julianhopkins.net - Current Affairs

I eat once a day

nospam@example.com (julian) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:28:36 -0700

Well, not me – fortunately I get to stuff my face with home-baked bread and delicious Malaysian food every day.

However, not everyone is so fortunate… This is Ahmed Mohamed Abdul who was a truck driver in Somalia, but had to leave because of the violence there. He came to Yemen and now ekes a living washing cars, making RM5-8 each day.

Source

"I eat once a day, twice if I have earned good money," he said.

"In the morning I eat two pieces of bread with vegetables, and at night, if there's money, I eat bread again with tea.” (BBC)

God is American (and hates Liberals)

nospam@example.com (julian) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:26:36 -0700

I have a terrible secret... I am subscribed to the Human Events newsletter

OK, maybe that doesn't mean much to most Malaysians, but no doubt for American bloggers that would mark me out as a foaming-at-the -mouth right-wing conservative. These are the people who say that McCain "thinks like a liberal" and he is

very disappointing on opposing tough, life-saving interrogation techniques, in wanting to close down Gitmo, and in favoring constitutional protections for enemy combatants.
Only liberals think like that. Only liberal instincts tell us that if we are tough on them, they'll be tougher on us -- as if they need any excuse to be barbaric toward us. They just are. (Limbaugh)

Damn Al-Qaeda loving pussy liberals! Opposing torture - what an idea!

Any way, one of the writers there is Ann Coulter, famous for saying (amongst other inanities) "I don't think I've ever encountered an attractive liberal woman in my entire life.", "It would be a much better country if women did not vote." (yes, she is a woman), and "As soon as the poor start paying their fair share of the tax burden, they'll get a tax cut too." (cited here)

...back to the nationality of God, here is the wonderful example of jingoistic nonsense she started her latest article with:

Last Friday, on the Fourth of July, the great American patriot Jesse Helms passed away. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also went to their great reward on Independence Day, so this is further proof of God. (Coulter)

Anyway... why do I bother reading her you ask? Well, it's always good to listen to people you disagree with.

Newspeak in Zimbabwe

nospam@example.com (julian) — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:40:43 -0700

The [Justice] minister [Mr. Chinamasa] said Zanu-PF would not allow an opposition victory, as this would be what he described as tantamount to slavery.

Asked whether the will of the people would be subverted should Mr Mugabe lose, Mr Chinamasa said: "If people attempted to unfree themselves, moves would be made to free them." (BBC, my emphasis)

In 1984 by George Orwell (full text here), one of the slogans of the Party is " Freedom is Slavery" and in one scene Syme, a colleague in the Ministry of Truth, explains some of the concepts of Newspeak and how it is aimed at eliminating free thought:

...what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good", for instance. If you have a word like "good", what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well -- better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not....

How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' (Source)

Once again, I find that George Orwell managed to define the essence of totalitarian ideology and practice. How it requires an embracing of ignorance coupled with a sophisticated intelligence that identifies enemies and manipulates thought even at the most subtle psychological levels.

Unfortunately, with the statement above by Mr. Chinamasa, we can see that the arrogance and ignorance of those who deny humanity's most intrinsic defining nature - the will to question and seek knowledge - is still alive and well in the 21st century.

Source

Israeli soldiers speak out – why not Americans too?

nospam@example.com (julian) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:41:45 -0700

I read a comic recently, called Palestine . Actually, ‘comic’ doesn’t describe it properly; the author Joe Sacco is described as a ‘graphic journalist’, and that’s what ‘Palestine’ is – a graphic documentary on life in Palestine around 1990. He manages to render the atmosphere of resentment, resignation and simmering hatred very well.

One story that stuck in my mind is that of a lady whose son was shot in the head after Israelis raided the area in Rafah where she lived;

after seven hours, and being sent from one place to the next, they got to an Israeli hospital. He died about a day later, having had no treatment. Later, another teenage son was shot five times – perhaps after throwing stones, perhaps not.

He had been taken to a military hospital in Israel; after delays it was too late to take him to a better hospital in Jerusalem. He died too.

Each time, they were only allowed to bury the bodies in the middle of the night, guarded by soldiers.

Continue reading "Israeli soldiers speak out – why not Americans too?"

Short and sweet...?

nospam@example.com (julian) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:59:36 -0800

Well, not particularly sweet, but it's short and it makes its point - I'll reproduce it in full here:

The Threat of Section 1222

By James Rothenberg

31/01/08 "ICH" -- -- The White House has given ever-shifting rationalizations for invading and occupying Iraq, running the gamut from a claim of self-defense to a purported mission of bringing democracy and thus freedom to the citizens of that country.

Dissenters claim that the two central tenets were instead the establishing of a permanent military presence in order to control Iraq’s oil resources.

Who’s right? The White House or its dissenters? Recently some new evidence has been uncovered. Firsthand source material.

Lets listen to Bush:

“Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008… Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”

The President is claiming that Section 1222 could inhibit his ability to defend the Constitution, so he claims the right to ignore it. The drafters of the bill were also sworn to defend the Constitution. What are the requirements in 1222 that the White House finds so inhibiting?

Here is the entire text of 1222:

No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq

No, this is not a formal confession from the White House. But it is as formal as you can get.

James Rothenberg - jrothenberg@taconic.net
(Source)

I wanted to double check the text of 1222, thinking that maybe the author did a bit of selective editing - but it's exactly as he said, in The Library of Congress.

So Bush is saying he either wants to establish a permanent base in Iraq, or "exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq"> I think it's the first that's the real problem for him, as the second is never going to be done directly and formally, but as much control as possible is exercised via the oil companies that have been guaranteed advantageous contracts in legislation passed by the Iraqi government. See Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity, or Whose Oil Is It, Anyway? (free registration needed).

More war?

nospam@example.com (julian) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:24:29 -0700

I wrote before (here and here) about the American government beating the war drum

The Economist. 27 Oct-2 Nov.

An article by Seymour Hersh gives a detailed outline of American activities in relation to Iran, and apparent preparations for an attack there. Read it: as usual he is lucid and believable.

The article suggests that the Americans know that they cannot sell a ‘WMD’ argument to Americans, so they need some excuse – to be able to attack in defence. Such an excuse could come from events in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even in Lebanon/Palestine/Israel, though that would be pushing it.

Amongst other things, a “European official” is quoted as saying: “once the Iranians get a bloody nose they rethink things.”

Continue reading "More war?"