Franklin Lamb

Shatila Refugee Camp, Beirut

Lebanese opponents of civil rights for Palestinian Refugees often use less objective and more crude wording to define "tawtin" ("settlement") than is normally employed in civil society discussions. During last summer's debate in parliament, which failed to enact laws that would allow the world's oldest and largest refugee community the basic civil right to work and to own a home, the "tawtin or return" discussion took on strident and dark meanings, which were largely effective in frightening much of the Lebanese public from supporting even these modest humanitarian measures. Right-wing opponents of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon often define tawtin during public discussions as "implantation" (as in inserting a foreign malignant object or virus into Lebanon's body politic), or "grafting," "insertion," "impalement," "forced integration," "embedding" "impregnation", or "patriation".

The concept's varied meanings among a largely uninformed Lebanese public have by and large prevented a balanced consideration of the provision in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that includes "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UNGAR 194."

Full story »

Ziad Shaker elJishi

I was asked today how America was going to be under Sarah Palin and what i thought a good alternative to her would be?

America under Palin (or Newt Gingrich for that matter) will be a very ugly place especially for the 80% of the population of Americans who are removed from wealth with a large group of which are of poverty line status or below the poverty line. These constitute the majority of Americans who lie outside the 20% who control wealth and political power in the USA today and who in turn will pay the heaviest and dearest of price for Palin's election. Domestically we would anticipate under Palin that these marginalized groups would suffer tremendously. Groups of the new immigrants, poor White, Black, Latino and others, the poor elderly, the sick, the disabled, the far-removed from wealth and political power would be pushed further into debt, a life-style of consumerism which leads to obesity, more poverty,family breakups, a break-down in moral values, drug-abuse, crime, a life-style seeking instant gratification and constant entertainment, and sickness that leads to death will proliferate.

Full story »

By Timothy Gatto

Americans are walking around with blinders. The current government is no different than the government that preceded it. The country is involved in a myriad of ground actions in countries across the globe. One must wonder if World War II ever ended. We spend an inordinate amount of our nation’s budget on weapons of war, at the expense of a crumbling infrastructure and rampant unemployment. What I want to know is if this is the proper way to spend the budget money we have? I think not.

Where are the citizen’s that realize that we spend far too much on our military? Have they bought into the myth that there are clandestine enemy’s seeking our demise? We can’t even find these so called jihadists that threaten our way of life. This is all a scam to broaden our military capabilities to gain world hegemony. For those that don’t know what that word means:

“Hedgemony is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over other groups. It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group in power. While initially referring to the political dominance of certain ancient Greek city-states over their neighbors, the term has come to be used in a variety of other contexts, in particular Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony. The term is often mistakenly used to suggest brute power or dominance, when it is better defined as emphasizing how control is achieved through consensus not force.[2] Wikipedia’”

Full story »

By Kevin Zeese

On Tuesday, February 15th Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech on the importance of Freedom of Speech in the Internet age. She focused her attention on foreign countries and chided them for curtailing the speech of their citizens.

During that speech Ray McGovern, a veteran who also served for 27 years as a CIA analyst, exercised his freedom of speech by standing and silently turning his back on Secretary Clinton. He was protesting the ongoing wars, the treatment of Bradley Manning and the militarism of U.S. foreign policy. He did not shout at the Secretary of State or interrupt her speech. He merely stood in silence.

McGovern’s action was a powerful one and it threatened the Secretary of State. Two police officers roughed him up, pulled him from the audience and arrested him. As you can see from the pictures, the 71 year old McGovern, was battered and bruised, indeed his attorney reports he was left in jail bleeding.

Full story »

Ellen Brown

"It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that are responsible for much of our current economic crisis.  Every year we ship over a billion dollars in Oregon taxpayer dollars to out-of-state and multinational banks in the form of deposits, only to see that money invested elsewhere. It's time to put our money to work for Oregonians."

-- Bill Bradbury, former Oregon Senate President and Secretary of State, quoted  in The Nation

Responding to an unfilled need for credit for local government, local businesses and consumers, three states in the last month have introduced bills for state-owned banks -- Oregon, Washington and Maryland – joining Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts and Hawaii to bring the total number to seven.

Full story »

Eric Walberg reflects on the reasons for the very different reactions to Egypt’s revolution among North Americans

Western media always welcomes the overthrow of a dictator -- great headline news -- but this instance was greeted with less than euphoria by Western -- especially American -- leaders, who tried to soft-peddle it much as did official Egyptian media till the leader fled the palace. Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak was a generously paid ally for the US in its Middle East policy of protecting Israel, and the hesitancy of the Western -- especially US -- governments in supporting fully what should have been a poster-child of much-touted US ideals was both frustrating and highly instructive.

Full story »

by Stephen Lendman

Numerous previous articles discussed how Washington/Pakistani collusion victimized her. A brief recap explains.

In March 2003, after visiting her family in Karachi, Pakistan, government Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agents, in collaboration with Washington, abducted her and her three children en route to the airport for a flight to Rawalpindi. Handed to US authorities, she was secretly incarcerated at one or more prisons, including Afghanistan's Bagram for more than five years of brutal torture and unspeakable abuse.

Bogusly charged and convicted, she was guilty only of being Muslim in America at the wrong time. A Pakistani national, she was deeply religious, very small, thoughtful, studious, quiet, polite, shy, soft-spoken, barely noticeable in a gathering, not extremist or fundamentalist, and, of course, no terrorist.

Full story »

Von Helman

With no fear of reprise the Nacros have notched up the drug war inside of Mexico to now include an open declaration of killing Americans that work for, or have anything to do with the US Federal government operating inside of Mexico.

On the heels of the recent daylight assassination inside of Mexico of one US Federal Special Agent Jaime J. Zapata and the attempted murder of his partner who was fortunate enough to have survived the attack (but who now struggles for his life in a local hospital), there is a clear indication that the drug cartels mean business and they stand behind their word as the escalating violence has reached a new high.

Full story »

By Garrett Hardin

The concept of the Tragedy of the Commons is extremely important for understanding the degradation of our environment. The concept was clearly expressed for the first time by Garrett Hardin in his now famous article in Science in 1968, which is "widely accepted as a fundamental contribution to ecology, population theory, economics and political science." Hardin: University of California Santa Barbara. The Basic Idea If a resource is held in common for use by all, then ultimately that resource will be destroyed. "Freedom in a common brings ruin to all." To avoid the ultimate destruction, we must change our human values and ideas of morality.

1. "Held in common" means the resource is owned by no one, or owned by a group, all of whom have access to the resource.
2. "Ultimately" means after many years, maybe centuries. The time interval is closely tied to population increase of those who have access to the resource. The greater the number of people using a resource, the faster it is destroyed. Thus the Tragedy of the Commons is directly tied to over population.
3. The resource must be available for use. Iron in earth's core is held in common, but it is inaccessible, and it will not be destroyed.
4. Resources held by individuals, even if the individual destroys the resource, is not an example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
5. Hardin used the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it:"The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." He [Whitehead] then goes on to say, "This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama." Hardin (1968) Once the stage is set in a dramatic tragedy, there is no escape from the unhappy ending.
6. Note that the tragedy does not need to follow from greed. In the example below, we all breath the air. This degrades the common resource: air. But we breath not because we are greedy, but because we want to live. Any sustained increase of population in a finite biosystem ends in tragedy.In brief, tragedy is logically dependent only on the assumption that there is steady growth in the use of land or resources within any finite ecosystem; it is not logically dependent on the conventions of any specific political and economic system. From A General Statement of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons by Herschel Elliott.
7. We can avoid tragedy only by altering our values, by changing the way we live. There is no technical solution.The general statement of the tragedy of the commons demonstrates that an a priori ethics constructed on human-centered, moral principles and a definition of equal justice cannot prevent and indeed always supports growth in population and consumption. Such growth, though not inevitable, is a constant threat. If continual growth should ever occur, it eventually causes the breakdown of the ecosystems which support civilization. ... Specifically, Hardin's thought experiment with an imaginary commons demonstrates the futility -- the absurdity -- of much traditional ethical thinking. From A General Statement of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons by Herschel Elliott. We will not delve further into the ethical implications. They are profound and far reaching.

Garrett rephrased his idea in 1985:

As a result of discussions carried out during the past decade I now suggest a better wording of the central idea: Under conditions of overpopulation, freedom in an unmanaged commons brings ruin to all. From Hardin (1985) An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament.

Examples of Common Resources

1. Air. No one owns the air, it is available for all to use, and its unlimited use leads to air pollution.
2. Water. Water in the seas, estuaries, and the ocean is a common resource. But, water in lakes and rivers is often owned by cities, farmers, or others, especially in the western US.
3. Fish of the sea. Hardin writes that In 1625, the Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius said, "The extent of the ocean is in fact so great that it suffices for any possible use on the part of all peoples for drawing water, for fishing, for sailing." Now the once unlimited resources of marine fishes have become scarce and nations are coming to limit the freedom of their fishers in the commons. From here onward, complete freedom leads to tragedy.

Some History The concept that air, water, and fish are held in common for use by all was first codified into law by the Romans. In 535 AD, under the direction of Tribonian, the Corpus Iurus Civilis [Body of Civil Law] was issued in three parts, in Latin, at the order of the Emperor Justinian: the Codex Justinianus, the Digest, or Pandects, and the Institutes. The Codex Justinianus (issued in 529 AD) compiled all of the extant (in Justinian's time) imperial constitutions from the time of Hadrian. It used both the Codex Theodosianus and private collections such as the Codex Gregorianus and Codex Hermogenianus. From: The "Codex Justinianus" Medieval Sourcebook: The Institutes, 535 CE. Here is the pertinent text:

Codex Justinianus (529) (Justinian Code), Book II, Part III. The Division of Things: 1. By the law of nature these things are common to mankind---the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations. 2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men. 3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up. ... 5. The public use of the seashore, too, is part of the law of nations, as is that of the sea itself; and, therefore, any person is at liberty to place on it a cottage, to which he may retreat, or to dry his nets there, and haul them from the sea; for the shores may be said to be the property of no man, but are subject to the same law as the sea itself, and the sand or ground beneath it. ... 12. Wild beasts, birds, fish and all animals, which live either in the sea, the air, or the earth, so soon as they are taken by anyone, immediately become by the law of nations the property of the captor; for natural reason gives to the first occupant that which had no previous owner. And it is immaterial whether a man takes wild beasts or birds upon his own ground, or on that of another. Of course any one who enters the ground of another for the sake of hunting or fowling, may be prohibited by the proprietor, if he perceives his intention of entering. From: The "Codex Justinianus" Medieval Sourcebook: The Institutes, 535 CE.

A General Statement of the Tragedy of the Commons The philosopher Herschel Elliott states that there are four general premises that entail the tragedy of the commons:

1. The Earth is finite: it has a limited stock of renewable fuels, minerals, and biological resources, a limited throughput of energy from the sun, and a finite sink for processing wastes.
2. Although human activity very often does occur on privately owned lands which are not a commons, that and all other human activities take place in some larger natural commons. And that larger commons is a limited biosystem which is in a dynamic, competitive, and constantly evolving equilibrium. The equilibrium of an ecosystem can usually accommodate any activity on the part of its members as long as that activity is limited in amount and/or is practiced only by a small population. But continuous growth in the numbers of any organism or in its exploitation of land and resources will eventually exceed the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain that organism.
3. Now for the first time on global scale human beings are exceeding the land and resource use which the Earth's biosystem can sustain.
4. Certainly it is true, as Hardin noted, that individuals who seek to maximize their material consumption contribute to the ever increasing exploitation of the world's commons. But it is also true that all who follow the rarely questioned principles of humanitarian ethics -- to save all human lives, to relieve all human misery, to prevent and cure disease, to foster universal human rights, and to assure equal justice and equal opportunity for everyone -- do so also.

From A General Statement of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons by Herschel Elliott. Some Consequences The large and rapid increase in population since the beginning of the anthropocene has altered the global commons. Will our atmosphere, rivers, lands, and ocean ultimately be destroyed because they are held in common for use by all? Will we place ever stronger restrictions on their use? Or will we limit the population of the world?

Its message is, I think, still true today. Individualism is cherished because it produces freedom, but the gift is conditional: The more the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, the more freedoms must be given up. As cities grow, the freedom to park is restricted by the number of parking meters or fee-charging garages. Traffic is rigidly controlled. On the global scale, nations are abandoning not only the freedom of the seas, but the freedom of the atmosphere, which acts as a common sink for aerial garbage. Yet to come are many other restrictions as the world's population continues to grow. – Hardin (1998): Extensions of "The Tragedy of the Commons."

Full story »

by Stephen Lendman

Despite its flaws and failures during America's Great Depression, FDR's New Deal was remarkable for what it accomplished. It helped people, put millions back to work, reinvigorated the national spirit, built or renovated 700,000 miles of roads, 7,800 bridges, 45,000 schools, 2,500 hospitals, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 1,000 airfields, and various other infrastructure, including much of Chicago's lakefront where this writer lives. It cut unemployment from 25% in May 1933 to 11% in 1937, before declaring victory too early and letting it spike before early war production revived economic growth and headed it lower.

Moreover, his key legislation included:

-- the landmark 1935 Social Security Act - to this day, the single most important federal program keeping millions of seniors from poverty or easing it for those already poor;

Full story »