Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has had green custard thrown over him by a protester as he arrived at the launch of a low-carbon summit in London.
Freedoms are being lost in Britain because of the rapid growth of the “national security state.” This form of militarism was imported from the United States by New Labour. Totalitarian in essence, it relies upon fear mongering to entrench the executive with venal legal mechanisms that progressively diminish democracy and justice.
“Security” is all, as is propaganda promoting rapacious colonial wars, even as honest mistakes. Take away this propaganda, and the wars are exposed for what they are, and fear evaporates. Take away the obeisance of many in Britain’s liberal elite to American power and you demote a profound colonial and crusader mentality that covers for epic criminals like Blair. Prosecute these criminals and change the system that breeds them and you have freedom.
It makes my eyes bleed to read some of the self-serving drivel the commentariat is dishing up at the moment. They drool it over the politicians - they serve it up to the bankers, but by golly they won't suck it down themselves. While it's true that few could have been expected to understand exactly where and when the bubble was going to pop, it beggars belief that quite so many allegedly intelligent people were unable to see that it was a bubble at all.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised; after all, ever since British politicians took to making pilgrimages in order to be anointed by that great Yahweh, Rupert Murdoch, the mainstream media in this country have been setting an agenda based securely on maximising profit.
In Raymond Chandler's The Long Goodbye the reclusive newspaper magnate Harland Potter says to Philip Marlowe: 'A newspaper is an advertising vehicle predicated on its circulation, nothing more and nothing less.' I pity all those readers, viewers and listeners who never grasped that most editorial and comment had no more significance than a discount voucher - and considerably less utility.
Based on his analysis of emails, Sabbagh concludes that the BMJ was the target of an orchestrated campaign to silence criticism of Israel. And that is certainly how it felt. As well as almost 1000 emails to the editor, the BMJ’s website received hundreds of electronic responses to the article itself as well as feedback generally critical of the journal’s decision to publish it. The feedback messages began in earnest three days after publication and then streamed in, almost in alphabetical order of the senders’ names. Their wording was uncannily similar, with some authors seemingly ignorant of the article they were criticising—well described features of orchestrated campaigns.4 5 Some took us to task for covering the difficulties faced by diabetic Palestinians in Gaza; this issue had been raised not by the BMJ but by Diabetes Voice, which has no connection to the BMJ.6 We had been used to unfamiliar voices from unfamiliar places crowding in to debates on the Middle East before, but never on this scale.
My personal snapping point was reached last week, at the precise moment Jack Straw announced the government was vetoing the Information Tribunal's order for the release of cabinet minutes relating to that whole invasion-of-Iraq thing. Come on, you remember Iraq: that little foreign policy blip millions of us protested against to absolutely zero avail, because Straw and his pals figured they knew best, even though it turned out they didn't and - oops! - hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as a result. Remember the footage of that screaming little boy with his limbs blown off? Maybe not. Maybe you felt a shiver of guilt when you saw that; guilt that you hadn't personally done enough to prevent it; should've shouted louder, marched further. Or maybe it stunned you into numbness. Because what was the point in protesting any more? These people do what they want.
Disturbing reports of prison guards, knowing that their opportunity for IRFing, beating, degrading and abusing inmates is coming to an end, are increasing abuses.
For the sake of unity, the President tends to express his moral vision indirectly. Like other self-aware and highly articulate speakers, he connects with his audience using what cognitive scientists call the "cognitive unconscious." Speaking naturally, he lets his deepest ideas simply structure what he is saying. If you follow him, the deep ideas are communicated unconsciously and automatically. The Code is his most effective way to bring the country together around fundamental American values.
For supporters of the President, it is crucial to understand the Code in order to talk overtly about the old values our new president is communicating. It is necessary because tens of millions of Americans—both conservatives and progressives—don’t yet perceive the vital sea change that Obama is bringing about.
There were no terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. In 1993 there was an attempt to blow up the world trade center which came very close to succeeding. With a little better planning it probably would have killed ten thousand people. But there were no terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001 without the attacks on civil liberties and without the wars and aggression, so what does it tell us? The fact of the matter is that under the Bush administration, terrorism vastly increased. It was expected that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism around the world and it did, but far more than was expected. Terrorism went up by about a factor of seven after the invasion of Iraq. Other actions of the Bush Administration which were alleged responses to terrorism had terrible effects elsewhere.
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has had green custard thrown over him by a protester as he arrived at the launch of a low-carbon summit in London.
Freedoms are being lost in Britain because of the rapid growth of the “national security state.” This form of militarism was imported from the United States by New Labour. Totalitarian in essence, it relies upon fear mongering to entrench the executive with venal legal mechanisms that progressively diminish democracy and justice. 
