The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavouring.” MSG is even in your favorite coffee from Tim Horton’s and Starbucks coffee shops!

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and spent years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America .

In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating
obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.

The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing
rats(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the fat rodents they create: “MSG-Treated Rats.”

When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything – the Campbell’s soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the “healthy low-fat” ones.

The items that didn’t have MSG marked on the product label had
something called “Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein,” which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.

It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient list, so that they don’t catch on. (Other names for MSG are “Accent, “Aginomoto,” “Natural Meat Tenderizer,” etc.)

But it didn’t stop there.

When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn’t use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.

Burger King, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, every restaurant – even the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili’s, Applebee’s, and Denny’s — use MSG in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin — their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative, or a vitamin?

Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning
of America , he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.

Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.

A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?

“Betcha can’t eat [just] one,” takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!

MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn’t added.

Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an
addictive substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago,MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals,soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.

The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it’s safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it’s safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like
these:

“The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity.” Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.

“Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats.” Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug.

‘Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors.” Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima. Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.

“Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity.” Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.

No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the “medical research community” and “food manufacturers” have known about the side effects of MSG for decades.

Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb’s book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer’s.

So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see?

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada . While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him, “Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn’t touch the stuff.” But this top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.

The big media doesn’t want to tell the public either, fearing issues
with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.

Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.

But what can I do about it? I’m just one voice! What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?

This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won’t tell you.

The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation protecting those who are poisoning us.

The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?

If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for
us and you don’t believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com. Type in the words “MSG Obese” and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.

We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese,
lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry’s bottom line while waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.

With your help we can put an end to this poison. Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by
distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop this “Slow Poisoning of Mankind” by the packaged food industry.

Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2476838,00.html

Tsvangirai to go to Mugabe bash
26/02/2009 22:03 – (SA)

Harare – Zimbabwe’s new Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai will attend a lavish birthday celebration for President Robert Mugabe this weekend, his spokesperson said on Thursday.

“He was invited and he is attending. It’s courteous on (the part of) his party and it’s in the spirit of national unity,” Tsvangirai’s spokesperson James Maridadi said.

Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe since independence in 1980, turned 85 on February 21, and his supporters are throwing him a gala public party on Saturday in the town of Chinhoyi, north of the capital.

Last year Tsvangirai railed against Mugabe’s birthday celebration as “a gathering of the satisfied few” in a nation crippled by food shortages.

The annual event is organised by the February 21st Movement, a youth movement in Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party, and attracts hundreds of people.
However, this year they appear to be struggling to collect on promised donations to fund the party, in a nation battling against world-record hyperinflation and one of the worst cholera epidemics on record.

Organisers resorted to running an advertisement in the state-run Herald on Thursday, urging benefactors to pay up on their pledges.
- AFP

AMARC is broadcasting from the World Social Forum 2009 from Belem, Brazil.

You can directly go to
http://podcast.amarc.org/Social_Forums/WSF/2009/Audios/AudioFiles/

to download the MP3 files for listening or re-broadcasting from your community radios.

The following reports are available in English language; you can also click
on these links (press ctrl and click) to listen to the programs; these
reports are produced by Shane Elson (Australia), Norman Stockwell (USA) and
Jimmy Okello (Uganda):

1. Amazon_Initiative_Consortium.mp3

itiative_Consortium.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:43 file size: 3.0MB

2. Belem_NRN2_Full-Mix.mp3

2_Full-Mix.mp3> posted on: 29-Jan-2009 at 18:44 file size: 342KB

3. Belem_NRN3_Full-Mix.mp3

3_Full-Mix.mp3> posted on: 29-Jan-2009 at 18:44 file size: 501KB

4. Belem_NRN4_Full-Mix.mp3

4_Full-Mix.mp3> posted on: 29-Jan-2009 at 18:44 file size: 536KB

5. Cibele_Kuss_Interreligious_Comm.mp3

ss_Interreligious_Comm.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:44 file size:
3.6MB

6. Daniel_Tygel_Braz_Solid_Econ.mp3

gel_Braz_Solid_Econ.mp3> posted on 28-Jan-2009 at 18:44 file size: 3.9MB

7. GMO_French.mp3

h.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:44 file size: 2.1MB

8. Global_Climate_Campaign_Fiona_Deer.mp3

imate_Campaign_Fiona_Deer.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:44, file size:
2.0M

9. Grab_1_Evana_Bantich.mp3

ana_Bantich.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 2.2MB

10. Grab_1_Hanata_Hovie.mp3

nata_Hovie.mp3> posted on 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 1.4MB

11. Grab_1_Jose_Sort-hey.mp3

se_Sort-hey.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 1.1MB

12. Grab_1_Sergio_Madeio.mp3

rgio_Madeio.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 826KB

13. Grab_1_Speaker_1.mp3

eaker_1.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 1.4MB

14. Grab_2_Evana_Bantich.mp3

ana_Bantich.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 1.1MB

15. Grab_2_Jose_Sort-hey.mp3

se_Sort-hey.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 827KB

16. Grab_2_Speaker_1.mp3

eaker_1.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file size: 1.1MB

17. Graziela_Sergio.mp3

Sergio.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:44, file size: 3.9MB

18. March_Compile_Mixdown.mp3

pile_Mixdown.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:43, file size: 2.3MB

19. Maria_Pia_Funding_Answer_English-Spanish.MP3

_Funding_Answer_English-Spanish.MP3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:42, file
size: 1.0MB

20. Norman_1_Borges.mp3

Borges.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:43, file size: 6.7MB

21. Tamil_Rights.mp3

hts.mp3> posted on: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:45, file size: 9.4MB

22. vox-pops.mp3

mp3> posted on 29-Jan-2009 at 18:46, file size: 5.2MB

Warmest regards, Suman

From: asiapacific-general-bounces@lists.amarc.org
[mailto:asiapacific-general-bounces@lists.amarc.org] On Behalf Of
secretariat
Sent: Friday, 30 January, 2009 3:39 AM
To: destinataires inconnus:
Subject: [?? Probable Spam] [Asiapacific-general] AMARC 2009 World Social
Forum – Foro Social Mundial 2009

cid:image001.jpg@01C982C4.9D4D9CC0

AMARC at the 2009 World Social Forum

The 2009 World Social Forum, is due to take place from January 26 to
February 1st, in Bélem the capital of Para in Brazil. AMARC will actively
participate in the WSF 2009.

Listen to the programs the live broadcast and the podcast on www.amarc.org

Some programs:

28
January 2009 – Voices From AMARC: Day 2
With: Norman Stockwell, Jimmy Okello and Shane Elson.
Subjets:

The Confederation of Public Service Workers in Brazil

The Economia Solidaria – The Inter-religious committee

The European Network for Alternative Thinking and Political Dialogue

The war that is being waged in Sri Lanka.
Guests: Sergio Ronaldo da Silva, Daniel Tygel, Cibele Kuss, Walter Baier and
M. Kirobaharan.

27
January 2009 – Voices From AMARC: Day 1
With: Norman Stockwell, Jimmy Okello and Shane Elson.
Subjets:

The opening march through the streets of Belem

What the Amazon Initiatve is

The global climate change campaign

GMO contamination.
Guests: Fiona Deer and Margaret Christof.

Via / from / thanks to:
_______________________________________________
cr-india mailing list

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10464

Feature by Gary Younge, July/August 2008

Barack Obama has risen from idealistic Democratic outsider to become the first black US presidential candidate of a major party. Gary Younge explores the importance of the Obama phenomenon which has inspired millions, but also the limitations of his political agendaThere was something different about the Martin Luther King Day parade in Charleston this year. To the drumbeats of the marching bands from black schools and more sombre sounds of local black clergymen, came the spirited chants of representatives from local black churches and a throng of the overwhelmingly white coterie of Barack Obama volunteers: “Obama ‘08! We’re ready. Why wait?” Among them was a young man who was “so depressed” after Obama’s New Hampshire defeat that he had dropped everything he’d been doing in Guatemala and flown back to help out. There was also an elderly woman from Florida who had read his book Dreams From My Father two weeks earlier and was so inspired she felt she needed to do something.

From the pavement local African-Americans cheered their encouragement. Obama’s victory in Iowa (one of the whitest states in the nation) a few weeks earlier had proved that a black presidential candidacy was no longer a pipe dream. Now a significant number of white people – most from out of town – had come to the parade calling for them to make common cause. Once in a while the volunteers went to the pavement, handing out leaflets, awkwardly offering up high fives and even hugging the locals.

It was hardly the Mississippi Freedom Summer. But it was something. A moment. A political moment that produced hopeful human engagement. Within half an hour it had evaporated. The parade was over. The white volunteers would not talk to me without approval from Obama HQ, even to explain their excitement. When authorisation came through for them to speak their minds, the guy from Guatemala gushed about the coming of a post-racial America. Meanwhile the black people went back to their homes in the poorest parts of town and waited for change.

It is easy to be cynical about the historical nature of Obama’s presidential candidacy. In a nation that prides itself on social meritocracy and unrelenting progress – even as class mobility calcifies to a rate lower than Britain’s – symbolic advances can be over-exaggerated. This is particularly true in American political culture where image so overwhelms reality that George Bush can be both a teetotal former alcoholic son of wealthy, powerful parents and yet be understood as the man-of-the-people candidate with whom voters would most like to have a drink.

Moreover, Obama’s victory was neither as decisive nor as definitive as it is often portrayed. True, by March he had built an almost unassailable lead that only the unelected superdelegates could overturn, making the race his to lose. But that lead was as enduring as it was narrow and right to the end Hillary Clinton kept chipping away at it. In the end he won by just 0.4 percent of the popular vote and 7 percent of the delegates. Even with his victory all but assured Clinton still won six of the last ten states and territories to vote – hardly a huge vote of confidence from the Democratic base.

By winning seven of the whitest states in the country and nine of the blackest states he reset the mould for what a black politician can achieve in US politics on a national level. But the new mould is not quite the era of post-racial politics many claim. In the in between areas where black people have enough of a presence for race – and racism – to infect the local political culture but not enough of a presence to make a substantial voting bloc, he floundered. Clinton won eight of the ten states with black populations just below the national average. Those include the strategically important swing states for the presidential election of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Nevada.

Poverty

And while his viability may represent an electoral advance for African-Americans it tells us about as much about the social and economic situation of black Americans as the late Benazir Bhutto’s election tells us about the status of women in Pakistan. Indeed Obama’s candidacy is not consistent with the social rise of African-Americans but aberrant to it. According to a report by the Pew research centre in November last year black Americans are more dissatisfied with their progress than at any time in the past 20 years. Another Pew survey released at the same time shows that almost half (45 percent) of African-Americans born to middle-income parents in the wake of the civil rights era have descended into poverty or near poverty as adults.

“[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of colour blindness,” Angela Davis, professor of history of consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told me last year. “It’s the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That’s what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He’s become the model of diversity in this period… a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change.” Finally, he did not build a multi-racial coalition but a bi-racial one. Clinton’s base has been erroneously portrayed as simply the white working class and older white women. But in California Latinos and Asian-Americans went much more heavily for Clinton than whites did and made her victory possible. The same was true with Latinos in Texas. Indeed the only state where Obama won the Latino vote was his home state of Illinois. And even then by just 1 percent.

So Obama’s victory was narrow. The symbolism of his candidacy has been overstated along with his ability to transcend the racial and ethnic divide. But it was still a victory. His candidacy is still both historic and symbolic. And he did build a coalition across racial lines. These are no small feats. Indeed to dismiss these achievements arbitrarily would be no less of a mistake than to exaggerate them. For them to be meaningful they have to symbolise something substantial and occasionally that “something” can be quite profound. In Obama’s case his ascent has been made possible by both the civil rights movement and its heirs, even as his agenda represents a paradigm shift from them.

In the past black political leadership was drawn primarily from religious institutions. During the latter half of the last century black leaders rose in politics primarily through religious institutions, which since slavery had been one of the few autonomous areas of black life. “The principal social institution within every black community was the church,” wrote black academic and activist Manning Marable in Black Leadership. “As political leaders, the black clergy were usually the primary spokespersons for the entire black community, especially during periods of crisis. As the political system became more democratic and as more blacks were permitted to participate in voting, it was only a small shift from running a large church to running for public office.” However problematic the role of the church had been, it was, nonetheless, organically connected to the black community.

But the victories of the civil rights movement enabled other advances for a generation of black leaders, of whom Obama is just the most prominent figure.

Their politics are different but their trajectories are the same. Like Obama, who went to Columbia and Harvard universities, they all have CVs to die for. Among them are the Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick (Harvard); the Newark mayor, Cory Booker (Yale); the Democratic Leadership Council chair and former Tennessee congressman, Harold Ford Jr (University of Pennsylvania); and the Maryland lieutenant governor, Anthony Brown (Harvard). Such résumés are not the rule, but nowadays they are by no means an exception.

In other words, in the past black leaders were produced by the black community. Today they are more likely to be presented to them. This, more than tortured explanations of ethnic authenticity, explains the initial ambivalence black voters had towards Obama. After eight years of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice they had no idea who he was and wanted to know where he was coming from and whom he planned to represent. “Are they black enough?” was often shorthand for a universal voter concern: “Will they represent my interests?” By the time the Obama volunteers were lightening up Martin Luther King Day in Charleston that hesitancy had evaporated. By the time Bill Clinton had finished disparaging in racially coded terms what had started as ambivalence, passed through race-pride, and turned into anti-racist defence that would secure the black vote for the rest of the primaries.

But this generation of black politicians also has access to one more resource that was barely available even 20 years ago – white votes.

In 1958, 53 percent of voters said they would not vote for a black candidate for president; in 1984 it was 16 percent; by 2003 it was 6 percent. Before 1958 pollsters never bothered even asking the question. This is one of the central facts reshaping opportunities for black politicians – white people have become a viable electoral constituency for black candidates that in turn have made them viable contenders outside the black community.

“The civil rights generation saw politics as the next step in the struggle for civil rights,” explains Salim Muwakkil, senior editor of In These Times. “Their aim was to get their agenda taken up by whoever won. But this new generation do not conceive politics as the next step but just as what it is – politics. Their aim is to win.” This is real progress. But it carries with it real challenges. To be successful this new generation has to nurture a different base and cohere a different coalition of interests than their predecessors did. This demands a different rhetorical and campaigning style and necessitated a shift in strategy. Herein lies the central generational tension between Obama and his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright’s caustic remarks about US foreign policy and poisonous history are as common a feature as hot sauce around an African-American table, even though they were shocking to some whites. But in a previous generation Wright would not have been an embarrassment to the candidate. He would have been the candidate. And he wouldn’t have had to have taken white sensitivities into consideration.

Obama knows this only too well. In The Audacity of Hope he recalls sitting in the Illinois Senate with a white Democratic legislator as they watched a black colleague (referred to as John Doe) deliver a speech on the racist implications of eliminating a certain programme. “You know what the problem is with John?” the white senator asked him. “Whenever I hear him, he makes me feel more white.” Obama reflected. “In defence of my black colleague, I pointed out that it’s not always easy for a black politician to gauge the right tone to take – too angry? Not angry enough? – when discussing the enormous hardships facing his or her constituents. Still, [his] comment was instructive. Rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America.”

Outed

Whether “white guilt” has ever truly been exercised, exorcised or even exhausted, and what good it ever did anyone even if it has, are moot points. The fact of the matter is that a black politician who wants white support must first “gauge the right tone”. Part of that strategy has been for Obama to insist that he has transcended race. “There is not a black America or a white America; there is the United States of America,” he told the Democratic convention of 2004 in his landmark speech that launched him to public prominence. In many ways his race has been his worst kept secret. One of his central tasks seems to be not to scare white people and so he has to find a way to make white people comfortable about voting for a black candidate without actually talking about it.

In all of this, beyond some civil rights references, race is virtually absent from his message but central to his meaning. He constantly and subtly evokes the historic nature of his candidacy. But in moments of acute racial tension – when police officers who pumped 50 bullets into an unarmed black New Yorker, or the excessive and discriminatory charges against six young black kids in Jena, Louisiana, alleged to have been involved in a schoolyard brawl – his responses are late and lukewarm. At a recent rally in Detroit Obama volunteers prevented Muslims in headscarves from sitting behind him. (The campaign later apologised.) On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King both McCain and Clinton made it to Memphis, but Obama stayed away. Such strategic absences have drawn stern criticism from many African-Americans.

But every now and then he is outed. The Reverend Wright controversy has so far been the most blatant example, where much of white America seemed distressed to discover that its new black friend himself has a black friend. More recently these “outings” have diverted to his wife Michelle. When Democrats called on Republicans to lay off Michelle Obama, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News ran a tagline stating: “Outraged Liberals: stop picking on Obama’s baby mama.” On the night Obama won the nomination he bumped his fists with Michelle – a regular, banal greeting among African-Americans and the young. Fox News termed it a “terrorist fist jab”. Apparently there is a white and black America. They occupy different, if overlapping, cultural spaces. The segregation that divides them is not just physical but psychic. Before Obama can transcend race he will have to play his part in eliminating the racism that makes race possible as a concept.

But the symbolic nature of his candidacy goes beyond his melanin content. Running against Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he represents a generational break from the all-too familiar names that have dominated the American polity for the last two decades at a time when Americans are desperate for a change of course.

Just 15 percent believe the country is on the right track – around a third of the figure following the election of Bush in 2004. Meanwhile almost half believe the country’s best days have been and gone. In the past 18 months almost every poll that has asked Americans about their country’s direction has produced among the most pessimistic responses on record – a more extended period than anyone can remember since Watergate. And it’s not difficult to see why. A consistent two thirds disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq; consumer confidence is the lowest for decades and three quarters of people believe the economy is getting worse. Wages are stagnant; food and fuel prices are rocketing; and house prices are nosediving.

Change may be an Obama slogan. But it is also a deeply held desire for the overwhelming majority of Americans, who have seen a simultaneous and precipitous decline in their personal circumstances and global prestige over the past eight years.

Obama’s candidacy offers no real solution to these problems. He is no radical. In terms of policy his agenda was no more progressive than Clinton’s. When it comes to the urgent issues that the US must address, both at home and abroad, in order to establish both international and economic security his responses are inadequate, if not downright inept. The day after he clinched the nomination he went before the pro-Israeli lobby to declare himself a “true friend of Israel” and promise that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”. (Jerusalem is not in fact officially recognised as the capital of Israel. Only Israel claims it as such.)

His policies on both healthcare and the mortgage crisis were the least comprehensive of the main primary candidates. His advisory team is full of neoliberals and pro-Israelis. He has pledged to withdraw most of the troops from Iraq, but only when the conditions on the ground are right. That could mean anything, including nothing.

The fact that he would be a distinct improvement on McCain, an anti-choice advocate who has said he wouldn’t care if the US troops stayed in Iraq for another thousand years, is undoubtedly true. In global terms there may be relatively little difference between Democrats and Republicans but the little difference that there is could make a lot of difference to a lot of people. After eight years of George Bush, however, this sets the bar woefully low.

So why the excitement?

Well, the potency of moments like those in Charleston on Martin Luther King Day – as fleeting and fatuous as they may seem – keep being replicated in their own way all across the country. Every time his multigenerational, racially mixed crowds get together, it seems like they are creating a new reality from whole cloth.

The potential lies not so much within Obama himself but his supporters. He has managed to rouse constituencies long believed to be either indifferent or inactive and energise a political culture that, notwithstanding the Democratic victory in the 2006 midterms, has been all but moribund since 2004 – particularly among the young and the black who increased their share of the Democratic primary electorate by 25 percent this year compared to 2004.

Electorally he could mount challenges in areas where Democrats have not been competitive for decades. These are early days yet. A McCain victory is perfectly possible. The ferocity of the Republican attack machine is known; the depths of racism and xenophobia in the US have yet to be fully tested. But so far polls have Obama defending all the states that Kerry won narrowly, taking many that Bush won narrowly and challenging hard in many that Republicans did not believe they ever would have to defend, like Virginia, North Carolina and even Mississippi. Those demographics that he did not win in his battle against Clinton now appear to be backing him. Depending on which polls you see he leads McCain among women by between 13 and 19 percent. Kerry won women by 3 percent. Among Latinos he beats McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent; Bush took 44 percent. When it comes down to it voters seem to hate war, unemployment, anti-abortion legislation and repossession more than they hate black people. Who knows how many fiery preachers, fist bumps and “baby mama” swipes could yet change that.

But for now voter registrar offices in largely black areas of Louisiana recently had to hire new staff and work 12-hour days following a voter registration drive by Democrats. Shortly before the primaries in Oregon he drew a crowd of 75,000. In South Carolina he polled more votes by himself than the entire Democratic field the year before. According to my aunt in Houston he transformed my cousin from a couch potato into a local precinct captain.

He has been described as running a grassroots movement. This is only half true. It is certainly grassroots. At web-driven meet-ups people get together, independent of the campaign. On Facebook his candidacy has a life of its own. One of the reasons he won every caucus state bar one – where people have to show up at a certain time to register their support in a process that can take hours – is because his supporters are far more dedicated and far better organised at a local level than Clinton’s.

But it is not a movement. As of yet, it has no purpose or meaning beyond getting him elected. In its current form once he wins or loses it will cease to exist. It operates not from the bottom up but from the top down. The change he refers to is principally a change in leadership. The chant “Yes we can”, in essence, means yes he can.

This could change. Obama has raised expectations way beyond anything he has actually promised. His candidacy has been made possible by the huge well of energy unleashed after the despondency of the Bush years; it has also acted as a vehicle for that energy which had nowhere else to go. The central issue is how that symbiotic relationship between his huge and hopeful base and his candidacy will develop over the coming months – whether and how a political base will emerge from this electoral moment. The ability and even desire of his supporters to carve out a role that is independent of the campaign will be limited during an election year – not least after two terms of Republican misrule when the prospect of a McCain victory is real. But that does not obviate the necessity that they do so if they want to see their expectations met.

Most left criticisms of Obama’s policies are valid and necessary but on their own miss the point. Those who want him to adopt a more progressive agenda must first establish a progressive movement that he can turn to. That is by no means assured. But it is at least possible. And after the last few years that possibility alone represents a significant advance.

http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/08/whos-grabbing-olympic-gold

Who’s grabbing the Olympic gold?

Bob Quellos exposes the shady dealings, unsavory characters and immense greed at the heart of the Olympic Committee.

August 8, 2008

THIS PAST week, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) sat down in Beijing to discuss business before the start of the Summer Olympic Games. During the meeting, IOC president Jacques Rogge let it be known that committee expects to generate $1 billion for itself over the next four-year cycle.

He also revealed that the committee has reserves of $353 million, while generating a total of $866 million in revenue from 2005 to 2008 from sponsorships alone. When it’s all over, the estimates are that it will have cost the Chinese government $42 billion to construct the infrastructure for the Games. According to the Los Angeles Times, China has spent $16 billion just to improve the air quality for the Games.

When it comes to outlandish budgets spent by host cities, China is hardly an exception. Athens spent $12.8 billion on the 2004 summer games while London’s budget for the 2012 games is estimated at $17.6 billion–nearly four times the original projection.

And it is the host city’s burden to provide the infrastructure for the games–as the IOC will never open a checkbook to help pay for expenses. In all likelihood, the IOC will never put any money back into the host city, as it makes clear in its contract that they will not be taxed for any aspect of the Games.

The IOC is also tax-free in Switzerland where its headquarters are located. While the IOC sits on top of millions of dollars, it will never pay a dime in taxes thanks to a deal with the Swiss government. As a result of a lack of accountability to any government or agency, nobody outside of the IOC knows where the money actually goes–although an unknown portion is shared with the various National Olympic Committees (NOCs) that also tend not to pay taxes.

Meanwhile, with all of the money floating into the coffers of the IOC and developers, the athletes who spend their lives training for the Olympics will never get a cut of the money generated by the Games. It seems that the IOC is running the best racket around–more “Olympic Industry” than “Olympic Movement.”

Consisting of 116 members from 79 countries, the IOC likes to promote the notion of an “Olympic Family.” The “Family” includes IOC members, their staff and guests, presidents and secretaries-general of 198 NOCs, international federations, major corporate sponsors, current bid committees and some members of the media.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

HOST CITIES beware–when this family comes to town, it will eat all the food, overstay its welcome and bully you around. As the Sydney Morning Herald’s Roy Masters notably stated, “Only one other global organization uses the word ‘family’ as frequently and obsequiously as the International Olympic Committee, and that’s the Mafia.”

Helen Lenskyj notes in her book Inside the Olympic Industry, when the budget for the 2000 Sydney Olympics was made public, approximately $47 million was set aside to provide 4,000 members of the Olympic family with 1,800 limousines. After public outcry, the Sydney organizing committee proposed that the IOC take buses from their hotels. The IOC eventually settled on cars provided by a local Mercedes Benz dealer.

Dennis Loeb, who helped organize transportation for the Atlanta Summer Games, told the Los Angeles Times:

Every time [the IOC] had a meeting, their security was provided by the Atlanta Police Department. [Then-IOC President Antonio] Samaranch always had a Georgia state policeman driving him every time he came into town. Every IOC member, every one of them, had their own driver, their own car.

I was in charge of aviation. I had 22 helicopters and three of them–multimillion-dollar helicopters–were budgeted for “executive transportation,” as well as two Cessna Citations to provide transportation for IOC members back and forth across the United States. I can’t tell you how many millions of dollars that cost.

During the Salt Lake City Olympics, the budget for the breakfast of the “Olympic Family” was $750,000. However, the corruption surrounding the Salt Lake City games proved to be too much. In the winter of 1998, a scandal erupted that engulfed the IOC and the Salt Lake City Olympic Bid Committee (SLOBC).

In short, the SLOBC gave large gifts to members of the IOC in exchange for votes during the host city selection process. In the end, 10 members of the IOC were expelled and 10 more were sanctioned. To this day, IOC members are not allowed to travel to bid cities as a result of the Salt Lake City scandal.

How intense was the corruption in Salt Lake City? One secret memo discovered in the Salt Lake archives details one IOC member’s demand for to be take to a doctor. “And as we know, if an IOC member wanted anything in Salt Lake City–they got it. He asked for–and received–a prescription for one thousand dollars worth of Viagra tablets,” wrote journalist Andrew Jennings.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

PERHAPS THIS level of corruption is to be expected of a group comprised of wealthy business executives, politicians and aristocrats like Princess Anne of Britain, Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg, Prince Albert of Monaco and Princess Nora of Lichtenstein.

Originally formed by Baron Pierre de Coubertin in 1894, the IOC has been a haven for royalty and rich industrialists. Chris Shaw, the lead spokesperson for Games Watch 2010, writes in his recently released book Five Ring Circus, “Of nine actual or acting presidents, the IOC had put three barons, two counts, two businessmen, an overt fascist and a fascist sympathizer in its top position.”

The fascist sympathizer was a building developer from Chicago named Avery Brundage who was elected as IOC president in 1952 and maintained the post for 20 years. Brundage quickly rose in the IOC ranks as he demonstrated unmatched support for Adolf Hitler during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

Sportswriter Dave Zirin points out, “Unlike other prominent Nazi sympathizers…Brundage never apologized for his Hitler leanings. As late as 1941, he was praising the Reich at a Madison Square Garden America First rally.”

Brundage may have been a fascist sympathizer, but Antonio Samaranch the real thing. Samaranch, who preferred to be called “Your Excellency,” took over as IOC president in 1980. The son of a rich Barcelona textile manufacturing family, Samaranch joined Franco’s fascist youth and went on to rise through the party ranks.

As Vyv Simson and Andrew Jennings documented in their book The Lords of the Rings, “Samaranch joined the fascist movement in his teens. He stayed loyal until it was disbanded on the eve of Spain’s first democratic elections some forty years later. Samaranch never voluntarily tore up his party card. He remained loyal until fascism died under him.”

From Brundage’s defense of Hitler and the 1936 Olympics to the IOC’s decision to continue with the 1968 Mexico City Games after the Mexican government slaughtered student protesters to the scandal surrounding Salt Lake City–the history of the IOC is one of politics, power and greed.

Today, the IOC is still plagued by shady behind-the-scenes deals and scandals. Most recently, it was revealed that some IOC members cut deals with Chinese officials that will allow the government to ban Web sites even though journalists were previously promised full access to the Web.

Speaking bluntly, Chris Shaw related the realities and the tasks ahead for all those organizing to stop this Olympic circus from coming to their town. “The organizing committees in each bid and host city have taken Olympic ‘ideals’ and the Games themselves as the golden path to corporate welfare heaven,” states Shaw.

“They have no interest in reforming themselves either, or of accepting even the most cursory regulation of their activities. There is only one future: The IOC has to be brought to an end.”

Delft-Symphony — On Wednesday, July 2^nd at the Bellville Magistrates Court courtroom E, two members of the Delft Anti-Eviction Campaign, Jerome Daniels and Ridwaan Isaacs, were each sentenced twelve months in prison – simply for being community leaders at Delft-Symphony Way settlement. Both maintained their innocence on charges of malicious destruction of property brought by Elmory Isaacs, a former resident of the same settlement, who presented no evidence beyond her own testimony.

During a two hour trial in which the activities of the Anti-Eviction Campaign featured prominently, Ms Isaacs testified that these two community leaders had threatened her with knives of and slashed her tent. Under cross examination, Ms Isaacs conceded that all the evicted occupants of the Delft Symphony N2 Gateway homes had begun their pavement encampment by agreeing as a group to remove any resident who threatened or attacked another. Moreover, she also acknowledged that on the evening in question an individual she had allowed to live in her tent unsupervised had violently threatened another community member. However, she became agitated when asked questions about whether these threats violated this agreement, shouting “this is not about Johnny. This is about my tent, my property.” Without presenting any evidence or calling any other witnesses, the prosecution rested its case.

During his testimony, Mr. Daniels, explained that he had verbally intervened to prevent the occupant of Ms Isaac’s tent from making good on his threats. But when residents of Symphony Way learned of what had occurred, the community decided to remove this person from the settlement to prevent any future violence from occurring. He insisted that rather than taking part in taking down her tent, he had sought to prevent residents from taking such drastic action.

For his part, Ridwaan Isaacs testified that he had not been in that part of the Symphony Way section when community members dismantled Ms Isaac’s tent. It was only later that night that he learned of what had occurred. Another resident of the Symphony Way settlement, Mrs. Evelyn Mokoena, corroborated the testimony of both Mr Isaacs and Mr Daniels. She stated that dozens of community members took the decision to dismantle the tent and took action over the objections of Mr Daniels. Mr Isaacs, she insisted, was not there.

During the course of this testimony, Magistrate Van Graan from Court E, repeatedly interrupted the defence and prosecution attorneys to question defendants about their involvement in the Anti-Eviction Campaign. When Mrs Evelyn Mokoena responded that it was the community that was responsible for making the decision to dismantle the tent, he interjected, “I can’t understand under what circumstances does the community take a decision?” When Mrs Mokoena explained that in the informal settlement the community is responsible for making its own decisions, Magistrate Van Graan responded, “Is this what is happening in this country? Is this thing justifiable?”

In closing, the defendants’ attorney reiterated that the preceding testimony had proven that neither defendant had touched Ms Daniel’s property, with each witness corroborating the other. After a five minute recess, Magistrate Van Graan delivered a guilty verdict, quoting case law that justified his dismissal of the defence’s testimony and only accepting that of Ms Isaacs. He explained that while he could not sentence the community, some one had to take responsibility for this offence. In response, the defence attorney recommended a warning, noting that both defendants had children and were currently volunteered their time supporting the residents of Symphony Way. The prosecutor, in response suggested a fine but did not suggest any jail-time for the defendants. However Magistrate Van Graan imposed a twelve month sentence at Goodwood Prison, with a possibility of a six month suspension for good behaviour. While he acknowledged that this charge was not as serious as a murder or rape conviction, he argued that he needed to hold the defendants responsible and teach the Anti-Eviction Campaign a lesson.

Upon hearing of this verdict, the residents of Symphony Way condemned it as unjust and called upon all struggling communities to support them in their effort in seeking the release of Mr. Daniels and Mr. Isaacs before the end of the month. “There are murderers and rapist walking around,” asked Mrs Mokoena. “Why aren’t they locking them up for twelve months?” Symphony Way resident Francis Jantjies objected to the verdict: “it seems like the justice system in South Africa is not right. Who did the investigation in this case? How are these two being sent to prison for something that the community did?”

Residents of the AEC settlement in Symphony Way believe that Mr Isaacs and Mr. Daniels are political prisoners who are being convicted of something they did not do merely because they are dedicated activists fighting for better lives for their families and community

The Delft Anti-Eviction Campaign is now seeking to raise R7 000 towards an appeal of these convictions. They are also accepting donations to go to the families of Mr. Daniels and Isaacs. The prisoners also desperately need money to by necessities in the prison: socks, underwear, deodorant, razors, telkom cards, etc.

Individuals, communities, and social movements that would like to assist in their fundraising efforts, in showing solidarity towards the defendants and their families, and/or help with future actions, should contact Auntie Jane at 078-403-1302 and Ashraf at 076-186-1408.

For information on how to donate, please visit:    antieviction.org.za/donations/

‘It is a tragedy that such attacks are happening in poor working class communities, where the poor are fighting the poor. But there is a clear reason for this. Many in our communities are made to believe that unemployment is caused by foreigners who take jobs in the country – this is simply untrue.
Forty percent of all South African citizens are unemployed and this has been the case for many years. This is not the result of immigrants from other countries coming to South Africa but rather, the result of the anti-poor, profit-seeking policies of the government and the behaviour of the capitalist class. Such massive and sustained unemployment is a structural problem of a capitalist system that cares little about the poor, wherever they are from or live.
In turn, this has contributed to a situation wherein poor immigrants (most especially those from other African countries) have become increasingly seen (and treated) as criminals and “undesirables” by government authorities. This, combined with the government’s failure of service delivery in those poor communities where most immigrants live, has placed poor immigrants and poor South Africans in constructed “competition” with each other. It is out of this situation that the scourge of xenophobia has arisen.
Blaming foreigners and launching violent attacks on those living in South Africa will benefit no one except those who feed off the desperation and poverty of the poor.
Let us not forget that it is South African corporate capital – through the framework of NEPAD [The African Union's New Partnership for Africa’s Development economic development programme] – that has, over the last decade, moved into other African countries, most often causing many local, smaller businesses to close down and thus contributing to a situation in which many poor people have lost their jobs.
Likewise, the South African government’s approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe has further contributed to the mass migration of Zimbabweans to South Africa. The poor, wherever they are, are being exploited and oppressed by the same capitalist class.
As the Anti-Privatization Forum (APF) and the Alexandra Vukuzenzele Crisis Committee (AVCC), we call on all those responsible for the recent xenophobic attacks to immediately stop engaging in such senseless and reactionary acts – you are maiming and killing your own brothers and sisters. Anger and resentment at the levels of poverty and joblessness (in South Africa and elsewhere) must be directed at those who are responsible, not the victims.
It is the capitalist class and the ANC government that have joined together to implement neo-liberal policies over the past 14 years that have devastated poor communities and that have now created the conditions where the poor attack the poor. In Alexandra for example, the housing crisis must be blamed on our corrupt and profit-hungry housing officials and those who illegally lease the houses for their own personal gain.
The APF and the AVCC will continue to denounce and actively campaign against these violent xenophobic attacks in our community. We demand that the police apprehend those responsible for encouraging and engaging in these attacks. In the next few days, we will distribute pamphlets and engage the larger Alexandra community in organised mass meetings.’

Also go to http://www.apf.org.za

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=768347

UNION SHOWS INCORRECTNESS OF “HEAD-IN-THE-MORAL-SAND” APPROACH…

Prega Govender Published:May 17, 2008
A teachers’ union plans to distribute condoms to pupils, despite an Education Department ban on providing contraceptives at schools.
Mpumalanga Education MEC Siphosezwe Masango backed the controversial plan of the 28000- member National Teachers’ Union (Natu), saying it would help reduce teenage pregnancies and the spread of HIV/Aids in schools.
“A school is a public institution, populated by males and females, who would obviously propose love to each other . .. They (condoms) should be made freely available.”
Natu executive director Eliam Biyela said the union would first meet with parents.
“If we strike an agreement with parents, I don’t think Education Minister Naledi Pandor can object. It’s a matter of life and death. We can’t listen to the minister when she’s not on site. If the parents and the teachers agree, then it will have to be done,” he said.
Natu announced this week that it would begin distributing condoms to pupils and teachers at 10 schools in Mpumalanga and 10 schools in KwaZulu-Natal.
The Children’s Act allows for children as young as 12 to gain access to contraceptives.
Michael Masutha, chairman of the Department of Social Development’s parliamentary portfolio committee, said he would support Natu’s plan if children were told that receiving condoms was not a licence to have sex.
Masutha said the Department of Social Development had approached the Education Department last year about its tough stance on condoms. “We felt it was not helping to reduce the incidence of child pregnancies,” he said.
Catherine MacPhail, senior researcher at the Reproductive Health and HIV/Aids Research Unit at Wits University, said Natu’s plan would help stem a massive increase in HIV infection among girls aged 15 to 20.
“While we may feel that abstinence is the right thing for young people, for those who have become sexually active already, we don’t have that option anymore.”
Kenny Motshegoa, president of the Congress of South African Students, said there was nothing wrong with providing condoms to pupils.
But Education director-general Duncan Hindle insisted this week that condoms would not be allowed in schools.
“The department believes that children should not be engaging in sex and therefore the provision of condoms creates an incorrect climate,” he said.
Other unions, including the National Professional Teachers’ Organisation and the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwys Unie, oppose the plan to distribute condoms to pupils.
Nonhle Mkhulisi of the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union said they had started dishing out condoms to members but had no plans to distribute to pupils.