We said earlier the person who does about turn will be done for perjury and charged with the Penal code. Perjury is a crime (also called forswearing ) is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

Karpal said,''“One cannot just make such a declaration and later withdraw it and such an act amounted to giving false evidence, an offence which carries a maximum of seven years' jail”. He went on to say it was baffling that the private investigator was now claiming he made the declaration under duress.

Even Kuala Lumpur Bar criminal practice committee chairperson N Sivananthan also said Balasubramaniam has committed an offence for making conflicting SD in relation to the ongoing Altantuya murder trial. There are many questions being asked amongst which are ,"whether Bala was going to be prosecuted.?"

This prompted the Deputy Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar that the police will continue to carry out their investigations as there might be hidden motives involved. But mind you when you read the Statutory declaration we were informed that Bala has been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981. He was subsequently promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998. (17 years in the force he must know a thing or two). Is he trying to tests our intelligence?

In his first report (No 1)it ended with (when I was with the Special Branch) and in the second declaration (No.1) this was omitted(Special branch). Purposely or is it just another mistake? There are so many conspiracy claims,personal smears and allegations and there is even one which the spindoctors calls it a "tag team."

Badawi/Anwar versus Mahathir/Najib. Anwars fight is all out against Mahathir while Mahathir needs to get Najib on the throne to protect his good name and cover his wrongs in 26 years in office. Badawi who saw the release of Anwar needs Anwar to go all out to clear all Mahathirs man and also to look after his son in law KJ. Najib seems to be checkmate by Badawi.Can this happen...? If we have not seen it, it is only because the day of reckoning has not arrived just yet. Afterall the plot is all about the national drama,Bala and Saiful please step aside this is the Number One Hit " Malaysiaboleh".................

---though [the McCain advisers] admitted that this, too, had proved insufficient for Clinton.

This is beneath comment. Back to Healy:

McCain has also sought to make an issue out of Obama's refusal to meet him for weekly debates around the country - a bone that Clinton picked with Obama before the Wisconsin primary in February, including in television advertisements she blanketed the state with. Obama won Wisconsin by 17 percentage points.

While the shake-up of McCain's campaign strategy team on Wednesday was heartening to several Republicans, they also noted that President George W. Bush's re-election campaign had already settled on an effective argument against Kerry by late spring of 2004 - branding him daily as a flip-flopper and inauthentic. The McCain campaign's allowing months to pass without similarly defining Obama somehow has frustrated Republicans more than, say, Obama's strong fundraising or Democratic Party unity.

Aides to McCain said Obama's comments about Iraq on Thursday provided perhaps their best opening yet to diminish his image. At the same time, they said they were trying to be careful about overreaching, noting that McCain has pledged to run a "respectful" campaign [...]

N.

1. Chris Kaman
2. Wally Szczerbiak
3. Kirk Hinrich
4. Mike Miller
5. David Lee
6. Brad Miller
7. Mike Dunleavy jr.
8. Brent Barry
9. Jason Williams
10. Luke Ridnour
11. Raef Lafrentz
12. Kevin Love
13. Joe Alexander
14. Kyle Korver
15. Jason Kapono
16. Matt Harpring
17. Adam Morrison
18. Luke Walton
19. Spencer Hawes
20. JJ Redick
21. Brook Lopez
22. Robin Lopez
23. Troy Murphy
24. Nick Collison
25. Dan Dickau
26. Scot Pollard
27. Eric Piatkowski
28. Joel Przybilla
29. Matt Carroll
30. Robert Swift
31. Chris Mihm
32. Travis Diener
33. Michael Doleac
34. Austin Croshere
35. Jake Voskuhl
36. Pat Garrity
37. Chris Anderson
38. Jason Smith
39. Kris Humphries
40. Chris Quinn
41. Aaron Gray
42. Ryan Anderson
43. Steve Novak
44. Casey Jacobsen
45. Nick Fazekas
46. Louis Amundson
47. Josh McRoberts
48. Mark Madsen
49. Ryan Bowen
50. Brian Cardinal
51. Brian Scalabrine
52. Shavlik Randolph
53. Coby Karl
54. Maarty Leunen

Kaman wins the title.

If Kevin Love though only a rookie if he plays well he might win the title in a few years.

Is Joe Alexander the next Larry Bird?

Of particular surprise to me was it’s assertion that the commonly heard phrase “separation of Church and state” is nowhere to be found in either the Constitution or any of the founding documents. It is actually taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson which was an assurance to some religious believers about something which I can’t quite remember clearly. I think it was a fear based on some document that the government might either at present or in the future feel that it has the right to interfere somehow with the Church in some adverse manner. Regardless the film made a good case that the phrase as it is currently used is completely ignoring the context, and that when it was used in some fateful Supreme Court case involving I think it was school prayer in the 1960s, it was the first time that the phrase was used in the Supreme Court with such a disregard for its context. It seemed the phrase had been used in the Court in the past for very different and more “Church friendly” purposes. And I think it mentioned one or more instances where in such times the phrase was used with more of the surrounding text from the letter. So I found all that very intriguing.

I was also very surprised to learn that the Supreme Court in an 1892 case “Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States” had ruled that “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people… This is a Christian nation.” [I wrote it down while watching it I was so surprised.]
The Court provided 87 precedents to support its conclusions. The Court quoted the Founding Fathers; it quoted the acts of the Founding Fathers; it quoted the acts of the Congresses; it quoted the acts of the state governments, and so on. At the end of 87 precedents the Court explained that it could continue to cite many additional precedents, but that certainly, 87 were sufficient to conclude that we were a Christian nation. Interestingly, [I’m pretty sure I remember this correctly, but not 100%] the previously mentioned 1960s case was the first Supreme Court ruling to use 0 (as in zero) precedents as support for its decision.

The final factoid I felt like writing about is really just a quote I found to be powerful by George Washington from his Farewell Address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”

The film had many more points to make about such things as separation of Church and state, Supreme Court decisions, the Founding Fathers and other things besides. It makes a good case for America's heritage being a Godly and even more specifically a Christian one, and has some things to say about the nations present situation as well. I highly recommend the film.

And now for a couple of poems appropriate to Independence Day which I couldn’t decide between.

The First I copied from this site.

The States
Edgar Guest

There is no star within the flag
That's brighter than its brothers,
And when of Michigan I brag,
I'm boasting of the others.
Just which is which no man can say —
One star for every state
Gleams brightly on our flag today,
And every one is great.

The stars that gem the skies at night
May differ in degree,
And some are pale and some are bright,
But in our flag we see
A sky of blue wherein the stars
Are equal in design;
Each has the radiance of Mars
And all are yours and mine.

The glory that is Michigan's
Is Colorado's too;
The same sky Minnesota spans,
The same sun warms it through;
And all are one beneath the flag,
A common hope is ours;
Our country is the mountain crag,
The valley and its flowers.

The land we love lies far away
As well as close at hand;
He has no vision who would say:
This state's my native land.
Though sweet the charms he knows the best,
Deep down within his heart
The farthest east, the farthest west
Of him must be a part.

There is no star within the flag
That's brighter than its brothers;
So when of Michigan I brag
I'm boasting of the others.
We share alike one purpose true;
One common end awaits;
We must in all we dream or do
Remain United States.

The second one I copied from this site.

RAGGED OLD FLAG

I walked through a county courthouse square,
On a park bench an old man was sitting there.
I said, "Your old courthouse is kinda run down."
He said, "Naw, it'll do for our little town."
I said, "Your flagpole has leaned a little bit,
And that's a Ragged Old Flag you got hanging on it.

He said, "Have a seat", and I sat down.
"Is this the first time you've been to our little town?"
I said, "I think it is." He said, "I don't like to brag,
But we're kinda proud of that Ragged Old Flag."

"You see, we got a little hole in that flag there
When Washington took it across the Delaware.
And it got powder-burned the night Francis Scott Key
Sat watching it writing _Oh Say Can You See_.
And it got a bad rip in New Orleans
With Packingham and Jackson tuggin' at its seams."

"And it almost fell at the Alamo
Beside the Texas flag, but she waved on through.
She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville
And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill.
There was Robert E. Lee, Beauregard, and Bragg,
And the south wind blew hard on that Ragged Old Flag."

"On Flanders Field in World War I
She got a big hole from a Bertha gun.
She turned blood red in World War II
She hung limp and low by the time it was through.
She was in Korea and Vietnam.
She went where she was sent by her Uncle Sam."

"She waved from our ships upon the briny foam,
And now they've about quit waving her back here at home.
In her own good land she's been abused --
She's been burned, dishonored, denied and refused."

"And the government for which she stands
Is scandalized throughout the land.
And she's getting threadbare and wearing thin,
But she's in good shape for the shape she's in.
'Cause she's been through the fire before
And I believe she can take a whole lot more."

"So we raise her up every morning,
Take her down every night.
We don't let her touch the ground
And we fold her up right.
On second thought I DO like to brag,
'Cause I'm mighty proud of that Ragged Old Flag."

Written by Johnny Cash

This is to our knowledge the only poem ever written by Johnny Cash that was not intended to be sung. He has performed this a number of times at the "Pops Goes the Fourth" concerts in Boston on the 4th of July. His book *Man In Black* reveals the inspiration behind it. Hope everyone else enjoys this as much as I do.

People actually clap after the next one, they should have clapped for Bill instead!

"There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

"I'm a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners or niggers."

"The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."

"The New York Times and The Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves."

"I have tried at every point to seek God's wisdom on the decisions I made, and I made it my business to speak up on behalf of the things God tells us are important to Him."

"White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories?"

"Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."

Digg it!   Stumble it!

One of guys mentioned how sick he was of flag waving and bumper ribbons and endless talk of Obama wearing or not wearing a lapel pin. He’s having a really hard time with the VA and would much rather hear about that. He can’t pay his bills and he’s terribly worried about his daughter and her kids – her husband is on his second tour and she’s having a rough time holding it all together.

"Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong." – James Bryce

When he mentioned not being able to pay his bills one of the others talked about how hard it was to stick it out with his part-time job. He needed it to pay for gas and heating oil and he was damned if he was going to lose his house at this point in his life. He wondered aloud who was responsible for this mess.

“In any free society where terrible wrongs exist, some are guilty - all are responsible”. Abraham Heschel

I said I was sick of looking backwards, unless there was going to be impeachment, I’d rather look forward and hang on to some hope for things to get better. My second job is killing me too.

“Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence.” ~Lin Yutang

She'll make you smile and make you think. What more can you possibly ask?

"I am the president. Everybody has to accept that if they want dialogue," he told thousands of cheering supporters. The opposition pulled out of last Friday's presidential run-off, citing violence in a campaign. It says 5,000 of its members are still missing. Nigeria has joined a small group of African states criticising the poll.

"We express our strong displeasure at the process leading to the election and its outcome," said Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe.

"We therefore do not consider the outcome of that election as a basis for moving forward."

On Friday, Botswana - the African country to take the toughest stance against Mr Mugabe - urged Zimbabwe's neighbours not to recognise the election result.

The comments came as the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) accused the government of trying to wipe out the parliamentary majority that it won in March.

The party holds a majority of 10 seats in the 210-seat parliament.

But at least 10 of its newly elected MPs are either in prison or wanted by the police on a range of charges, the BBC's Peter Greste reports from Johannesburg.

Zimbabwe's state-run Herald newspaper reported that one MP was wanted for provoking political violence and he is now on the run.

The MDC said another of its MPs had been abducted, while 53 are fighting court challenges to their electoral victories.

Hero's welcome

Mr Mugabe spoke on Friday on his return to Zimbabwe from an African Union summit in Egypt, where African leaders called for a unity government.

But he said that the votes of those who supported him in the run-off "can never be rejected by anyone".

"We will reject that rejection ourselves, we will never accept it. And that is what I told the African Union."

He also said that MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his supporters "must disabuse themselves of their claim (to power)".

"We are open to dialogue but reality is reality and it has to be accepted... I am the president of the Republic of Zimbabwe."

Mr Mugabe's movements since the summit have not been reported.

Zimbabwean journalist Brian Hungwe said ruling party Zanu-PF youths mobilised people in the townships around the capital, Harare, to go to the airport to welcome Mr Mugabe home.

The crowd danced and sang election campaign anthems - some held placards saying "No to dialogue".

Meanwhile, military police have been seen forcibly closing down ruling party bases in townships used to intimidate people ahead of last week's election.

It has come as a shock to many township residents to see the security forces turning against Zanu-PF supporters, beating them up and telling them to shut their bases, Brian Hungwe says.

It is thought that now that the elections are over, the party wants to get rid of the unpopular bases and disband the militia, he reports.

Continuing violence

On Wednesday, Mr Tsvangirai said the violence had to end before talks on sharing power could be entertained.

The MDC said on Friday that 103 of its supporters had been murdered in continuing post-poll intimidation and 1,500 party activists were in police custody.

"About 5,000 of our supporters, mainly polling agents and council candidates, are still missing after having been abducted by Zanu-PF militia and state security agents in unmarked vehicles," the MDC's Nelson Chamisa said in a statement, AFP news agency reports.

Botswana's Foreign Minister Phandu Sekelemani said Zimbabwe should not be able to take part in meetings of the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) "until such time that they demonstrate their commitment to strictly adhere to the organisation's principles".

But Mr Mugabe appeared to rebuff such African criticism.

"If there are some who may want to fight us, they should think twice," he said.

"We don't intend to fight any neighbours. We are a peaceful country, but if there is a... neighbouring country that is itching for a fight, then let them try it."

He also dismissed any threats from British companies to stop doing business with Zimbabwe.

"The British are threatening to withdraw their companies. We say the sooner you do it, the better," Mr Mugabe said, raising cheers from the crowd.

The European Union said on Friday that it would only accept a result that respected Zimbabwe's first round on 29 March, when official results gave Mr Tsvangirai more votes than Mr Mugabe - but not enough to avoid a run-off.

A statement from the EU's French presidency said any settlement should be followed by a brief transition period, then fresh elections.

source:BBC

Have you heard of the political exchange between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?  Well, news states that Obama has agreed to pay HIllary’s several million dollar campaign bill in exchange that she supports and rides along with him to help him in his campaign against John McCain.  Wow, what news that is, huh?  I have to say it is good to see the Democrats sticking together to ensure they make it in the White House this years election.

Good for them.

Visit us at Smart Wealth today for your recession beater!!

In the name of God, the Lord of Grace, the Most Merciful

He brought down from their strongholds those of the people of earlier revelations, who aided them, casting terror in their hearts: some you slew, and some you took captive.

And He passed on to you their land, their houses and their goods, as well as a land on which you had never yet set foot. God has power over all things. [The Confederates, Al-Ahzab: 33: 26-27]

This only left the Quraizah, the third major Jewish tribe in Madinah. As we now know, they too had sided with the confederate tribes against the Muslims, this at the instigation of the Al-Nadir chiefs, particularly Huyay ibn Akhtab. This treachery by the Quraizah, in violation of their treaty with the Prophet (peace be upon him), was a much harder test for the Muslims than the external attack they faced from the confederates.

To be absolutely sure of this new situation, the Prophet sent four of his companions -- Saad Ibn Muadz, the chief of the Aws, Saad Ibn Ubadah, the chief of the Khazraj, Abdullah Ibn Rawahah and Khawat Ibn Jubair -- to the Quraizah to ascertain their position: “If you find out that the intelligence we have received is true, give me a hint which I will understand. Try to avoid affecting the Muslims’ morale. If, on the other hand, you find that the Quraizah remain faithful to their treaty with us, make the news known to everyone.” This shows how seriously he expected the news of treachery to affect the Muslim community as a whole.

The delegation went to the Quraizah and met the people there, calling on them to maintain their peaceful relations and to confirm their alliance with the Prophet. However, they found that the Quraizah had adopted a worse position than what they had heard about. Defiantly, they said: “You want us to confirm the alliance now, when we have been weakened by the departure of the Al-Nadir. Who is God’s Messenger? We do not know him. We have no treaty or agreement with Muhammad.”

The Muslim delegation then left the Quraizah, returning to the Prophet with the bad news that the Jews no longer recognized their peace treaty with him. On arrival, they found the Prophet with a group of his companions. Following his advice, they gave him a clear hint of the Quraizah’s treachery rather than deliver the fact publicly. The Prophet was not perturbed. On the contrary, he said: “God is supreme. Rejoice, you Muslims, for the end will be a happy one.”

In his report of these events, Ibn Ishaq says: “This test was too hard for the Muslims: fear mounted; the enemy came upon them from the front and the rear; the Muslims’ thoughts went in all directions; hypocrisy was now in the open, etc.”

When God gave the Prophet His support so as to make his enemies withdraw without gaining any advantage, sparing the believers the need to fight, the Prophet returned to Madinah victorious. People put down their arms. Back in his wife, Umm Salamah’s home, the Prophet was washing himself after the long ordeal. Jibril, the angel, came to him saying: “The angels have not put down their arms yet. I have just come back from chasing the enemy.” He then said to him: “God commands you to march to the Quraizah.” Their quarters were a few miles away from Madinah. This was after the Dzuhur prayer. The Prophet issued an order to all his companions: “He who obeys God must not pray Asr except at the Quraizah.” People started marching. On the way, the Asar prayer became due. Some of them stopped to offer it arguing that the Prophet had only wanted them to start marching immediately. Others said they would prefer to delay it until they had arrived, taking the Prophet’s order at face value. Neither party blamed the other.

The Prophet marched behind them, having asked Ibn Umm Maktum, his blind companion, to deputize for him in Madinah. He also gave the banner to his cousin Ali Ibn Abi Talib. The Prophet laid siege to the Quraizah quarter for 25 days. When they were in despair, they sent word to the Prophet saying that they would accept the judgment of Saad Ibn Muadz, the chief of the Aws tribe of the Ansar, as he was their ally in pre-Islamic days. They felt that he was bound to be lenient toward them just like Abdullah Ibn Ubayy had been lenient toward the Qainuqa Jews when he sought their release by the Prophet.

When the Quraizah Jews intimated that they would accept Sa’ad’s judgment, the Prophet gave instructions for him to be brought in. His tribesmen, the Aws, tried to persuade him to be lenient. They said: ‘Be kind to your allies. The Prophet has chosen you to judge them in order that you be kind to them.’ Sa’ad first chose to be silent. When he was tired of their insistence, he said: “It is time for Saad to disregard all criticism when it comes to something through which he hopes to please God.” His tribesmen realized then that he would not be lenient. Sa’ad gave his ruling which is referred to in the Qur’anic verse as the execution of a group of them and enslavement of others. This verdict was carried out. That day not only marked the humiliation of the Jews but also the weakness of hypocrisy. Thereafter, the hypocrites were reluctant to continue with their earlier trickery. Moreover, the idolaters no longer thought of attacking the Muslims in Madinah. In fact it was the Muslims who were now able to go on the offensive. Events thus moved in such a way as to lead to the fall of the two main cities in Arabia, Makkah and Taif, to Islam. It may be said that the actions of the Jews, the hypocrites and the idolaters were interlinked, and that the expulsion of the Jews from Madinah put an end to such affiliations. The whole episode thus marked a totally new stage in the history of the Muslim state.

This was the practical development to which the Qur’anic verses refer. The phrase, “a land on which you never yet set foot,” can refer either to a land that the Quraizah owned outside their quarters, and which the Muslims took over along with the rest of their property, or it may refer to the fact that the Quraizah surrendered their land without fighting. In this second sense, the Arabic phrase tata’u, meaning, “to set foot,” indicates fighting, which involves taking land by force.

“God has power over all things.” This comment is taken from what takes place in reality. It refers all matters to God. The surah’s presentation of the battle and its commentary on events are altogether consistent with this. It attributes all matters and actions to God, so that this essential truth is firmly rooted in the hearts of all Muslims. We see how God establishes it in people’s hearts using first the actual events and then the Qur’an as it makes a record of these events. Thus it takes its place at the center of the overall Islamic concept.

In this way, the events become the subject matter of education, and the Qur’an a manual and guide for life and all that relates to it. Values are well established and hearts reassured, using both the practical test and the Qur’an as the means.

©Arab News

But in another way, is it appropriate to place England in the same category as Catalonia or Cornwall; or even to assert that Scotland and Wales are stateless nations in quite the same way as these other entities? There is a difference between the 'constituent countries' of the UK, as they're officially known, and these 'regions'. The difference, precisely, is that England, Scotland and Wales have always preserved official recognition as nations even within the British state; whereas, for centuries, territories such as Catalonia, Brittany or Cornwall have not enjoyed such a formal status, at least not without dispute.

In other words, Catalonia and Cornwall are 'nations' primarily in the cultural-ethnic sense: the people, or a significant proportion of them, in those 'regions' feel and believe they are a distinct nation. That nationhood is identified most closely with their distinctive languages, cultural traditions, ethnicity and common history, which can include a history of struggle to resist total assimilation into the state of which they are a part.

By contrast, England, Scotland and Wales – while being also nations in the cultural-ethnic sense I've just defined – are nations in a different, formal sense. Even prior to devolution, England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, retained separate legal and education systems. One consequence was that they continued to be recognised as distinct national entities, even though the political system and state institutions through which they were governed were indistinct. And whereas they had the same legal and educational systems, England and Wales were also officially acknowledged as distinct nations in a political and administrative sense, and not merely as culturally-ethnically distinct 'regional' entities within a larger nation that encompassed them.

So England may well be a nation but not a state; but it is also a nation within a state – one that enjoyed and, to an extent, still enjoys official nation status, if not nation-statehood. We're familiar with the history: England (which at that time subsumed Wales) was a nation-state or, in the terms of the day, a distinct, united and independent kingdom. After the Union with Scotland in 1707, England essentially retained the same apparatus of statehood and, in this sense, Great Britain represented the continuing English state. The difference, of course, was that this state was shared with, and extended to encompass, Scotland. Accordingly, the name of the state was changed to Great Britain in recognition of its territorial extent and the fact that, nominally, England and Scotland were equal partners in a shared polity; and that therefore the new state could not simply be referred to as 'England', which would imply that England had merely taken over Scotland. While the political reality may well have been a take-over of this sort, the choice of the name Great Britain did in fact also correspond to a truth: that England and Scotland had in fact not been integrated into a single nation through the Union but remained distinct nations in both the cultural-ethnic and legal-institutional senses described above. Great Britain, and the United Kingdom that succeeded it as a result of the Union with Ireland in 1801, was never anything more than a political union; and the nations of Britain remained as such.

What began to happen with the devolution of Scotland and Wales in 1998 was the unravelling of that political union. As so often happens, the politicians responsible got it all upside down. They thought that the changes they were introducing were merely political and would not in themselves undermine the Union, because – as they thought – the 'common bonds' of nationhood uniting the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales were so strong that a separation into three distinct nation states would be unthinkable to all but a fanatical nationalist minority. On the contrary, it was the political union between the three nations – the unitary institutions of the UK – that held the whole thing together: it was this union that meant that the distinct national identities and ambitions of England, Scotland and Wales were set aside because the system of governance they shared was perceived as having worked over centuries, and was basically fair, democratic and free. In other words, the political union held national(ist) ambitions in check; but once separate national political institutions were accorded to Scotland and Wales, they became the focus and instrument for expressing those distinct national identities, aspirations and political goals.

In a sense, though I disagree with the analysis, there is a simple logic behind the claim that is often made by establishment politicians that once England is granted its own parliament, this would mean the end of the United Kingdom. So long as England doesn't jump the sinking British ship, there is a chance of keeping Scotland and Wales on board, i.e. committed to a common political undertaking and project: the British state. However, if England refocuses its politics around itself as a nation – as opposed to focusing it on Britain – then instead of three nations with unitary political institutions, you have three nations with their own national political institutions. And the ultimate logic, so the argument goes, is three separate nation states. (I disagree because it's possible to imagine a federal system in which each nation would govern its own internal affairs but pool their sovereignty to deal with matters of common strategic, international interest.)

But the irony of such a conception of the situation is that it makes Britain re-emerge overtly as the English state that it has always been in all but name. This is because it's England – its commitment and its willingness to put the perpetuation of the Union above its own 'self-interest', if necessary – that holds the whole thing together: no England, no Union. As Scotland and Wales separate themselves off both politically and emotionally from the Union (i.e. in terms of their own commitment to the Union that they were previously willing to regard as more important than 'selfish' national goals), what is left of the United Kingdom, as a unitary polity, is increasingly only England. This emerged in a rather telling way in the government's Draft Legislative Programme for 2008/9, presented to Parliament in May 2008, which formed the basis for a previous post. The document gamely attempts to clarify the 'territorial extent' of the bills proposed. Indeed, different parts of some bills apply to a bewildering combination of the UK nations: England and Wales; England, Wales and N. Ireland; all of the UK, etc. This is of course because government responsibilities in the areas covered by the bills have been devolved in varying degrees to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. However, the one common denominator is that every part of every bill applies to England. In other words, England is now the only UK nation to which UK governance applies in a fully unitary fashion; the other nations having disengaged themselves to a varying extent from that unitary system. As much as to say that England is the United Kingdom; and the other nations are now only semi-united politically with England in that kingdom.

So England was a united kingdom before the 1707 Act of Union; and now it is the United Kingdom: the only truly united and unifying part of a state that the countries with which it was formerly united are increasingly walking away from. So it's not so much a case of England deciding to turn its back on the Union and create its own new, separate English institutions; but rather that, as the other nations turn their back on the Union, the UK institutions re-emerge as what they always were at heart: those of England. Which is not to say that, if Scotland votes for independence in 2010, say, we should simply carry on with the same old political institutions and constitutional settlement that we have now in a rump-UK minus Scotland. Indeed not: this would be the opportunity for England to recast its fundamental national institutions anew and re-invent a proud, English democracy serving English needs and priorities in this challenging period of world history.

But the point is, whether a new English parliament in name as well as deed emerges as a result of Scottish secession from the Union (most likely), or through an equalisation of the present asymmetrical devolution settlement such as through a federation (unlikely but the only way to save common British institutions and statehood of any sort), this parliament will be the expression of a nation – England – that has always maintained its existence as a formal, political and juridical, nation, and not just a nation defined in cultural and ethnic terms. In fact, those who would seek to limit their definition and understanding of England and the English to such cultural and / or ethnic terms are actually contributing to the marginalisation of England within the British state and are making the possibility of English self-governance more, not less, remote. This is because, if the English are a nation only or primarily in the cultural-ethnic sense, then it can be argued that they have no special claim to be marked out from any other cultural or ethnic group within the British state by having their own parliament and institutions. England will secure recognition for itself as a nation with democratic rights only if it claims for itself the status of a formal – political and juridical – nation; and if it forces the British state to accept it as such. So, in a sense, in order to be acknowledged in the future as a nation with official status as a state or part of a state, England must be accepted as having always been such a nation – a polity, kingdom, and civic nation, in short – and that the British phase of its history was one where its civic identity was subsumed into Britain; but its national identity was unchanged.

England is indeed a nation with a culture, traditions, history and ethnic mix that is all its own, and of which it can be proud. But it is so much more than that: it's a political and legal entity with a proud past, submerged present, and promising future. We're England – not Catalonia or Brittany. And not Britain.

We'd seen the first two before, but not this one, and this one's the best...

by William Blum
www.killinghope.org
July 4, 2008

The Anti-Empire Report

Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life

Some thoughts on "patriotism" written on July 4

Most important thought: I'm sick and tired of this thing called "patriotism".

The Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were being patriotic. The German people who supported Hitler and his conquests were being patriotic, fighting for the Fatherland. All the Latin American military dictators who overthrew democratically-elected governments and routinely tortured people were being patriotic -- saving their beloved country from "communism".

General Augusto Pinochet of Chile: "I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country."[1]

P.W. Botha, former president of apartheid South Africa: "I am not going to repent. I am not going to ask for favours. What I did, I did for my country."[2]

Pol Pot, mass murderer of Cambodia: "I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country."[3]

Tony Blair, former British prime minister, defending his role in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis: "I did what I thought was right for our country."[4]

I won't bore you with what George W. has said.

At the end of World War II, the United States gave moral lectures to their German prisoners and to the German people on the inadmissibility of pleading that their participation in the holocaust was in obedience to their legitimate government. To prove to them how legally inadmissable this defense was, the World War II allies hanged the leading examples of such patriotic loyalty.

I was once asked after a talk: "Do you love America?" I answered: "No". After pausing for a few seconds to let that sink in amidst several nervous giggles in the audience, I continued with: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, democracy, an economy which puts people before profits."

I don't make much of a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Some writers equate patriotism with allegiance to one's country and government, while defining nationalism as sentiments of ethno-national superiority. However defined, in practice the psychological and behavioral manifestations of nationalism and patriotism -- and the impact of such sentiments on actual policies -- are not easily distinguishable.

Howard Zinn has called nationalism "a set of beliefs taught to each generation in which the Motherland or the Fatherland is an object of veneration and becomes a burning cause for which one becomes willing to kill the children of other Motherlands or Fatherlands."[5] ... "Patriotism is used to create the illusion of a common interest that everybody in the country has."[6]

Strong feelings of patriotism lie near the surface in the great majority of Americans. They're buried deeper in the more "liberal" and "sophisticated", but are almost always reachable, and ignitable.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the mid-19th century French historian, commented about his long stay in the United States: "It is impossible to conceive a more troublesome or more garrulous patriotism; it wearies even those who are disposed to respect it."[7]

George Bush Sr., pardoning former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others in connection with the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal: "First, the common denominator of their motivation -- whether their actions were right or wrong -- was patriotism."[8]

What a primitive underbelly there is to this rational society. The US is the most patriotic, as well as the most religious, country of the so-called developed world. The entire American patriotism thing may be best understood as the biggest case of mass hysteria in history, whereby the crowd adores its own power as troopers of the world's only superpower, a substitute for the lack of power in the rest of their lives. Patriotism, like religion, meets people's need for something greater to which their individual lives can be anchored.

So this July 4, my dear fellow Americans, some of you will raise your fists and yell: "U! S! A! U! S! A!". And you'll parade with your flags and your images of the Statue of Liberty. But do you know that the sculptor copied his mother's face for the statue, a domineering and intolerant woman who had forbidden another child to marry a Jew?

"Patriotism," Dr. Samuel Johnson famously said, "is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Ambrose Bierce begged to differ -- It is, he said, the first.

"Patriotism is the conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." George Bernard Shaw

"Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side. ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell[9]

"Pledges of allegiance are marks of totalitarian states, not democracies," says David Kertzer, a Brown University anthropologist who specializes in political rituals. "I can't think of a single democracy except the United States that has a pledge of allegiance."[10] Or, he might have added, that insists that its politicians display their patriotism by wearing a flag pin. Hitler criticized German Jews and Communists for their internationalism and lack of national patriotism. Along with Mussolini in Italy, the Führer demanded that "true patriots" publicly vow and display their allegiance to their respective fatherlands. Postwar democratic governments of the two countries made a conscious effort to minimize such shows of national pride.

(Oddly enough, the American Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a founding member, in 1889, of the Society of Christian Socialists, a group of Protestant ministers who asserted that "the teachings of Jesus Christ lead directly to some form or forms of socialism.")

Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, we could read that there's "now a high degree of patriotism in the Soviet Union because Moscow acted with impunity in Afghanistan and thus underscored who the real power in that part of the world is."[11]

"Throughout the nineteenth century, and particularly throughout its latter half, there had been a great working up of this nationalism in the world. ... Nationalism was taught in schools, emphasized by newspapers, preached and mocked and sung into men. It became a monstrous cant which darkened all human affairs. Men were brought to feel that they were as improper without a nationality as without their clothes in a crowded assembly. Oriental peoples, who had never heard of nationality before, took to it as they took to the cigarettes and bowler hats of the West."   H.G. Wells, English writer[12]

"The very existence of the state demands that there be some privileged class vitally interested in maintaining that existence. And it is precisely the group interests of that class that are called patriotism." Mikhail Bakunin, Russian anarchist[13]

"To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography." George Santayana, American educator and philosopher

Dr. Strangelove

There have been numerous books published on the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. I have not read one of them. There's another one just out: "One Minute to Midnight," by Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs. I will not be reading it. The reason authors keep writing these books and publishers keep publishing them is obvious: How close the world came to a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union! Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., historian and adviser to President Kennedy, termed it "the most dangerous moment in human history."[14] But I've never believed that. Such a fear is based on the belief that either or both of the countries was ready and willing to unleash their nuclear weapons against the other. However, this was never in the cards because of MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction. By 1962, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither superpower could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching a missile first, even with a surprise attack. Retaliation was certain, or certain enough. Starting a nuclear war was committing suicide. If the Japanese had had nuclear bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been destroyed.

Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev was only looking for equality. The United States had missiles and bomber bases already in place in Turkey and other missiles in Western Europe pointed toward the Soviet Union. Khrushchev later wrote:

The Americans had surrounded our country with military bases and threatened us with nuclear weapons, and now they would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we'd be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine. ... After all, the United States had no moral or legal quarrel with us. We hadn't given the Cubans anything more than the Americans were giving to their allies. We had the same rights and opportunities as the Americans. Our conduct in the international arena was governed by the same rules and limits as the Americans.[15]

Virtually every president from Truman on has been exhorted by one Dr. Strangelove or another, military or civilian, to use The Bomb when things were going badly, such as in Korea or Vietnam or Cuba, or to use it against the Soviets directly, unprovoked, to once and for all get rid of those commie bastards that were causing so much trouble in so many countries. And not one president gave in to this pressure. They would have been MAD to do so. Which is why all the scary talk of recent years about Saddam Hussein and Iran and all their alleged and potential weapons of mass destruction was just that -- scary talk. Hussein was not, and the Iranians are not, MAD. The only modern-day leaders I would not make this assumption about are Osama bin Laden and Dick Cheney. The latter is a genuine Dr. Strangelove.

In a few weeks we'll once again be marking the anniversary of the two nuclear bombings of Japan. Remarkably, the bombings are still highly controversial. I believe that the evidence clearly shows that the Japanese were already defeated and trying to surrender, thus obviating the need for the bombings. My essay on this can be found at http://members.aol.com/essays6/abomb.htm

The Cold War was a marvelous era for Armageddon humor. Here is US General Thomas Power speaking in December 1960 about things like nuclear war and a first strike by the United States: "The whole idea is to kill the bastards! At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian, we win!" The response from one of those present was: "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman."[16]

Economics 101 remedial

The economists who defend the perpetual crises of the capitalist system -- the sundry speculative bubbles followed by bursting bubbles followed by a trail of tears -- most often turn to "supply and demand" as the ultimate explanation and justification for the system. This provides an impersonal, neutral-sounding, and respectable, almost scientific, cover for the vagaries of free enterprise. They would have us believe that we shouldn't blame the crises on greed or speculation or manipulation or criminal activity because such flawed human behavior is overridden by "supply and demand". It's a law, remember, "the law of supply and demand" is its full name. And where does this "law" come from? Congress? Our ancestral British Parliament? No, nothing so commonplace, so man-made. No, they would have us believe that it must come from nature. It works virtually like a natural law, does it not? And we violate it or ignore it at our peril.

Thus have we all been raised. But great cracks in the levee have been appearing in recent years, in unlikely places, such as the Senate of the United States, which issued a lengthy report in 2006 (when a gallon of gasoline had already passed the three dollar mark) entitled: "The role of market speculation in rising oil and gas prices". Here are some excerpts:

"The traditional forces of supply and demand cannot fully account for these increases [in crude oil, gasoline, etc.]. While global demand for oil has been increasing ... global oil supplies have increased by an even greater amount. As a result, global inventories have increased as well. Today, U.S. oil inventories are at an 8-year high, and OECD [mainly European] oil inventories are at a 20-year high. Accordingly, factors other than basic supply and demand must be examined."

"Over the past few years, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investment funds have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets ... to try to take advantage of price changes or to hedge against them. Because much of this additional investment has come from financial institutions and investment funds that do not use the commodity as part of their business, it is defined as 'speculation' by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). According to the CFTC, a speculator 'does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.' [Futures contracts gamble on the price goods will fetch on a particular date in the future; the contracts are traded like stocks.] The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil to be delivered in the future in the same manner that additional demand for the immediate delivery of a physical barrel of oil drives up the price on the spot market. ... Although it is difficult to quantify the effect of speculation on prices, there is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices."

The prices arrived at daily on the commodity exchanges (primarily the New York Mercantile Exchange -- NYMEX), for the various kinds of oil are used as principal international pricing benchmarks, and play an important role in setting the price of gasoline at the pump.

A good part of the Senate report deals with how the CFTC is no longer able to properly regulate commodity trading to prevent speculation, manipulation, or fraud because much of the trading takes place on commodity exchanges, in the US and abroad, that are not within the CFTC's purview. "Persons within the United States seeking to trade key U.S. energy commodities -- U.S. crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures -- now can avoid all U.S. market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York. ... To the extent that energy prices are the result of market manipulation or excessive speculation, only a cop on the beat with both oversight and enforcement authority will be effective. ... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC [over-the-counter] electronic exchanges, was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000."[17]

A tale told many times. While you and I go about our daily lives trying to be good citizens, the Big Boys, the Enron Boys, are busy lobbying the Congress Boys. They call it "modernization", or some other eye-rolling euphemism, and we get screwed.

The Washington Post recently had this to report on the Enron and Congress Boys: "Wall Street banks and other large financial institutions have begun putting intense pressure on Congress to hold off on legislation that would curtail their highly profitable trading in oil contracts -- an activity increasingly blamed by lawmakers for driving up prices to record levels. ... But the executives were met with skepticism and occasional hostility. 'Spare us your lecture about supply and demand,' one of the Democratic aides said, abruptly cutting off one of the executives. ... A growing number of members of Congress have reacted to public outrage over skyrocketing gasoline prices by introducing at least eight bills that restrict the ability of financial companies to buy futures contracts, [require companies to] disclose more about those investments or stiffen federal oversight of energy trades."[18]

Some further testimony from the 2006 Senate hearing:

"There has been no shortage, and inventories of crude oil and products have continued to rise. The increase in prices has not been driven by supply and demand." -- Lord Browne, Group Chief Executive of BP (formerly British Petroleum)

"Senator ... I think I have been very clear in saying that I don't think that the fundamentals of supply and demand -- at least as we have traditionally looked at it -- have supported the price structure that's there." -- Lee Raymond, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil

"What's been happening since 2004 is very high prices without record-low stocks. The relationship between U.S. [oil] inventory levels and prices has been shredded, has become irrelevant." ——Jan Stuart, Global Oil Economist, UBS Securities (which calls itself "the leading global wealth manager")

In 2008, when a gallon of gasoline had passed the four dollar mark, OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri stated: "There is clearly no shortage of oil in the market." El-Badri "blamed high oil prices on investors seeking 'better returns' in commodities after a drop in equity prices and the value of the dollar."[19]

Finally, defenders of the way the system works insist that the oil companies have been experiencing great increases in their costs, due particularly to oil running out, so-called "peak oil". It costs much more to find and extricate the remaining oil and the companies have to pass these costs to the consumer. Well, class, if that is so, then the companies should be making about the same net profit as before peak oil -- X-dollars more in expenses, X-dollars added to the price, same amount of profit, albeit a lower percentage of profit to sales, something of interest primarily to Wall Street, not to ordinary human beings. But the oil companies have not done that.  Their increases in price and profit defy gravity and are not on the same planet as any increases in costs. Moreover, as economist Robert Weissman of the Multinational Monitor has observed: "While the price of oil is going up, these companies' drilling expenses are not. Oil can trade at $40 a barrel, $90 a barrel, or $130 a barrel. It still costs ExxonMobil and the rest of Big Oil only about $20 to get a barrel of oil out of the ground."[20]

The above is not meant to be the last word on the subject of why our gasoline is so expensive. Too much information is hidden, by speculators, oil companies, refiners, and others; too much activity is unregulated; too much is moved by psychology more than economics. The best solution would be to get rid of all the speculative markets -- unless they can demonstrate that they serve a human purpose -- and nationalize the oil companies. (Oh my god, he used the "N" word!)

NOTES

[1] Sunday Telegraph (London), July 18, 1999

[2] The Independent (London), November 22, 1995

[3] Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), October 30, 1997, article by Nate Thayer, pages 15 and 20

[4] Washington Post, May 11, 2007, p.14

[5] "Passionate Declarations" (2003), p.40

[6] ZNet Magazine, May 2006, interview by David Barsamian

[7] "Democracy in America" (1840), chapter 16

[8] New York Times, December 25, 1992

[9] "Notes on Nationalism", p.83, 84, in "Such, Such Were the Joys" (1945)

[10] Alan Colmes, "Red, White and Liberal" (2003), p.30

[11] San Francisco Examiner, January 20, 1980, quoting a "top Soviet diplomat"

[12] "The Outline of History" (1920), vol. II, chapter XXXVII, p.782

[13] "Letters on Patriotism", 1869

[14] Washington Post Book World, June 24, 2008, review of "One Minute to Midnight"

[15] "Khrushchev Remembers" (London, 1971) pages 494, 496

[16] Fred Kaplan, "The Wizards of Armageddon" (1983), p.246. For many other examples of Cold War absurdity, see William Blum, "Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire", chapter 12: "Before there were terrorists, there were communists and the Wonderful World of Anti-Communism"

[17] "The role of market speculation in rising oil and gas prices", published by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations -- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, June 27, 2006.

[18] Washington Post, June 19, 2008, p.D1, "Wall Street Lobbies to Protect Speculative Oil Trades"

[19] Washington Post, May 10, 2008, p.D3

[20] "What To Do About the Price of Oil", Multinational Monitor, May 28, 2008, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website at “essays”.

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned. www.killinghope.org

***

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II

by William Blum

see

International Justice and Impunity: The Case of the United States

Blum-William

Two events reported this week got me thinking about civil liberties.

Court orders Google to release information to identify all YouTube viewers

Viacom has been suing Google, owner of Youtube, alleging that Youtube has acted “as a willing accomplice to Internet users who put clips of Viacom’s copyrighted television programs on the popular video-sharing website.” Google tried to resist Viacom’s “request for data on which YouTube users watch which videos on the website in order to support its case in a billion-dollar copyright lawsuit against Google.” Google maintained that “the data should not be disclosed because of the users’ privacy concerns,” citing the (Video Privacy Protection Act) VPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 but US District Court Judge Louis Stanton, San Francisco, found in favor of Viacom and ordered Google to release to Viacom “all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website.”

How many people does this affect? In January 2008, nearly 79 million users used YouTube, making over 3 billion video views. Over 80 million videos are hosted on YouTube, uploaded by users. Not bad for a business founded in 2005, which Google says makes a “negligible” profit. (from Wikipedia.)

Handing over the identifying information on 79 million distinct users is a huge breach of privacy, and unjustifiable given that a study of videos removed from YouTube at the request of copyright holders found that only 2% of them were from Viacom.

Google was apparently hoist by its own petard, having previously claimed in a blog post, titled “Are IP addresses personal?”, that “We . . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot.” The judge evidently reasoned that this made release of the data acceptable despite restrictions of various federal legislation concerning electronic privacy. Many of the comments posted in response to this post disagree. It seems that people using home computers, as opposed to mobile laptops, are particularly likely to be identifiable.

Will this ruling begin another round of lawsuits against individuals, like those filed by the Recording Industry Association of America over music downloads? Seems very possible.

But of more concern is the breach of the principle of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. The VPPA

was passed in reaction to the disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental records in a newspaper. The Act is not often invoked, but stands as one of the strongest protections of consumer privacy against a specific form of data collection. Generally, it prevents disclosure of personally identifiable rental records of “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual material.” [see information at EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center]

The Patriot Act, of course, trumps everything, from the Bill of Rights to the VPPA, but legally it can be considered (and I hope that day comes soon) as ad hoc legislation to meet a temporary need, or perceived need; as something to be retired after the need, or the panic, or the madness, has subsided. When privacy legislation––not passed in response to a specific political crisis––is bypassed or invalidated, that loss may be permanent.

But it’s worse in Britain

Britain may have pushed things along, in the civil liberties, field, with the Magna Carta in 1215, but they never got around to anything like a Bill of Rights. So citizens there have much less legal basis to protest violation of their rights by a government bent on reforming behavior and cracking down on terrorism.

Habeas corpus?

The British government recently extended the period for which it could hold terrorism suspects, without charges, to 42 days. In a recent public debate, the new law was criticized on pragmatic grounds: “The problem with 42 days is we keep innocent people for longer than we do guilty ones,” said House of Commons member David Davis, because those with clear evidence against them were charged first. That, he said, did nothing to encourage “moderate Muslims” to help counterterrorism operations. Davis is resigning his MP position in order to force an election for the seat; he will run (or “stand,” as they say there) and he promises to make threats to civil liberties a central issue of the election.

Watching everyone

Britain has gone into video surveillance in a big way; the BBC presented the finding of a report, that in 2006 there were “are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.” The BBC cited another report issued about the same time, from the human rights group Privacy International, which found that “figures suggest Britain is the worst Western democracy at protecting individual privacy.” The two worst countries in the 36-nation survey are Malaysia and China, and Britain is down there with them in the bottom five because of “endemic surveillance”. Must be pretty safe there, you’d think. Wrong. Some liberals in the London city government used their Freedom of Information Act to get crime statistics: London has 10,000 closed-circuit TV cameras for crime fighting––costing 2 million pounds––but 80% of crime goes unsolved, and districts with more cameras don’t do better than those with fewer.

Recently their CCTV cameras became even more Robocop-like:

Britain is already one of the most watched nations on earth and now “talking” CCTV cameras are to be installed in 20 areas across the country. Britain is believed to have 20 per cent of the world’s CCTV cameras already. The loudspeakers will allow CCTV operators to bark orders at people committing anti-social behaviour.

Photo from Global Security Challenge. (I assume the painter is covering up this anti-social graffiti, or maybe he is the graffiti-ist himself, caught on camera.).

The neighbors are complaining about you...Off you go, then.

Since 1999 the British government has made use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders or ASBOs to control a wide range of behaviors

Anti-social behaviour has a wide legal definition – to paraphrase the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it is behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator. Among the forms it can take are:

graffiti – which can on its own make even the tidiest urban spaces look squalid

abusive and intimidating language, too often directed at minorities

excessive noise, particularly late at night

fouling the street with litter

drunken behaviour in the streets, and the mess it creates

dealing drugs, with all the problems to which it gives rise. [from a Home Office page]

ASBOs are civil, not criminal actions against an individual and thus the individual doesn’t have the procedural safeguards––being charged, evidence being produced, and so on––that go along with criminal actions. What is the impact of an ASBO?

They stop people from doing stated things or going to stated places. They last for a minimum of two years, but can last longer. Those given ASBOs can be ‘named and shamed’ in local media, and sometimes are. Orders have been granted for abusive behaviour, vandalism, flyposting, and harassment as well as more the more celebrated exotic problems such as elderly people incessantly playing gramophones. Whilst ASBOs are civil orders, criminal penalties can result from breaching them.

Students can be barred from attending school, individuals can be banned from a certain area, or required to agree to a contract banning certain behaviors such as graffiti, rowdiness, drunkenness, or being too noisy. Violation of the contract can have criminal penalties, even though the justification for the ASBO itself was never tested or proved.

And how is this “Criminalisation of Nuisance,” as one author titled his book on ASBOs, working? Once again, not too well, it seems. “Hooliganism” is still common, and in 2006 a year-long study in England and Wales found that half the Asbos were broken, and “some teenagers saw them as glamorous....an Asbo was now viewed as a “diploma” that boosted a child’s street credibility. “Some of the friends are left out now because they are not on an Asbo,” said the mother of three young men who were all on Asbos.” Moreover, the report was published on the same day that “a separate study by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggest[ed] Britain’s youth are among the most badly behaved in Europe.”

So, if all this tough action by the British government is just as effective as requiring American travelers in airports to take off their shoes, and randomly surrender their laptops for two weeks...what purpose is being served? Ah, I wouldn't care to say, could be hazardous to my liberty. Here's to the Bill of Rights, and a citizenry wise and bold enough to defend it.

Photos from Breakthroughgen.org.

It is sad that the outcome of the African leaders' summit reflected anything but condemnation and shame on Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe.

Some African countries are ready to defend Mugabe, who rigged and stole the country's general election held last week. It is amazing how some African leaders have the face to back a leader who suppresses his people and intimidates the opposition with violence, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. Last month, former South African president Nelson Mandela criticised Mugabe for his tragic failure of leadership. His comment should have paved the way for other leaders to take up similar positions. Unfortunately, not many African leaders can claim similar status to Mandela. Many are dictators who do not respect human rights and democratic values. Worse, they do not want to be labelled as allies of the West against Mugabe, who was also considered an African hero when he fought for independence of the former Rhodesia.

Since 2000 the African Union has done good work in peace-keeping and peace-building. AU troops have been dispatched to troubled countries throughout Africa with assistance from Western countries. Now the West is up in arms about African leaders who have failed to condemn Mugabe. France and the UK have issued strong words on Mugabe. France said the Mugabe government is illegitimate and British PM Gordon Brown urged AU members to reject the result. The UN Security Council is contemplating a resolution which would call for sanctions against the Mugabe regime. There are reports that Mugabe might consider a power-sharing government with opposition leader Morgan Tswangirai, who holed up in the Dutch Embassy in Harare after he withdrew from the election.

The AU leaders remind us of Asean leaders, who protect their pariah member, Burma. Since its admission in 1997, Burma has caused embarrassment and humiliation for the grouping, but Asean leaders always stand up for Gen Than Shwe's junta. They prefer to suffer at the behest of their unruly member than take a moral stand on the international stage. It is the same AU rationale that Asean leaders continue to use to shore up support for Burma.

source:The Nation

It is with pride that most of America celebrates the 4th of July. While some have chosen to sit this one out (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html), the vast majority of Americans will be sipping sodas and savoring the summer sun in social settings around a BBQ. It will be a gay time for all.

Beneath all of this though, is an underlying current of strain and divisiveness that the mainstream media loves to tout and expand (e.g. Red vs. Blue states, Hillary vs. Obama, McCain vs. conservatives, etc.). Core to this are the social and political movements that fuel politcal debate and speculation. Indeed, these movements are a proud part of American history, but as Thomas Paine frequently likes to point out to me, most movements get hijacked by radicals within their groups. Some cases in point include the labor movement in which the founding principles of a standard workweek, reasonable compensation, and fair working conditions have largely been replaced with demands for non-competitive legacy costs, unfounded rules, and benefits that simply are not sustainable in a global economy where worldwide labor couldn't care less about whether they are changing batteries or cleaning toilets (see http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2008/04/ridiculous_work.html). Another example is the Libertarian movement that has not been able to produce an electable candidate because the party refuses to post a candidate that isn't so far off base that 90% of America wouldn't be afraid of them in power. Similar statements can be made for other credible parties including the Green Party as well as the Socialist and Communist parties in the US.

Mixed in with this however, is a politically correct movement that seeks to limit the speech that Americans engage in making words like "nigger" grounds for international criticism for some (http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape/) and sources of controversial, but acceptable, capitalism for others (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572287/20071018/nas.jhtml). Other words, such as "gay", have been redefined in the latter half of the 20th Century to refer to homosexuals. Though it is largely rejected by the LGBT community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay), it remains largely in the dominion of sexual preference. Can you imagine being named Gay (http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=228705661)? The connotations of the word - transformed in a few short decades - are amazing.

While it is sad that movements get hijacked, there is a subtle side-effect as well, where the language gets hijacked as well. The politically correct movement has not helped this. However, as part of a free country, whose Bill of Rights have not completely been shredded, we as individuals have the right to use the English language in modern contexts as well as antiquated meanings.

Therefore, let us be in gay spirits this 4th of July. Let us find find gayness in the right to free speech and let us celebrate independence with gay pride.

Indeed, I would like to begin exploring a list of words that have been hijacked to the point that their original meaning has been lost. To start the list...

1). Gay

2). Democrat - a proponent of democracy - generally these are founded upon equal access to power in government and universally recognized freedoms and liberties. However, modern democrats do not equal access to power frequently choosing selected access to power (e.g. affirmative action and special minority programs) as well as skewed liberties (Kramer can't say "nigger", but Kanye West can). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

3). Liberal - One who supports classical liberalism including individual freedom AND limited government (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). By in large, modern liberals are fierce opponents of laissez-faire and free market economies as well as largely supporters of big government solutions such as universal health care, social security, etc.

Please feel free to comment with additional words and why you believe their meanings have been hijacked.

A colourful half page advertisement in Daily News says it all. Central Bank plans a new currency museum at Anuradhapura.

This adds to Central Bank’s innumerable current functions; researching oil drilling, conducting lectures for A/L students, micro-managing micro finance, insisting so called ‘good governance’ on others but not on itself, publishing books on Sri Lanka’s heritage and branding those question them ‘terrorist sympathisers’.

Are these what a Central Bank supposed to do?

We have one most over-staffed Central Banks in the world. One Central Banker for every 10,000 in population. Its per capita staff cost is on par with those at developing countries like Japan, Canada and UK. Majority of this gigantic workforce is doing things nobody expects them to do. Why need a Central Bank for managing provident fund? Where else in the world Exchange control is considered a Central Banking function? (Manpower terms the biggest department of Central Bank of Sri Lanka is Security Services!)

Any Central Bank is supposed to ensure two and only two things:

(a) Financial stability
(b) Price stability

How successful in Central Bank of Sri Lanka in these two functions?

Dreadful. I would not even consider a C minus.

Financial stability?

One day we cannot wake up to find our banks not returning deposits due to a financial system collapse. That is why we pay to have Central Banks. They are supposed to guarantee that financial system is alive and kicking. They are supposed to supervise, catch and stop any culprits.

The banking system in Sri Lanka still stands on its feet not because of Central Bank. The private banks are cautious. The state banks need not be cautious because they are backed by treasury – thanks to tax payers. Had it not been for the treasury support one of the state banks would have taken the system down drains long ago - given the somersaults they do. Pramuka Case is adequate illustration for Central Bank’s ability to prevent a financial institution under its supervision taking enormous risks. Attempts to micromanage micro finance (with less than 1% aggregate capital within system) show their ‘expertise’ in financial systems.

Price Stability?

Ha Ha Ha Don’t make me laugh!

As the sole currency issuing authority (Prabhakaran or Pillayan have not got the idea yet!) Central Bank of Sri Lanka is supposed to maintain the price of Sri Lanka Rupee against international currencies and also its own. It cannot control the rise of price of bread, but if everything costs more than what it was last week, surely there is something wrong with monetary policies. That was what Nobel laureate Milton Friedman said: Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon.

Right now Sri Lanka records the highest inflation rate in South Asia and within the top ten countries worldwide. (To be fair, we are still better than Zimbabwe) For the last year it was from 20 - 25%, and now nearly 30%. Markets prices of all goods and services, including essential services are of continuous rise. It has risen to such uncontrollable levels Central Bank of Sri Lanka even unsuccessfully changed the Colombo Consumer Price Index, to diverge the blame. High prices spoiled even the annual Avurudu celebrations throughout the country. Every evidence points that Central Bank is not of control. It has failed to stop printing money (=increasing money supply) in bulk. It has failed to tighten monetary policy. The inflation is so bad the Minister for consumer affairs admits his inability to control prices. A hyperinflation situation is on the cards. This could lead to protests as happened in other countries under similar circumstances.

Inflation is common symptom of a war. Any war needs money, in bulk and fast. The only solution most governments have is to print money in bulk. This brings down the value of money, as there is no increase in the supply of goods and services. 

The negative correlation between the war and economy is not readily understood by the politicians. That is why we need Central Banks. One key role of any Central Bank is to be government’s economic advisor. It is supposed to give independent opinion. We pay for that. Central Bank of Sri Lanka has an Economic Research Department of more than 100 researchers to do just that. Had a single researcher in Central Bank ever pointed out the cause of this inflation? Did they ever advise the government to stop this meaningless war and enter into talks with rebels?

Perhaps it is useless blaming Central Bank as a whole. Its head is a political appointee whose only task seems to be justifying every stupid act of the government. It is unfortunate that Mr Ajith Nivad Cabraal, whose only qualification is an unsuccessful local government politician, sits in the same chair once held by eminent economists of the land. He is not an economist. His knowledge of economics, or rather lack of it, was amply demonstrated when he said he did not print any money and all currency notes in circulation were autographed by the previous governor. What can be expect from somebody who does not even know that in economics ‘money printing’ means an activity far more complex than mere physical print of money?

In UK, the Governor of Bank of England was supposed to write to exchequer informing the remedies if inflation rate crosses mere 2%.  If that cannot be brought under 2% within a period of six months the Governor has to submit his resignation. Mervin King now behaves as his pants are on fire. Fair enough. That was what he is being paid for. Unfortunately no such good governance is practices in this side of the Suez canal.

The evident neglect of duties by head of Central Bank can only lead to a definite economic crisis. What plans government has to stop it? Does at least Mr Ajith Nivad Cabraal admit that it is his fault? Or will we have to continue blaming government for appointing this hapless individual for such a responsible post?

Radio Singapore International

History is repeating itself in Malaysia after former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was accused of sodomy for the second time in 10 years. The country was rocked by the sensational news when Mr Anwar’s young aide claimed that he was sexually assaulted. How will these allegations affect Mr Anwar’s ambitions to seize power from the ruling Barisan Nasional by September? Inside Malaysia examines the country’s latest political twist this week. I’m Saifulbahri Ismail.

The question of whether Anwar Ibrahim is gay is again the talk of the town. The man in the spotlight this time is Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a 23-year old volunteer with the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat. He lodged a police report last Saturday claiming that he was sodomised by his boss. Mr Anwar, a father of six children, immediately dismissed the allegations. At the same time, he filed a defamation suit against Mr Saiful. The 60-year old politician accused the government of fabricating a conspiracy to derail his ambitions to take over the government. Addressing a big rally of more than 7000 people on Tuesday, he vowed to fight every inch of the way to prove his innocence. Ibrahim Suffian, executive director of Merdeka Centre, was not surprised by Mr Anwar’s reaction as the political stakes are getting higher :

I think it’s in a way expected that Anwar will vigorously fight these allegations because I think he can sense that he is approaching power in a real sense that he thinks he has the ability of taking away power from Barisan Nasional for the first time. And he will see this as an attempt to stop him from getting close to forming the next national government. So, he will see this as an attempt against him to personally stop him from becoming the next prime minister.

Anwar, who is the de facto leader of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition has made it clear that the opposition will take over the government before September 16. Although their plans have been derailed by this sudden twist of events, the opposition is maintaining its target to form the next government by September. Yang Razali Kassim is a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore :

He’s free to do whatever he wants, he’s free to pursue his political agenda as I see it. But if he is arrested as a result of the investigations, then that will certainly derail all his plans. Already he has said his plans to stand in the by-elections has been derailed, so if there is any arrest of Anwar Ibrahim and we can expect a lot of fluidity in Malaysian politics.

So how are Malaysians reacting to the allegations against Anwar? His 1998 sodomy conviction was overturned by the federal court in 2004. So it is not surprising that the public are skeptical of the latest allegations against Anwar. A quick survey done by the independent Merdeka Centre research firm found that nearly 60 per cent of those polled view the allegations as politically motivated. The firm’s pollster Ibrahim Suffian explains :

It looks as if the Malaysian public does not really believe the allegations, and also then in the same vein indicates a lot of people also feels that this is a politically motivated issue, that it may not necessarily bear out because there’s a lot at stake with Anwar upping the ante and saying that he is going to take over federal government and so on, and so there is perception that a lot of people who will be at a loss trying to prevent Anwar from further advancing.

Whether or not this public perception changes during the course of investigations remains to be seen. Khoo Kay Peng a political analyst says the stakes are high for all parties involved :

I think public perception has already been formed. The outcome of the case will have a very telling effect on both sides. Whoever happen to be found guilty, I think the impact will be really great. Because I think at the end of the day, politics is about perception. I think unfortunately for this case, public perception has been formed.

If you've just tuned in you’re listening to Inside Malaysia on Radio Singapore International. This week we are looking at the Anwar Ibrahim sex scandal which has sent ripples through the Malaysian political landscape. It is still early days to determine the exact repercussions of the latest turn of events. Some observers feel that adversity might strengthen the unity of the opposition. Ibrahim Suffian is executive director of Merdeka Centre :

And at least based on the signs that we have seen so far the opposition is rallying together behind him and supporting him, even individuals within the opposition that previously questioned him as far as what his policies for the Malay were and so on are now together with him again. So this whole issue seems to be helping the opposition come together and making him potentially stronger.

Still, Yang Razali Kassim, from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies feels that one must not rule out the possibility of the tide turning against Anwar :

On the other hand it could also turn out to be negative for Anwar if the investigations throw out some doubts about his credibility. If that is the case, then he would have to fight in the court of public opinion and he would have to win back the ground and turn it around in his favour. It all boils down the outcome of the investigations that are on-going right now.

For the Malaysian police which has been under scrutiny lately, it is important that the investigations are done in a credible and transparent manner. According to Professor James Chin from Malaysia’s Monash University the investigations have to be done quickly too :

I suspect that what’s going to happen is that there’s now tremendous pressure on the police to wrap up the investigations as quickly as possible then they will pass the papers to the Attorney-General and I think the next big flashpoint is whether or not the Attorney-General decides to prosecute or not to prosecute. This is where the political factor comes in. If the Attorney-General prosecutes Anwar, then Anwar and his party will certainly go around town and tell everyone that it is political prosecution. If the Attorney-General does not prosecute and say there is not enough evidence for prosecution, Anwar will also gain as well, people will see this simply as a form of harassment against him and his party, so either way it looks like Anwar will come out the winner of this whole incident.

During the 1999 general elections, the opposition gained much ground after public sentiment turned against the Barisan Nasional. Voters still remember the Anwar sodomy case and the black eye that he suffered while in detention. If Anwar is again found not guilty, what would be the impact on the ruling coalition? Yang Razali Kassim with this view :

If these allegations are again proven wrong, the impact will be very devastating on the ruling National Front. It could backfire in a very nasty way. In 1998 there was also the fear that the BN could lose and as proven in 1999 the then general elections that followed the BN suffers heavily although it