2010年12月16日木曜日
2010年12月15日水曜日
With Friends Like Moody’s… « naked capitalism
With Friends Like Moody’s… « naked capitalism
Can someone tell me why the same guy, at the same ratings agency, does a 180 in less than one week, when the deal hasn’t changed an iota?
2010年12月13日月曜日
2010年12月12日日曜日
2010年12月11日土曜日
Julian Assange: To Catch a Somewhat Pasty Predator - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/08/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
Julian Assange: To Catch a Somewhat Pasty Predator - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/08/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Julian Assange: To Catch a Somewhat Pasty Predator | ||||
| ||||
CT Phone Home - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/08/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
2010年12月10日金曜日
隠された被曝労働〜日本の原発労働者〜’Nuclear Ginza’
Through the eyes of a campaigning photogrpher, this investigative documentary exposes radiation poisoning among workers inside Japan’s nuclear power industry.
2010年12月2日木曜日
2010年12月1日水曜日
2010年11月29日月曜日
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
disgustingly naive, evil and crazy people reveal themselves.
disgustingly naive, evil and crazy people reveal themselves.
2010年11月26日金曜日
Keeping an Eye on Ireland - The Washington Note
Keeping an Eye on Ireland - The Washington Note
"Just three years ago, Ireland was hailed as a model of economic progress in the "Celtic Tiger". In 2005, Tom Friedman of the New York Times lauded Ireland - saying that: "I do get a little lump in my throat when I see countries like China, India, or Ireland adopting a pro-globalization strategy, adapting it to their own political, social, and economic conditions, and reaping the benefits. Mr. Friedman saw Ireland as: "One of the best examples of a country that has made a huge leap forward by choosing development and reform retail of its governance, infrastructure, and education." In the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain laid out Ireland as a model for America to emulate."
"Just three years ago, Ireland was hailed as a model of economic progress in the "Celtic Tiger". In 2005, Tom Friedman of the New York Times lauded Ireland - saying that: "I do get a little lump in my throat when I see countries like China, India, or Ireland adopting a pro-globalization strategy, adapting it to their own political, social, and economic conditions, and reaping the benefits. Mr. Friedman saw Ireland as: "One of the best examples of a country that has made a huge leap forward by choosing development and reform retail of its governance, infrastructure, and education." In the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain laid out Ireland as a model for America to emulate."
2010年11月25日木曜日
2010年11月23日火曜日
2010年11月19日金曜日
2010年11月17日水曜日
2010年11月9日火曜日
YouTube - Roger Waters - "We Shall Overcome"
YouTube - Roger Waters - "We Shall Overcome"
Inspired by Gaza Blockade, Roger Waters Records New Version of "We Shall Overcome"
Inspired by Gaza Blockade, Roger Waters Records New Version of "We Shall Overcome"
2010年11月5日金曜日
‘We the people’ - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
‘We the people’ - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
"The thing the Tea Party regards as the greatest threat to capitalism is capitalism itself."
"The thing the Tea Party regards as the greatest threat to capitalism is capitalism itself."
2010年11月2日火曜日
2010年11月1日月曜日
2010年10月23日土曜日
YouTube - Palin's Apocalypse
YouTube - Palin's Apocalypse
I believe what they believe has nothing to do with Jesus, just believing in their violence.
I believe what they believe has nothing to do with Jesus, just believing in their violence.
2010年10月18日月曜日
2010年10月16日土曜日
2010年10月15日金曜日
池田香代子ブログ : 米臨界前核実験容認と「もんじゅは核抑止力に相当」証言が示すもの - ライブドアブログ
池田香代子ブログ : 米臨界前核実験容認と「もんじゅは核抑止力に相当」証言が示すもの - ライブドアブログ
「この唯一の実戦被爆国は、いったいどこに行こうとしているのでしょう。じつは、このくににとって膨大なプルトニウムは外交上の隠れたパワーであり、もんじゅは核抑止力に相当するというのは、デタラメでも外国のいらぬ猜疑心でもなんでもありません。元原子力委員会委員が、テレビカメラの前でさらりと公言していることです。」
「この唯一の実戦被爆国は、いったいどこに行こうとしているのでしょう。じつは、このくににとって膨大なプルトニウムは外交上の隠れたパワーであり、もんじゅは核抑止力に相当するというのは、デタラメでも外国のいらぬ猜疑心でもなんでもありません。元原子力委員会委員が、テレビカメラの前でさらりと公言していることです。」
2010年10月14日木曜日
2010年10月6日水曜日
Iranians Want Capacity to Enrich Uranium But Accept NPT Rules Against Developing Nuclear Weapons - World Public Opinion
Iranians Want Capacity to Enrich Uranium But Accept NPT Rules Against Developing Nuclear Weapons - World Public Opinion
"We might tarry for a moment to ask whether there is any solution to the U.S.-Iran confrontation over nuclear weapons. Here is one idea:(1)Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy, but not weapons, in accord with the NPT. (2)A nuclear weapons-free zone should be established in the region, including Iran, Israel, and U.S. forces deployed there. (3)The United States should accept the NPT. (4)The United States should end threats against Iran and turn to serious diplomacy.
The proposals are not original. These are the preferences of the large majority of Americans, and also Iranians, in polls by World Public Opinion, which found that Americans and Iranians agree on basic issues." (Noam Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects)
"We might tarry for a moment to ask whether there is any solution to the U.S.-Iran confrontation over nuclear weapons. Here is one idea:(1)Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy, but not weapons, in accord with the NPT. (2)A nuclear weapons-free zone should be established in the region, including Iran, Israel, and U.S. forces deployed there. (3)The United States should accept the NPT. (4)The United States should end threats against Iran and turn to serious diplomacy.
The proposals are not original. These are the preferences of the large majority of Americans, and also Iranians, in polls by World Public Opinion, which found that Americans and Iranians agree on basic issues." (Noam Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects)
2010年9月15日水曜日
2010年8月31日火曜日
2010年8月26日木曜日
2010年8月25日水曜日
2010年8月15日日曜日
Hilary: "it’s not so much the timing as to when if – when or how the Iranians might pursue the nuclear weapons, it’s whether they do so."
Interview With David Sanger and Mark Landler of The New York Times
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Via Telephone
August 6, 2010
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that would be based on intelligence assessments so I’m not going there.
QUESTION: But it’s also based on your conversations with allies who are --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me just – let me say that based on my conversations with allies, it’s not so much the timing as to when if – when or how the Iranians might pursue the nuclear weapons, it’s whether they do so. And so whether it would take six months, a year, or five years, it’s that deep concern about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons that is the preoccupation of our friends and partners. And we would be pursuing the path we’re pursuing regardless of any issue of timing because we think it’s got the best potential for changing Iranian behavior.
QUESTION: One of your colleagues made the observation a few weeks ago that if, in fact, the Iranians don’t respond to the sanctions, don’t come back in a serious way in the September, October period, that the time may come for you or the President or others to speak – to use that phrase, “All options on the table,” more vigorously than you have. And I noticed that the President did use it briefly with the columnists the other day. Is there a sort of a conscious decision underway here to reinforce to the Iranians that you’re giving this limited time?
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Inaudible) I think we’ve always said that we were looking at all kinds of approaches to resolving this very threatening situation. So I don’t want to characterize what we’re doing now other than to say we’ve always pursued a two-track approach of pressure and engagement and we continue to do so, and I don’t think the President or any of us want to be issuing public red lines at this point. The President’s been very clear that Iran should understand that he is leaving all options on the table and that they should take him at his word, but I don’t think it benefits our efforts to go much further than that.
for more
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Via Telephone
August 6, 2010
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that would be based on intelligence assessments so I’m not going there.
QUESTION: But it’s also based on your conversations with allies who are --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me just – let me say that based on my conversations with allies, it’s not so much the timing as to when if – when or how the Iranians might pursue the nuclear weapons, it’s whether they do so. And so whether it would take six months, a year, or five years, it’s that deep concern about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons that is the preoccupation of our friends and partners. And we would be pursuing the path we’re pursuing regardless of any issue of timing because we think it’s got the best potential for changing Iranian behavior.
QUESTION: One of your colleagues made the observation a few weeks ago that if, in fact, the Iranians don’t respond to the sanctions, don’t come back in a serious way in the September, October period, that the time may come for you or the President or others to speak – to use that phrase, “All options on the table,” more vigorously than you have. And I noticed that the President did use it briefly with the columnists the other day. Is there a sort of a conscious decision underway here to reinforce to the Iranians that you’re giving this limited time?
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Inaudible) I think we’ve always said that we were looking at all kinds of approaches to resolving this very threatening situation. So I don’t want to characterize what we’re doing now other than to say we’ve always pursued a two-track approach of pressure and engagement and we continue to do so, and I don’t think the President or any of us want to be issuing public red lines at this point. The President’s been very clear that Iran should understand that he is leaving all options on the table and that they should take him at his word, but I don’t think it benefits our efforts to go much further than that.
for more
2010年8月14日土曜日
2010年8月11日水曜日
2010年8月10日火曜日
2010年7月30日金曜日
2010年7月22日木曜日
2010年7月20日火曜日
BP shopping for scientists
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年7月18日日曜日
2010年7月9日金曜日
2010年7月6日火曜日
2010年7月3日土曜日
2010年7月2日金曜日
ボリビア政情不安についての但し書き
ボリビア政情不安についての但し書き
「2009年4月、米国のオバマ大統領は中南米の大統領を前に、「平和を増進するには歴史の教訓から学ぶべきだ」と表明した。だが、先のホンジュラスのクーデタのときに米国政府が示した態度からすると、中南米への介入の時代はまだ閉じられていない。しかも、それは時として予想外の形で現れる。」
「2009年4月、米国のオバマ大統領は中南米の大統領を前に、「平和を増進するには歴史の教訓から学ぶべきだ」と表明した。だが、先のホンジュラスのクーデタのときに米国政府が示した態度からすると、中南米への介入の時代はまだ閉じられていない。しかも、それは時として予想外の形で現れる。」
2010年6月30日水曜日
2010年6月27日日曜日
2010年6月26日土曜日
2010年6月16日水曜日
2010年6月15日火曜日
2010年6月8日火曜日
War Crimanal! Get Out Of Afghanistan!
When Taliban asked for the evidence that 9/11 attack was done by Bin Laden and al Qaeda to hand over Bin Laden, US refused to give any evidence (John F. Burns with Christopher Wren, “Without Evidence, the Taliban Refuses to Turn Over bin Laden”, NY Times, September 21, 2001), I guess they did but without much evidence, US just believe so (Walter Pincus, “Mueller Outlines Origin, Funding of Sept. 11 Plot”, Washington Post, June 6, 2002)
So we have to somehow get US the war criminal out of Afghanistan. We have to compensate what we have done perhaps by supporting women rights organization like RAWA and brave Afghan congress women Malalai Joya for democracy, instead of funding brutal warlords like Taliban to continue the war: How the US Funds the Taliban by Aram Roston, the Nation, November 11, 2009, and also ,"Rule of the Gun - With U.S. Aid, Warlord Builds Afghan Empire" by Dexter Filkins, New York Times, June 5 2010.
So we have to somehow get US the war criminal out of Afghanistan. We have to compensate what we have done perhaps by supporting women rights organization like RAWA and brave Afghan congress women Malalai Joya for democracy, instead of funding brutal warlords like Taliban to continue the war: How the US Funds the Taliban by Aram Roston, the Nation, November 11, 2009, and also ,"Rule of the Gun - With U.S. Aid, Warlord Builds Afghan Empire" by Dexter Filkins, New York Times, June 5 2010.
the utter failure to contain BP's leaked oil
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年6月6日日曜日
2010年6月3日木曜日
doubt on the story the South Korean warship Cheonan sank -- allegedly due to a North Korean torpedo
After the South Korean warship Cheonan sank -- allegedly due to a North Korean torpedo -- the West was unanimous in its judgment of North Korea's guilt, and quick to spin different theories on the motive for the attack. But, some South Koreans aren't so sure, thinking the attack too neat a coincidence with the looming elections, and finding the evidence murky... The plot thickens.
2010年5月29日土曜日
5 Tips to Avoid Sexual Assault - TRCB
5 Tips to Avoid Sexual Assault - TRCB
This happens to be on the twitter.
This happens to be on the twitter.
Oil industry has no progress on dealing with disaster
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年5月28日金曜日
2010年5月26日水曜日
2010年5月25日火曜日
2010年5月21日金曜日
2010年5月20日木曜日
Muhammad Sahimi « Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette
Muhammad Sahimi « Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton
Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Southern California, discusses the Iran/Turkey/Brazil enriched uranium swap agreement, the predictable negative reception from Europe and the US, further demands upon Iran and continuing sanctions meant to queer the deal, Hillary Clinton’s last minute attempt to dissuade Turkey and Brazil from cooperating with Iran and why arguing for Iran’s rights under the NPT is not an endorsement of Ahmadinejad or the ayatollahs.
Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Southern California, discusses the Iran/Turkey/Brazil enriched uranium swap agreement, the predictable negative reception from Europe and the US, further demands upon Iran and continuing sanctions meant to queer the deal, Hillary Clinton’s last minute attempt to dissuade Turkey and Brazil from cooperating with Iran and why arguing for Iran’s rights under the NPT is not an endorsement of Ahmadinejad or the ayatollahs.
2010年5月16日日曜日
2010年5月15日土曜日
very scientifically safe things about drilling
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年5月10日月曜日
2010年5月1日土曜日
2010年4月29日木曜日
Who Wants to Beat a Millionaire
Even though the Senate is too paralyzed by partisan politics to impact the financial crisis, it can still express good old-fashioned impotent rage. (08:17)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Who Wants to Beat a Millionaire | ||||
| ||||
2010年4月25日日曜日
Repurposed missiles risk nuclear war
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年4月18日日曜日
Fukuma's Daily Record： 忘れられた英雄・核戦争を防いだ男 / 原水禁： 偶発的核戦争の防止
忘れられた英雄・核戦争を防いだ男
冷戦のさなかの1983年9月26日の真夜中、モスクワ近郊のミサイルサイトСелпукнов-15（セルプホフ-15）で突然アメリカからの核攻撃を示す警報が鳴り響いた。ミサイルはまた一つまた一つと増えていき、最終的に5発の大陸間弾道ミサイル (ICBM) がソビエトに接近しつつある事を示していた。当時のソビエト連邦の地上レーダーシステムは地平線よりも向こうの対象を検知することができなかったため，それを早期警戒システムに利用することはできなかった。あてになるのは衛星から発せられるミサイルの発射警報だけだった。オペレーターは真っ青になって席を立ち本当に反撃すべきかどうかを問うべく、司令官を凝視した。
当時の司令官スタニスラフ・ペトロフ中佐は国家の命運そして全世界の命運を担う決断を迫られた。もし彼が目の前にある赤く明滅している「開始」のボタンを押したら間違いなく第三次世界大戦が始まり、双方の国土は焦土と化すのは確実だった。しかも決断のために彼に残された時間は5分足らずに過ぎなかった･･･
偶発的核戦争の防止
（田窪 雅文／1998.2.2_全国活動者会議資料）
ある朝、ロシアのレーダーにノルウェー沖から急上昇する謎の物体が映った。核ミサイルだとすると一五分でモスクワに到達する可能性がある。ムルマンスク近辺の北洋艦隊の基地や関連施設を狙っているのかもしれない。とすると時間はさらに短くなる。ミサイルが到達する前に報復攻撃のミサイルを発射しなければならない。大統領にも事態が知らされ、核攻撃の命令を伝達するためのブリーフケースが史上初めて起動し始めた･･･
冷戦のさなかの1983年9月26日の真夜中、モスクワ近郊のミサイルサイトСелпукнов-15（セルプホフ-15）で突然アメリカからの核攻撃を示す警報が鳴り響いた。ミサイルはまた一つまた一つと増えていき、最終的に5発の大陸間弾道ミサイル (ICBM) がソビエトに接近しつつある事を示していた。当時のソビエト連邦の地上レーダーシステムは地平線よりも向こうの対象を検知することができなかったため，それを早期警戒システムに利用することはできなかった。あてになるのは衛星から発せられるミサイルの発射警報だけだった。オペレーターは真っ青になって席を立ち本当に反撃すべきかどうかを問うべく、司令官を凝視した。
当時の司令官スタニスラフ・ペトロフ中佐は国家の命運そして全世界の命運を担う決断を迫られた。もし彼が目の前にある赤く明滅している「開始」のボタンを押したら間違いなく第三次世界大戦が始まり、双方の国土は焦土と化すのは確実だった。しかも決断のために彼に残された時間は5分足らずに過ぎなかった･･･
偶発的核戦争の防止
（田窪 雅文／1998.2.2_全国活動者会議資料）
ある朝、ロシアのレーダーにノルウェー沖から急上昇する謎の物体が映った。核ミサイルだとすると一五分でモスクワに到達する可能性がある。ムルマンスク近辺の北洋艦隊の基地や関連施設を狙っているのかもしれない。とすると時間はさらに短くなる。ミサイルが到達する前に報復攻撃のミサイルを発射しなければならない。大統領にも事態が知らされ、核攻撃の命令を伝達するためのブリーフケースが史上初めて起動し始めた･･･
2010年4月17日土曜日
Nuclear Insanities New START Treaty is a Slow Start Toward Disarmament By Julien Mercille
http://www.zcommunications.org/nuclear-insanities-by-julien-mercille
Writing in the 19th century, Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin said that the State is “the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity… this explains why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries—statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats and warriors—if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows.”
The nuclear arsenals built by the United States and Russia and their feeble attempts at dismantling them prove Bakunin right again. Washington and Moscow’s combined stockpiles contain over 10,000 nuclear warheads, each 5 to 25 times more powerful than the bomb that flattened Hiroshima. The just signed New START Treaty will probably result in total cuts of about 800 warheads: in other words, our magnanimous leaders have agreed to reduce the nuclear power they hold in their hands, and over our heads, from one 150,000 to 140,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima… Thank you so much, Mr Obama.
As if this wasn’t enough, the just released US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) tells us how those weapons might actually be used. The NPR’s key sentence is the following: “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”
Supporters of the NPR call it an improvement over Bush’s because it states that the United States won’t respond to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons, but rather, with a “devastating conventional military response”.
However, nuclear weapons still play an important role under Obama. First, they can be used against other states that do possess them (like China and Russia) if they attack the US with conventional, biological or chemical weapons, i.e., even if they don’t attack with nuclear weapons. Second, nukes could be used against “non-state actors” like Al Qaeda, as Robert Gates explained: “all options are on the table when it comes to… non-state actors who might acquire nuclear weapons” [1]. This implies that the country in which those terrorists are located will face nuclear retaliation no matter its standing under the NPT.
Third, countries that Washington determines not to be in compliance with the NPT are subject to nuclear attack even if they don’t possess any nuclear weapons. The reference here is to Iran and North Korea, but since Washington makes that determination not based on facts but on whether a country is “with us or against us”, in practice it means that those the United States deems to be enemies are at risk.
Sadly, Obama is not ready to adopt a “no first use policy” and is content with a situation in which he could be the first to order a nuclear strike. He also leaves about 200 nuclear weapons in five European countries (Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey). In short, as the Federation of American Scientists’ Hans Kristensen concludes his review of the NPR, the document is a “disappointment” for those who were hoping for clear and significant reductions in the role and numbers of nuclear weapons [2].
The New START Treaty, on its part, calls for two kinds of reductions: nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.
Warheads are the part of a missile or bomb that contains the nuclear explosive charge, and currently, the US has about 2,200 strategic warheads and Russia 2,600. Under New START, both must reduce their arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads by 2017. Media reports have emphasized that the treaty will “slash nuclear stockpiles” by about 30% compared to the Moscow Treaty signed by Bush in 2002 that imposed a limit of 2,200 warheads.
The problem with this 30% figure is that it is wrong: the real warhead reductions will be less than that, in fact, probably about 10-15%. This is because of a special counting rule in the treaty by which all warheads associated with one bomber aircraft are counted as one. For example, if an American bomber carries 20 nuclear bombs, that counts as only one warhead, not 20. Therefore, it’s easy to see that the 1,550 limit will in fact “hide” many more actual warheads. How many exactly will depend on how the US and Russia allocate their cuts among submarines, land-based missiles and bombers, but estimates are that when they reach the limit of “1,550” in 2017, the US will in fact possess about 1,800 warheads and Russia slightly less than 2,200—reductions of about 13% compared to current arsenals, not 30%.
In short, the treaty gives no incentive to get rid of nuclear bombs launched by bomber aircrafts and as such underestimates the real number of warheads deployed by both powers. Further, the treaty does not require that any warhead be destroyed: they are merely to be moved into storage, and could be brought back into operation eventually. And there is no requirement to remove the 200 US tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe.
Delivery vehicles are what brings the warheads to explode on the adversary’s territory in war and are of three kinds: bomber aircrafts, ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, land-based) and SLBMs (ballistic missiles launched by submarines). The treaty imposes a limit of 700 deployed delivery vehicles for each side. But here again, reductions are small: Russia currently has about 600, so it literally has nothing to do since it is already in compliance. The US has 798 and will have to reduce this by 12%, to 700.
The New START Treaty is only a slow move towards disarmament. A top nuclear expert based in the United States summed it all up when he told this author that “as most arms control treaties, New START just codifies the changes that were going to happen anyway.”
Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate the treaty’s positive aspects. For one, it establishes a structure of verification and confidence building between the United States and Russia that will allow for future deeper reductions, and it encourages the two countries’ leaders not to renege on planned cuts in their arsenals.
A question raised both by the NPR and New START is whether or not the Obama administration will build new nuclear weapons. During his election campaign, Obama had promised not to do so. Yet, his 2011 Budget request released last February calls for a 10% increase in nuclear weapons spending next year. Has he reneged on his promises?
The answer depends on how we define the term “new nuclear weapon”. When nuclear warheads age, instead of dismantling them, their life is often extended through various modifications ranging from rebuilding some or all the parts but keeping the original warhead design, to manufacturing new untested nuclear components of new design to replace existing ones. Which ones of those changes should be referred to as yielding a “new” warhead is debatable. The NPR states that “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads” but that it will extend the lives of aging warheads using the “full range” of available methods. Some analysts have concluded that this in practice means new warheads, and would even permit production of Bush’s Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.
But there is another way in which Obama can be said to produce new nuclear weapons: he is building new delivery vehicles for warheads, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarine, and modernizing existing strategic ballistic missiles such as the land-based Minuteman III and submarine-based Trident II, in addition to plans to replace the nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). Can’t those be considered new nuclear weapons since they are new vehicles to deliver warheads?
The bottom line is this: we can argue on what constitutes a new nuclear weapon and whether or not Obama is developing them. What is certain however, is that a president truly committed to nuclear disarmament would not even extend the life of aging nuclear warheads and would destroy them before they reach the end of their shelf life. Obama is clearly not that kind of president.
It is sometimes believed that nuclear weapons contribute to maintaining a balance between super-powers, making the international system more stable. In fact, there have been many nuclear near-accidents throughout the Cold War and since then, due to systems’ malfunctioning or human errors. Maintaining nuclear arsenals in place only increases the chance that a real accident will one day happen.
For instance, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world came very close to global nuclear war, averted thanks to a Soviet submarine commander, Vasili Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire a nuclear-tipped torpedo at US warships off Cuba. US destroyers whose orders were to enforce a naval quarantine did not know that the Soviet submarines sent to protect their ships were carrying nuclear weapons and fired at the submarines to force them to the surface. The officers in Arkhipov’s submarine thought this meant World War III might have started, and the first captain said “We’re going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all. We will not disgrace our navy”. But Arkhipov calmed him down and torpedoes were not launched: in the words of Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, “The lesson from this is that a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world.” [3]
In 1983, at a time of tension in US-Soviet relations, a newly-inaugurated Soviet early-warning system detected incoming American nuclear missiles. However, Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer then in charge of monitoring the system and notifying his superiors if an attack was detected, chose not to let them know for he believed the new system was simply malfunctioning. He was right: there were no incoming missiles. The Russian system had indicated otherwise due to a unique alignment of its satellite’s viewing angle with the sun, which caused sunlight to be reflected by the clouds in a way that caused the warning system to indicate that several missiles had been launched against the Soviet Union. Had Petrov chosen to alert his superiors, they could have launched a massive retaliatory strike, changing the course of history.
In 1995, Norwegian and American scientists launched a large rocket from an island off the coast of Norway to study the northern lights. Russian radars detected the rocket but mistook it for a nuclear Trident missile launched from a US submarine. For a few moments, Russia was poised to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States. Reportedly, Russian military doctrine allowed 10 minutes from the time of detection to decide on a course of action. The next day, then President Yeltsin stated that he had in fact activated, for the first time, his “nuclear football”, a device allowing him to communicate with his top military advisers to review the situation.
If the world is not to wait for decades before such risks become history, the New START Treaty must be implemented, and agreements on further cuts need to be reached—fast.
Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland. He specializes in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics. He can be reached at jmercille[at]gmail[dot]com.
Notes
[1] “Gates: Iran, N. Korea not Immune from Attack”, 6 April 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3872260,00.html
[2] Hans Kristensen, “The Nuclear Posture Review”, 8 April 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/npr2010.php
See also “New START Treaty Has New Counting”, 29 March 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/03/newstart.php
and Pavel Podvig of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, “New START Treaty in Numbers”, 29 February 2010, http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/03/new_start_treaty_in_numbers.shtml
[3] Marion Lloyd,“Soviets Close to Using A-Bomb in 1962 Crisis, Forum is Told”, Boston Sunday Globe, 13 October 2002, A20.
Writing in the 19th century, Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin said that the State is “the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity… this explains why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries—statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats and warriors—if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows.”
The nuclear arsenals built by the United States and Russia and their feeble attempts at dismantling them prove Bakunin right again. Washington and Moscow’s combined stockpiles contain over 10,000 nuclear warheads, each 5 to 25 times more powerful than the bomb that flattened Hiroshima. The just signed New START Treaty will probably result in total cuts of about 800 warheads: in other words, our magnanimous leaders have agreed to reduce the nuclear power they hold in their hands, and over our heads, from one 150,000 to 140,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima… Thank you so much, Mr Obama.
As if this wasn’t enough, the just released US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) tells us how those weapons might actually be used. The NPR’s key sentence is the following: “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”
Supporters of the NPR call it an improvement over Bush’s because it states that the United States won’t respond to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons, but rather, with a “devastating conventional military response”.
However, nuclear weapons still play an important role under Obama. First, they can be used against other states that do possess them (like China and Russia) if they attack the US with conventional, biological or chemical weapons, i.e., even if they don’t attack with nuclear weapons. Second, nukes could be used against “non-state actors” like Al Qaeda, as Robert Gates explained: “all options are on the table when it comes to… non-state actors who might acquire nuclear weapons” [1]. This implies that the country in which those terrorists are located will face nuclear retaliation no matter its standing under the NPT.
Third, countries that Washington determines not to be in compliance with the NPT are subject to nuclear attack even if they don’t possess any nuclear weapons. The reference here is to Iran and North Korea, but since Washington makes that determination not based on facts but on whether a country is “with us or against us”, in practice it means that those the United States deems to be enemies are at risk.
Sadly, Obama is not ready to adopt a “no first use policy” and is content with a situation in which he could be the first to order a nuclear strike. He also leaves about 200 nuclear weapons in five European countries (Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey). In short, as the Federation of American Scientists’ Hans Kristensen concludes his review of the NPR, the document is a “disappointment” for those who were hoping for clear and significant reductions in the role and numbers of nuclear weapons [2].
The New START Treaty, on its part, calls for two kinds of reductions: nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.
Warheads are the part of a missile or bomb that contains the nuclear explosive charge, and currently, the US has about 2,200 strategic warheads and Russia 2,600. Under New START, both must reduce their arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads by 2017. Media reports have emphasized that the treaty will “slash nuclear stockpiles” by about 30% compared to the Moscow Treaty signed by Bush in 2002 that imposed a limit of 2,200 warheads.
The problem with this 30% figure is that it is wrong: the real warhead reductions will be less than that, in fact, probably about 10-15%. This is because of a special counting rule in the treaty by which all warheads associated with one bomber aircraft are counted as one. For example, if an American bomber carries 20 nuclear bombs, that counts as only one warhead, not 20. Therefore, it’s easy to see that the 1,550 limit will in fact “hide” many more actual warheads. How many exactly will depend on how the US and Russia allocate their cuts among submarines, land-based missiles and bombers, but estimates are that when they reach the limit of “1,550” in 2017, the US will in fact possess about 1,800 warheads and Russia slightly less than 2,200—reductions of about 13% compared to current arsenals, not 30%.
In short, the treaty gives no incentive to get rid of nuclear bombs launched by bomber aircrafts and as such underestimates the real number of warheads deployed by both powers. Further, the treaty does not require that any warhead be destroyed: they are merely to be moved into storage, and could be brought back into operation eventually. And there is no requirement to remove the 200 US tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe.
Delivery vehicles are what brings the warheads to explode on the adversary’s territory in war and are of three kinds: bomber aircrafts, ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, land-based) and SLBMs (ballistic missiles launched by submarines). The treaty imposes a limit of 700 deployed delivery vehicles for each side. But here again, reductions are small: Russia currently has about 600, so it literally has nothing to do since it is already in compliance. The US has 798 and will have to reduce this by 12%, to 700.
The New START Treaty is only a slow move towards disarmament. A top nuclear expert based in the United States summed it all up when he told this author that “as most arms control treaties, New START just codifies the changes that were going to happen anyway.”
Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate the treaty’s positive aspects. For one, it establishes a structure of verification and confidence building between the United States and Russia that will allow for future deeper reductions, and it encourages the two countries’ leaders not to renege on planned cuts in their arsenals.
A question raised both by the NPR and New START is whether or not the Obama administration will build new nuclear weapons. During his election campaign, Obama had promised not to do so. Yet, his 2011 Budget request released last February calls for a 10% increase in nuclear weapons spending next year. Has he reneged on his promises?
The answer depends on how we define the term “new nuclear weapon”. When nuclear warheads age, instead of dismantling them, their life is often extended through various modifications ranging from rebuilding some or all the parts but keeping the original warhead design, to manufacturing new untested nuclear components of new design to replace existing ones. Which ones of those changes should be referred to as yielding a “new” warhead is debatable. The NPR states that “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads” but that it will extend the lives of aging warheads using the “full range” of available methods. Some analysts have concluded that this in practice means new warheads, and would even permit production of Bush’s Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.
But there is another way in which Obama can be said to produce new nuclear weapons: he is building new delivery vehicles for warheads, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarine, and modernizing existing strategic ballistic missiles such as the land-based Minuteman III and submarine-based Trident II, in addition to plans to replace the nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). Can’t those be considered new nuclear weapons since they are new vehicles to deliver warheads?
The bottom line is this: we can argue on what constitutes a new nuclear weapon and whether or not Obama is developing them. What is certain however, is that a president truly committed to nuclear disarmament would not even extend the life of aging nuclear warheads and would destroy them before they reach the end of their shelf life. Obama is clearly not that kind of president.
It is sometimes believed that nuclear weapons contribute to maintaining a balance between super-powers, making the international system more stable. In fact, there have been many nuclear near-accidents throughout the Cold War and since then, due to systems’ malfunctioning or human errors. Maintaining nuclear arsenals in place only increases the chance that a real accident will one day happen.
For instance, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world came very close to global nuclear war, averted thanks to a Soviet submarine commander, Vasili Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire a nuclear-tipped torpedo at US warships off Cuba. US destroyers whose orders were to enforce a naval quarantine did not know that the Soviet submarines sent to protect their ships were carrying nuclear weapons and fired at the submarines to force them to the surface. The officers in Arkhipov’s submarine thought this meant World War III might have started, and the first captain said “We’re going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all. We will not disgrace our navy”. But Arkhipov calmed him down and torpedoes were not launched: in the words of Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, “The lesson from this is that a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world.” [3]
In 1983, at a time of tension in US-Soviet relations, a newly-inaugurated Soviet early-warning system detected incoming American nuclear missiles. However, Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer then in charge of monitoring the system and notifying his superiors if an attack was detected, chose not to let them know for he believed the new system was simply malfunctioning. He was right: there were no incoming missiles. The Russian system had indicated otherwise due to a unique alignment of its satellite’s viewing angle with the sun, which caused sunlight to be reflected by the clouds in a way that caused the warning system to indicate that several missiles had been launched against the Soviet Union. Had Petrov chosen to alert his superiors, they could have launched a massive retaliatory strike, changing the course of history.
In 1995, Norwegian and American scientists launched a large rocket from an island off the coast of Norway to study the northern lights. Russian radars detected the rocket but mistook it for a nuclear Trident missile launched from a US submarine. For a few moments, Russia was poised to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States. Reportedly, Russian military doctrine allowed 10 minutes from the time of detection to decide on a course of action. The next day, then President Yeltsin stated that he had in fact activated, for the first time, his “nuclear football”, a device allowing him to communicate with his top military advisers to review the situation.
If the world is not to wait for decades before such risks become history, the New START Treaty must be implemented, and agreements on further cuts need to be reached—fast.
Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland. He specializes in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics. He can be reached at jmercille[at]gmail[dot]com.
Notes
[1] “Gates: Iran, N. Korea not Immune from Attack”, 6 April 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3872260,00.html
[2] Hans Kristensen, “The Nuclear Posture Review”, 8 April 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/npr2010.php
See also “New START Treaty Has New Counting”, 29 March 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/03/newstart.php
and Pavel Podvig of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, “New START Treaty in Numbers”, 29 February 2010, http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/03/new_start_treaty_in_numbers.shtml
[3] Marion Lloyd,“Soviets Close to Using A-Bomb in 1962 Crisis, Forum is Told”, Boston Sunday Globe, 13 October 2002, A20.
2010年4月12日月曜日
2010年4月8日木曜日
2010年4月6日火曜日
2010年4月4日日曜日
On ACORN & Climate Gate and more of FOX fraud
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年4月3日土曜日
Obama: ALL THE EVIDENCE shows Iran is developing nukes - Haaretz - Israel News
Obama said "all the evidence indicates" that Tehran is trying to get the "capacity to develop nuclear weapons." Advertisement With such a capability, Obama said that Iran could "destabilize" life in the Mideast and trigger an arms race in the region, adding that, for that reason, he felt "the idea here is to keep on turning up the pressure." - Haaretz - Israel News
What evidence? Where?
What He said does not make any sense unless he was actually talking about U.S. & Israel (but in that case they already have nukes!). Or he wants the whole world to know that he is seriously evil. The Godfather of the world!
What evidence? Where?
What He said does not make any sense unless he was actually talking about U.S. & Israel (but in that case they already have nukes!). Or he wants the whole world to know that he is seriously evil. The Godfather of the world!
2010年3月22日月曜日
2010年3月13日土曜日
2010年3月10日水曜日
2010年3月8日月曜日
Haiti: The Mobilization of Aid, Public Discourses and Political Action By Manuel Rozental
Haiti: The Mobilization of Aid, Public Discourses and Political Action by Manuel Rozental from Justin Podur on Vimeo.
On February 11, YCISS at York University held a panel on Haiti. “Haiti: The Mobilization of Aid, Public Discourses and Political Action within Canada” examined how the mobilization of aid is occurring through the media, diasporas, non-governmental organizations, the military – particularly the Canadian Forces – and other government institutions, and to what effect. The following is Manuel Rozental's talk from the YCISS panel. Manuel Rozental is associated with the University of Toronto and a coordinator for the Canada-Colombia Solidarity Campaign.Why they are sending 11,000 troops
"But in purely military terms, sending 11,000 U.S. and Afghan troops to defeat a few hundred Taliban fighters in Marja won't change much in Afghanistan. The greater significance of the battle is in how it is perceived in the rest of Afghanistan and in America. The campaign's goals are to convince Americans that a new era has arrived in the eight-year-long war and to show Afghans that U.S. forces and the Afghan government can protect them from the Taliban.
...Military officials in Afghanistan hope a large and loud victory in Marja will convince the American public that they deserve more time to demonstrate that extra troops and new tactics can yield better results on the battlefield." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022104201.html
...Military officials in Afghanistan hope a large and loud victory in Marja will convince the American public that they deserve more time to demonstrate that extra troops and new tactics can yield better results on the battlefield." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022104201.html
2010年2月21日日曜日
2010年2月18日木曜日
2010年2月14日日曜日
2010年2月13日土曜日
2010年2月12日金曜日
For wounded Iraqi Children: Cole Miller « Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette
Cole Miller « Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette
No More Victims works to obtain medical sponsorships for war-injured Iraqi children and to forge ties between the children, their families and communities in the United States.
Cole Miller is the Founding Director of No More Victims. A freelance writer, Miller co-created and produced the environmentally focused radio series Isla Earth, which took top honors in the News Bureau category of the 2008 Los Angeles Press Club’s 50th Annual Journalism Awards. Miller travels frequently to the Middle East, and manages the day-to-day operations of NMV. He has appeared on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Al Jazeera, and his work has been profiled by People Magazine and many other publications.
No More Victims works to obtain medical sponsorships for war-injured Iraqi children and to forge ties between the children, their families and communities in the United States.
Cole Miller is the Founding Director of No More Victims. A freelance writer, Miller co-created and produced the environmentally focused radio series Isla Earth, which took top honors in the News Bureau category of the 2008 Los Angeles Press Club’s 50th Annual Journalism Awards. Miller travels frequently to the Middle East, and manages the day-to-day operations of NMV. He has appeared on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Al Jazeera, and his work has been profiled by People Magazine and many other publications.
2010年2月11日木曜日
2010年2月9日火曜日
Wall Street Journal! Please forgive us! We are so sorry we believed you!
This economy collapsed when financial mortgage games collapsed, we save makers and players of vulture funds and of course they want to stop U.S. citizens helping themselves with their own tax money to unable themselves to have effort to bail themselves out by loan-modification.
It is unforgivable sin against WSJ and friends of establishment to save whole economy from collapsing, dealing with the problems they caused.
It is unforgivable sin against WSJ and friends of establishment to save whole economy from collapsing, dealing with the problems they caused.
2010年2月8日月曜日
2010年2月7日日曜日
"NATO is not an enemy of Russia"
When I saw following passage literally couldn't believe my eyes.
According to this, I don't know on which planet NATO exists.
According to this, I don't know on which planet NATO exists.
"I have to say that this new doctrine does not reflect the real world
... NATO is not an enemy of Russia," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen told Reuters (Russian doctrine does not reflect real world - NATO, Reuters )
Famous Investigative Journalist Grag Palast on Citizen Radio!
Famous Investigative Journalist Grag Palast on Citizen Radio!
talks about corporatecracy and Haiti.
WARNING A LOT OF %#@?! WORDS
talks about corporatecracy and Haiti.
WARNING A LOT OF %#@?! WORDS
More than 100,000 March in Support of Chavez in Venezuela
More than 100,000 March in Support of Chavez in Venezuela
I guess its because unlike our politicians he supports poor people:
The War On Democracy by John Pilger
Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I guess its because unlike our politicians he supports poor people:
The War On Democracy by John Pilger
Revolution Will Not Be Televised
2010年2月6日土曜日
NIKKEI NET: イランは1970年代から中東地域の非核化を提案している
NIKKEI NET:イラン、核利用の権利重ねて主張 安保会議
非常に珍しい、現実が情報統制を、少しだけすり抜けた瞬間。英語の記事ではこの発言は見つからなかった。
載せては、広めてはいけない言動ということになるのだろう。
イランは割とＮＰＴを守っている。 ＩＡＥＡの視察を受け入れている。それを脅かしているのは、中東の安全を脅かしているのは、国連安全保障理事会決議が暗に示しているように、イスラエルと米国だろう:
Israel ‘Deplores’ IAEA Call to Join NPT
US Rejects Vote, Canada Tries to Block Resolution
by Jason Ditz, September 18, 2009
５日夜に開かれた公開討論会で、モッタキ外相は「イランは1970年代から中東地域の非核化を提案している」などと主張した。
非常に珍しい、現実が情報統制を、少しだけすり抜けた瞬間。英語の記事ではこの発言は見つからなかった。
載せては、広めてはいけない言動ということになるのだろう。
これに対してスウェーデンのビルト外相は「国際社会がイランに求めているのは核拡散防止条約（ＮＰＴ）や（ウラン濃縮活動の停止を求めた）国連安全保障理事会決議の履行だ」と発言。
イランは割とＮＰＴを守っている。 ＩＡＥＡの視察を受け入れている。それを脅かしているのは、中東の安全を脅かしているのは、国連安全保障理事会決議が暗に示しているように、イスラエルと米国だろう:
Israel ‘Deplores’ IAEA Call to Join NPT
US Rejects Vote, Canada Tries to Block Resolution
by Jason Ditz, September 18, 2009
2010年2月4日木曜日
trailer: The End of Poverty?
Poverty is not an accident
The End Of Poverty? from Philippe Diaz on Vimeo.
2010年2月3日水曜日
明日のメディアのために、「ニュースの深層」（２／２／２００９） USTREAM同時放送
クロスオーナーシップ規制のための画期的なイベント、朝日ニュースター「ニュースの深層」（２／２／２００９）、twitter, USTREAM 放送の録画版
CMの間もサービスで話しまくる、市民のためのすばらしい情報提供となった番組です。
同時進行のツイターつぶやきでは多くの人が、現状のメディアへの不満をつぶやいていました。
CMの間もサービスで話しまくる、市民のためのすばらしい情報提供となった番組です。
同時進行のツイターつぶやきでは多くの人が、現状のメディアへの不満をつぶやいていました。
韓国市民のためのメディア MediACTを守れ！
デモクラシー･ナウ！のメーリングリストの「掲示板」からの引用です。
韓国の光化門にある映像メディアセンターを運営してきたMediACTが存亡の危機
にさらされ、国際的な支援を求めています。
MediACTは、レイバーネット日本の創立総会でも来賓にお招きした労働メディア
活動家のキム・ミョンジュン氏のイニシアチブで2002年に設立されたメディアグ
ループで、メディアセンターの運営を通じて労働運動のドキュメンタリーをはじ
めとする数多くの優れたドキュメンタリーや独立映画を生み出してきました。
MediACTは、韓国内ではメディア教育や映像政策支援などに加え、パブリックア
クセスの実現や、独立映画専門上映館の開館など、国際的なメディア運動の中で
も大きな貢献をしてきました。そして国際的にも国際的なワークショップの開催
などを通じ、東アジアの国際メディア活動の核心的な役割を果たし、日本でも多
くのメディア活動家がMediACTを訪問しています。
ところが、金大中、盧武鉉と続いた比較的進歩的と見なされてきた政権が保守派
の李明博政権に代わり、金大中・盧武鉉時代に誕生した制度や機構に対する攻撃
が強まり、政府組織やマスメディアばかりでなく、多くの草の根市民運動や労働
運動にまでその攻撃が及んでいます。そして今回、攻撃のターゲットになったの
がMediACTです。
MediACTは、政府傘下の映画振興委員会との契約により、資金的な支援で運営を
続けてきましたが、昨年12月に従来の契約が公募に切り替えられ、第一次公募で
は「該当者なし」、そして先日行われた第二次公募では豊かな実績と経験を持つ
MediACTではなく、公募にあわせて急造された右派系のメディア団体が光化門の
映像メディアセンターの運営者に選ばれたのです。そのため、MediACTは今月
いっぱいでメディアセンターから退去しなければならなくなり、これまで続けて
きたさまざまな事業も中断せざるを得ない状態になっています。
これは、単に韓国内のひとつのメディアセンターの運営というだけの問題ではあ
りません。まさに独裁政権下でのメディア規制で苦しんできた韓国の人々にとっ
て、自由で民主的なメディアが、自由と民主主義にとっていかに重要か、そして
自由なメディアを労働者・市民のレベルで支えるメディアセンターがどのような
意味を持つかは自明でしょう。労働者・市民のメディア活動の基盤であるメディ
アセンターへの攻撃の背後には、人々の自由な活動の手段を奪おうとする魂胆が
透けて見えます。そして、国際的な視野に立てば、MediACTの危機は国際的なメ
ディア運動における東アジアでの核心の崩壊につながるという点でも、また、メ
ディアを通じた国際的な労働者・市民の連帯を破壊するという意味でも、
MediACTへの攻撃はわれわれに向けられた攻撃とも等しく、決して他人事ではあ
りません。
もちろん、今回の運営者変更が、公正な公募と運営者選定であると納得できるの
であれば、運営者の変更そのものを非難することはできないでしょう。しかし、
今回の運営者の変更につながった公募の過程は、その公正性がきわめて疑わしい
ものでした。契約満了の直前に公募が公表されたこと、実績も経験もなく、公募
にあわせて急造されたメディア団体が選定されたこと、選定理由にハイビジョン
や3D映像製作など、市民・労働メディアの本質とかけはなれた産業的理由があげ
られていることなど、あらゆる角度から見ても無理な選定であり、政治的な意図
の下での不自然な選定と言わざるを得ません。
以上のように、MediACTは国内的・国際的に優れた活動を続けてきたにもかかわ
らず、いままさに理由にもならないような理由で抹殺されようとしています。今
回の公募を撤回し、MediACTが映像メディアセンターの運営を続けられるよう、
できるだけ多くの人が抗議の声を韓国の当局に届けていただければと思います。
インターネットでは、次のサイトでSave Mediactの署名ができます。
Save Mediact
http://www.gopetition.com/online/33662.html
今回の公募を実施した映画振興委員会の電話番号は以下のとおりです。
+82-2-958-7521 または +82-2-9587-526
映画振興委員会のメールアドレスは以下のとおりです。
snowmt@kofic.or.kr
2010年1月31日日曜日
This video above really makes me worry about Haitian people. Because it reminds me what Naomi Klein argued on her book The Shock Doctrine. When people are at state of shock, it has been easy for the powerful to take advantage on them. And those who have power are willing to do that historically: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/17/the_shock_doctrine_naomi_klein_on
登録:
投稿 (Atom)