Away from computer

I'll be away from any computer until mid July. Hope you'll visit then and thereafter.

Farmingville

PBS is showing the 2004 eponymous documentary about the tensions in the Long Island town of Farmingville. In the 1990s some 1,500 Latino, mostly Mexican, immigrants settled in this surburban community of 15,000 residents. Trying to make ends meet on low wages and in order to have money to send back to their families, they saved money by living by several dozens to a house. Employed mostly as day laborers they congregated around street corners waiting to be picked up.
Residents begun to express fear to pass these men on the streets, complained of noise of trucks coming by their neighborhoods to pick up/drop off employees. Tensions escalated quickly with anti-immigrant protests in the streets, driven by a new local organization, the Sachem Quality of Life. SQL represents the patriotic, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen appalled the the police or INS did nothing to solve 'the problem'.
On Sept 17th, 2000, 2 day laborers were beaten by a couple of neo-nazis. This spurred more local organization in defense of immigrants, including the Brookhaven Citizens for Peaceful Solutions. In addition, the Latino Day-laborer community organized itself, forming Human Solidarity.
In early 2001, the Suffolk County Legislature, trying to find a reasonable solution approves a bill to establish a hiring site, some location that would harbor day-laborers looking for jobs so they wouldn't be crowding around 7/11. Later County Executive Robert Gaffney vetoed the bill, forcing the County Legislature to reconsider the bill. A veto override fails, the hiring site bill is killed, and the community is left with no concrete solution. That is, other than "deport 'em all".
The documentary is quite fair and balanced [sorry FOX], including private interviews with SQL members, anti-hate and pro-immigration organizors, day-laborers, and legislators. Most dramatic is the footage of the legislative sessions and the emotional interventions by the community members; footage on the streets of Farmingville, of day-laborers faced with angry protestors bearing signs and taking pictures of them and of potential employers to supply the INS; footage of some day-laborers trying to get their boss to pay them several thousand in backpay; and footage of the SQL "Conference of Truth", held in August of 2001, that brought several anti-immigrant figures from around the States, including Barbara Cox, former VP-candidate along with Pat Buchanan, and Glenn Spencer, member of American Patrol.
One of the most thought provoking issue is the accusation of racism thrown at the SQL and community members. Many people seemed shocked at the accusation, claiming they are merely concerned about their community and upholding the law. These concerns would be the same if they were Swedish, one woman says. The former leader of SQL explains she came to understand the racism-card is used rhetorically to undermine what they are trying to say. One almost believes them. But hearing some of them describing how they're afraid of sending their children to the store, or how women are sexually solicited by the crowds of men, the underlying fear of the different becomes more apparent. Hearing the things yelled out by picketeers makes it evident. Learning about their uncompromising strategy and their association with national anti-immigration organizations [whose spokespeople are real wack-jobs, talking about a Mexican invastion of the US and a US-Mexican consipiracy against the USAmerican people], it becomes clear SQL was not interested in solving the problem of crowding in houses or street corners and restoring the dream community, but in driving these people out and using it as an example.
See the PBS website for local times or if you want to by the documentary.

Links between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda

There's been some battling in the media and political circles over the links between al-Qaeda and Saddam-era Iraq. It was prompted by the release of an interim report by Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9/11 Commission." The report, entitled "Overview of the Enemy", concludes «There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al
Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear
to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.(...)We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.».
Based on this, the papers claimed "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" (NYTimes), "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" (WashPost) and Sen. John Kerry said "the president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts.»
Bush and Cheney quickly retorted that there is evidence of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. With his usual eloquence, Bush stated «"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.» The right-wing pundits rallied in Bush's defense. Even Putin stunned everyone by saying Russia's intelligence services gave the Bush administration information after 9/11 terror that suggested Saddam's regime was planning to strike against the United States.
Part of the controversy can be blamed on blurring two separate links: Saddam-al Qaeda, and Saddam-9/11. All parts seem to accept that there were ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. But while Zlikow concludes there is «a lack of evidence of "operational" ties between Iraq and al Qaeda», thus dismissing the ties to nonsubstantive, the Bush Administration hypes the relationship into an indictment of Saddam and a justification for the invasion and occupation.
Time put it best by stating «the Bush Administration sometimes sounds like a teenager carefully delineating the different shades of romance from "seeing other people" to "hanging out" to "hooking up."» The 9/11 Commission's conclusions referred to the Saddam-9/11 link. Bush&Co. insisted on a Saddam-al Qaeda linked and that it had never claimed a Saddam-9/11 link.
Now, the Press may have overstated the case in their headlines, and didn't help much to clarify the matter (what else is new). But Bush and particularly Cheney have been playing the 'link to 9/11' card all throughout the war buildup, by consistently mentioning Saddam and 9/11 together they have helped shape the public misconception that the two were linked, even if the implication was never spelled out. «Back in 2002 Bush stated that "you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam in the war on terror." And when Bush declared war on Iraq last year, he sent a letter to Congress citing Iraqi involvement in 9/11 as one of the reasons for war.»(Time Magazine).

« In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."
In January [2004], Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum." » WashPost June/17

William Saffire in a NYTimes OP-ED blames the 9/11 «commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings» and generating uneccessary confusion. But Bush and Cheney have been at it for some time longer. Perhaps Saffire, a former speech writed for Dick Nixon, is joining in the attacks against the commission, accusing it of being politcally charged and acting to undermine Bush. Perhaps he would have preferred it be chaired by the first suggestion for the job, Henry Kissinger.

Science meets Bush politics

The US Senate approved the 2005 Defense Authorization Act defense spending bill for research of new nuclear weapons: $33.6 million for studies of low-yield and “bunker buster” nuclear weapons. These five kiloton nuclear weapons are about half the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. It also approved a Bush administration request to shorten the time required to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test from 24 months to 18 months.

The Bush administration says research into these new nuclear weapons will make the nation's nuclear arsenal into a more effective deterrent. [Deterency works after all.]
The administration argues that these kinds of weapons could reduce the potential for causing civilian casualties and could improve the effectiveness of nuclear weapons in destroying deeply buried and hardened targets.

Critics are concerned that the Bush administration’s plan blurs the line between the use of nuclear and conventional weapons and could undermine the international effort to contain the world's development of nuclear weapons. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, said “We are telling other countries, do not do what we do, do what we say. We are practicing the ultimate hypocrisy.”

A nuclear weapon exploded just beneath the Earth's surface would create a massive crater and would throw more radioactive dirt and particles into the air than one detonated above the target, according to Sidney Drell, a nuclear physicist with Stanford University. For fallout to be contained, even a 0.5 kiloton nuclear weapon would have to penetrate at least 150 feet into the Earth in order for fallout to be contained.
But there is no known material that could be used to encase a bomb that could penetrate more than 50 feet, Drell said, “even if we slam them in at supersonic speeds.”
Extracted from Environment News Service

The Union of Concerned Scientists is running a letter-writing campaign to pressue Congress to support the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), first introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in Jan/03. In Oct it came to the floor and recieved only 43 votes.
The CSA calls for a reduction in emissions of heat-trapping gases to 2000 levels by the year 2010. To achieve this reduction at the lowest possible cost, the bill creates a market-based system of tradable allowances. This market-based system was based on the successful system of sulfur dioxide emission permits created under the 1990 Clean Air Act.
A version of the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), H 4067, was introduced to the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004. While a House vote is highly unlikely during the current congress, the bipartisan group of representatives introduced the CSA to raise the visibility of the climate issue and increase support for responsible action on climate change among members of the House.
Visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website to learn more about this legislation and write your representatives. Their organization has published an Investigation into the Bush Administration's misuse of science, a very worthwhile read, called Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

Harry Belafonte @ Global Exchange

Harry Belafonte, the singer and activist, received the 2004 Human Rights Award by Global Exchange in San Francisco. His acceptance speech was broadcast on Democracy Now!. This is an excerpt:

«I believe that we may march and we may show our numbers in great volume from time to time. We do that. Women marching on Washington in large numbers. Peace activists turning out occasionally to demonstrate their passions of peace. These things go on and we see them. But what we don't seem to understand is that we have not yet, in some profound and meaningful way, interrupted the way in which the enemy does business. [applause] early on, I was introduced to a song in my youth and I was aspiring to find my place in the world as an artist. I remember a song that said calculate carefully and ponder it well and remember this when you do, "My two hands are mine to sell a major machine and they can stop them, too." [applause] It is the stopping of the machine that we seem to falter. For some reason we have not understood clearly what the blueprint was when we recall and think about what happened in the Civil Rights Movement and the Labor Movement and the Women's Movement in its early manifestations. The one thing that all those movements had in common was that they stopped the machine. And until we stop the machine, and in the way in which they -- they hungrily pursue profit, until we tell them you will not turn another moment of profit until you deal with our spiritual bankruptcy as a nation , until you find a new codes of honor in which to deal with the world, we will not tolerate any longer your banks, your institutions, we'll no longer tolerate your military interventions and your military impositions. [applause] and we are ready to put our bodies and our lives on the line to do that. (...) We must just understand that the sacrifice we have yet to make is demanded of us. Somebody is going to have to, in cleaning up the air, talk about not driving anymore. Somebody, in trying to get a better price for good, is going to have to say that we just can't keep running after the fast food market. Somebody is going to have to make a sacrifice. Somebody is going to have to put their body in front of the machine. Somebody is going to have to die. It's the way things are. It's the way things have been. And we, in our efforts to try to change and make a better world, will have to pay a price. Truth is -- we must ask ourselves, are we willing to go all the way? Ask yourself if you are truly willing to die for what you believe and you might come up with an answer that will explain to you why we haven't quite moved as far ahead as we should be moving. What are we prepared to give? What are we prepared to do? And should it be any less than those who have gone before us and who are willing to pay the price?»

A crucial question indeed, that any activist must pose himself, to realize the true extent of his commitment, of his compassion for the oppressed and their suffering, for those who die not because they willingly 'place their lives on the line' but rather because the machinery has engulfed them. How important is it to aid the millions of refugees? How important is it that biotech research institutes study malaria, cholera, and AIDS, instead of penile erectile disfunction or hair loss? How important is it to stop the use of land-mines, kalashnikovs, cluster bombs, and nuclear weapons? Enough to sacrifice a 1/2 hour of reading, an afternoon of protesting, evenings of organizing, a professional career, one's life?

* Remember Florida's felon purge list from the 2000 Presidential elections, which wrongly identified 8,000 Floridians as felons - thus ineligible to vote - and listed 2,300 former felons, despite the fact that the state had restored their civil rights. Despite these and other errors, Florida used a new purge list in the mid-term elections of 2002, when Gov. Jeb Bush was up for re-election. Well, new elections, new purge list in Florida. This one has 47,000 names. But this time the names are secret, because of a 2001 state law the lists are available to political parties and their candidates. "This will make it difficult for the public to discover if thousands more Floridians are wrongly purged. In a close election, a faulty purge list could be decisive." Florida's The Ledger (June 12)

* Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will appear in movie theaters in the US on June 25th! In May Walt Disney Co. banned its Miramax Films subsidiary from distributing the movie before the November 2 US presidential elections. Disney then ceded the rights to two of its studio executives, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, who have associated with Lions Gate Films and IFC Entertainment to distribute the film. But now the Motion Picture Association of America gave it an "R" adult rating because it contained "violent and disturbing images" and strong language. Ortenberg said in a statement the ratings board's decision was "completely unjustified".


* In response to questions from Anonymous:
How much progress will be made in the US towards abolishing the death penalty and joining the International Criminal Court (ICC) depends mostly on the result of the presidential elections in November. Bush as Governor of Texas signed off a record number of executions. Despite the public sway against the death penalty, particularly after many prisoners on death row were exonerated, the Republicans are not likely to support a change in this area. [Check out National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty]. During Bush's presidency, the US has exerted pressure on a number of countries to sign bilateral agreements to exempt USAmericans from pressution in the ICC. This direction was intensified with the 'War on Terrorism'. So don't expect him to support it. The ICC, however, is not a well known issue in the US on which there is strong public opinion. [Check out USA for the ICC]

John F. Kerry is opposed to the death penalty (USAToday)
Kerry "supports U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, but also believe that U.S. officials, including soldiers, should be provided some protection from politically motivated prosecutions." (FCNL)

For information on the legality of the prisoner detentions in at Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Cuba, check out the Center for Constitutional Rights, a NY-based law group that is leading a case on their behalf in US and international courts.

* Human Rights Watch published an excellent report concerning the use of torture by the US, showing how "the torture and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was the predictable result of the Bush administration's decision to circumvent international law" as demonstrated in Justice and Defense Department memos reported by the press recently.

* Venezuela’s National Elections Council has ruled that opponents of President Hugo Chavez have gathered the required number of signatures (2.5 million)to hold a recall referendum. Chavez faces a recall election August 15 that could unseat him. On June 13, Chavez described the recall as a confrontation between himself and George W. Bush.
He said Venezuela's political battle would play out between the US president, "who wants to take over this country, and myself, who is prepared to do whatever is necessary to defend the country. If 3.75 million voters -- the number who voted for Chavez in 2000 -- vote against him August 15, he will have to step down and a new presidential election will be held. Chavez was ousted in April 2002 in a short-lived military coup. The United States quickly moved to recognize and deal with the new transitional government of opposition business and political leaders. But the coup fell apart within 48 hours and Chavez was returned to power after his old army unit rallied other military companies to his defense.

* USA TODAY: Analysts, traders and money managers are fixated on the last day of June. "It is like Y2K." June 30 is the day the Federal Reserve is expected to raise short-term interest rates for the first time in more than four years. It's also the day the USA and its allies are scheduled to hand over power to Iraq's interim government.
Uncertainty about Iraq and the threat of rising interest rates have kept many investors on the sidelines. It would mark the first increase since May 16, 2000, a new trend: the start of a Fed program to boost borrowing costs. Stocks tend to suffer when rates rise. In general, stock performance is hurt by each successive increase. There is also an outside chance the Fed will catch investors off guard by raising rates by a half percentage point, and not the quarter point most expect.

Pentagon Report Allowing Torture

Yesterday (June 7), the Wall Street Journal was the first to refer to a Pentagon report outlining the framework for the use of torture. The report was requested in late 2002, after the military in Guantanamo Bay complained they were not sucessful at getting information out of their prisoners. The report was delivered in March 2003, and in a nutshell says the White House is not bound by any international treaties regulating torture, such as the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture (ratified by the U.S. in 1994). Although its not clear yet whether Bush was aware of this report, its reasonable to think that once the issue of torture, or 'abuses' came up, that the report would have been mentioned in White House circles. The report and its history, plainly demonstrate the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib should not have come as a surprise, nor could they be dismissed as a freak occurence by a few soldiers. In not only represents common practices, but the government made sure that it had a legal defense of torture used in Guantanamo (limiting prisoners' food, denying them clothing, subjecting them to body-cavity searches, depriving them of sleep for as much as 96 hours and shackling them) and later in Iraq.

«(...) at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply. (...) Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense (...) A military official who helped prepare the report said it came after frustrated Guantanamo interrogators had begun trying unorthodox methods on recalcitrant prisoners. "We'd been at this for a year-plus and got nothing out of them" so officials concluded "we need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not." The official said, "People were trying like hell how to ratchet up the pressure," and used techniques that ranged from drawing on prisoners' bodies and placing women's underwear on prisoners heads -- a practice that later reappeared in the Abu Ghraib prison -- to telling subjects, "I'm on the line with somebody in Yemen and he's in a room with your family and a grenade that's going to pop unless you talk." (...) The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere. It concluded that neither the president nor anyone following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute. (...) Moreover, "any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president," the lawyers advised. Likewise, the lawyers found that "constitutional principles" make it impossible to "punish officials for aiding the president in exercising his exclusive constitutional authorities" and neither Congress nor the courts could "require or implement the prosecution of such an individual." » (WSJ June 7)

The Center for Constitutional Rights has obtained a copy of the report, which you can download from their site.

Protesting in the "age of terrorism"

The Group of Eight (G8) economic summit begins Tuesday on Sea Island, Georgia, a retreat for the very wealthy. In addition to Prez Bush, the summit will host Britain's PM Blair, Canada's PM Martin, France's Prez Chirac, Germany's Ch. Schroeder, Italy's PM Berlusconi, Russia's Prez Putin, and Japan's PM Koizumi. The port city has a pop. of 16,000 people, some are leaving temporarily afraid to get mistakenly arrested. Protesters are expected, as in most recent G8 meetings. And more than 10,000 local, state and federal officers will flood the area "to protect the summit and maintain order". Attorney General John Ashcroft said next week’s summit could be one of several high-profile U.S. events targeted this summer by al-Qaeda. This just goes to show there is fine line between terror alerts of international terrorist networks and mobilization against largely non-violent protesters against war or economic globalization. It might seem reasonable to think events at which protesters will be present are also likely targets for terrorism, but terrorism would hardly justify the size of the law enforcement contingent. al-Qaeda has no precendent in attacking meetings of this nature. Security is predictably at high alert, making it a less attractive target, despite the high terror "return". The "security army" is aimed simply at dissuading protesters and guaranteeing these to not disrupt the meetings as in Seatle 1999.
This will be a mere prelude to the security mobilization that is mounting to hinder the protests at the Republican National Convention (RNC) at the end of August. " The Department of Homeland Security has designated the convention a National Security Event, freeing up federal funds for it. The Secret Service and FBI are reported to be working with the New York Police Department to coordinate security. New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said he is concerned about the possibility of disruptive protests." (MSNBC May 4th)
" Security costs for the Republican National Convention this summer will hit $76 million, says police Commissioner Ray Kelly. (...) the police department, which has about 36,500 members (...) will use 6,000 to 10,000 officers to handle the convention. "
The NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Parks Department have tried to prevent a large demonstration by refusing a permit a rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park, filed by United for Peach and Justice (UFPJ), that is planned for Sunday, August 29th and count have over half a million participants. Bloomberg has used bogus arguments to defend his denial, as editorials have argued, "other large groups have used the Great Lawn in the past to no ill effect." (Newsday May 12th), " critics have a right to gather in the same borough as the conventioneers they are protesting. Making a parade route available in Manhattan is not enough. The demonstrators have a right to a central rallying place in which they can speak and be heard." (NYT May 11th), "For the first time in recent memory, the New York Times and New York Post editorial boards took the same side of an issue -- the local equivalent of Jupiter aligning with Mars. 'Keep Off The Grass' appears nowhere in the First Amendment. Former mayor Koch advises Bloomberg to let the marchers post a bond and be done with it." (Washington Post May 17th)

Saddam Hussein

Have you wondered what's happened to Saddam since he was arrested on Dec 13th, 2003? Naturally he's being held in an undisclosed location, held by US forces, and being interrogated. After the all the information that has come out on the interrogation and torture practices of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq one wonders how he is being treated. But what is to be his fate? He's been in detention for over six months now. I finally found some information on the subject. Its been reported that "the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq's interim government on June 30 will include control of prisons and could lead to the handover of Saddam Hussein for trials by Iraqis. 'Saddam Hussein should be handed over to the Iraqis for trial by Iraqis', [said British ambassador Emyr Jones Parry]. Several UN Security Council members have expressed concern that prisoners are not mentioned in the US-British draft resolution on the transfer of soverignty currently being debated."(Scotsman, 4 Jun).
A Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal has been established. Its head is Salem Chalabi, nephew of Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) who provided a false perspective on Iraq's WMD capability and how Iraqis would recieve US troops was the Pentagon's pet being groomed for the presidency. Ahmed Chalabi mislead the US, was part of the interim government, but recently became at odds with the Pentagon and CIA. But that is another story.

Salem Chalabi established the Iraq International Law Group (IILG), which describes itself as "your professional gateway to the new Iraq." Assisting Salem in setting up the IILG was a partner Marc Zell (the IILG's website has been registered in Zell's name). Zell is an Israeli settler of the Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) stripe. Here the plot thickens.
Zell had for many years been [US Undersecretary of Defense Douglas] Feith's partner in their Washington-Tel Aviv law firm, Feith and Zell (FANDZ). FANDZ had been set up when Feith left government to pursue the work of a "foreign agent" representing Turkey and some Israeli interests. Following the Baghdad opening of the IILG, Zell soon opened, in the US, an office for Zell, Goldberg& Co., which promises to assist "American companies in their relations with the US government in connection with Iraq's reconstruction projects." It is interesting to note that Zell, Goldberg still uses the website FANDZ, the site of the old Feith and Zell firm. So when Zell boasts his connections to government, businesses know exactly what is meant. In the relatively short period of time since the fall of the Baath Party regime, IILG and Zell, Goldberg have facilitated contracts in the tens, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. (Arab News, June 2nd)

But there is some disagreement as to whether/when prisoners, particularly Saddam, will be handed over to the Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal. "The head of Iraq's war-crimes tribunal said [May/11] that the United States has pledged to hand over Saddam Hussein and about 100 other suspects to Iraqi authorities before July 1 if Iraq is ready to take them into custody. U.S. officials denied any decision had been reached." (Associated Press) Other star prisoners include Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as `Chemical Ali', and Tariq Aziz, Saddam's former deputy prime minister. In any case, Salem Chalabi has said no trial would start before 2005.

OTPOR

I've used this symbol on my website, my car and now on this blog to represent posts of a political nature. It is not merely the drawing of a fist. It is emblem of OTPOR (the serb word for 'resistance'), the student youth movement that helped bring down Slobodan Molisevic. It was remarkable in that this non-violent movement was not seeking power, merely the overthrow of Milosevic. He did loose the presidential election on September 24th, 2000. He refused to step down from power. But popular pressure, with the help of OTPOR, lead to Milosevic stepping down on Oct 5th, 2000. Graffiti played a major role in the movement's mode of action and their mobilization of the rest of the population.

Otpor became famous because of its favourite weapon: caustic slogans spray-painted on the walls of Serbia’s cities. The first, when nobody had heard of them yet, was the clearest and simplest, a kind of birth certificate: "Resistance until Victory". In December 1999, Otpor wished everybody a happy new year of resistance. A few months before the events of October 5, "The year 2000 will be the one" could be read on walls everywhere. They were right. They also invented a new resistance measurement unit called the 'otpormeter'. After the September 24 elections, the famous "Gotov je" (He’s cooked) became the slogan spray-painted most on walls, staircases and in bar restrooms. On October 5, when a bulldozer broke down the door of the state radio and television headquarters, the government’s main propaganda mouthpiece, Otpor printed posters and calendars with the slogan, "A bulldozer-operator is asleep in all of us." Leery of all politicians, even if they belong to the opposition, Otpor’s new slogan is, "We’re keeping an eye on you." From UNESCO

Uganda: yet another humanitarian crisis

UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy returned from Uganda recently and declared "Uganda is home to one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world today. HIV/AIDS is spreading in the north at an alarming rate and basic literacy is in decline."
Uganda has been involved in a civil war for over 18 years, between the military government lead by Yoweri Museveni and the rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), of which about 80 to 90 percent of whose soldiers are abducted children (more than 30 000 children over the 18 years). The LRA, led by Joseph Kony, wants to replace the Ugandan government with a theocracy based on the biblical Ten Commandments.
According to UNICEF, the situation in northern Uganda has deteriorated sharply since 2002, when the Ugandan government vowed to wipe out the LRA leadership by force if necessary: 'Operation Iron Fist'. The number of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) and those in dire need of humanitarian assistance has increased from 800 000 to over 1.6 million in just two years, according to the International Rescue Committee, making Uganda Africa's fourth largest displaced population after Sudan, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. More than 10 000 children have been abducted since June 2002 - the highest number since the war began. The abducted children are forced to fight and commit atrocities, and are subjected to sexual violence and sexual slavery.
Also in 2002, Uganda and Sudan signed a bilateral agreement giving the Ugandan army access to southern Sudan where LRA is believed to be operating from, linking these two regions both undergoing humanitarian crisis. Kony is believed to be hiding somewhere in Sudan. With very little break in between, the LRA continues to kill, rape and abduct children. In February 2004, the LRA killed more than 300 internally displaced people in a camp in Barlonyo, near Lira town, according to the UN news agency, IRIN.
The military junta, led by Museveni, is no better, going as far as to commit atrocities against villagers believed to harbour or aid LRA fighters. In April 2004, Human Rights Watch reported that torture is endemic in Uganda's military and security forces. Furthermore, out of the 26.4 million people living in Uganda, about 38 percent live below the poverty line, according to CARE.

This post was inspired by Mandisi Majavu's piece from ZNet