This is the most recent mapping of the conflict. Its roots go back all the way to the fight of two desert tribes over scarce land and water resources. Or perhaps, given the Jewish Diaspora under Rome, only as far back as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which established in Palestine a "home" for the Jewish people with a guarantee of "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Of course, in the intervening years, Israel has repeatedly taken land and scarce water from the Palestinians, refused the refugees that it has created the right of return (thereby ensuring that their lands and goods, if any, become the property of the state of Israel), and reduced the "land of Palestine" to a series of narrow unconnected strips with no sovereignty and severely restricted movement.

 

Click here to read the entire "Eyeless in Gaza" article.

 

How misinformed, dumb and/or dishonest does someone have to be to read Lichtblau's article -- reporting that the court "found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the Protect America Act" -- and conclude that this had anything to do with the "inherent constitutional authority" of the President to eavesdrop in violation of a Congressional statute?  And what kind of self-proclaimed legal expert would make giddy claims about "vindication" from a court decision without at least noting that he hadn't read the decision and making it clear that he had no idea whether this was true? 

 

A comprehensive look into the details surrounding the rumored "Vindication" from the Fisa court.  It's a long but good read, and the comments are coming in fast. Take the time to click through to read the whole story.

Today's FISA ruling: a case study in 8 years of lying and ignorance - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story. George Monbiot  The Guardian, Tuesday 19 September 2006

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable TASSC to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition". In case the media asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of answers, drafted by Philip Morris. The first question was:

"Isn't it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front group for it?

"A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations across the country."

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Click through the title link to read the entire excerpt.

 

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion http://morganmghee.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!182233B6B71469E2!454.entry