich Ecker, an author of the study. Our mem­ory is constantly connecting new facts to old and tying different aspects of a situation together, so that we may still unconsciously draw on facts we know to be wrong to make decisions later. “Memory has evolved to be both stable and flexible,” Ecker says, “but that also has a downside.”

[For more on how memory relies on connections and makes inferences, see “Making Connections,” by Anthony J. Greene; Scientific American Mind, July/August 2010.]

Does god Really Heal?

Unreasonable Faith


[REPRINT]

By vorjack on in Christianity, Medicine.

The following post was submitted by Jeremy Wells, AKA the Not So Friendly Atheist, who blogs about the logical flaws in religious arguments.


Does god really heal? This is a simple question that I put to the test when I was a Christian- the results convinced me to abandon religion. One of god’s promises is that he will heal all believers that pray for it. This is one of the foundational beliefs in religious doctrine. Certainly god should honor his word in this area, but does he?
Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.
If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:14-16)

As The U.S Empire Spread Abroad It Becomes A Police State At Home By Sherwood Ross


By Sherwood Ross
Countercurrents.org

[REPRINT]

As America's empire spreads abroad, it becomes ever more the police state at home. The methods used for the suppression of foreigners by military force and violence are eventually mirrored in the “homeland.”

In an article last September 25th titled “It Is Official: the US Is A Police State,” author Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Reagan years, wrote, “'Violent extremism' is one of those undefined police state terms that will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. In this morning's FBI foray into the homes of American citizens of conscience it means antiwar activists, whose activities are equated with 'the material support of terrorism'...”

The FBI raids at home are reminiscent of U.S. military raids overseas. In Iraq, for instance, labor union offices were raided and rifled and labor leaders imprisoned by the Occupation forces. Their “crime” was to oppose sweetheart contract deals with private oil firms.

The vast U.S. prison system, which houses 2.4 million Americans, may be compared with the Gulag the U.S. has built abroad. America today is the World's Jailer. As Allan Uthman reported on AlterNet, in 2006 the Bush regime began building “detention centers” to warehouse inmates for unspecified “new programs” when the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million. What we do abroad, we do at home.

Adopting police state tactics on Americans the U.S. Empire first used on subjects abroad has a long history. When Filipinos rebelled against U.S. rule after their country was “liberated” from Spain, captured resistance fighters were subjected to water torture. Twenty years later, imprisoned American pacifists who opposed the Wilson administration's entry into World War One were hung by their hands, and had running hoses shoved in their faces.

In its editorial of July 25th, The Nation magazine denounces America's use of “secret armies, covert operations...offshore torture centers, out-of-control armed corporations, runaway military spending, wars by fleets of robots, wars by assassination---and all the other features of the imperial presidency...”

The magazine has long sought to end these practices. It's still a great idea but now it's a tad late. The Reactionary Elite that runs America is powerful. Congress rubber-stamps President Obama's five wars of aggression abroad and enacts laws at home that scorch individual liberty. The result is the emergent police state.

The other day I watched people entering a bus station in Orlando, Florida, submit to a body scan by two security officers who had no probable cause whatever to search them. Americans boarding trains and planes now accept such scans routinely. In area after area, Americans are accepting violations of their privacy in the name of “national security” with hardly a murmur of dissent. The Bush regime created "watch"(75,000 names) and "no fly"(45,000 names) lists that restrict individuals' air travel--and those searched and/or stopped from flying can complain all they like because it won't do them any good.

Robert Johnson, an American citizen, Naomi Wolf reports in her book “The End of America”(Chelsea Green), described the humiliation factor of being strip searched when he attempted to board an airplane: "I had to take off my pants. I had to take off my sneakers, then I had to take off my socks. I was treated like a criminal." This has now become a commonplace ordeal for countless numbers of Americans. Even at the height of World War Two, such invasions of personal rights would have been unthinkable.

Fear of government, unlike anything I have ever known in my lifetime, appears widespread. How do I know people are fearful? Because many readers call me “courageous” (which I definitely am not) for challenging the government, revealing that they truly do fear to speak out.

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law School, writes in The Nation that Congress last May reauthorized provisions of the misnamed “Patriot Act” that “permit the government to obtain 'roving' wiretaps without identifying the person or the phone to be tapped, (to)demand records from libraries and businesses without establishing any reason to believe the target is involved in criminal, much less terrorist, activity; and (to)use surveillance powers initially restricted to agents of foreign governments or terrorist organizations against 'lone wolves' not affiliated with any such group or government.” This is an echo of the ECHELON system the U.S. and its British Commonwealth allies have employed since World War Two to eavesdrop on the entire planet, track dissenters, and steal business secrets.

Cole also writes Attorney General Eric Holder will now allow FBI agents “to rummage through citizens' trash, conduct searches of computer databases and repeatedly use surveillance squads to track people without any suspicion of individual wrongdoing or court approval.” (Just like the body searches at the bus terminal.) The absence of court approval is significant in that a court is the only legal bulwark a citizen has against unbridled police power. And now that's gone. The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered far worse at the hands of American-led military.

The fact is, when the Empire goes to war, the life of its individual citizen is devalued and degraded---not only on the battlefield, where it is often sacrificed for all the wrong reasons, but at home as well. It's happening here. The right to form unions freely is scrapped in defiance of the vast majority of workers who want one. The public treasury is looted by Congress to bail out the bankers over the 100-to-one protests of constituents. Foreign wars are waged over the wishes of the popular majority who want them ended.

As liberty after liberty is being circumscribed or eliminated, the common man and woman are being reduced to the common serf. Harold Laski, a former chairman of the British Labor Party, once noted, “We live under a system by which the many are exploited by the few, and war is the ultimate sanction of that exploitation.” Imperialism---whether practiced by Spain in the 16th century, England in the 18th century, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany in the 20th century, or America today---is a gangrene that expands tyranny at home with the equivalent velocity that it spreads war abroad. #

(Sherwood Ross is director of the Anti-War News Service. He formerly worked as a columnist for daily newspapers and wire services. All donations to his news service cheerfully accepted. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

Monday, July 25

If I Ruled the World: Mohamed ElBaradei

by Mohamed ElBaradei, 20th July 2011 — Prospect Magazine, Issue 185
[REPRINT]

Mohamed ElBaradeiThe United Nations needs a complete overhaul and countries should be banned from spending more on arms than on aid.



Every person ought to spend an afternoon writing an essay with this title. It is stimulating to dream about how we could change our world.

Putting daydreams aside, a re-engineering of global governance is long overdue. Communicable diseases spread as rapidly as viral videos, multinational corporations are more powerful than many governments, and climate change does not respect borders. Arms sales, agricultural subsidies and energy strategies are agreed with little thought of the repercussions, which can include refugee migrations, famine, pandemics, environmental degradation and civil wars.

If I could, I would overhaul the United Nations system. In six-and-a-half decades, the UN has worked hard to bring about greater international co-operation in managing and overcoming common challenges. Its organisations have often been successful in redressing societal ills. But the system is in dire need of a serious rethink.

My highest priority would be to transform the UN security council: to revamp the council’s modus operandi for responding to longstanding tensions, armed conflicts, and other threats; to ensure representative membership; and to re-examine selective veto power. A humanitarian force, chartered with the “responsibility to protect” against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other conflicts in which innocent civilians are the primary victims, would stand ready to intervene, to prevent the kind of slaughter taking place in Libya and elsewhere. The International Court of Justice would be granted compulsory global jurisdiction. A global energy agency would be launched to help nations achieve energy security and develop environmentally responsible strategies.

Many other mechanisms for global governance, including regional organisations, political alliances and economic forums, are dysfunctional, hamstrung by failures to adapt to our changing world. Stalemates on critical issues—climate change, arms control and trade—have become the norm. Our politics does not sufficiently take into account the increasingly globalised nature of society, and continues to treat many of these issues as a zero-sum game.

Consider our spending habits: how nations invest in the engines of war versus the arts of peace. Worldwide military expenditures last year cashed in at $1.6 trillion—an increase of 56 per cent since 2001, despite the ongoing global economic crisis. By contrast, official development assistance stood at $129bn.

There is no common sense in this strategy. If the past has taught us nothing else, it should have exposed the folly of believing that international security—or for that matter, the security of any nation—would be enhanced by investing in weapons, at a 12-to-1 ratio, rather than in development.

If I were handed the reins of global sovereignty, I would reprioritise the budgets of the world’s wealthiest nations. No government would be permitted to spend more on armaments and military force than on development assistance and humanitarian aid. The dividends—in prosperity, social cohesion, national and global peace, and security—would be immediate and dramatic.

A durable peace can be built only on a foundation of human security: that is, security based on the dignity and worth of every individual. If it were up to me, society would meet the basic needs of every human being—food, water, healthcare, and shelter—and every young person would receive a well-rounded education. Curriculums and learning methods would consciously de-emphasise differences of nationality, ethnicity, and stereotypes, replaced by an emphasis on tolerance and respect for our diversity, and appreciation of our collective cultural heritage.

In that context, no spending priority should be ranked higher than a global investment in the world’s children: inculcating in the next generation the ideals we would like to see embodied in their future.

This idyllic planet at peace with itself, this world I imagine for my infant granddaughters and their generation, is a world I will not live to see. But it is a vision I will pass on to my grandchildren; and one day, inshallah, they will live my dream.

Sunday, July 24

The Death of Democracy By William A. Cook



By William A. Cook
Countercurrents.org

[REPRINT]

“The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public” (Human Rights Watch, “When Speech Offends,” February-March 2006).

Contrary to Fox News and Benjamin Netanyahu, Democracy is neither alive nor well in the United States or Israel; indeed it is dying a slow, agonizing death as each nation writhes in pain in adjoining beds unaware that the intravenous feeding tubes controlled by their respective Knessets drip poison into their life sustaining veins. Israel 's Haaretz newspaper, in the voice of Carlo Strenger, carries the warning:

The flood of anti-democratic laws that were proposed, and partially implemented, by the current Knesset, elected in February 2009, constitute one of the darkest chapters in Israeli history. The opening salvo was provided by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party with its Nakba law, that forbids the public commemoration of the expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war.

Since then, a growing number of attempts were made to curtail freedom of expression and to make life for human rights groups more difficult. The latest instance is the boycott law that (is) was passed (this) last Monday by the Knesset , even though its legal advisor believes it to be a problematic infringement on freedom of speech (“ Israel's McCarthy coalition is on a dangerous power trip,” Haaretz, July 11, 2011 ).

Curiously, America does not have a newspaper as brave and open to civil discourse as Haaretz; we rely on the New York Times , infamous for promoting the Iraq war on its front page thus benefiting the war industry and its corporations that control the Congress. Yet our Congress, like its twin in Israel , has adopted similar anti-democratic resolutions that curtail freedom of speech and action not only of American citizens but of the representatives of the United Nations.

House Resolution 268, “Reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations,” introduced May 13, 2011, passed overwhelmingly 406-6, specifically threatens the member states of the UN that it condemns any “unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state” as well as the “unbalanced United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” To accomplish this end, the 268 resolution announces that “…the Administration will veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes before the United Nations Security Council…,” opposes recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, and in other international forums…,” and, in a Mafia-like manner, threatens the Palestinians with “serious implications” for assistance programs should they not obey. Resolution 268 condemns in advance any deliberation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by any nation, in any forum, that does not await an “agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.” Curiously enough, this same resolution states that the United States “…will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas…,” a statement that prevents at the outset negotiations with the Palestinians since Hamas represents over 1.5 million Palestinians, thus belying the very purpose of the resolution, to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How deceptively clever.

It also demands that Hamas and the people they represent accept unconditionally the position of the US and Israel that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and agree to follow the previous obligations of the PLO. There is no recognition of Israel 's violence against Hamas or Gaza , nor recognition under International Law that the Palestinians have rights to resist the occupation of a foreign nation. It does not impose on Israel a comparable need to recognize the right of the Palestinians to have a state of their own since that would require that Israel recognize where Palestine exists, what borders it possesses, what land Israel must return to its owners. And, finally, no mention is made of the conditions imposed by Israel that made implementation of the Oslo Accords possible nor its rejection of the stipulations made by the Quartet, thus placing full blame for the failed “peace negotiations” on the Palestinians.

Resolution 268 dictates to the people of the world that their voices will not be heard, their desires not considered, and their empathy for a besieged people made irrelevant; only the will of the Israeli administration and the Obama administration will stand. Calculatedly, the administration passed the resolution as the “Quartet for Middle East peace”—the European Union, Russia , the UN and the US —met in Washington . The acid that destroys democracy drips on.

But Resolution 268 is only the most recent example of the erosion of our rights in the United States ; it follows one of the most glaringly illegal and potentially destructive interventions in international affairs taken by a purportedly democratic state and fully supported by our own Knesset. Israel's prevention of freedom of speech and action by the international group of peace activists desiring to express their solidarity with the imprisoned Palestinians in the second flotilla to Gaza by coercing the economically crippled Greek government to refuse representatives from many countries to leave the Greek ports, although they had complied with every legal demand, graphically demonstrates that a government like Israel can and will enforce its will on any nation denying thereby the rights of free people everywhere.

The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public. Freedom of expression is particularly necessary with respect to provocative or offensive speech, because once governmental censorship is permitted in such cases, the temptation is enormous for government officials to find speech that is critical of them to be unduly provocative or offensive as well. The freedom to express even controversial points of view is also important for societies to address key political, social, and cultural issues, since taboos often mask matters of considerable public concern that are best addressed through honest and unfettered debate among those holding diverse points of view (Human Rights Watch).

The full implications of Israel's takeover of the Greek government (with its conscious awareness that any action it took would be supported by our Congress) and hence its disregard for the will of the Greek citizen has been little regarded by our free press, yet nothing is perhaps so ominous as this blatant, hostile action by one foreign nation on another. What mindset enables itself to impose its will on citizens of other nations? What provocation could possibly justify intervention of such magnitude? If Israel had evidence that the flotilla and its organizers were physical threats against the state of Israel , could they not bring that evidence before the UN and International Courts to prevent the boats from sailing to Gaza ? Why then the need to deny freedom of speech to citizens of many nations and commandeer another nation's government? Doesn't a democracy pride itself on rule of law? How then abandon law in favor of might? “The right to freedom of expression is…necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public.”

No nation on this planet, no member state of the United Nations, no individual citizen nor groups of citizens can change what Israel and the United States did to Greece and to freedom of speech. They move with impunity as they impose their wills on nations that disagree with their policies. Neither is ruled by their people; they are owned by an elite few who have surreptitiously over time taken control of our freedoms. Neither government is held accountable to the public. Indeed, it is that very accountability that they do not want and cannot allow to happen which is why both governments fear the “Arab spring.” Given the absolute control of our Congress by Israel , as the vote on Resolution 268 exemplifies, America has to raise the fear of terrorism in its citizenry to ensure compliance with the anti-democratic behavior and policies it pursues. Israel does the same. Carlo Strenger puts it this way:

What stands behind this frenzy of attempts to shut down criticism? The answer, I believe, is fear, stupidity, confusion - and now also a power-trip.

The result of Netanyahu's and Lieberman's systematic fanning of Israelis' existential fears is tangible: polls show that Israelis are deeply pessimistic about peace; they largely do not trust Palestinians, and in the younger generation belief in democratic values is being eroded .

But this pessimism and siege-mentality is not only to be found in ordinary Israeli voters, but also in the political class…. They have profound misconceptions about the Free World's attitude towards Israel , and very little real understanding of the paradigm shift towards human rights as the core language of international discourse. They buy into Netanyahu's adage that Israel 's existence is being delegitimized, rather than realizing that Israel 's settlement policy is unacceptable politically and morally to the whole world.

America 's umbilical cord that sustains Israel 's policies of occupation, settlements and oppression damns it before the world as people throughout the world begin to find other ways to break the controls that America 's power provides for Israel . The flotilla activists effectively utilized moral sensibility in clearly identifying the illegality and inhumanity of Israel 's siege of Gaza . And while Israel successfully torpedoed the flotilla in Greek ports through a massive political propaganda campaign of manufactured lies, coercion and threats of law suits against shipping companies and insurance carriers, it also successfully torpedoed truth turning even more of the people of the world against a state that thrives on distortion, deception and devastation.

What both Israelis and Americans must realize, as these anti-democratic actions by both nations attest, is that democracy in both nations has been subverted in favor of those who command our representatives to actions that betray the essence of democracy, the will of the people, and turned it over to those who undermine the moral foundations on which it was built: equality for all, justice for all, dignity and respect for all with government serving the people not a corporate board. When the representatives of the state determine what people must accept, what they can and cannot do or say, when the power of two nations subverts the will and actions of all other nations, democracy is dead.


William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. He writes frequently for Internet publications including The Palestine Chronicle, MWC News, Atlantic Free Press, Pacific Free Press, Countercurrents, Counterpunch, World Prout Assembly, Dissident Voice, and Information Clearing House among others. His books include Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, a novella, and the forthcoming The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com

This article was first Published in Al Jazeera

American (Real) Exceptionalism

By Ghali Hassan

Countercurrents.org

[REPRINT]

A majority of Americans believe America is an “exceptional” nation and “a shining beacon of democracy and hope to a dark world”. But, reliable and unbiased evidence shows that real America is an unequal society, oppressive, undemocratic and a violent imperialist power.

Inequality and Poverty

A report released on 20 October 2008 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that the U.S. has “ the highest inequality level and poverty rate across the OECD, Mexico and Turkey excepted. Since 2000, income inequality has increased rapidly, continuing a long-term trend that goes back to the 1970s”. All Western Europe 's OECD states, along with Japan , South Korea , Canada and Australia have recorded better figures than the U.S. , as did central and eastern European states, including Poland and Hungary . [1].

The OECD Report shows that; “ Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind. This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States . The average income of the richest 10 percent is US$93,000 in purchasing power parities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have an income of US$5,800 per year—about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries”. Over the past 30 years, the richest 1% of U.S. population, the ruling class, has tripled its share of the income pie, mainly through tax cuts and financial deregulation. If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a trillion dollar less out of U.S. economy. According to a study by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley Heim, the U.S. is truly exceptional in that it is on its way to becoming the most unequal society on the planet, if not already the most an equal society. [2].

In 2009, there are 43.6 million Americans living in poverty, one in every seven Americans. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2010 that, there were 8.8 million families living in poverty in 2009, including one child in every five. According to a study by the U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA), some 14.7 percent of American households had serious feeding problems. For over a third of the affected households , the situation is particularly bleak. This means, 6.8 million or about 5.7 percent of all U.S. households , is in serious food insecurity , according to the study. At least one member of each household was forced to eat less or to switch their eating habits . Around one million children were affected. [3].

A report by UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in Italy revealed that, although the U.S. is still considered (by economists) as the wealthiest country in the world, it has the highest incidences of child poverty among industrialised nations. The Report shows that, factors such as, poor education, structural racism against minorities and women, limited job opportunities and declining health status contribute greatly to child poverty and hunger among the marginalised and forgotten Americans. [4].

Healthcare

The U.S. is exceptional among industrialised and many non-industrialised nations not only in having by far the most expensive healthcare system but healthcare in the U.S. is the least accessible. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that does not provide universal health care for children and pregnant women. There are more than 60 million uninsured Americans. The U.S. has 59 million people medically uninsured; 132 million without dental insurance; 60 million without paid sick leave. Furthermore, i nfant mortality, low birth weight, and child deaths under five are ranked among the highest in the U.S. as compared to Western nations and Japan . Among OECD countries, only Mexico , Turkey and the Slovak Republic have high infant mortality than the U.S. Life expectancy in the U.S. has fallen behind compared to other nations. A recent report by the University of Washington found that life expectancy, particularly for women, has fallen in 860 counties across the U.S. [5].

Violence and Militarism

No other nation perpetuates violence in the same way as the U.S. does. It has a complete monopoly on violence. The U.S. is rightly condemned by a majority of the world's populations as the greatest threat to world peace and human survival. At home, the U.S. is the world leading nation of organised violence. “The culture of organised violence is one of the most powerful forces shaping American society, extending deeply into every aspect of American life”, writes Henry Giroux, a professor of Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Ontario , Canada .

In militarism, the U.S. is exceptional. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the U.S. spends more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined or 48 percent of the world's total military spending. [6]. About 50 percent of U.S. discretionary spending goes for the Pentagon. A massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a few while the American people lack sufficient jobs, healthcare, education, housing, retirement security.

As an imperialist militarised power in pursuit of world hegemony, the U.S. is a serial violator of international law, and international human rights law. Since the end of World War Two, the U.S. government (the Zionist ruling class) has embarked on a foreign policy characterised by wars of aggression and illegal military invasions and occupation of defenceless nations. Millions of innocent civilians have been killed and many more millions have been wounded by U.S. forces. From Vietnam to Iraq , Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yugoslavia , the destruction caused by U.S. aggression was truly barbaric. Furthermore, to enforce its murderous occupation of defenceless nations, the local populations are subjected to brutal treatment, including night raids and deprivation of liberty. Human rights abuses including, kidnapping, imprisonment, sexual violence, torture and executions were parts of U.S. military occupation.

Human Rights

The U.S. government is addicted to bragging about human rights violations in other countries, knowing full well that the U.S. is a bastion of human rights violations. Outside the U.S. , the U.S. record on human rights is criminal. The 1990-2033 U.S.-Britain engineered and enforced genocidal sanctions against Iraq that killed at least 2 million innocent Iraqis, including 600,000 infant under the age of 5 is a case in point of U.S. violations of human right in other nations. The sanctions were the prelude to the 2003 war of aggression that ruined an advanced nation.

In the U.S. , t he U.S. justice system is one of the most corrupt and callous in the world. It is a brutal system that openly denies justice to the poor and venerable, including, African Americans, people from minorities and Muslims. In its annual report on human rights, the New York-based Human Rights Watch condemns the U.S. on its treatment of Americans of racial and ethnic minorities. For example, African American males are incarcerated at a rate more than six times that of white non-Hispanic males and 2.6 times that of Hispanic males. In 2009, 1 in 10 African American males aged 25-29 was in prison or jail compared to 1 in 64 white males and 1 in 25 Hispanic males. That is more than two-thirds of prisoner incarcerated are African and Hispanic Americans. While African Americans constitute only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they constitute 33.6 percent of drug arrests, 44 percent of state convictions on drug felonies, and 37 percent of people sent to state prison on drug charges. The Report shows that African Americans and white Americans engage in drug offenses at equivalent rates. Furthermore, the U.S. imprisons three times more women than any other nation in the world. There were 123 female prisoners per 100,000 women of the U.S. female population, compared to 1,348 male prisoners per 100,000 men.

According to National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), the U.S. incarcerates the largest number of people in the world at a rate four times the world average. More than 2.3 million people are incarcerated, or 25% of the world's prison population, the majority are African and Hispanic Americans. Most prisoners are locked in a network of super-maximum security prisons, known as the Prison-industrial Complex or Gulags, where prisoners are subjected to brutal torture and human rights abuses. As of this writing, prisoners in California prisons have been on hunger strike for three weeks to protest against torture and inhumane treatments. [7]. Furthermore, since 2001, the U.S. has extended its Gulags of torture and human rights abuse centres as far as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram in Afghanistan.

Democracy

While the U.S. claims to be a democracy and pretend to promote democracy around the world, the U.S. is not a democracy, but a plu tocracy . The U.S. is ruled by a wealthy ruling class for the sole benefit of the minority rich Americans. The American people are manipulated and completely excluded from political influence and decisions. The people are reduced to helpless spectators. They have been indoctrinated “not to get involved in politics” and to mind their own business. Elections are used to con the people. Indeed, the U.S. has one of the lowest voter participation rates. Former U.S. president George W. Bush was an illegitimate president for two terms having arrived at the White House through well-known rigged elections. The so-called, two-party system is a fraud. It is a one-party with two branches system that serves corporate interest. It doesn't matter who occupy the White House, the country is controlled by wealthy corporations and individuals.

Furthermore, the so-called “promotion of democracy” around the world by the U.S. government and its agencies is nothing more and nothing less than the promotion of ruling elites subservient to U.S. diktats, mostly brutal dictators serving U.S. interests. In short, the U.S. promotes murderous dictators and has a shameful disdain for democracy. The U.S. role in subverting and undermining democracy around the world is outright criminal.

Freedom

In personal freedom, as David Morris, an author and the co-founder of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance writes; “To American exceptionalists, freedom means being able to do what you want unencumbered by obligations to your fellow citizens. It is a definition of freedom the rest of the world finds bewildering. Can it be, they ask, that the quintessential expression of American freedom is low or no taxes and the right to carry a loaded gun into a bar?” People who question or doubt the official story of 9/11 are demonised and depicted as anti-American “conspirators”. The event was used as an opportunity for the U.S. government to crackdown on dissent, including students' protest and academic freedom. Furthermore, in press freedom, the U.S. ranked 20 th by Reporters without Borders and 24 th by Freedom House. So, the U.S. is not exceptional as Americans claim.

In conclusion, “Among industrialized nations, the United States is at or near the worst ranking in employment, democracy, wellbeing, food security, life expectancy, education, and percentage of the population in prison, but right at the top in military spending whether measured per capita or as a percentage of GDP or in absolute terms”, writes American author, David Swanson.

So the U.S is not an “exceptional” nation. American “Exceptionalism” is false propaganda used to promote ugly nationalism and rally Americans behind America 's imperialist wars and incite Americans against each other. If the U.S. indeed aspires to be “exceptional” nation, it will have to reinvent itself. A complete collapse of the current U.S. system will benefit not only the American people, but the survival of the planet and humanity.


Footnotes:

[1] OECD. (2008). Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. Country Note: USA . (See Link here ).

[2] Jon Bakija, J. Cole, A., & Heim, B. (2010, November). Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data. Department of Economics Working Papers 2010-24. Williamstown , MA : Department of Economics, Williams College . (See Link here ).

[3] Nord, M., Coleman-Jensen, A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2009, November). Household Food Security in the United States , 2009. ERR-108, USDA, Econ. Res. Serv. ( See Link here ).

[4] UNICEF (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries , Innocenti Report Card 7. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence , Italy . (See Link here ).

[5] Kulkarni, S. C., Levin-Rector, A., Ezzati, M., & Murray, C. (2011). Falling behind: life expectancy in US counties from 2000 to 2007 in an international context. Population Health Metrics , 9 :16 . (See Link here ).
[6] Hellman, C., & Sharp T. (2009). The FY 2009 Pentagon Spending Request - Global Military Spending . Washington DC : Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. (See Link here ).

[7] Hartney, C. (2009). US Rates of Incarceration: A global Perspective. National Council on Crime and Delinquency (See Link here ); Sabol, W.J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2010). Prisoners 2008 . U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. (See Link here ).

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia .

Christians Believe in Bible Verses That Aren't in the Bible

Christians Believe in Bible Verses That Aren't in the Bible

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
July 19, 2011

[REPRINT]

It's hard to take seriously Christian claims about the importance of the Bible to their lives and religion when they have so little knowledge about it. I'm not just talking about the history of how it developed and how it's been used. I'm talking about the fact that so many Christians believe that things which aren't in the Bible are actual Bible verses.

Some are paraphrases that are similar to actual Bible verses, which is an easy error to make. Some don't have anything to do with the Bible at all -- and in some cases contradict actual Bible verses. But people still believe them. Why? Because they are statements which reinforce what people already believe and they are all too happy to accept biblical authority for what they want to believe.

Here are some popular statements that people think can be found in Bible, but which aren't really there:

"God works in mysterious ways."

"Cleanliness is next to Godliness." ...

"God helps those who help themselves."

"Spare the rod, spoil the child."

And there is this often-cited paraphrase: Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.

Source: CNN

It would be bad enough if this were just limited to "the average Christian in the street," but it's also true to people who study the Bible and should know better:

"In my college religion classes, I sometimes quote 2 Hesitations 4:3 ('There are no internal combustion engines in heaven')," [Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan] says. "I wait to see if anyone realizes that there is no such book in the Bible and therefore no such verse.

"Only a few catch on."


Most people don't recognize that favored sayings and ideas don't really come from the Bible because they want to believe that they come from the Bible. The authority of the Bible is such that this belief reinforces for them the truth and validity of whatever idea is being expressed.

Belief that something is in the Bible provides a comforting assurance that what they believe also happens to be what God wants and, moreover, side-steps any possible debate over the matter. If it comes from the Bible then it's God's Will and if it's God's Will then there's no legitimate basis for disputing it, disagreeing with it, or rejecting it. Adopting this position is a lot easier than actually having to develop your own arguments in defense of an idea.

"Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually read the book," says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the saying "this dog won't hunt" doesn't appear in the Book of Proverbs.

"They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in," he says, "but they ignore the vast majority of the text."


Honestly, if you believe that something like "this dog won't hunt" appears anywhere in the Bible and actually use that belief in defense of the saying, then I think your right to ever use the Bible in defense of anything at all has been irrevocably lost. Actually, I think a lot more about you, too, but I won't go into that...

The worst and perhaps most significant example of attributing to the Bible something that doesn't appear there is the popular saying "God helps those who helps themselves." Not only does it not appear in the Bible, but it's arguably contrary to some things which do appear in the Bible -- at least in some of the ways this saying can be used.

The passage is popular in part because it is a reflection of cherished American values: individual liberty and self-reliance, says Sidnie White Crawford, a religious studies scholar at the University of Nebraska.

Yet that passage contradicts the biblical definition of goodness: defining one's worth by what one does for others, like the poor and the outcast, Crawford says.

Crawford cites a scripture from Leviticus that tells people that when they harvest the land, they should leave some "for the poor and the alien" (Leviticus 19:9-10), and another passage from Deuteronomy that declares that people should not be "tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor."

"We often infect the Bible with our own values and morals, not asking what the Bible's values and morals really are," Crawford says.


This is a useful piece of evidence of the degree to which religion in America is uniquely "American" -- infused with American culture, history, politics, economics, and assumptions. American Christianity is recognizably Christian, but it is also quite distinct from Christianity everywhere else because of the extent to which American assumptions have infused it.

This isn't unique to America, of course. At every place and time throughout Christianity's history, it's absorbed elements of the surrounding culture -- politics, art, economics, etc. Some of it is retained and passed down to future forms of Christianity; some of it is dropped and forgotten. It's precisely Christianity's ability to adapt to local conditions that has helped it spread so much. A more rigid system would not convert so many people and cultures.

I think Crawford is mistaken to say that these are cases of local cultures "infecting" the Bible or Christianity. After all, the Bible was itself created out of local cultures at particular times and places. The Catholic Church even recognizes the fact that the New Testament was produced by and for early Christian communities and thus not every element is necessarily something that binds every future community of believers.

So some people are simply in denial of the fact that their religion and religious beliefs are shaped as much by their own cultural, political, and economic beliefs as by scripture and tradition. Others are in denial of the fact that this not only always happens, but was in fact instrumental in the creation of those scriptures and traditions. They are all in denial of the fact that religion is a product of human culture, politics, and economics, and so we shouldn't expect to find anything else.

Scientologists, Catholics and More Money Than God

Religious Cult, Church of Scientology, Business Office
The Church of Scientology building in Los Angeles.

By GARRY WILLS | Published: July 21, 2011

[REPRINT]

We do not need these books to tell us that money and religion make for a poisonous combination. But it is of some interest to see that ancient truth confirmed in both a church as relatively new as Scientology and one as ancient as Roman Catholicism. Even religious leaders develop a certain swagger when they know they are backed by bundles of cash. When a French court fined Scientology nearly a million dollars, one of its officials shrugged that off as “chump change.” And when the Vatican ran a deficit of nearly 2.4 million euros in 2007, an Italian journalist familiar with the church’s finances dismissed the debt as “chopped liver.” Chump change or chopped liver, both churches have bigger sums they can get to and use, and few outsiders are given a look at how they do it. These two books trace the cash source of theological confidence.

As Janet Reitman describes in “Inside Scientology,” Scientology did not begin as a religion, which its founder, L. Ron Hubbard came to consider his initial mistake. In 1950 Hubbard published his book “Dianetics,” which proposed a variant on the “mind cures” that have littered the American landscape through most of its history. He offered his followers a process of “auditing” that combined Freudian sessions with elements of his former career as a writer of science fiction. People being audited could relive their births, or test their future hopes on the E-meter, a kind of super lie detector that revealed “the anatomy of the human mind.” Mental health authorities, Reitman notes, were quick to condemn Hubbard’s claims as fraudulent. He did not, at this point, have the money to fight against such attacks, a situation he would spend the rest of his career correcting.

Hubbard’s failure to secure a strong financial base exposed him to a takeover of his concepts and properties. Barely two years after founding the movement, he lost Dianetics to a wealthy supporter named Don Purcell, who simply bought him out. To restart his project, he needed protection for it. He found that protection in religion. After all, one cannot buy out a religion. This “religion angle,” he wrote in 1953, is “a matter of practical business.” Being a church, Reitman writes, gave Scientology tax exemption, clerical status for his “ministers” (who wore Roman collars) and clerical exemption from the draft for these ministers. It also allowed him to rally even non-Scientologists to his defense against increasingly hostile government agencies, presenting any of his troubles as a persecution of religion, violating the separation of church and state.

There was another advantage to becoming a religion. In the 1960s, especially in Los Angeles, where Hubbard’s early success came to him, there was a spiritual hunger among young people that took them to religious figures like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (the Beatles’ guide) and the Hare Krishnas. Some of those who came into Scientology as ’60s “kids” stayed on to hold responsible positions under Hubbard.

Hubbard’s experience with Dianetics, Reitman writes, taught him to keep all parts of Scientology under his personal control, to keep his governance secret, and to have a cash supply to deal with enemies, real and imagined. It takes money, after all, to sue the Internal Revenue Service 200 times after it revoked the church’s tax exemption. The early criticisms Hubbard received from psychiatrists made him an unremitting foe to all mental health activities but his own. The general public became aware of this when the Scientologist Tom Cruise attacked psychiatry on the “Today” show. But for years Scientology had been trying, with lawsuits, propaganda and harassment, to bring down the mental health establishment. psychiatrists maim and kill, read a sign carried by Scientologists outside a London mental health center.

Hubbard’s feuds were deadly. Of a person suspected of stealing his secrets he wrote his followers: “The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway . . . will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. . . . If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.” Those who opposed Scientology in any way were called “suppressive persons,” of whom Hubbard wrote: “A truly suppressive person or group has no rights of any kind, and actions taken against them are not punishable.” They “may be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed.” Thus, when Hubbard became convinced that government agencies were collecting negative information about Scientology, Reitman writes, a secret agency of the church (Branch One) planted operatives inside the I.R.S., the F.B.I., the Justice Department and that old enemy, the American Medical Association. According to Reitman, they stole tens of thousands of documents to use for their own smear campaigns. The church gave them awards for this service.

Hubbard was particularly fierce against defecting members, especially if they put online the higher levels of enlightenment that were supposed to be revealed only to loyal trainees. Hubbard feared ridicule, Reitman argues, since the upper levels of disciples learned that a Galactic Confederation had destroyed earth millions of years ago (using hydrogen bombs) and planted captive souls in volcanoes. Even some of the most conditioned and docile disciples, including Tom Cruise, balked at this secret knowledge when first exposed to it.

When Hubbard died in 1986, his leadership role was taken over by a less flamboyant figure, David Miscavige, who had been a Scientologist since the age of 8. He followed the founder’s plans, especially his “celebrity strategy,” conceived in 1955. Hubbard’s initial hopes were to lure admired people like Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso and Edward R. Murrow into his church. But this ambition shrank, by Miscavige’s time, to recruiting show business personalities. The big catches here were John Travolta and Cruise, on whom Miscavige danced continual attendance, in a tactic the church called “admiration bombing.” A glitzy Celebrity Centre was built for any new catches, and less-known figures proved useful. Nancy Cartright, the voice of Bart Simpson, gave the church $10 million in just one of her years of devout service.

Reitman, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone who spent five years trying to pierce the walls Scientologists put up against outsiders, gives us the most complete picture of Scientology so far. She seems, now, uncertain of its future. But its continued existence, given its weird aspects, is its main claim to religion’s power. It is something of a miracle.

The Catholic Church offers a very different picture, but one where money is even more important. Jason Berry, the reporter who broke several of the priest abuse scandals of recent times, finds the same pattern of deception, denial and subterfuge in the church’s handling of money as in its treatment of pedophiles. The Vatican comes to its high-handed way with money in an understandable fashion. In the Middle Ages, all authority was male and monarchical, so the pope became a king. His multiple realms had all the appurtenances of a medieval monarch — armies, prisons, spies, torturers, legal courts in papal service. The money flowed in from many sources — as conquest, as tribute from subordinate princes (secular and religious) or from the crops on farm lands held by the pope, who was not accountable to anyone for use of these funds. When normal sources did not satisfy papal ambition, clerical underlings invented new kinds of revenue — like the granting of time off in Purgatory for cash contributions during life (“indul­gences” for sale).

All that seemed to be ending in 1860 when Italy at last united its secular government and began taking away the pope’s realms. Pope Pius IX rejected the Italian government’s efforts at partial restitution, calling the secular regime illegitimate. He made himself a “prisoner of the Vatican,” never venturing out into Rome, or even addressing it from his balcony. Catholics in sympathy to Pio Nono’s “martyrdom” by the modern state increased their popular donations to the Vatican called Peter’s Pence. This donation arose in the seventh or eighth century, when the pope was still a monarch. It was set aside from the monies exacted from various parts of the papal empire, as something coming voluntarily from the people in the pews. The announced purpose was for the pope to have extra money for the charities he supported.

But after 1860 a surge of sympathy made Catholics every­where, but especially in America, pour large sums into the Vatican, originally conceived as giving the pope military assistance, but then turned over to him for any use. No longer were papal charities the rationale. In fact, the lay cardinal who was Pius’s secretary of state, Giacomo Antonelli, took all available Vatican sums for ambitious new financing schemes. Already in 1857 he had used Peter’s Pence funds as collateral for a new loan from the Rothschild banking firm. Antonelli made one of his brothers the head of the Pontifical Bank. Another Antonelli brother secured a monopoly on Rome’s grain imports (a key to power in Rome since classical times). Antonelli soon had papal investments in countries all over Europe. The pope’s distress was made the excuse for a new financial empire, with no accountability for the funds used.

That non-accountability continues. The Vatican issues statements of its assets — in 2007 the amount was 1.4 billion euros —but the Vatican Bank is off the books, as is a metric ton of gold, and other things not reported. On a list of papal assets, St. Peter’s Basilica and other historic sites are listed as worth one euro each. No wonder, as Berry says, “the Holy See’s true net worth is invisible.”

Having set this historical background, Berry begins his true project — the use of funds in the American church during its modern time of troubles. He grants there are excuses for the financial maneuvering of the Catholic bishops. “The Roman Catholic Church in America is undergoing the most massive downsizing in its history,” he writes. “Since 1995 the bishops have closed 1,373 churches — more than one parish per week for 15 years.” There are many reasons for this wrenching development — lower church attendance, which means fewer donations from the pews; the movement of parishioners from inner cities to the suburbs, stranding old ethnic structures; the loss of free labor in Catholic schools by the declining number of nuns. We can add to this the payment of damages to the victims of priest pedophiles — though many bishops claim they haven’t closed churches because of the sex scandals.

Berry says it is hard to verify this claim because the ordinary bishop is as loath to reveal his transactions as the pope is. A lay group begun in Boston, the Voice of the Faithful, asked that the financial arrangements of the diocese be exposed, and it was fiercely resisted by bishop after bishop. Church authorities in some cities banned the V.O.T.F. from meeting in any parish. The same bishops had earlier opposed revealing what sums were paid to victims of sexual abuse. Settlements forbade the victims from revealing this. Even when settlements were reported, other hidden costs were kept secret — for instance, how much had gone to expensive rehabilitation centers through which the pedophiles were endlessly and uselessly recycled, and to legal costs while the bishops were denying accusations.

Lay people were also kept out of the decision on which churches to close. Good faith attempts by lay people to cooperate in evaluating this procedure were rebuffed. While Cardinal Sean O’Malley was trying to remedy the harm done the Boston diocese by Cardinal Bernard Law’s recycling of pedophiles, his auxiliary bishop Richard Lennon was managing a professedly separate operation to close churches — he would finally shut down 62 in the Boston area. The opponents to Lennon’s plan alleged that he was selecting properties most likely to bring the highest price for resale, not taking into account community support, unconsidered resources or the possibility of merged work with nearby parishes. At eight condemned parishes, people devoted to their churches kept round-the-clock vigils, refusing to give them up. Appeals were taken to Rome, but the man responsible for parishes, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, refused them a hearing. Berry finds the Boston pattern repeated in other dioceses, like those of Cleveland and Los Angeles.

Then, returning to Rome, Berry shows the power of money to squelch evidence that the founder of the ultra-conservative Legionaries of Christ, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, was a serial child molester and had illegitimate children in Mexico. I met Berry in 2002 at the bishops’ Dallas meeting on the sex scandals. He was just beginning his exposé on Maciel, and I followed his work after that, since he was up against vituperation from the Legionaries, criticism from people like William Bennett, and a cold shoulder in Rome, where he went with Maciel’s victims to plead their cause. Unfortunately, Maciel was a great favorite with Pope John Paul II and his secretary of state, Angelo Sodano. It helped that Maciel showered Rome’s cardinals with expensive gifts. Every Christmas Legionary brothers fanned out across Rome to deliver lavish Christmas baskets to the hierarchy, with fine wines, liqueurs and rare Spanish hams worth up to $1,000. He sent a million dollars in support of the pope’s visit to Poland. He gave large cash gifts to Sodano. He ordered a Mercedes-Benz for Cardinal Pio Laghi, though Laghi turned it down. Sodano and others were entertained in style at the Legionary headquarters.

Cardinal Ratzinger, who had taken charge of all sex claims reaching Rome, sat on the charges against Maciel, at the urging of Cardinal Sodano, who reminded him that Maciel was well liked by Pope John Paul. Ratzinger held off until John Paul was clearly dying; then he hurried to remove this incubus from the church. In December 2004 Ratzinger’s office ordered Maciel to step down, pending an investigation. Even then the Vatican Press Office, under pressure from Sodano, denied that there was any “canonical process” against Maciel. But once Ratzinger was Pope Benedict XVI, he consigned Maciel to a period of prayer and penitence and began a thorough re-evaluation of his order.

Whether Berry is considering sex scandals or money scandals, or the refusal of the hierarchy to be open with its own believers on many fronts, the thing that sours all relations is secrecy — as we can see from the conduct of our own government. Secrecy eats at the soul. Some are surprised that religion is so corruptible. They should not be. When secrecy is used to protect a higher order of knowledge, it can make the keepers of the secrets think of themselves as a higher order of humans. Corruptio optimi pessima, goes the old saying. Blight at the top is the deepest blight. It is the sin of taking God’s name in vain.

America: Why Aren’t You Protesting?

By Andrew Smolski

23 July, 2011 | Oilprice.com
[REPRINT]

As noted by Richard Heinberg on June 22nd, 2011, the media has lacked the ability to connect the economic situations in the Middle East and their uprisings to what is happening in Europe. I would avoid the word “Revolution” in the case of the Middle Eastern uprisings, seeing as no dramatic systemic changes have taken place, only the ousting of dictators. Same as I would avoid the words of social upheaval in the case of European protests, which have been quite calm and only demanding to maintain the social safety nets produced through years of labor struggle. Rather, the odd occurrence is the ostensibly quiet population of the United States who are in many cases having the same economic problems and austerity based government solutions. This is a place where the media does want to ask the public the question, “Why aren’t you protesting?”

Effectively in the United States the labor movement has been dismantled over 30 years through multiple policies, the main one being “Right-to-Work” laws, which have left only 6.9% of private sector workers in unions, and 36.2% of public sector workers in unions. This has correlated as well to a 30 year stagnation in wages, which has barely kept pace with inflation, leaving many with the option of accumulating debt buttressed by a free flowing credit policy. That points to a problem when consumer spending accounts anywhere from 40%-70% of the economy (whether or not you wish to count government spending which is done through the aggregation of taxes from said consumers). Even if the low end number of 40% is the truth of the matter, it is large stake in the economy and plays a disproportionate role in the health of the economy as a whole.

The importance of wage and debt is linked to the economy having a large consumer component, which is basically like the gas to the engine, it keeps things in motion. According to the Federal Reserve, Household Debt is far greater than disposable income, basically at a ratio where consumers are maxed out. Connect this with the Weltanschauung (world outlook) of consumers at the moment, according to the Rasmussen Consumer Index, 61% of the US population see the economy as getting worse. Basically, you have a massive Molotov cocktail being thrown at the economy. The wage trend is not reversing, as noted by Paul Craig Roberts and Shadow Government Statistics, new jobs are typically in non-value added labor (service economy), with an industrial sector shedding jobs as they are outsourced to countries with cheaper labor and laxer regulations (or harsher authoritarian regimes).

When unemployment is calculated correctly it stands nearer to 16-17%, and high-value labor is not returning to employ most of these people, but only the non-value added labor. Without wages and jobs, how is 40% (roughly 5.9 trillion dollars) of 14.7 trillion dollars going to be maintained. Possibly through Citigroup’s idea of a Plutonomy, where the economy services only 20% of the population. However, wouldn’t that lead to political instability in a country that in a form stabilizes the world economy through dollar supremacy and also US treasury bonds (one of the safest investments).

With all this being the trend, and each recession taking longer to reach normal employment levels, where is the social reaction in the United States in comparison to Europe and the Middle East, which were experiencing (and still are) similar situations. A large part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the media who have downplayed protests calling for stimulus and national reinvestment from the grassroots and economists such as Paul Krugman, Josepsh Stiglitz, Robert Reich, and Mike Whitney. Stimulus having the point of proper regulations (neither over or under-regulated, but well regulated), and bringing back value-added jobs which maintain the advancement in Science & Technology. At the same time the media has overrated the Tea Party movement which has been calling for the implementation of the same policies which have been followed since Regean.

These were bad solutions to growth stagnation at the end of the 70’s and still are in the present. Cutting taxes and eviscerating regulation produced large mountains of government debt and has not increased the number of middle class workers (rather decreased that number). Those people, Tea Partiers and so-called Conservatives, do not understand the first thing about economics and are just rabid ideologues spouting words that make semiotics professors mouths’ water. But, not all the blame can be placed on the media, it also is a lack of political will on the part of the politicians, and large propaganda campaigns by corporate America. What has happened is a corporatization of American politics, especially after Citizens United case, but even before, as rampant individualism and greed have taken root into the American culture in a corrosive manner.

A quick glance at the historical record shows that when the elites begin to siphon off more and more of the surplus, social movements were typically the norm. This creates instability and opens doors to collapse of power and markets, the internal structure of a nation. The new rulers are the multi-nationals, and they are not nationalist. As they exist without borders, they are not worried about political or economic instability in a single country.

The new rulers do not have any real party affiliation, and neither party adheres to the political philosophy they claim, they are all corporatists now. And this is the fundamental reason why America is so silent. The people are behind history, they are standing in the trashed piled high by the Angel of History, which always progresses forward, not understanding their old paradigm does not operate properly anymore. They do not believe a government is meant to regulate an economy, that is for the markets. Yet they want a government, just not to impinge on their right to be greedy at all costs.

What then is left to this government that has no purpose within the economic sector?

Militarism and policing, which has never been good for a government to occupy all it’s time with. The other function has been for the government to siphon money through taxes (by having one of the highest corporate tax rates which can be avoided with a legion of lawyers), into corporations. This is shown by the revelations about GE. GE had American profits of $5.1 billion, paid 0% in taxes, and received a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, but I am almost certain it is using roads, electric and water systems, and other American taxpayer produced resources free of charge. So, yes Americans are going the Tea Party route, because they do not trust government, not recognizing that the line between Governments and Corporations have been obliterated over the last 30 years.

What does all this mean for political and economic stability in the U.S.?

It looks like a long brimstone filled road, unless somebody can grow a pair to start making a proper political discourse in that beacon of light on a hill, that republic from 1776. There are many people who are shareholders and need to recognize that collapse economically in the US, means a collapse in their portfolio. And stakeholders as well need to recognize that it is their tax dollars being turned into profits (money begetting money) rather than value-added goods and infrastructure development. These are the last people with any clout, because obviously the rap line is the only mantra left in the US, “Money Talks, Bullshit Walks.”

Otherwise as the system deteriorates even further, massive protests will happen, but with a narcissistic victim hood component where people are finding someone else to blame, ultimately not accepting responsibility for misunderstanding or being blatantly ignorant about the link between politics and economics. With money moving freely around the world, markets will react as markets like to react, dropping dollar supremacy, moving investments to other countries with a better “order”, and leaving a highly militarized and narcissistically angry society holding nothing but guns and their broken dreams.


Andrew Smolski is a Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant at Illinois State University studying in the Applied Community Economic Development Sociology Sequence Program at the Stevenson Center. As well as this sequence, Andrew is currently studying for his Master of Arts in Sociology and is working on his Peace Corps placement for the summer of 2012. He graduated from the University of Houston Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Sociology May 2011. 


His focuses are Sociology of Politics/Economics and Theory, as well as Cultural/Physical Anthropology. He is trained in qualitative research methods and currently studying quantitative research methods. He is a native English speaker, but is able to communicate, read, and understand Spanish enabling better research on Central and South America. Questions should be directed to da.smolski@gmail.com , and with time permitting he will be happy to allow anyone to argue with him, pick his brain, and praise him.

Wednesday, July 20

What a Population of 7 Billion People Means for the Planet | Common Dreams

Common Dreams
With global population expected to surpass 7 billion people this year, the staggering impact on the environment is hard to ignore


by Robert Engelman
[REPRINT]

Demographers aren't known for their sense of humor, but the ones who work for the United Nations recently announced that the world's human population will hit 7 billion on Halloween this year. Since censuses and other surveys can scarcely justify such a precise calculation, it's tempting to imagine that the UN Population Division, the data shop that pinpointed the Day of 7 Billion, is hinting that we should all be afraid, be very afraid.

We have reason to be. The 21st century is not yet a dozen years old, and there are already 1 billion more people than in October 1999 — with the outlook for future energy and food supplies looking bleaker than it has for decades. It took humanity until the early 19th century to gain its first billion people; then another 1.5 billion followed over the next century and a half. In just the last 60 years the world's population has gained yet another 4.5 billion. Never before have so many animals of one species anything like our size inhabited the planet.

And this species interacts with its surroundings far more intensely than any other ever has. Planet Earth has become Planet Humanity, as we co-opt its carbon, water, and nitrogen cycles so completely that no other force can compare. For the first time in life's 3-billion-plus-year history, one form of life — ours — condemns to extinction significant proportions of the plants and animals that are our only known companions in the universe.

Did someone just remark that these impacts don't stem from our population, but from our consumption? Probably, as this assertion emerges often from journals, books, and the blogosphere. It's as though a geometry text were to propound the axiom that it is not length that determines the area of a rectangle, but width. Would we worry about our individual consumption of energy and natural resources if humanity still had the stable population of roughly 300 million people — less than today's U.S. number — that the species maintained throughout the first millennium of the current era?

It is precisely because our population is so large and growing so fast that we must care, ever more with each generation, how much we as individuals are out of sync with environmental sustainability. Our diets, our modes of moving, and our urge to keep interior temperatures close to 70 degrees Fahrenheit no matter what is happening outside — none of these make us awful people. It's just that collectively, these behaviors are moving basic planetary systems into danger zones.

Yet another argument often advanced to wave off population is the assertion that all of us could fit into Los Angeles with room to wiggle our shoulders. The image may comfort some. But space, of course, has never been the issue. The impacts of our needs, greeds, and wants are. We should bemoan — and aggressively address — the gross inequity that characterizes individual consumption around the world. But we should also acknowledge that over the decades-long span of most human lifetimes, most of us are likely to consume a fair amount, regardless of where and how we live; no human being, no matter how poor, can escape interacting with the environment, which is one reason population matters so much. And given the global economic system and the development optimistically anticipated in all regions of the world, we each have a tendency to consume more as that lifetime proceeds. A parent of seven poor children may be the grandparent of 10 to 15 much more affluent ones climbing up the ladder of middle-class consumption.

This, in fact, is the story of China, often seen not as an example of population's impact on the environment but that of rapid industrialization alone. Yet this one country, having grown demographically for millennia, is home to 1.34 billion people. One reason the growth even of low-consuming populations is hazardous is that bursts of per-capita consumption have typically followed decades of rapid demographic growth that occurred while per-capita consumption rates were low. Examples include the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, China at the turn of the 21st, and India possibly in the coming decade. More immediately worrisome from an environmental perspective, of course, is that the United States and the industrialized world as a whole still have growing populations, despite recent slowdowns in the growth rate, while already living high up on the per-capita consumption ladder.

Many of the impacts of this ubiquitous multiplication of per-capita resource consumption by the number of individuals are by now well documented. Humanity started to overwhelm the atmosphere with greenhouse gases not long after the Industrial Revolution began, a process that accelerated along with population and consumption growth in the 20th century. Fresh water is now shared so thinly that the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) projects that in just 14 years two thirds of the world's population will be living in countries facing water scarcity or stress. Half of the world's original forests have been cleared for human land use, and UNEP warns that the world's fisheries will be effectively depleted by mid-century. The world's area of cultivated land has expanded by about 13 percent since its measurement began in 1961, but the doubling of world population since then means that each of us can count on just half as much land as in 1961 to produce the food we eat.

For the rest of life on Earth, the implications of all this are obvious. Where we go, nature retreats. We are entering an epoch scientists have begun calling the Anthropocene, a break with the geologic past marked by humanity's long-term alteration of the natural world and its biota. We are inadvertently bringing on the sixth mass extinction not just because our appetites are vast and our technologies powerful, but because we occupy or manipulate most of the land in every continent except Antarctica. We appropriate anywhere from 24 percent to nearly 40 percent of the photosynthetic output of the planet for our food and other purposes, and more than half of its accessible renewable freshwater runoff.

Given these facts, it's hardly surprising that wildlife conservation faces an uphill battle globally and in every nation, while ambitious concepts like the creation of wildlife corridors to help species escape the ravages of development and climate change proliferate despite their impracticality in a world of growing human impacts.

So should we be afraid on the day we gain a 7 billionth living human being, especially considering UN demographers are now projecting anywhere between 6.2 billion and 15.8 billion people at the end of the century? Fear is not a particularly productive response — courage and a determination to act in the face of risk are the answer. And in this case, there is so much to be done to heal and make sustainable a world of 7 billion breathing human beings that cowering would be not just fatalistic but stupid.

Action means doing a lot of different things right now. We can't stop the growth of our numbers in any acceptable way immediately. But we can put in place conditions that will support an early end to growth, possibly making this year's the last billion-population day we ever mark. We can elevate the autonomy of women to make life-changing decisions for themselves. We can lower birth rates by assuring that women become pregnant only when they themselves decide to bear a child.

Simultaneously, we need a swift transformation of energy, water, and materials consumption through conservation, efficiency, and green technologies. We shouldn't think of these as a sequence of efforts — dealing with consumption first, because population dynamics take time to turn around — but as simultaneous work on multiple fronts. It would be naïve to believe we will arrive at sustainability by wrestling shifting technologies and lifestyles while human population grows indefinitely and most people strive to live as comfortably as Americans do. Nor should we take comfort in the illusion that population growth is already on a path to end soon. Demographers can no more tell us when that will happen (or through what combination of lower birth rates or higher death rates) than economists can predict when robust global economic growth will resume. Both expert groups are mocked by the many surprises the future holds in store.

Rather than forecast the future, we should work to secure it. More than two in five pregnancies worldwide are unintended by the women who experience them, and half or more of these pregnancies result in births that spur continued population growth. Clearly there is vast potential to slow that growth through something women want and need: the capacity to decide for themselves when to become pregnant. If all women had this capacity, survey data affirm, average global childbearing would immediately fall below the "replacement fertility" value of slightly more than two children per woman. Population would immediately move onto a path leading to a peak followed by a gradual decline, possibly well before 2050.

Despite the obvious barriers to women's rights in today's world, such a vision rests on a set of straightforward and achievable conditions: Women must be able to make their own decisions free from fear of coercion or pressure from partners, family, and society. They must not depend on prolific motherhood for social approval and self-esteem. And they must have easy access to a range of safe, effective, and affordable contraceptive methods and the information and counseling needed to use them.

For those who care about the environment, the future of human civilization, or both, the Day of 7 Billion should prod us to face and address the risks of continued population growth. By the sheer scale of our presence and activity we are putting ourselves and all life at risk. No human being has the right to consume forever more than any other. Yet if we could somehow close the global consumption gap, the importance of our numbers would be even more obvious as the limits of natural systems were crossed. It scarcely lessens the importance of reducing both consumption and inequity to celebrate the fact that population growth can end without policies that restrict births, without coercion of any kind, without judgments on those who choose large families. We are not far from a world in which the number of births roughly balances the number of deaths, based on pregnancies universally welcomed by women and their partners.

The transition to this world may not be entirely painless. Nations will have to adjust to rising average ages as birth rates descend further. In China and India, smaller families may contribute to artificially high ratios of baby boys, with possible risks to future social stability. But these problems are the kind that societies and institutions are generally good at handling. Stopping climate change, reducing water scarcity, or keeping ecosystems intact, by contrast, don't yet seem to be in our skill set. Working now to bring population growth to an end through intentional childbearing won't solve such problems by itself, but it will help — a lot. And such an effort, based on human rights and the dignity and freedom of the world's childbearers, is in the interest of all who care about a truly sustainable environment and human future.

© 2011 Yale Environment 360


Robert Engelman Robert Engelman is executive director of the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. The Population Institute awarded his book, More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want, the Global Media Award for Individual Reporting in 2008. A former newspaper reporter who covered science and politics, Engelman served on the faculty of Yale University as a visiting lecturer in the early 2000s and was founding secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...