John Pilger

John Pilger compares the current drum-beating for war against Iran, based on a fake "nuclear threat", with the manufacture of a sense of false crisis that led to invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1.3 million people.
In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.
Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.
I have thought very carefully before adding my voice to the discussion about the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. What I've discovered is that few, if any, have written or talked about the irony of the award, concentrating on whether Obama "deserved" the prize.
It is obvious that Obama has not "earned" it. But that's not the point. As many have noted, the Peace Prize has indeed been awarded in the past on an "aspirational" note in the hope that certain efforts had sown the most fertile seeds in the soil of hope. But y'all know how I feel about "hope": hope don't feed the bulldog.
I think what the Nobel Committee is saying to Obama is nothing less than "Put Up or Shut Up". It is a recognition that Obama talks a good game most of time, even considering the contradictions between what he speaks about on the stump and the policies he's continued or created. The actions don't match the words - it's as simple as that. The Committee is saying, "Look, man. Talking peace and making peace just ain't the same breed of cat".
Truth be told, some pretty nasty folks have been in the mix in the past. Hitler was nominated. Stalin made off with one. Run your finger down the list of 208 winners and you get the impression that the criteria are sometimes pretty questionable. Even more questionable when you factor in the resouces of the Nobel Institute, the organization of scholars, researchers, and impressive resources which advises the Committee on its selections. George Will's recent on-the-air comment about "seriousness" is well taken. So awarding the prize to a man who has done little besides make speeches about peace is really not so odious. At least they didn't choose Ahmadinejad.
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Rush Limbaugh wants to buy an NFL football team after having made bigoted comments about black players. Frankly, I haven't watched much NFL since Warren Moon, one of the great NFL quarterbacks of all time, set records for the Houston oilers in the late 80s and early 90s. Rush probably would not like the fact that Moon is black and few but Rush and other bigots care!
"Professional sports has always served to unite Americans across class, creed and race. Now Rush Limbaugh, whose career is driven by dividing Americans precisely along those lines, wants to buy an NFL football team.
Limbaugh is a racist and a chauvinist. His values are diametrically opposed to the traditions the NFL stands for. Limbaugh will poison professional football as he has poisoned the culture of American political discourse.
We stand with former and current NFL players in urging the league to reject Limbaugh's ownership bid. Sports fans deserve better."
Jews Sans Frontiers
["Land of milk & honey", right? -Well, click on image to find out what's really going on there. Warning: don't click if you really don't want to know.]
How to make the case for Israel and win.
To the benefit of the many not-very-bright zionist wannabe apologists who read this blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear and simple method of arguing the case for Israel. This clear and simple method has been distilled from a life spent listening to and reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow and results are guaranteed or your money back.
So don’t hesitate! Take advantage NOW of this revolutionary rhetorical system that will make YOU a great apologist for Israel in less time than it takes to shoot a Palestinian toddler in the eye.
Torstein Viddal

Dear Sirs / Madams,
while the Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasizes the Nominee’s vision of a world free from nuclear arms as its main motivation for awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Hussein Obama, and cites his appeal that «Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges», it seems to me that these arguments are in clear breach of the very first paragraph in the Statutes for the Nobel Foundation – §1 – and its very first sentence, which reads:
«The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.»
My emphasis is on the words «during the preceding year», which in this case was the year 2008. All the five Nobel Prizes for 2009 are correctly awarded for work done in 2008 – except, it seems, for the Peace Prize, as we shall see.