Adnan Al-Daini

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher takes the
applause during the Conservative Party Conference in
Brighton, 10th October 1980. (Getty Images)

People have woken up to the unfairness and destructiveness of uncontrolled market forces.

Why is it so difficult for politicians to change their minds? Why is a U-turn considered such a no- no for them?  Margaret Thatcher who embraced and rejoiced in the title “the iron lady”  famously remarked in 1980: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning”; proud in her inflexibility.

I prefer our politicians to have the humility of John Maynard Keynes who said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”  Why is stubbornness and dogma so admired in a politician?  It is not a trait conducive to the common good. 

The infuriating thing is that opinion-formers, all political parties, those on the left and right of politics, view a U-turn by a politician negatively.  Changing your mind as a result of persuasive argument or a change in the evidence or circumstances is a good thing; politicians who do that should be praised, not pilloried. 

Elevating dogma above reason is not admirable in a politician or anyone else.

More »

Khalid Amayreh

Celebrating South Sudan's independence: Sudanese
refugees at a party in Tel Aviv. (Sara Miller/Haaretz)

Zionist-Jewish leaders everywhere are quite versed in the art of hypocrisy and dishonesty. Their moral inconsistency cries out to the seventh heaven.

This week, Jewish leaders in Washington , D.C. , demonstrated outside the Sudanese embassy, protesting the al-Bashir regime's excesses against rebel areas in southern Kurdufan.

The protestors accused the Sudanese government of provoking a humanitarian crisis and blocking humanitarian aid from reaching people in need.

One rabbi, wore a T-shirt saying : "Stop genocide in Darfur."

There is nothing wrong in holding protests against government repression and human rights violation anywhere in the world.

However, when championing the cause of human rights is motivated by short-sighted political expedience, highly-selective, moral confusion and moral impurity blur the picture.

I am not suggesting or demanding that at a single demonstration one would have to protest all human rights violations on earth, although this would be a good thing to do.

However, when human rights breaches and even more scandalous policies in places such as Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are deliberately ignored, a serious question-mark is drawn over the real motives behind such demonstrations.

More »

Stephen Lendman

[The media] suppress what readers most deserve to know - the full truth about death squad killings as policy, and the many thousands of noncombatant Afghans, Iraqis, and earlier victims affected. Blaming this incident on a lone gunman suppresses the gravity of what goes on routinely and the responsibility up the chain of command to Joint Chief heads, Defense Secretary Panetta, and Obama.

In all US war theaters, troops commit unspeakable atrocities. Trained to dehumanize enemies, their mission involves killing, destruction, and much more.

Local treasures are looted. Women are raped. Civilians are treated like combatants. Children are indiscriminately harmed like adults. Prisoners are tortured. Mutilations are common. Crimes of war and against humanity are institutionalized. It's all in a day's work like taking out the garbage.

Viciousness defines US wars. No crime's too great to commit. Human lives are valueless. Only winning matters, then on to the next war. Lies, deception, unspeakable brutality, and cover-up define them.

Scoundrel media are directly complicit, including claiming one soldier murdered 16 Afgans on March 11. Credible evidence suggests up to 20 involved. Claiming a lone gunman defiles the atrocity's affect on living family members, friends, and other Afghans victimized by numerous similar incidents. More below.

More »

Erin Steuter

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and
Prince Edward Island (1898). (From the book: History
and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which
the United States has been a Party by J. B. Moore)

The Irving Media Monopoly in New Brunswick

Living in New Brunswick where all of the English language daily papers are owned by one company means that there is very little variety in the type of news that is available to New Brunswick readers. We face classic problems of monopoly media ownership in which homogeneity and a narrow range of opinion are common features of the news media.

A corporate empire spanning oil speculation, refining and shipping, gas stations, food products, massive land holdings, forestry, pulp and paper, and employing one in eight New Brunswickers, the Irving group owns the province's three English-language daily newpspapers, as well as at least seven of twelve community weeklies.

Living in New Brunswick where all of the English language daily papers are owned by one company means that there is very little variety in the type of news that is available to New Brunswick readers. We face classic problems of monopoly media ownership in which homogeneity and a narrow range of opinion are common features of the news media.

For example: last month all three New Brunswick daily papers [1] ran editorials within several days of each other critiquing the government's appointment of unsuccessful Provincial Conservative candidates to government posts. While this editorial position may well be justified, and reflect the views of a majority of New Brunswickers, the audience nevertheless lost out on the ability to hear any another perspective on this issue. [2]

Living in New Brunswick where all of the English language daily papers are owned by a single large capitalist enterprise means that the voice of the corporate world speaks loudly and the coverage of labour focuses on confrontational and controversial events such as strikes in which labour is scapegoated. For example: this month all three papers ran editorials within several days of each other critical of the community college and prison custodians who were walking the picket line as part of a Canadian Union of Public Employees' strike. Terms such as irrational, unreasonable, ludicrous and greedy were peppered throughout the editorials revealing a pattern of Irving coverage of labour issues that typically portrays labour as the active and disruptive party. [3]

More »