“In the last 3 years I have several times declared hopefully that young people are going to lead us; and I have been premature. I did it at Columbia University in an article for New York Magazine in ’07, I did it at Brandeis University in The American Conservative that year too. On both occasions I was blown away by the diversity of the progressive student movement on campus: that identity politics meant nothing to these kids; Jews intermingled with Muslims and Asians in a cohesive manner, and no one gave a s**t.Well now I am saying the same thing about the Hampshire divestment and betting that I will be right. This is a shot that will be heard ’round the nation. It is no wonder that Dershowitz called the students in a threatening manner as soon as they had taken the action: Dershowitz and I recognize the huge symbolic meaning of this stroke. For years divestment had been stopped dead by then-President Lawrence Summers’s attack on it at Harvard, saying it was “antisemitic in effect if not intent,” or words similar, which caused rightthinking gentile faculty to steer away from the issue like a plague. Then it was stopped among the Protestant churches by endless legal wrangling, again with the threat of being labelled antisemitic hanging over their heads.

Those Protestant churches tabled and couldn’t adopt simple measures that limited the divestment to companies doing business in the Occupation! The evil occupation, with its crazy settlers and pogroms–and that’s all the Hampshire initiative applies to, the companies that helped to kill Rachel Corrie! So let us be clear, This is a huge moral stroke. And who is responsible: not Protestant churches or Middle East Studies professors, but an organization of committed students, many of them Jews, who will not be intimidated by anyone, their own administration or Alan Dershowitz. Bless them and honor them!

A few other observations must be made. According to one of those students, in this comment on Indypendent, when Hampshire College first divested from Apartheid South Africa years ago, “the Administration did what it could to distance itself from the situation then, too, with then-President Adele Simmons calling it a ‘big non-issue.'” And today when you visit Hampshire, they brag on that hammer blow! And this will happen again. We and Hampshire will look back on the bravery and independence of Hampshire students as we look back on the bravery of the Wilmot Proviso, or of Harriet Beecher Stowe, or of Congressman Abraham Lincoln when he introduced anti-slavery legislation in Congress in 1848– in these hammer blows of free and unafraid people, others were summoned to the great task at hand!

Again: Dershowitz knows this as well as I do. He is a great advocate. He knows he must stop this now, and blacken the Hampshire initiative, so that no signal goes out to others that It is OK to do this thing. But Dershowitz is too late. The students hung up on him and laughed. Generational forces are at work. He is 70 years old and is advocating for the evil settlement program that even the American government knows is a disaster, that even Gary Ackerman, the Israel Lobby’s main man in the House, or one of them, has lately condemned as settler “pogroms”  (language first employed by me, then later by Jeffrey Goldberg).

Dershowitz employed a traditional Jewish intimidation tactic, calling the Jews and reminding them of their loyalty to the Jewish family. But it didn’t work. These were Hannah-Arendt-Baruch-Spinoza Jews who feel loyalty first to the human family…”

From PhilipWeiss.org.

Comment:

Surely Jewish people aren’t the only ones who employ the “intimidation tactic of reminding people of their group loyalties”? Seems like I hear some of that from Indian friends whenever I write anything that “makes India/Indians look bad” to the West. It’s a natural concern and normally, I wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that there was “intimidation” involved at all, but knowing Dershowitz’s extremely abrasive ad hominem style of argument, there probably was in this case.

UPDATE:

Just to clarify:

I wrote and published pieces on Goldman Sachs from 2006-2010, based on research I did while trading in 2004-05, which is when I first saw material that implicated Goldman Sachs in manipulation on trading websites.

I tried to include more of this material in “Mobs,” when I was researching it in 2006-2007, but that was cut out by my co-author. The first (hard cover) edition of “Mobs” came out in fall, 2007, with the paper-backed edition out in 2009.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

“Leno is referring to the fact that Barry Dyke predicted a major collapse of the U.S. financial system in June 2007 way before everyone else when “The Pirates of Manhattan” was first published.

Hampton, NH (PRWEB) February 5, 2009 — The Tonight Show host Jay Leno recently stated that author “Barry Dyke called it!”. Leno is referring to the fact that Barry Dyke predicted a major collapse of the U.S. financial system in June 2007 way before everyone else when “The Pirates of Manhattan” was first published….”

Comment:

Way to go, Barry!  Good friend, Barry Dyke (how’s that for name-dropping?) proves that “doing it my way” works. Barry self-published and made his book a best-seller all on his own – sans major reviewers or promoters. I’m glad to be one of those who recognized how important Barry’s work was – especially on Goldman Sachs, where he beat me to the punch getting a book out.  (My own writing on GS in “Mobs” got cut out for many reasons).  Knowing what a hard slog it’s been for him, I couldn’t be happier to see it. The major media is finally picking up on the people who really were telling it like it is.  Barry’s book was 10 years in the writing and he struggled on with it despite major personal setbacks that he describes in his introduction – everything from bankruptcy to divorce to surgery…

Check the book out at the Pirates of Manhattan website.

From the Center for Food Safety, a press release:

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS FEED BIOTECH GIANTS, NOT THE POOR
Contacts: Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety, 202-547-9359 (North America); Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth Nigeria, +234 80 37 27 43 95 (Africa); Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe Brussels: +32 474 857 638 (Europe)

Biotech Companies Exploit Food Crisis by Raising GM Seed and Pesticide Prices, Record Profits Projected Biotech Propaganda Distracts Attention from Real Solutions for Small Farmers

Washington D.C., February 11, 2009 – A new report released today by the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth International warned that genetically modified (GM) crops are benefiting biotech food giants instead of the worldís hungry population, which is projected to increase to 1.2 billion by the year 2025 due to the global food crisis.

The report explains how biotech firms like Monsanto are exploiting the dramatic rise in world grain prices that are responsible for the global food crisis by sharply increasing the prices of GM seeds and chemicals they sell to farmers, even as hundreds of millions go hungry.

The findings of the report support a comprehensive United Nationsí assessment of world agriculture ñ the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) – which in 2008 concluded that GM crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world. IAASTD experts recommended instead low-cost, low-input agroecological farming methods.

“GM crops are all about feeding the biotech giants, not the worldís poor,” said Nnimmo Bassey, executive director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria and chair of Friends of the Earth International.

“GM seeds and the pesticides used with them are much too expensive for Africaís small farmers. Those who promote this technology in developing countries are completely out of touch with reality,” he added.

“U.S. farmers are facing dramatic increases in the price of GM seeds and the chemicals used with them,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the US-based Center for Food Safety and co-author of the report. “Farmers in any developing country that welcomes Monsanto and other biotech companies can expect the same fate – sharply rising seed and pesticide costs, and a radical decline in the availability of conventional seeds,” he added.

GM seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional, non-GM seeds, and the price disparity is increasing. From 80% to over 90% of the soybean, corn and cotton seeds planted in the U.S. are GM varieties. Thanks to GM trait fee increases, average U.S. seed prices for these crops have risen by over 50% in just the past two to three years.

Exploitation of the food crisis has been extremely profitable for Monsanto, by far the dominant player in GM seeds. Goldman Sachs recently projected that Monsanto’s net income (after taxes) would triple from $984 million to $2.96 billion from 2007 to 2010.

The exorbitant cost of GM seeds is not the only problem. The vast majority of GM crops are not grown by or destined for the world’s poor, but instead are soybeans and corn used to feed animals, generate biofuels, or produce highly processed food products consumed mostly in rich countries.

The report documents that nearly 90% of the global area planted GM crops in 2008 was found in just 6 countries with highly industrialized, export-oriented agricultural sectors in North and South America, with the U.S., Argentina and Brazil responsible for 80% of GM crops. The United States alone produced 50% of the world’s GM crops in 2008.

Despite more than a decade of hype, the biotechnology industry has not introduced a single GM crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance. In fact, the biotechnology industry’s own figures show that 85% of all GM crop acreage worldwide in 2008 was planted with herbicide-tolerant crops. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops – chiefly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready varieties used with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – have increased overall use of chemical weed killers. Roundup prices in the U.S. have more than doubled in the past two years.

Meanwhile, biotech propaganda has obscured the huge potential of low-cost agroecological and organic techniques to increase food production and alleviate hunger in developing countries. The report mentions several such projects, such as push-pull maize farming, practiced by 10,000 farmers in east Africa. The enormously successful push-pull system controls weed and insect pests without chemicals, increases maize production, and raises the income of smallholder farmers….”

More at the Center for Food Safety

[Note: The Boston Tea Party’s 2008-2010 program consists of the Campaign For Liberty’s four points, endorsed by US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) and Charles Jay, the Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential nominee.]

1. Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

2. Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, elimination of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

3. The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

4. The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

More  at The Boston Tea Party

From activist Lenni Brenner:

(Brenner is the author of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983) among a number of other works and writes frequently for publications from the Nation to the Jewish Guardian.

DECLARATION RE DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING’S BIRTHDAY, JANUARY 19,
AND BARACK OBAMA’S INAUGURATION, JANUARY 20th.

As if in celestial convergence, Martin Luther King’s birthday falls on the
eve of the inauguration of the nation’s first Black president. With the world
economy in free fall, amid spreading armed conflict, the classic question posed
from pulpits at this time – What would Dr. King do? – has never been more
urgent.  

January 19 and 20 are heavy with historical significance and contradiction.
Barack Obama proclaims that his presidency would be unthinkable were it not for
the civil rights struggle which King personifies. Yet he also hails John
Kennedy – who he knows criminally wiretapped King – as his role model. And is it
conceivable that King would be pleased with Obama after he broke his promise
to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it included an immunity clause
for telecommunications companies that collaborated with Bush’s illegal
eavesdropping after 9/11?  

The New York Times correctly calls Obama’s orientation “center-right.” Never
an advocate of total withdrawal from Iraq, he called for the recruitment of
nearly 100,000 additional military, expanded war in Afghanistan, and more
aggressive US actions in Pakistan. In retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
and other Republican Pentagon political appointees, Obama blurs the differences
between his foreign policy and George Bush’s. His United Nations ambassador,
Susan Rice, advocates “humanitarian” military intervention in Africa, and
Obama supports Bush’s latest US Africa Command (AFRICOM). He is silent on the
US-fomented war in Somalia.

Obama is also silent re the onslaught on Gaza, even as the Israeli embassy
justified it by distributing videos of his campaign statement: “If somebody was
sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters slept at night, I’m
going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do
the same thing.”

Domestically, Obama has put his economic portfolio into the hands of Wall
Street hacks intimately associated with financial deregulation and the
plague-like spread of derivatives and other exotic “fictional capital” –- the witch’s
brew of meltdown — and backed Bush’s banker bailout.

Is it difficult to project what Dr. King’s politics would be, were he alive
today? Faced with an administration committed to expansion of a military
already as costly as the combined armed forces of the rest of the planet, King
would join — indeed lead — a principled, active anti-war opposition.  

King called the America of his day “the greatest purveyor of violence in
the world,” and his characterization remains apt. He broke with Lyndon Johnson’s
White House, as he saw the Vietnam War obliterating the “shining moment” when
it “seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor – both black
and white – through the poverty program.” On April 4, 1967, King explained that
“America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in
rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills
and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.” Domestically, Obama’s
determination to put more military “boots on the ground” in multiplying
conflicts is an update of the “demonic destructive suction tube” King opposed.
He would doubtlessly view Obama’s military posture as “a war against the poor,”
as was LBJ’s war. 

Obama’s appointments have been made, his priorities amply recorded. Given
Obama’s declared politics, King would never grant a “honeymoon” season to an
incoming administration placing government economic levers in the hands of
plundering bankers diverting huge public wealth to the feeding of the dogs of war. He
became his day’s greatest “drum major” for social justice and peace, and we
have only one alternative before us. We call upon Americans and the world to
try to act now in Dr. King’s spirit and join us in opposing any and all imperial
administrations, in the media, in the voting booth and in the streets.

Signatories (as of January 19, 2009)

Lenni Brenner, Pat Bryden, Tom Condit, Lenore Jean Daniels, Ph.D., Michael Dickinson, Ghassan El-Kadri, Vera Alice Vasques El-Kadri,
Dieter Elken, Per Fagereng, John W. Farley, Dermot Ferry, Glen Ford, John Glackin, Robert Glaser, Patricia Gray, David Halpin, Dove and Dolphin Charity, Norma J F Harrison, Tuma Hazou, Stanley Heller, Edward S. Herman, Tom Lacey, Ronit Lentin, David Letwin, Claran Mc Clean, Colm McGinn, David McReynolds, Chuck Mohan, Tinoush Moulaei, Liz Mulford,  Judith Norman, Tolu Olorunda, Margaret Parrish, Ginger Pepper, James Petras, Millie Phillips, Karen Platt, Lila Rajiva, Roland Rance, Esther Rapoport, Mel Reeves, R. B. Riddle, Eugene E. Ruyle, Al Sargis, Tony Savin, Evalyn F. Segal, Martha Abu Shawish, Roger Sheppard, Roland Sheppard, Michael J. Smith, Kwame Somburu, William Steinsmith, Stuart Troy,  C. T. Weber, Abraham Weizfeld, Derek Wharton, Jebsen & Company (Hong Kong) Ltd., Joan Wiley