In light of Senator Harry Reid implying that the Republican party defended slavery, I’m republishing my review of Wrong On Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, by Bruce Bartlett:

“[V]irtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

On December 5, 2002, Republican senator Trent Lott toasted 100-year-old Republican senator Strom Thurmond, a former segregationist, at a private birthday party, saying that if the rest of the country had voted for Thurmond for president as he had (Thurmond ran in 1948 as a Dixiecrat), “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

About a year and a half later, on the Senate floor (and on taxpayers’ time), Democrat Chris Dodd said that Democrat Robert Byrd (who said on cable TV a few years earlier that he’d seen a lot of “white niggers” in his time), a former segregationist and KKK recruiter, would have been “a great senator” during America’s founding, crafting of the Constitution, and the Civil War.

The backlash against Lott was fierce. He apologized and groveled on Black Entertainment Television (BET) but was eventually drummed out of his leadership post. The backlash against Dodd? Non-existent. He neither prostrated himself before the PC gods nor played the fool on BET.

This double standard was the result of a long distorted history of both parties. The Democrats, seen as the civil rights party, supported slavery, opposed civil rights legislation, instituted the “Black Codes,” and created the Jim Crow system. The Republican Party, in contrast, was founded in opposition to slavery, and supported post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement-era legislation.

“All of the racism that we associate with [the southern] region of the country originated with and was enforced by elected Democrats,” writes Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. In Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, Bartlett goes deep into the history of the Democratic Party and attempts to set the record straight.

Bartlett discusses the motivations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to maintain slavery and how Andrew Johnson (whom the author says was “a Democrat his whole life”) tried to block post-Civil War legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves. He includes obscure figures like Senator Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina, whose “consistent theme…was that black men had some sort of compulsion to mate with white women,” and Senator Theodore Bilbo from Mississippi, whose “permanent resolution of the race problem” in 1938 was to send blacks back to Africa and/or create a 49th state for them “somewhere in the West.”

Woodrow Wilson, a liberal who implemented progressive reforms while in office, also instituted racial segregation throughout the federal government. And Bartlett notes that Wilson’s attorney general “did far more to repress free speech and political freedom” than Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican, ever attempted. But when was the last time Hollywood made a movie about A. Mitchell Palmer?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a “reputation for being a progressive on the race issue,” wasn’t much better on civil rights. He appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII.

Republican Dwight Eisenhower, “conventionally portrayed as having done nothing for blacks during his eight years,” passed civil rights bills in 1957 (the first since Reconstruction) and 1960. Eisenhower also sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Bartlett praises Democrat Harry Truman for signing an executive order establishing a presidential committee on civil rights, an unpopular move in the party, but spares none for President John F. Kennedy, who receives far more credit on civil rights than he deserves. Kennedy did nothing substantive on civil rights, contends Bartlett, and what he did do was largely symbolic as he tried to avoid antagonizing Southern Democrats.

He credits President Lyndon B. Johnson for “finally repudiating both his own segregationist past and the Democratic Party’s” in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination.

And what about President Richard M. Nixon’s so-called Southern strategy? Bartlett calls it a myth. There was no strategy “to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged.” During his campaign in 1968, Nixon emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and picked Spiro Agnew as his vice president, a man reputed to be strong on civil rights.

The shift in Southern voting patterns from Democratic to Republican had to have been about race, right? According to Bartlett, economic changes in the South were the primary factor. During the Democrats’ political reign, the South had been the poorest region. As the South’s wealth increased, southerners became receptive to Republican messages of low taxes and small government.

People tend to forget that Nixon pushed to desegregate schools, denying federal aid to segregated school districts. “Just one month into his presidency,” Bartlett writes, “any idea that Nixon was pursuing a Southern strategy had been thoroughly discredited.”

Unfortunately, Nixon also implemented government race preferences.

Bartlett’s meticulously researched Wrong on Race concludes with suggestions on how Republicans can reach out to black voters, including connecting through immigration policy and this stunner: getting behind the idea of slavery reparations. Bartlett tries to make the case on legal, public policy, and political grounds.

If reaching out to black voters has to involve reparations race pandering, don’t bother. (Besides, it wouldn’t work, anyway.) Despite that shocker at the end, Wrong on Race provides ammunition for Republicans fed up with being called racists

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2009/12/08/harry-reid-forgets-democrats-history/

The year 1960 was a monumental one during which this country elected John Kennedy as its president.   But the book 1960 – LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies illustrates once again that more is less.   Instead of writing a book about President Kennedy, Vice President Johnson or the losing presidential candidate Nixon, David Pietrusza attempts to cover them all at once; as a result more is lost than gained.

One basic problem is that the backgrounds and life events of these three separate large characters in U.S. history (and modern politics) are covered rapidly.   For the reader who has already read full biographies of JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon, far too much is missed or condensed down to Reader’s Digest style summaries.   On the flip side, the reader who has never read in depth about these figures will likely be unable to comprehend some of what he/she is reading due to the very facts and circumstances that are left out.

I’ll provide an example of the latter problem.   One of the events that made Nixon a major, but young, political figure in the late 1050’s was his involvement in investigating Alger Hiss.   That is mentioned on just two pages in 1960 and what’s missing is an explanation of the key evidence found against Hiss that Nixon relied upon in alleging that Hiss was a Communist and/or a spy (notwithstanding that Hiss worked in the U.S. State Department for Franklin D. Roosevelt and was once the Secretary-General of the United Nations).   There’s no explanation here of the microfilm found in a pumpkin or the typewriter that was supposedly found to have been used by Hiss to commit a forgery.   For the person who is not familiar with Nixon, it will seem that he is credited for “breaking” Hiss but it will be unclear as to exactly why.   Nixon’s role as a prosecutor is hazy without a sufficient review of the evidence he presented against Hiss.

There’s another issue.   The book jacket states:  “Like The Making of the President, 1960 by Theodore White – yet far more revealing than Kennedy camp insider White could ever be…  (it) has the narrative energy and suspenseful turns and twists of a headlong thriller.   Yet it’s all true.”   Well, we actually don’t know today what is and is not true about what is reported as fact in 1960.   For example, there’s an entire chapter – a somewhat silly one – about Kennedy’s relationships with women (“They were a dime a dozen”); and statements about his father and brother Robert.   But these events happened so long ago that we do not, in fact, know what happened and what was alleged or was the product of someone’s imagination.

It’s also not clear what the impact of this information is supposed to be…  Enough said.   But, for me, the biggest fault with 1960 is that I never felt I was getting to know any of the three figures as human beings.   By contrast, Pietrusza shows some surprising skills by including some write-ups of peripheral figures that come off as much more real and human – individuals with true strengths and flaws.   Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller are two of the figures who come to life in 1960 in a way that the three lead subjects do not.

Finally, this is just not the suspenseful thriller touted on the book jacket.   For an excellent example of a non-fiction political/modern history book that does read like a Capitol thriller, the interested reader can turn to By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld by Bradley Graham.   Rules is an 832-page roller coaster ride that is never dull.   By comparison, 1960 is a 417-page survey that tries to cover the lives of three very large figures at one selected point in U.S. history.   It comes off as simultaneously both too big (focusing on three pivotal lives rather than one) and too small (leaving out too many key details while including a bit too much gossip).   As a result, it simply feels flat in the reading…   But maybe Pietrusza will produce a comprehensive biography of Hubert Horatio Humphrey or Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller; either would – no doubt – be quite interesting.

This book was purchased by the reviewer.

Wikipedia describes the war on terrorism this way:

The War on Terrorism or War on Terror is the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism, Islamic militants and regimes that supported them, and was specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies since September 11, 2001 attacks…

Wikipedia described the September 11, 2001 attacks this way:

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights. …

USA TODAY described the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers this way:

Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

So, what was President George W. Bush doing in Iraq? How did Iraq relate to the terrorist strike on America? Why did the neocons select Iraq as a target for their “war on terror”?

Now, before you “think OIL” – “perish the thought”. It was not about the OIL. The neocons’ Secretary of Defense said it was not about the oil and there was no response from Congressman Joe Wilson(Republican of South Carolina). It seems that human lie detectors and human czar detectors have pretty good political filters.

The Iraqi war was an American and Iraqi disaster. It was an Allied powers disaster. The American people, already damaged by al-Qaeda, were damaged again by the war in Iraq. Thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives were lost. Tracking the monetary cost to the America taxpayer will take some time – if it can be done at all.

It looked like the neocons had a more important objective than punishing al-Qaeda for 9/11/2001.

The re-direction of America’s war effort away from al-Qaeda and toward Saddam Hussein gave al-Qaeda time to do its business. With the Bush team in Iraq – that certainly made neutral Arabs angry and thus likely helped al-Qaeda recruitment of more terrorists and terrorist “wannabees”. And Mr. Bush’s challenge to terrorists to “bring it on” likely brought terrorists out of retirement to fight against the Allies.

In his domain, Saddam Hussein had a reputation. It is quite possible that – given a choice, al-Qaeda would rather fight the Bush team in Iraq than Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Why did the Bush team decide to attack Iraq? Was it because Saddam Hussein deserved it? Was it because the Iraqi population deserved democracy – albeit at the barrel of a gun?

For five years the neocons seemed to have been more focused on Iraq’s oil wells than on anything else. Oil well fires brought a quick response from expert fire fighters while finding a clean glass of drinking water was as elusive as under the Saddam regime.

Why would the neocons ignore, for five years, the 9/11/2001 al-Qaeda group and focus on waging war in Iraq? It was al-Qaeda who damaged America. Was there something MORE important to the business-centric neocons than extracting payment from al-Qaeda for its 9/11/2001 attack on America? The answer to that question is likely yes and the commodity that “bumped” American citizens is likely OIL!

And here’s what BBC had to say about Iraqi’s current oil possibilities:

Iraq oil capacity ‘to reach 12m barrels per day’

Iraq’s oil capacity could reach 12 million barrels per day (bpd) in six years, the country’s oil minister says.

Hussein al-Shahristani told reporters in Baghdad that oil producers would not necessarily operate at full capacity, but would take into account demand.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, has a capacity of 12.5m bpd.

Earlier, a joint bid by Russian and Norwegian oil firms won the contract for the “supergiant” West Qurna field, said to have reserves of 13bn barrels.

Lukoil and Statoil will get $1.15 a barrel and will work to raise output from West Qurna Phase 2, in the Basra region, to 1.8m bpd. In June, a winning bid to develop another Iraqi field received $2 a barrel.

On Friday, the contract to develop the 12.6bn-barrel Majnoon field in southern Iraq was won by a consortium led by Shell. It also pledged to increase daily production to 1.8m barrels, up from only 46,000. …

Iraq has the possibility of being a big producer of oil. And as Mr. George W. Bush observed: America is “addicted to oil“. And as the news source points out – Mr. Bush did not appear to strive for an alternative to oil.

Would it have been “moral” for the neocons to “covet” thy neighbor’s oil wells? Would it have been illegal to go to war to gain control of Iraq’s oil wells? The world thought it had advanced beyond the days of “Attila the Hun” – but then came the neocons who would rather fight until the world is a mirror image of the neocons. It doesn’t make sense but then …

The neocons had “ramped” their terror fighting up to a fever pitch. Their terrorist warnings to America could have been: “BE AFRAID – BE VERY AFRAID”. America’s laws were broken. There was a constant strain on America’s treasury and there was even mention of a third world war by a high ranking American official.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, told America it had nothing to fear but fear itself. A nation’s army was heading America’s way. The Second World War was about to start.

The neocons elevated terrorists on bicycles carring explosives in backpacks up to “world war status”. Will terror strike America again? It’s possible. But after the effects of the neocons wears off, the likelyhood of political violence should diminish.

The neocons, with one exception, are in a class by themselves

LONDON (WJC)–The eminent historian Andrew Roberts has said that the British government had a de facto ban in place on state visits by Queen Elizabeth II to Israel.

“The true reason of course, is that the FO [Foreign Office] has a ban on official royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged. As an act of delegitimization of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists. It is, therefore, no coincidence that although the queen has made over 250 official overseas visits to 129 different countries during her reign, neither she nor one single member of the British royal family has ever been to Israel on an official visit,” Roberts told a gala dinner in London.

The historian’s work includes biographies of former British prime ministers Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, as well as Hitler and Roosevelt. Roberts said that Britain had been at best “a fair-weather friend” to Israel, and even though Queen Elizabeth’s mother-in-law, Princess Alice of Greece, had been recognized as a Righteous Among the Nations for sheltering a Jewish family in her Athens home during the Holocaust, and is buried on the Mount of Olives, Prince Philip had not been allowed to visit his mother’s grave until 1994 – “and then only on a private visit.”

“Perhaps her majesty hasn’t been on the throne long enough, at 57 years, for the Foreign Office to get round to allowing her to visit one of the only democracies in the Middle East. At least she could be certain of a warm welcome in Israel, unlike in Morocco, where she was kept waiting by the king for three hours in 90-degree heat, or at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Uganda the time before last, where they hadn’t even finished building her hotel,” Roberts remarked.

*
Preceding provided by World Jewish Congress

The word “character” like the word “President (of the United States of America)” holds intrinsic yet abstract meaning. Despite historical evidence of deeply flawed personalities guiding the country, we the people continue to initially conjure the honorable aspects of the two words and link them together. Robert A. Wilson’s Character Above All:  Ten Presidents from FDR to George Bush perpetuates that traditional perspective.

Spanning sixty years (1932-1992), Character offers a rather balanced assessment of ten presidencies. The essays, one per President, are penned by historians, biographers, and journalists. Different approaches include definitions, saintly comparisons, varying measures of criticism and praise, and shared experiences, but each one likens strong character to greatness. The benefits and strengths of such a diverse collection reside in the juxtaposition while the consequential weakness rests in lack of uniformity. Several authors have penned much larger, richer accounts of Presidents, making these snapshots (suited for such a collection) often feel restrained and incomplete. For what it is, the collection presents a good overview of the relationship between character and leadership; it provides a starting point for the historically curious.

Robert A. Wilson, editor
Doris Kearns Goodwin on Franklin D. Roosevelt
David McCullough on Harry S. Truman
Stephen E. Ambrose on Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Reeves on John F. Kennedy
Robert Dallek on Lyndon Johnson
Tom Wicker on Richard Nixon
James Cannon on Gerald Ford
Hendrik Hertzberg on Jimmy Carter
Peggy Noonan on Ronald Reagan
Michael Beschloss on George Bush

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio (Press Release) –Shoah by Arnold Reisman examines Turkey’s role in the Holocaust and compares it to that of the United States and the United Kingdom, in an effort to reveal that Turkey actually did significantly more than previously thought.

The dark days of the Holocaust have been well-documented, but now in Shoah, Reisman uses recently found archival documents to cast a new light on how and why Turkey was actually a prime player in helping Jews escape the Holocaust.

Reisman uses testimonies through the USC Shoah Foundation Institute’s survivor testimonies project as well as oral histories taken from those directly involved. He also presents additional research from the FDR Presidential Library archives, British Foreign and Colonial Offices, and more. While admitting that Turkey could have done more in becoming a place of refuge and a transit country, Reisman reveals that under the circumstances of a shaky economy, and immense pressures exerted by the British, Arabs and the Nazis, Turkey did more than most historians, educators and media have
reported. Shoah offers insights into both the Republic of Turkey and its people, as well as the Nazi reign.

Dilek Barias, professor of history at Koc University in Istanbul, says of the book, “The result of a passionate commitment and scholarship. It offers new insights into the complex events of the time.”

Shoah is available for sale online at Amazon.com, BookSurge.com, and through additional wholesale and retail channels worldwide.

Arnold Reisman is a fellow of the American Association for the  Advancement of Science and is listed in Who’s Who of America. He  is the author of over 300 papers in journals and 17 books, including Turkey’s Modernization, Classical European Music and Opera, Arts
in Turkey, and more. Currently, he lives in Shaker Heights.

*
Preceding provided by Arnold Reisman

Alec Weisman, Editor-in-Chief

I was walking along Library Walk at UCSD on Friday when I noticed a group of people protesting. As UCSD is a very apathetic campus, I was intrigued as to what “liberal” group was protesting, only to discover that to my surprise that a group of Iranian students and local community members protesting AGAINST the Iranian regime and human rights violations that it was committing in the wake of the 2009 Iranian Election Protests.

I asked them why they were protesting now, to which they explained that December 7th is Student’s Movement Day in Iran, which symbolizes opposition to oppression in Iran.

They were present with signs calling for democracy in Iran, the freeing of the protestors and students imprisoned in Iran, and denouncing the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Ayatollah Khamenei demonstrated his support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies of trampling human rights and the government crackdown on protesters opposed to the 2009 presidential elections which are believed to have been fraudulent.

The peak of media attention to the protests occurred after the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, a philosophy student, who was murdered in the streets of Tehran.

She breathed another wave of energy into the movement also known as the Green Revolution. In response, the crackdown grew fiercer, and according to the New York Times, “The authorities closed universities in Tehran, blocked cellphone transmissions and access to facebook and some other Web sites, and [...] shut down text-messaging services.”

Sadly, these protests were soon overshadowed in the media by the death of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, and Billy Mays in short succession, losing the momentum that had been building against the authoritarian Iranian regime. More protests continued, however the Media ADHD had taken hold and no longer was this story of importance to the world, and the abuses of the Iranian regime have continued.

***

However I would like to inject a few thoughts into my article.
1) Iran has a rate of 5.3 guns per 100 people.
However, according to CNN “Iran’s strict gun-control laws mean private citizens cannot carry firearms”
… Is it just me, or does Jefferson’s famous quote “”No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” seem very apt? Also, without getting into a huge argument about gun control, I will list some supporters of the right to bear arms for the promotion of liberty throughout history: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Mahatma Gandhi, to name just a few. It is also interesting to note that all totalitarian & communist states have banned the right to bear arms to their populace.

2) If President Obama wanted respect from conservatives, rather than giving this speech:

he should rather have given a speech similar to one that Ronald Reagan gave on June 8, 1982 to the Soviet Union, in which he called them out as an evil empire and totalitarian state:

Every great American President (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, & Ronald Reagan) understood that you cannot negotiate with evil. They understood that America must fight for freedom and, rather than complain about its cost, take up the burden and the responsibility.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

John F. Kennedy

But Obama isn’t Reagan, or any of the other great presidents.

Although he pretends to inspire, and although the media has lapped up his words with the eagerness greater than a dying dog, the American people hear past these words and see the weakness and Anti-Americanism he promotes in his appology tours and bowing to foreign royalty.

So remember, peace through strength, not through appeasement.

Update: Iranian Police are once again attacking protestors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_Police_Surround_University_To_Thwart_Protest/1896737.html
Update 2: Email from within Iran
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/12/06/16-azar-special-a-letter-from-inside-iran/

Dean Rammelsberg, a World War II veteran who served in the Pacific, called me this morning from snowy Iowa in remembrance of Pearl Harbor Day. I asked for his memories of that day, Dec. 7, 1941. He said:

“The United States as a whole didn’t want war… It was a sunny fall day in Iowa. We didn’t have all the news like we do today. Everyone heard the news of the attack on the radio, and everyone gathered around the radio to hear the president’s speech.”

I told him I had just been reading that speech, and that I was planning to share it on this blog. Here is what U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Congress Dec. 8, 1941:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt addresses Congress after Pearl Harbor attack.

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

“The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

“Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

“It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

Despite heroic efforts, much of the U.S. fleet was destroyed at Pearl Harbor.

“The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

“Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

“Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

“Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

“Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

“Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

“This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

“Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The People of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

The sudden sneak attack at Pearl Harbor provoked anger and resolve to prevent future attacks.

“As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

“But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

“I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the People when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us…”

Sadly, in our world of 9/11 and suicide bombers, we know that no human effort can totally remove the danger of sneak attacks and treachery. But we have God’s assurance that someday, and we pray that it may be soon, Jesus Christ will return to bring real peace to this earth (Revelation 11:15; Isaiah 2:4). May God speed that day, and forward to the Kingdom of God!

God is doing something in you. If the going is tough, keep pressing forward. One way or other, the work He’s doing is going to get done, so your cooperation and willingness to play ball will only add to your joy and the end result according to His perfect design. Embrace the journey!

“And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. ” – Philippians 1:6

Power Thoughts …

1. The significant problems we face in life can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. – Albert Einstein
2. Think like someone of action, and act like someone of thought. You’ll be amazed at the results!
3. Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. – Franklin D. Roosevelt

Welcome to a Monday edition of the Surf Report.

.: God :

What does it mean to be a man?

Mark Driscoll believes that the transition from boyhood to manhood is marked by the following 5 events:

1. Leave your parents home.

2. Finish education/ vocational degree.

3. Start a career-track job vs. a dead-end job.

4. Meet/ marry a woman.

5. Have children.

My thoughts:

• Not everyone is “called” to marry.
• I agree that no transitional event marks when one becomes a man.
• There is nothing wrong with marrying later in life.
• Being single does not equal being irresponsible.
• Playing videogames/ interest in videogames is not a sign of immaturity. Videogames are as valid as a hobby as sports. (I agree when Mark speaks of how dumb it is when people throw their lives away playing videogames.)

Your thoughts?

.: Life :

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt

.: Gaming :

Recently Syp over @ Bio Break had a great post that outlined a year of free-to-play MMO’s. This got me thinking, why not play an MMO a week? Sounds like the ultimate MMO tourist challenge to me! As you might have guessed from the header above, I have decided to play Maple Story this week. Time for some quirky Korean fun! Thoughts and comments will be shared in next week’s Surf Report (12/14/09). Stay tuned.

That is it for this weeks Surf Report. Make sure to comment below and have a good week!

Einstein speaks on “How I see the world”; (Nov. 30, 2009)

Note: The translated book in French does not provide context to what Einstein’s wrote, published or delivered; thus, I have no sources for the dates or events or purpose for these documents except what I may conjecture.

            Einstein wrote “pure religion or cosmic religiosity consists at feeling astonished and ecstatic before the harmony of nature’s laws and beauty that uncovers a superior intelligence that defies our comprehension.  I know that my existence is limited and I ignore why I am on earth; I do know that I have this premonition that I am alive to the others: their smiles and happy nature condition my life. What I know is that who is questioning the meaning of life is going through a miserable period: he is not finding reason to live.  More importantly is “Is there any sense for asking such a question on the meaning of life?”

             I feel a thousand times a day that I am dependent to the work of the living and the dead.  My home, my food, and my cloth are contributed by man of the community. What I know and what I feel I owe it to the other man.  I cannot imagine of a man isolated from a community since his birth: I can only conceive that he would emulate the surrounding animals and environment.  Only languages to communicate among people distinguish us from the animal kingdom.

            “I am not that free and I appreciate Schopenhauer maxim “Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wishes”.  I learned to look at the world with a sense of humor: I cannot be pre-occupied with the sense or purpose of my existence because it is objectively absurd.  I have ideals such as the good, the beautiful, and the truth and I get obstinate pursuing ideals not even accessible to art or sciences.  I loath human passions for wealth, glory, luxury, and power.  Only justice is worth social engagement.”

            “Creating and inventing require a unity in concept, direction, and sense of responsibility.  I devoted my entire life with un-interrupted efforts to what I achieved and here you have people thinking that they can comprehend all my work by just listening to my expositions. My only criterion for judging a man is “To what degree and to what purpose has man liberated from his I?””

            Gandhi incarnates the highest political genius of our civilization.  I hate the military institution.  Any person feeling this pleasure of marching in rank is utterly content with his limbic brain.  There are no excuses for obeying orders that are contrary to our moral values, especially killing fellow man.  I cannot imagine a God punishing and rewarding the object of his creation or regulating his will on my own experience.  I do not want to conceive that we may survive after death: that is the ultimate in egoism.

            “The mechanical organization of institutions, even in the scientific world, has substituted the individual innovators; thus, men of genius are becoming rare: citizens are neglecting the intellectual intelligence and the necessity of moral rights.  I often have mixed feeling about individuals who have improved human life: I keep wondering of their moral objectives and if they really intended to do the good.

            The discovery of the atomic bomb does not constitute a higher danger to humanity than match boxes: we have to suppress its usage.   The fabrication of the H Bomb is a feasible objective: each progress generates consequences from prior progresses.  Generalized annihilation of human kind is the most likely outcome.  We are creating the means for our premature death.  In the actual state of technology only a supra-national institution, an organization equipped with a world legal tribunal to decide on States’ differences and with executive power can eliminate fear and the need to arm for reciprocal defense.”

            After the rise of Hitler to power Einstein reverted to pragmatism; first, he resigned his professorship at the University of Prussia, he incited France and Belgium to arm against Nazi programs, and he warned Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany might acquire the atomic bomb if the US does not get on fabricating the atomic bomb as a deterrence tool.  Einstein was also a staunch Zionist before the formal recognition of the State of Israel by the UN in 1948.

After the poor response to Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, rapper Kanye West made the controversial statement that former president, George W. Bush did not care about black people. Pundits from Fox News were shocked that West had made such a statement. Badly, they wanted him to apologize.

In the end, Kanye West did not. He wound up finding support from within the black community. Most of the people agreed that the president did not care about black people. But, over time, this perception of President Bush may change. As people die and people who were young in his time grow old, they may forget exactly how bad things were.

One of the most popular presidents in American history is Ronald Reagan. He was the president that Bush modeled himself after. Reagan’s vice president also happened to be George H.W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush. Twenty years after his presidency, he is credited for fixing a very rough economy and it is said that black people loved him.

But, watch any documentary about a rapper talking about living in poverty during the Reagan era. He did nothing for the black neighborhoods. The only people that President Ronald Reagan took care of were the rich, white people that funded his campaigns. Kanye West even suspected that Reagan was behind the introduction of crack cocaine to these poverty-ridden neighborhoods in the 1980s.

When he was younger, Ronald Reagan was an avid Democrat. He endorsed such candidates as Franklin D. Roosevelt for president. At the lower level, he also campaigned for many Democrats. During this time, the Democratic Party was home to such leaders as J. Strom Thurmond and George C. Wallace. Both of those leaders were openly racist.

As the 1960s came, the Democratic Party began to distance itself from such racist leaders. At the time, the party was beginning to expand and take over many Republican areas. In 1964, realignment came when President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, endorsed the Civil Rights Movement. It was then that many prominent, racist, Democrats moved to the Republican Party.

Of the many Democrats that switched parties were Ronald Reagan. In 1966, he ran as a Republican for Governor of California. Due to his status as a big political endorser and his profile as an actor, he was quickly elected. During his time in office, the governor voted against many Civil Rights laws. He also said that Confederate President, Jefferson Davis was one of his personal heroes.

Despite this, Ronald Reagan did not consider himself a racist. It just so happens that his political views were that people not rely too much on the government. Because of circumstances, black people were in need of aid from the government, socially and financially. Reagan simply did not believe in helping people this way. He felt that giving opportunities to the wealthy would trickle down to the less fortunate and that was how they would advance.

George W. Bush modeled himself after Ronald Reagan. Almost all of his political policies were Reagan-influenced. Looking at the things that President Reagan supported, it is safe to assume that he did not care about black people. Looking at Bush’s track record, it is safe to assume the same things about him. Reagan did not consider himself a racist, but he did not care about black people.

Former president, Bush, is criticized for his poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Some Republicans who became disgusted with Bush longed for the days of Reagan. They said such things about Ronald Reagan being more willing to tackle such a slipping economy and that Reagan would have taken care of the people displaced by Katrina.

Truth be told, Ronald Reagan probably would have left the people in a worse condition that Bush did. The only people that Reagan made things easier for were the people who already had it easy. Businesses profited during the Reagan era, black America suffered. Under the Reagan regime, there were token blacks placed in political positions, but he still voted against Civil Rights laws.

Gracias al USHistoryBlog.com, me entero de la existencia de “100 Great Moments in American History You Can Catch on YouTube”, un recurso que podría resultar de gran ayuda para quienes estén interesados o involucrados en la enseñanza de historia norteamericana.  Publicado por OnlineSchool.com, 100 Great Moments in American History You Can Catch on YouTube es una lista de vínculos a  cien vídeos procedentes de YouTube relacionados al desarrollo histórico de los Estados Unidos.

La lista que compone 100 Great Moments in American History está subdividida en ocho categorías. La primera es titulada Inauguraciones presidenciales y recoge vídeos de la inauguración de varios presidentes estadounidenses, entre ellos, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon y Barack Obama. Vínculos mundiales, la segunda categoría, recoge vídeos  de eventos de historia norteamericana de trascendencia mundial como el ataque a Pearl Harbor, el caso Watergate y el 11/9. La tercera categoría –Asesinatos históricos–  está dedicada al tema  de los asesinatos políticos y destacan aquí los vídeos relacionados a la muerte de Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martín Luther King, Robert Kennedy y John Lennon. La cuarta categoría es titulada Discursos históricos y recoge los famosos “fireside chat” de Franklin D. Roosevelt y discursos de Malcom X, Ronald Reagan y George W. Bush, entre otros. La quinta categoría es titulada Momentos fuera de este mundo y agrupa vídeos asociados a la carrera espacial (el lanzamiento del Sputnik, el alunizaje, el desastre del transbordador Challenger, etc.). La sexta categoría  nos lleva al mundo cultural, pues agrupa vídeos relacionados a la historia musical estadounidense como la llegada de los Beatles a los Estados Unidos, Woodstock, las presentaciones de los Jackson 5 y los conciertos de Black Sabbath. La penúltima categoría atiende un elemento muy importante de la cultura norteamericana: los deportes. Aquí encontramos vídeos de la pelea de Cassius Clay y Sonny Liston, la victoria del equipo de hockey norteamericano sobre el soviético en las Olimpiadas de  Invierno de 1980 y la participación de Michael Phelps en las Olimpiadas de 2008. La última categoría –Momentos televisivos– agrupa vídeos relacionados con la historia de la televisión estadounidense: I Love Lucy, Star Trek, Saturday Night Live, The Tonight Show, MTV,  The O´Reilly Factor, Survivors, etc.

A pesar de que la selección de algunos vídeos podría ser cuestionada, 100 Great Moments in American History You Can Catch on YouTube constituye una herramienta útil para la enseñanza y el estudio de la historia de los Estados Unidos.

Norberto Barreto Velázquez,

Lima, Perú, 29 de noviembre de 2009

Bereits seit 1941 / 1942 gibt es in den USA auf Anweisung von Präsident Franklin D. Roosevelt ein Programm, dass die Kriegsführung mit biologischen Waffen untersuchen sollte. Das ganze nannte sich “biological warfare program” – in einigen Publikationen auch als “bacteriological warfare” bezeichnet – und umfasste sowohl die Produktion und Lagerung von acht verschiedenen biologischen Kampfstoffen, sowie über 150 Versuche an lebenden Objekten, so z.B. Gefängnisinsassen und Kriegsdienstverweigerern – aber auch Versuche in öffentlichen U-Bahnen! Unglaublich? Ja, aber leider wahr…

Als das Programm zu Beginn des 2. Weltkriegs in’s Leben gerufen wurde, war es ursprünglich nur zur Verteidigung gedacht, d.h. man wollte die Möglichkeiten untersuchen, Soldaten und Bevölkerung gegen biologische und chemische Angriffe zu schützen. Aber im Laufe der Jahre wurde ein Kurswechsel vollzogen und ab dem Jahr 1956 untersuchte man auch den eigenen Einsatz biologischer und chemischer Waffen. Dazu gehörte auch die Entwicklung eigener Kampfstoffe – woraus u.a. das berüchtigte “Agent Orange” stammte, welches im Vietnamkrieg eingesetzt wurde.

Aus einem “Spiegel”-Artikel aus dem Jahr 1977 geht hervor, dass im Rahmen dieses Programms z.B. auch Tests an der unwissenden Bevölkerung durchgeführt wurden. So wollte man beispielsweise untersuchen, wie sich Aerosole im U-Bahn System ausbreiten. Dazu benutzte man eine Glühbirne, die aus einem fahrenden Zug geworfen wurde, Zitat:

Sie war gefüllt mit angeblich harmlosen Bakterien des Typs Serratia marcescens. “Es verteilte sich gut durch das gesamte U-Bahn-System”, berichtete der Pentagon-Angestellte Charles A. Senseney. “Wir begannen unten um die 14. Straße herum und machten Stichproben bis hinauf zur 58, Straße — und überall war eine ganze Menge Aerosol.”

Allerdings stellte sich später heraus, dass diese Bakterien doch nicht so ungefährlich waren, wie vom Militär behauptet!

Insgesamt 239 Mal – davon unglaubliche 27 mal in der Öffentlichkeit – wurde mit den Bakterien “Serratia marcescens” oder “Bacillus subtilis variant niger” (auch Bacillus globigii genannt) oder den “Fungus aspergillus fumigatus” getestet, wie man einen bakteriologischen Krieg offensiv führen und wie man sich dagegen verteidigen kann: mindestens acht amerikanische Städte und Militäreinrichtungen sind zwischen 1950 und 1966 bakteriologischen Scheinangriffen ausgesetzt gewesen!

Gesundheitliche Auswirkungen, die nach Bekanntwerden dieser und weiterer Versuche in Zusammenhang mit den Tests gebracht wurden:

• während bakteriologischer Tests in Fort McClellan, Alabama, habe sich die Anzahl der Fälle von Lungenentzündung in der Umgebung verdoppelt
• nach Versuchen in Key West, Florida ist ein Anstieg von Lungenentzündung um das Zehnfache und ein Anstieg dadurch bedingter Todesfälle um das Siebenfache zu verzeichnen gewesen
• der bei Versuchen in Mechanixburg, Pennsylvania, eingesetzte Fungus aspergillus fumigatus sei keineswegs harmlos, sondern könne Aspergillose hervorrufen, eine seltene Krankheit, zu deren Symptomen Asthma-Attacken oder Infektionen der äußeren Gehörgänge zählten
• 1967 waren nach Versuchen im Bundesstaat Utah 6400 Schafe eingegangen, weil Schwaden von Nervengas ihre Weideplätze überweht hatten -Schwaden, die ebensogut eine Stadt hätten erreichen können
• ebenfalls in Utah waren Antikörper der venezolanischen Pferde-Gehirnhautentzündung entdeckt worden, einer Krankheit, die gemeinhin in diesen Breiten Amerikas nicht vorkommt. Amerikas Bürger waren offensichtlich jahrzehntelang als Meerschweinchen wider Willen und ohne Wissen mißbraucht worden

Ein Unterprogramm, welches auch auf der englischen Wikipedia zumindest Erwähnung findet und grob beschrieben ist, war die “Operation Whitecoat”. Im Rahmen dieser geheimen Operation, die von 1954 – 1973 durchgeführt wurde, nahmen mehr als 2.300 Personen Teil – größtenteils Kriegsdienstverweigerer, die zwar Angehörige der US-Armee waren, aber im medizinischen Dienst eingesetzt wurden. Es wird zwar beschrieben, dass die Personen freiwillig teilnahmen – allerdings ist auf der englischen Wiki-Seite auch zu lesen, dass viele der ursprünglichen Teilnehmer einen Sitzstreik durchführten, um mehr über die die Gesundheitsgefährdung der Tests zu erfahren! An deren Stelle wurden anschließend Männer der Glaubensgemeinschaft der Adventisten für die Versuche angeheuert.

Während der Tests wurden die Probanten u.a. den Erregern des Q-Fiebers, Milzbrand, Hasenpest, Bauchtyphus und Hirnhautentzündung ausgesetzt. Es wird zwar immer wieder darauf hingewiesen, dass es bei den Tests keine Todesfälle gab – allerdings steht in der englischen Wiki auch zu lesen, dass die Armee nur von 1.000 der 2.300 Teilnehmer die Adressen hat, so dass es schwierig sein dürfte, eine seriöse Aussage über die Langzeitschäden der Tests zu treffen.

Hier ein Spiegel-Artikel aus dem Jahr 1977, der sich dem biological warfare Programm widmet. Da mir beim Querlesen einige Tippfehler aufgefallen sind, die im eingescannten Original nicht vorhanden waren, habe ich den Scan auch nochmals als PDF bereitgestellt, der hier runterzuladen ist.

Enorme Bedrohung für die Welt

Die US-Armee experimentierte mit bakteriologischen Waffen

Pest, Gelbfieber, Milzbrand und Fleckfieber können durch Kampfstoffe verbreitet werden, die Amerikas Armee von 1949 bis 1969 erprobte — und auch heute noch nicht aus ihrem Programm gestrichen hat. Ein Unterausschuß des US-Senats untersucht zur Zeit diese Praktiken, die zu einer Reihe mysteriöser Unfälle führten.

Der Feind ist unsichtbar, nur unter dem Mikroskop auszumachen. Er flutet durch U-Bahn-Schächte in New York, hängt über dem National Airport und dem “Greyhound”-Busbahnhof von Washington, kriecht durch Autobahntunnels in Pennsylvania.

Wer ihm begegnet, muß sich übergeben, wird ohnmächtig oder fällt um, auf der Stelle tot.

So oder ähnlich jedenfalls würde es nach Meinung amerikanischer Militärs und Wissenschaftler — aussehen, wenn es denn wider alles Erwarten zum BW-Ernstfall käme.

BW steht für biological oder bacteriological warfare, den Krieg mit biologischen oder bakteriologischen Waffen, dem die meisten Staaten der Welt zwar feierlich abgeschworen haben, auf den Amerikas Politiker und Militärs aber doch vorbereitet sein möchten.

Und so probten Militärs und Wissenschaftler den BW-Ernstfall — am lebenden Objekt, an Menschen, Tieren und Pflanzen.

Beispiel: Unter den Straßen von New York, im Südteil von Manhattan, wurde eine Glühbirne aus einem fahrenden Zug geworfen. Sie war gefüllt mit dem Treibstoff Aerosol und angeblich harmlosen Bakterien des Typs Serratia marcescens. “Es verteilte sich gut durch das gesamte U-Bahn-System”, berichtete der Pentagon-Angestellte Charles A. Senseney. “Wir begannen unten um die 14. Straße herum und machten Stichproben bis hinauf zur 58, Straße — und überall war eine ganze Menge Aerosol.”

Insgesamt 239 mal — 27mal in der Öffentlichkeit, im übrigen auf verschiedenen Militärbasen in den USA — suchten die Tester zwischen 1949 und 1969 nach Erkenntnissen, wie man einen bakteriologischen Krieg offensiv führen und wie man sich dagegen verteidigen kann. Und fast immer setzten sie dabei, neben phosphoreszierenden Teilchen, neben Schwefeldioxyd und Seifenblasen, die Bakterien Serratia marcescens oder Bacillus subtilis variant niger (auch Bacillus glöbigii genannt) oder den Fungus aspergillus fumigatus ein — nach Ansicht der Army-Wissenschaftler harmlose, in der Umwelt weitverbreitete Stoffe.

Zahlen und Einzelheiten stehen in einem zweibändigen Report, den die U.S. Army im Februar abschloß und im März veröffentlichte — nachdem amerikanische Journalisten zuvor erste Einzelheiten der bis dahin geheimgehaltenen Versuche enthüllt und berichtet hatten, im Gefolge der Tests seien amerikanische Staatsbürger gestorben oder schwer erkrankt.

Mindestens acht amerikanische Städte und Militäreinrichtungen, so um die Jahreswende die auf Long Island im Staate New York erscheinende Tageszeitung “Newsday”, seien zwischen 1950 und 1966 bakteriologischen Scheinangriffen ausgesetzt gewesen.

Unverändert hatten die Militärs den Wirkstoff Serratia marcescens benutzt, obwohl der längst in den Verdacht geraten war, schuld am Ausbruch einer Infektion in San Francisco gewesen zu sein, der ein Mensch zum Opfer fiel.

Während bakteriologischer Tests in Fort McClellan, Alabama, habe sich die Anzahl der Fälle von Lungenentzündung in der Umgebung verdoppelt.

Nach Versuchen in Key West, Florida. sei ein Anstieg von Lungenentzündung um das Zehnfache und ein Anstieg dadurch bedingter Todesfälle um das Siebenfache zu verzeichnen gewesen.

Und der bei Versuchen in Mechanixburg, Pennsylvania, eingesetzte Fungus aspergillus fumigatus sei keineswegs harmlos, sondern könne Aspergillose hervorrufen, eine seltene Krankheit, zu deren Symptomen Asthma-Attacken oder Infektionen der äußeren Gehörgänge zählten.

“Wenn man mich konsultiert und gefragt hätte”, zitierte “Newsday” den Arzt Dr. Libera Ajello vom US-Zentrum für Seuchenkrontrolle in Atlanta, “welchen Aspergillus ich für Scheinangriffe mit biologischen Waffen benutzen würde, wäre Fumigatus der letzte gewesen, den ich vorgeschlagen hätte, weil wir wissen, daß er pathogen (krankheitserregend) ist”.

Mit einem Male kamen auch frühere BW-Versuche wieder hoch. 1967 waren nach Versuchen im Bundesstaat Utah 6400 Schafe eingegangen, weil Schwaden von Nervengas ihre Weideplätze überweht hatten -Schwaden, die ebensogut eine Stadt hätten erreichen können.

Und ebenfalls in Utah waren Antikörper der venezolanischen Pferde-Gehirnhautentzündung entdeckt worden, einer Krankheit, die gemeinhin in diesen Breiten Amerikas nicht vorkommt. Amerikas Bürger. soviel schien sicher, waren jahrzehntelang als Meerschweinchen wider Willen und ohne Wissen mißbraucht worden.

Zwar dementierte die Army sofort: “Es gibt keinerlei Hinweise”, daß die Versuche “an irgendeinem der Testorte Tod durch Lungenentzündung verursachten”. Und in ihrem Report versucht sie, verständlicherweise, die “Newsday”-Enthüllungen herunterzuspielen: mit ärztlichen Gutachten, Attesten und wiederholten Hinweisen auf die “bemerkenswert gute Sicherheitsbilanz”.

Wohl seien im Fort Detrick, Maryland, dem Zentrum der amerikanischen BW-Forschung, drei Laborarbeiter ums Leben gekommen. 456 Personen hätten dort, 48 in anderen Labors Infektionen erlitten, aber das sei “besser als jeder industrielle Durchschnitt”. Die drei Todesfälle stellen eine niedrigere Sterblichkeitsrate dar als in irgendeiner anderen (verfügbaren) Übersicht über Laborinfektionen.

Tatsächlich aber bestätigt der Armee-Report im wesentlichen die ersten Presseberichte — und er verrät sogar noch ein wenig mehr: Seit Präsident Franklin D. Roosevelt 1941/42, kurz nach dem Eintritt der USA in den Zweiten Weltkrieg, das BW-Programm in Auftrag gab,

• produzierten und lagerten die USA acht bakteriologische Kampfstoffe zum Einsatz gegen Menschen, darunter Viren und Bakterien, die Papageienkrankheit, Pest, Gelbfieber, Milzbrand und Fleckfieber auslösen;
• veranstalteten US-Wissenschaftler über 150 Versuche am lebenden Objekt — mit Häftlingen des Staatsgefängnisses von Ohio und, im Rahmen der “Operation Weiße Weste” (operation whitecoat), mit Kriegsdienstverweigerern der Sieben-Tage-Adventisten: Alle Testpersonen hatten sich freiwillig für Versuche mit pathogenen Stoffen zur Verfügung gestellt.

Peinlich genau listete die Army in ihrem Report jeden einzelnen Versuch auf — eingeschlossen die Zahl der Testpersonen. die Dauer des in dem einen oder anderen Fall erforderlichen Krankenhausaufenthaltes sowie das Ziel der jeweiligen Versuchsreihe. Nur über 21 “geheime Projekte”, an denen höchstens jeweils zehn Personen beteiligt waren, wurde der Schleier nicht gelüftet.

Ihren ersten Höhepunkt erreichte Amerikas BW-Rüstung 1956. Damals glaubten die Amerikaner aus einer Rede des Sowjetmarschalls Schukow auf dem 20. Parteitag der KPdSU herauslesen zu können, die Sowjets würden im Ernstfall bakteriologische und chemische Waffen zur Massenvernichtung einsetzen.

Daraufhin warfen die USA ihr 15 Jahre lang nur auf Verteidigung gegen BW-Angriffe gerichtetes Konzept über Bord und beschlossen, sich nun auch selbst auf den möglichen Einsatz bakteriologischer und chemischer Killer vor zubereiten. Die Entscheidung über der Einsatz sollte ausschließlich dem Präsidenten vorbehalten bleiben.

Fortan wurde die Produktion offensiver BW-Killerwaffen verstärkt und auch die Fests am lebenden und toter Objekt — wie Weizen- und Reispflanzen — intensiviert.

Ausdrücklich bestätigte die Eisenhower- Regierung kurz vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen von 1960 noch einmal den Kurswechsel zur offensiven bakteriologischen Kriegsführung — und fand eifrige Schüler in der folgenden Kennedy-Administration.

Im Mai 1961 bereits, vier Monate nach Amtsantritt der neuen Regierung. wies Verteidigungsminister Robert S. McNamara, heute Präsident der Weltbank, die Vereinigten Stabschefs an. die Einsatzmöglichkeiten bakteriologischer und chemischer Waffen zu analysieren und alle möglichen Anwendungsbereiche in Erwägung zu ziehen”.

Ein umfassendes Programm antworteten die Stabschefs, werde vier Milliarden Dollar kosten — was den damaligen Forschungsdirektor des Pentagon und heutigen Verteidigungsminister der Carter-Regierung, Harald Brown, nicht davon abhielt, “entschieden dem Standpunkt der Vereinigten Stabschefs zuzustimmen, daß diese Waffen ein großes Potential darstellen”. Im Pine Bluff Arsenal im Bundesstaat Arkansas wuchsen bald darauf die Vorräte an bakteriologischen Kampfstoffen, die unter anderem -weil Dauerkühlung vonnöten war — in 273 Iglus gelagert wurden. In anderen BW-Instituten wurde eifrig an der Entwicklung neuer Waffen geforscht.

Dazu gehörten auch jene Herbizide. die Amerika bald darauf im Vietnamkrieg einsetzte, um den Dschungel Südostasiens zu entlauben. Das waren “war im Wortsinn keine bakteriologischen Waffen — doch Amerika geriet in den Augen der Weltöffentlichkeit zunehmend in den Verdacht, in Vietnam einen bakteriologischen Krieg zu führen. Am 25, November 1969 schließlich. nicht zuletzt unter dem Druck der Vereinten Nationen, verpflichtete sich Präsident Richard Nixon für die Vereinigten Staaten zum absoluten Verzicht auf den Einsatz bakteriologischer Waffen.

Ein Ende der Experimente mit BW-Kampf- oder — Ersatzstoffen aber bedeutete das keineswegs. Zwar wurden bis Februar 1973 bakteriologische Kampfstoffe vernichtet, die Produktionsstätten sterilisiert und entweder an die Privatindustrie oder an andere Regierungsbehörden verkauft. Von der Vernichtung ausgenommen jedoch wurden solche Wirkstoffe, die erforderlich sind für die defensive BW-Forschung” (Army-Report>.

Die beiden blauen Report-Bände der Army sind denn auch offensichtlich nur ein Teil der ganzen Wahrheit –Grund genug für einen Unterausschuß des Senats (Vorsitzender: Edward Kennedy), hearings über das gesamte System der bakteriologischen Kriegsführung Amerikas zu beginnen.

Gleich zu Beginn der Beratungen veröffentlichte Kennedy selbst die Zusammenfassung eines bis dahin geheimen CIA-Berichts über die Erfahrungen des Geheimdienstes mit bakteriologischen Waffen.

Der CIA-Vorläufer OSS, so ergab sich daraus, hatte zumindest einmal bakteriologische Kampfstoffe sogar eingesetzt: Um die Teilnahme des deutschen Reichsbankpräsidenten Hjalmar Schacht an einem Wirtschaftstreffen zu vereiteln, wurde ihm eine Lebensmittel-Vergiftung verabreicht.

Es war vermutlich das erste Eingeständnis, daß auch die USA schon offensiv bakteriologisch Krieg geführt haben — wenngleich nicht enthüllt wurde, wann und wie die OSS-Agenten dem deutschen Finanzmann die Lebensmittelvergiftung verpaßten.

Und wenig später enthüllte der BW-Experte Lowell Poule, ein Spezialistenteam aus Fort Detrick habe 1969/ 1970 einen Scheinangriff gegen die Klimaanlagen des Capitols und des Weißen Hauses sowie gegen Trinkwasser in einem Bundesgebäude geführt. Poule: “Wären die Teams der Army richtige Terroristen gewesen, der Präsident und der ganze Kongreß wären umgekommen.”

Einzelheiten dieser Versuche — die von der Army sofort dementiert wurden — sowie anderer Tests von Army und CIA will Poule in einem Buch veröffentlichen, das noch in diesem Jahr erscheinen soll.

Auch die Protokolle der Kennedy-Hearings werden binnen kurzem gedruckt vorliegen und den Army-Report gewiß ergänzen — vielleicht auch dort, wo jetzt nur sybillinisch steht: Im Interesse einer wirksamen Verteidigung Amerikas gegen einen BW-Angriff können Scheinangriffe veranstaltet werden, wenn zusätzliche Daten nötig sind”.

Will heißen: Auch nach dem Verzicht Amerikas auf den Einsatz bakteriologischer Waffen, auch nach der Veröffentlichung des Army-Reports könnte es durchaus sein, daß wieder angeblich harmlose Bakterien durch U-Bahn-Schächte und Autobahntunnel fluten.

Dr. Alexander D. Langmuir, über 20 Jahre lang einer der führenden Männer des Zentrums für Seuchenkontrolle in Atlanta:,, Der bakteriologische Krieg stellt nach wie vor eine enorme Bedrohung für die Welt dar, die Vereinigten Staaten benötigen daher ein fortlaufendes BW-Programm.”

DER SPIEGEL 21 / 1977

Alle Rechte vorbehalten

Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGEL-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG.

Neben diesem Artikel habe ich auch noch einen Text aus der NZZ Folio gefunden, den ich hier einstellen möchte. Er beschreibt den Ablauf eines der o.g. “operation Whitecoat” Experimente mit Q-Fieber Erregern aus Sicht des Probanten Lloyd Long. Mir persönlich ist er zwar etwas zu unkritisch (alles Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen) – aber um einen etwas besseren Einblick in die Versuche zu bekommen, vielleicht ganz interessant.

NZZ Folio 04/03

Das Experiment — Atmet ruhig, ganz ruhig

Am 12. Juli 1955 sassen 30 Adventisten auf Barhockern in der Wüste: ein Biowaffentest auf Amerikanisch.

Von Reto U. Schneider

ALS DIE SIRENE kein zweites Mal heulte, wusste Lloyd Long, dass es in dieser Nacht ernst galt. Vor sechs Tagen war der 18-Jährige mit einer Gruppe Freiwilliger in der Nähe des Testgeländes Dugway in der Wüste Utahs angekommen. Seither spielte sich jeden Abend dasselbe Prozedere ab: Kurz vor Sonnenuntergang wurden er und die andern Männer von einem Lastwagen abgeholt und in ein verlassenes Stück Wüste gefahren. Dort wuschen sie sich unter provisorischen Freiluftduschen, zogen sich frische Kleider an und gingen mit einer Decke unter dem Arm an ihren zugewiesenen Platz: zu einem der barhockerähnlichen Stühle, die in einer fast einen Kilometer langen geraden Linie auf dem gepressten Sand bereitstanden. Auf Podesten zwischen den Hockern hatte es Käfige mit Rhesusaffen und Meerschweinchen.

Immer wenn die Sirene losging, musste Lloyd Long in Richtung des Bergs Granite Peak blicken und ruhig atmen. «Denkt daran», hatte Oberst William Tigertt, der für das Experiment verantwortliche Armeearzt, gesagt, «wenn ihr die Pumpen hört, atmet ruhig. Atmet ganz ruhig.» Normalerweise ging die Sirene dann ein zweites Mal los: das Zeichen, dass das Experiment wegen schlechter Windbedingungen nicht durchgeführt werden konnte. Die Männer wechselten wieder ihre Kleider und wurden zu den Baracken gebracht.

Doch in dieser Nacht des 12. Juli 1955 war der Wind ideal. Eine leichte Brise wehte vom Granite Peak her, und Lloyd Long konnte die Pumpen hören, die etwa einen Kilometer von ihm entfernt einen knappen Liter Bakterienbrühe in die Nacht sprühten. Für den Test war der Erreger des Q-Fiebers ausgewählt worden, das starke Kopf- und Muskelschmerzen und hohes Fieber verursacht. Die Krankheit verläuft meistens harmlos, doch durchschnittlich einer von dreissig Erkrankten starb damals daran. Lloyd Longs Gruppe bestand aus dreissig Leuten.

Long spürte kaum etwas vom dünnen Nebel, der über ihn wegzog. Erst als Leute in Schutzanzügen auftauchten, wusste er, dass es vorbei war. Er musste duschen, sich unter eine Ultraviolettlampe stellen, die verbleibende Mikroben abtötete, und noch einmal duschen. Seine Kleider wurden verbrannt. Darauf wurde die ganze Gruppe nach Fort Detrick in der Nähe von Washington geflogen. Der erste und nach Aussagen der amerikanischen Armee bis heute einzige Freisetzungsversuch mit biologischen Waffen an Menschen ging in die zweite Phase.

Die amerikanische Regierung wusste damals, dass Japan im Zweiten Weltkrieg umfangreiche Experimente mit Biowaffen gemacht hatte, und sie vermutete, dass auch Moskau ähnliche Versuche durchführte. Öffentlich verurteilten die USA die biologischen Waffen zwar, doch im Geheimen begannen sie 1943 selber daran zu forschen. Als Hauptsitz der Wissenschafter diente Fort Detrick. Dort wurden Tierversuche gemacht, um die Eignung verschiedener Krankheitserreger als Waffen zu prüfen und Impfungen für die eigene Truppe zu entwickeln. Doch vom Tier auf den Menschen zu schliessen, war schwierig. Die Militärs kamen zum Schluss, dass nur Tests mit Menschen sie weiterbringen konnten.

Dass Menschen in der Medizin als Versuchskaninchen eingesetzt werden, ist nicht ungewöhnlich. Jedes Medikament wird vor seiner Einführung von Versuchspersonen eingenommen. Diese Tests hatten einzig die Nuance, dass dabei nicht versucht wurde, Leute mit einem Medikament zu heilen, sondern sie mit einem Erreger krank zu machen. Doch solange das mit dem Einverständnis der Betroffenen geschah, sahen die Leute in Fort Detrick kein Problem.

In der amerikanischen Armee gab es eine Gruppe von Soldaten, die sich besonders gut für diese Aufgabe eigneten. Die Männer der Glaubensgemeinschaft der Adventisten leisteten zwar aus religiösen Gründen keinen Dienst mit der Waffe, waren aber aussergewöhnlich gesund: Sie rauchten nicht und tranken weder Alkohol noch Kaffee. Zudem waren viele von ihnen Vegetarier. «Man musste sich nicht fragen, ob sie Symptome zeigten, weil sie Samstagnacht betrunken waren», beschrieb ein Kirchenmann die Vorzüge des seriösen Lebenswandels für die medizinische Forschung.

Oberst Tigertt kontaktierte die Kirchenführung, die sich schnell von der Ehrenhaftigkeit der Aufgabe überzeugen liess und den Plan, Adventisten für die Tests zu gewinnen, offiziell guthiess. Zwischen 1955 und 1973 meldeten sich 2200 junge Männer für diesen Dienst. Der Codename für die 153 streng geheimen Experimente – unter anderem mit Milzbrand, Hasenpest, Bauchtyphus und Hirnhautentzündung – lautete Operation Whitecoat.

Die ersten Tests waren jene Q-Fieber-Experimente, an denen Lloyd Long teilnahm. Vor dem Freilandversuch in Utah kam allerdings der «Eight Ball» zum Einsatz, eine dreizehn Meter hohe Hohlkugel aus rostfreiem Stahl in Fort Detrick, die die Angestellten nach der schwarzen Kugel im Pool-Billard benannt hatten.

Wenn Tests anstanden, betraten die Adventisten die telefonzellengrossen Kammern am Rand des «Eight Ball». Dort zogen sie sich Atemmasken an, die mit dem Inneren der Kugel verbunden waren. Ein Techniker konnte dann ferngesteuert Bakterien oder Viren im Innern der Kugel versprühen. Die Männer atmeten das Gemisch eine Minute lang ein und wurden dann sofort auf die Krankenstation gebracht, isoliert und beobachtet.

Dasselbe geschah nach der Rückkehr aus Utah: Die Männer warteten in Einzelzimmern mit Fernsehern, Büchern und Spielen auf die hämmernden Kopfschmerzen, die den Ausbruch des Q-Fiebers ankündigten. Etwa ein Drittel der Männer wurde tatsächlich krank. Die Schwere der Symptome war abhängig davon, ob sie bei den vorangegangenen Experimenten mit dem «Eight Ball» immun geworden waren. Auch die Position ihres Hockers in der Wüste war entscheidend. Lloyd Long, am Rand positioniert, war nach einem Tag im Bett wieder fit. Alle Versuchsteilnehmer wurden wieder vollkommen gesund.

Heute sind die meisten Whitecoat-Veteranen stolz auf ihren Einsatz. «Ich kenne keinen, der dabei war und später das Gefühl hatte, betrogen worden zu sein», sagt Lloyd Long, jetzt 66-jährig und pensionierter Versicherungsagent. Einige der Whitecoat-Freiwilligen werden seit dem Anschlag auf das World Trade Center und der wachsenden Angst vor Bioterrorismus regelmässig von Journalisten interviewt. Zwar gibt es Stimmen, die die engen Beziehungen zwischen der Armee und der Kirche der Adventisten kritisieren, auch wurde bereits in den sechziger Jahren die Frage aufgeworfen, ob eine Kirche, die Gewaltlosigkeit predigt, ein Biowaffenprojekt unterstützen dürfe. Gemessen an den damaligen Bräuchen, stellen Ethiker der Operation Whitecoat aber gute Noten aus. Die Freiwilligen wurden wiederholt über die Risiken informiert und konnten jederzeit aussteigen. Trotzdem würden solche Experimente heute kaum mehr bewilligt: Das Risiko für ein so empfindliches Organ wie die Lunge ist einfach zu gross.

Die in die Wüste entlassenen Bakterien wurden am nächsten Tag vom Sonnenlicht getötet. Von den zusätzlichen Meerschweinchen, die man am Highway 40, 55 Kilometer vom Testgelände entfernt, placiert hatte, erkrankte keines.

Last but not least noch der aktuelle Eintrag aus der englischen Wikipedia zur “Operation Whitecoat”:

Operation Whitecoat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Whitecoat was the name given to a secret operation carried out by the US Army during the period 1954-1973, which included conducting medical experiments on volunteers nicknamed “White Coats”. The volunteers, all conscientious objectors and many members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, consented to the research before participating. The stated purpose of the experiments was to defend troops and civilians against biological weapons, and it was believed that the Soviet Union was engaged in similar activities.

Experiments

Over 2300 U.S. Army soldiers, most of which were trained medics, contributed to the experiment by allowing themselves to be infected with viruses and bacteria that were considered likely choices for a biological attack. Whitecoat volunteers were exposed to Q fever, yellow fever, Rift Valley fever, Hepatitis A, Yersinia pestis (Plague), tularemia (rabbit fever), and Venezuelan equine encephalitis and other diseases. Also referred to as “white coats”[1], the volunteers were then treated for the illnesses to determine the effectiveness of antibiotics and vaccines. Some soldiers were given two weeks of leave in exchange for being used as a test subject. These experiments took place at Fort Detrick which is a US Army research center located outside Washington, D.C.[2]

This experiment is a good example of the proper employment of informed consent as dictated by the Nuremberg Code. The volunteers were allowed to consult with outside sources such as family and clergy members before deciding to participate. The participants were required to sign consent forms after discussing the risks and treatments with a medical officer. Of the soldiers that were approached about participating, 20% declined.[3] Much of the testing remains classified and Fort Detrick allows no visitors. Not even ex-soldiers who were exposed as part of the tests can visit.

Results

Many of the vaccines that protect against bio-warfare agents were first tested on humans in Operation Whitecoat.[4]

According to USAMRIID, the Whitecoat operation contributed to vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for yellow fever and hepatitis; investigational drugs for Q fever, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Rift Valley fever, and tularemia. USAMRIID also states that Operation Whitecoat helped develop biological safety equipment including hooded safety cabinets, decontamination procedures, fermentors, incubators, centrifuges, and particle sizers.[5]

US accountability office report

The United States Government Accountability Office issued a report on September 28, 1994, which stated that between 1940 and 1974, the United States Department of Defense and other national security agencies studied hundreds of thousands of human subjects in tests and experiments involving hazardous substances.

A quote from the study:

“ Many experiments that tested various biological agents on human subjects, referred to as Operation Whitecoat, were carried out at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in the 1950s. The human subjects originally consisted of volunteer enlisted men. However, after the enlisted men staged a sitdown strike to obtain more information about the dangers of the biological tests, Seventh-day Adventists who were conscientious objectors were recruited for the studies.[6] ”

Long term health effects

No Whitecoats died during the tests, nor are there any known post-test deaths attributable to the experiments.[1] The Army only has addresses for 1000 of the 2300 people known to have volunteered.[4] Only about 500 (23%) of the whitecoats have been surveyed and the military chose not to fund blood tests.[1] A handful of respondents claim to have lingering health effects[4], and at least one subject claims to have serious health problems as a result of the experiments.[1]

See also

• US Senate Report on chemical weapons
• Project SHAD
• Tuskegee Syphilis Study
• US Biological Weapon Testing

Notes

1. “Operation Whitecoat“. PBS Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly. 2003-09-24.

2. “Hidden history of US germ testing“. BBC. February 13 2006.

3. Stephenson, Jeffery; Arthur Anderson (2007). “Ethical and Legal Dilemmas in Biodefense Research” (pdf).

4. Snyder, David; staff researcher Bobbye Pratt (2003-05-06). “The Front Lines of Biowarfare“. Washington Post.

5. Linden, Caree (2005-06). “USAMRIID Celebrates 50 Years of Science”. U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

6. “Staff Report prepared for the committee on veterans’ affairs December 8, 1994 John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Chairman.“.

External links

• The Living Weapon, chapter 8 about Operation Whitecoat, from the American Experience documentary video
• Adventist Volunteers Lauded on “Operation Whitecoat” Anniversary – Adventist News Network
• O’Neal, Glenn (December 19, 2001). “The risks of Operation Whitecoat” (subscription required). USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/bioterrorism/2001-12-20-whitecoat-sidebar.htm.
• Linden, Caree Vander United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases celebrates 50-year research tradition March 3, 2005 “Operation Whitecoat served as a model for the ethical use of human subjects in research”

The Neocons Abhors Socialism – But Do They Feel the Same about Fascism?

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power…Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The above FDR quote and a post entitled: The Fascist Roots of Corporate America(And the Bush Family) can be read here.

The neocons have been vocal about socialism – but not about fascism. Is one more acceptable than the other. Are both a threat to America’s Democracy – as we know it? Read the article posted by THE MORMON WORKER and written by STEPHEN WELLINGTON.

La Conferencia presentó problemas antes de convocarse y durante su desarrollo. El lugar elegido no parecía el más adecuado. Teherán había sido cuartel general del espionaje alemán y no se tenía la seguridad de que éste hubiera sido totalmente exterminado. Vyacheslav Molotov afirmó, incluso, que se había descubierto una conjura para asesinar a uno de los Tres Grandes durante su permanencia en la capital iraní.
Pero Stalin se mostró inflexible. No quería alejarse demasiado de Moscú y había fijado, como límite, “cualquier punto desde el cual pudiese volver en veinticuatro horas a la capital soviética”.

Otro problema que agravaba la inseguridad de Teherán eran los desplazamientos dentro de la misma ciudad. La parálisis de Franklin D. Roosevelt hacía difíciles esos desplazamientos, porque la Embajada de la Unión Soviética, donde se alojaba Stalin, y la norteamericana, donde se habría alojado Roosevelt, estaban muy distantes entre sí. Por el contrario, la Embajada de la URSS y la del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña estaban muy próximas.

Stalin propuso que el presidente norteamericano fuese huésped de los soviéticos, y lo consiguió. De esta manera se consumó, de hecho, el acercamiento entre los representantes de la URSS y Estados Unidos y el distanciamiento de ambos respecto a Winston Churchill.

Éste no era tan ciego el premier como para no darse cuenta de lo que esto significaba. Pero no tuvo argumentos válidos que oponer a las excusas que, sobre la seguridad y la comodidad de Roosevelt, se le dieron.

“Los Tres Grandes -escribió Raymond Cartier- eran iguales sólo de cara al protocolo… Churchill, que no era querido, fue tratado como una entidad secundaria… Incluso sufrió un desplante de parte de Roosevelt cuando invitó a éste a cenar “a dos”. Roosevelt le respondió que no quería dar a Stalin la impresión de que los ingleses y los americanos estaban de acuerdo contra él. Pero luego, todos los días, el presidente y Stalin tenían conversaciones de las que era excluido Churchill”.

Roosevelt, que presidió la primera reunión, dejó bien claro en su discurso cuál era el propósito de la convocatoria: felicitó a sus compañeros -y se felicitó a sí mismo- de actuar movidos por la cívica finalidad de ganar la guerra.

No hubo en Teherán una metodología de trabajo. Sería característico en las reuniones de los Grandes, pero nunca de manera tan acusada como en ésta.

Churchill, que se admiraba de ver la mayor concentración de poder mundial que se había conocido en la historia, escribió luego, francamente: “Cada uno podía plantear y discutir lo que quisiera”. El presidente norteamericano, con menos rubor, se jactaba de que aquello fuese un comadreo político y prescindió por completo del consejo de los setenta y siete asesores que le acompañaban. Stalin no hizo comentario alguno sobre la evidente desorganización. Era él quien la provocaba, convencido de que le interesaba más sondear a sus aliados que comprometerse con ellos.

La simplicidad de algunos momentos impresiona hoy al cotejarla con las consecuencias que produjeron aquéllas anécdotas. Como cuando Churchill manejaba tres cerillas para explicarle al dictador soviético la configuración de la frontera polaca de posguerra o cuando, cerrado el capítulo finlandés, preguntó Stalin: “¿Hay más cuestiones?”
-”Sí, la cuestión de Alemania”, -respondió Churchill.

Era Alemania, por encima de todo, la que había convocado a la negociación a los Tres Grandes. Por eso, una vez introducida la materia, se manifestó la única unanimidad de la Conferencia: el exterminio de los alemanes.

Aunque Anthony Eden, desde su posición de segundo en la delegación británica, quiso hacer un distingo: -”sería ridículo identificar la pandilla de Hitler con el pueblo alemán, con el Estado alemán. La historia muestra que los Hitler vienen y pasan, mientras que el pueblo alemán, el Estado alemán, permanece”-, su voz no fue escuchada.
Era la repetición histórica de otro momento -el Congreso de Viena- en el que Talleyrand se esforzaba por separar a los franceses de Napoleón, sin éxito alguno después de que el emperador se escapase de la isla de Elba para iniciar la aventura de los Cien Días.
Si acaso, Churchill y Roosevelt parecían admitir grados de culpabilidad. El británico creía que Prusia debía ser tratada con mucha más dureza. El norteamericano propuso un plan de división de Alemania, según este esquema:

-Cinco regiones autónomas: Prusia; Hannover y el noroeste; Sajonia y la región de Leipzig; Hesse-Darmstadt, Hesse-Kassel y la zona sur del Rin, y Baviera y Baden Würtenberg.
-Dos territorios bajo tutela de las Naciones Unidas: Kiel, su canal y Hamburgo, y el Sarre y el Ruhr.

En esta división, la diferencia se mostraba, evidentemente, en las consideraciones de orden industrial.

Stalin zanjó la cuestión: “los alemanes son todos iguales”. A lo que se adhirió sin muchas vacilaciones Roosevelt, añadiendo que, tarde o temprano, volverían a unirse.
Stalin insistió en el control de la industria alemana y no tardó en ganar su causa a sus aliados cuando se mencionó el tema de la Aviación y, por supuesto, el Ejército.
Esta unanimidad en el exterminio llevó al dictador soviético a un exceso verbal que molestó a Churchill y se liquidó con un chiste de dudosa gracia.

Stalin, en uno de los muy numerosos brindis -que se hacían siempre con vodka- levantó su copa “por el fusilamiento de 50.000 oficiales alemanes”. Churchill calificó aquello de “indignidad”, y Roosevelt intentó salir del paso diciendo: “¡Bueno! ¡Brindemos sólo por la muerte de 49.500… !”

En las decisiones concretas para terminar la guerra con Alemania se suscitó el tema de la Operación Overlord, es decir, de la invasión de Europa tras el desembarco -que era el núcleo de la Operación-, ya suficientemente madurada.

Pero la cuestión se estancó un tanto porque Stalin presentaba algunas reticencias al protagonismo de Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, Roosevelt seguiría adelante con su proyecto y con el nombre de su ejecutor, que poco después hizo público: el general Dwight D. Eisenhower.

La Conferencia de Teherán terminó con un comunicado oficial en el que se decía:
“La Conferencia:

1. Ha acordado que los guerrilleros de Yugoslavia deben ser apoyados con suministros y equipo en la mayor extensión posible, así como con operaciones de comandos.
2. Ha acordado que, desde el punto de vista militar, es deseable que Turquía entre en la guerra al lado de los aliados antes de fin de año.

3. Ha tomado nota de la afirmación del mariscal Stalin de que si Turquía entra en guerra con Alemania y, como consecuencia, Bulgaria declarase la guerra a Turquía o la atacara, los soviets inmediatamente declararían la guerra a Bulgaria. La Conferencia ha tomado, asimismo, nota de que este hecho debería ser explícitamente declarado en las inminentes negociaciones para hacer entrar a Turquía en la guerra.

4. Ha tomado nota de que la Operación Overlord sería desencadenada durante el mes de mayo de 1944 conjuntamente con una operación contra el sur de Francia. Esta última operación será emprendida con el máximo de potencial que permita la disponibilidad de lanchas de desembarco. La Conferencia ha tomado, asimismo, nota de la afirmación del mariscal Stalin de que las fuerzas soviéticas desencadenarían una ofensiva aproximadamente en el mismo momento, con el fin de impedir que las fuerzas alemanas puedan trasladarse del frente oriental al occidental.

5. Ha acordado que los Estados Mayores militares de las tres potencias se mantengan en estrecho contacto en lo sucesivo, con miras a las inminentes operaciones en Europa. Se ha acordado particularmente que los Estados Mayores interesados concierten un plan de cobertura destinado a desconcertar y engañar al enemigo por lo que respecta a las expresadas operaciones.”

En un anexo separado se hacía constar el agradecimiento de los reunidos al país que les había hospedado. Se esbozaba un plan de ayuda a los iraníes en el doble plano económico y militar, por si los alemanes decidiesen tomar represalias por haber albergado a los Tres Grandes.

No figuraba en el comunicado, pero sí está en las notas de la Conferencia, un párrafo que es el que arroja mayor luz sobre el espíritu que animaba a los aliados:
“Nuestros Estados Mayores militares se nos han reunido en torno a la mesa de nuestra Conferencia y hemos concertado planes para la destrucción de las fuerzas alemanas. Hemos llegado a un completo acuerdo respecto al alcance y sincronización de las operaciones que han de desarrollarse desde el Oeste, el Este y el Sur”.
Roosevelt abandonó Teherán convencido de haber conquistado para siempre a Stalin. Creía a pies juntillas en el brindis, el último brindis, del dictador georgiano: “Ahora es seguro que nuestros pueblos actuarán juntos y amigablemente, no sólo en la hora actual, sino también después de la guerra”.

La segunda conferencia de los Tres Grandes se celebró en febrero de 1945, en la península de Crimea, del mar Negro, es decir, en territorio de la URSS

Fuente: ArteHistoria

Almost from the very beginning of America the call to give thanks to Almighty God has been heard in the land. Even before the Pilgrims settled in Massachusetts the proclamation of Thanksgiving was sounded upon these shores.

One of the earliest recorded celebrations occurred a half century before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1621. “A small colony of French Huguenots established a settlement near present-day Jacksonville, Florida. On June 30, 1564, their leader, René de Laudonnière, recorded that ‘We sang a psalm of Thanksgiving unto God, beseeching Him that it would please Him to continue His accustomed goodness towards us.”

In 1607, 13 years before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, a group of 104 English men and boys began a settlement on the banks of Virginia’s James River. They were sponsored by the Virginia Company of London, whose stockholders hoped to make a profit from the resources of the New World. The community suffered terrible hardships in its early years, but managed to endure, earning the distinction of being America’s first permanent English colony.

In 1610, after a hard winter called “the starving time,” the colonists at Jamestown called for a time of thanksgiving. This was after the original company of 409 colonists had been reduced to 60 survivors. The colonists prayed for help that finally arrived by a ship filled with food and supplies from England. They held a prayer service to give thanks.

While none of these Thanksgiving celebrations were an official national pronouncement (no nation existed at the time), they do support the claim that the celebrations were religious. “Thanksgiving began as a holy day, created by a community of God-fearing Puritans sincere in their desire to set aside one day each year especially to thank the Lord for His many blessings. The day they chose, coming after the harvest at a time of year when farm work was light, fit the natural rhythm of rural life.”

In July 1776, the American colonists declared independence from Britain. The months that followed were so bleak that there was not much to give thanks for. The Journals of the Continental Congress record no Thanksgiving in that year, only two days of “solemn fasting” and prayer.

For much of 1777, the situation was not much better. British troops controlled New York City. The Americans lost the strategic stronghold of Fort Ticonderoga, in upstate New York, to the British in July. In Delaware County, Pa., on Sept. 11, troops led by Gen. George Washington lost the Battle of Brandywine, in which 200 Americans were killed, 500 wounded and 400 captured. Early in the morning of Sept. 21, another 300 American soldiers were killed or wounded and 100 captured in a British surprise attack near Malvern, Pa., that became known as the Paoli Massacre.

Philadelphia, America’s largest city, fell on Sept. 26. Congress, which had been meeting there, fled briefly to Lancaster, Pa., and then to York, a hundred miles west of Philadelphia. One delegate to Congress, John Adams of Massachusetts, wrote in his diary, “The prospect is chilling, on every Side: Gloomy, dark, melancholy, and dispiriting.”

His cousin, Samuel Adams, gave the other delegates — their number had dwindled to a mere 20 from the 56 who had signed the Declaration of Independence — a talk of encouragement. He predicted, “Good tidings will soon arrive. We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid and protection.”

He turned out to have been correct, at least about the good tidings. On Oct. 31, a messenger arrived with news of the American victory at the Battle of Saratoga. The American general, Horatio Gates, had accepted the surrender of 5,800 British soldiers, and with them 27 pieces of artillery and thousands of pieces of small arms and ammunition.

Saratoga turned the tide of the war — news of the victory was decisive in bringing France into a full alliance with America. Congress responded to the event by appointing a committee of three that included Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia and Daniel Roberdeau of Pennsylvania, to draft a report and resolution. The report, adopted Nov. 1, declared Thursday, Dec. 18, as “a day of Thanksgiving” to God, so that “with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor.”

It was the first of many Thanksgivings ordered up by Samuel Adams. Though the holidays were almost always in November or December, the exact dates varied. (Congress didn’t fix Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday in November until 1941.)

In 1778, a Thanksgiving resolution drafted by Adams was approved by Congress on Nov. 3, setting aside Wednesday, Dec. 30, as a day of public thanksgiving and praise, “It having pleased Almighty God through the Course of the present year, to bestow great and manifold Mercies on the People of these United States.”

When the nation was finally established the First House of Representatives on Thursday, September 24, 1789, voted to recommend—in its exact wording—the First Amendment to the states for ratification. The next day, Friday, September 25, Congressman Elias Boudinot from New Jersey proposed that the House and Senate jointly request of President Washington to proclaim a day of thanksgiving for “the many signal favors of Almighty God.” Boudinot said that he “could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining, with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them.” and on October 3rd of that year President George Washington made the first Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation.

On October 3, 1863, Abraham Lincoln declared that the last Thursday of November 1863 would be set aside as a nationwide celebration of thanksgiving. His proclamation stated that:

“No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy…. I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday in November next as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent father who dwelleth in heaven.”

Starting with Lincoln, United States Presidents proclaimed the last Thursday in November for Thanksgiving. Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the celebration to the third Thursday in November “to give more shopping time between Thanksgiving and Christmas. At this point Congress enacted the ‘fourth Thursday’ compromise.” Ever since this pragmatic and commercial approach to Thanksgiving was promoted, its original meaning has steadily been lost.

As a nation we owe a debt of gratitude to those who arrived here before us and set in place the practice of offering Thanksgiving to God for the preservation of this great nation. Without which I fear this young nation would have been lost before it even began. Although many today attempt to remove the foundation Religion played in the formation of this nation, it is quite clear to this reader that the Divine Providence of God was responsible for the very survival of these United States of America. Thanks be to God!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Happy Thanksgiving and Praise The Lord! (bloggingministry.com)

Let’s demystify Thanksgiving with an amazing array of facts:

1. In a gesture to commemorate the safe passage across the Atlantic the year prior and to give spiritual thanks for surviving one year on the new continent, the Pilgrims celebrated with a feast in the autumn of 1621.

2. The Wamponoag Indians forged a friendship with the Pilgrims; teaching the Europeans how to cultivate and live off the land.  Pilgrim Governor William Bradford  shows his appreciation by inviting the Wamponoag to their celebration.

The Indians RSVP immediately, arrived early and stayed late.

3. The original Thanksgiving feast lasted three days.  The feast ceased to become known as a celebration and officially became a part-tay!

There were no leftovers.

4. The Pilgrims supplied the beer.  (The proprietors of Bacon Makes It Better have decided to refrain from inserting a culturally insensitive joke at this time).

5. President George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Day Proclamation 1789, and later, in 1795.

6. In 1817, the state of New York officially made Thanksgiving into an annual custom.

7. Abraham Lincoln, not to be outdone by Washington, issued his own Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1863.  This officially set aside the last Thursday of November as a National Holiday for Thanksgiving.

8. Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the Thanksgiving holiday to the THIRD Thursday of November in an effort to expand the Christmas shopping season and do some economic stimulation.  Congress has since moved the holiday back to Lincoln’s proclamation.

9. The Canadians celebrate Thanksgiving on the second Monday in October.  They then emigrate to the US and celebrate OUR Thanksgiving, too.  This is a blatant double-dipping of partying.  Sneaky, Canucks.

10. Benjamin Franklin lobbied for the turkey to be the national bird of the United States.  He was ardently opposed by Thomas Jefferson.  It is believed that Franklin perpetuated the term “tom” when referring to a male turkey, a stealthy rebuttal to Jefferson’s opposition.  The term still exists today.

11. Almost 88% of Americans said that they eat turkey during Thanksgiving.  It has been estimated that 46 million turkeys– one-fifth of the annual consumption total– are eaten during Thanksgiving.

Made you look!

12. Cranberries are one of three fruits that are completely indigenous to American soil.  The blueberry and the Concord grape are the others.

Cap’n Crunch Berries, while unique to the US, do not count.

13. The Detroit Lions have played a football game during every Thanksgiving since 1934 (except during World War II).  The first televised “Turkey Bowl” game was in 1956.

14. It is estimated that 38.7 million Americans will travel 50 miles or greater from home during the Thanksgiving holiday.

15. Now go out and share your gluttony of new found knowledge to your friends and relatives during Thanksgiving!

Happy Turkey Day!

]]> http://harshswami9290.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/tomorrow/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:34:59 +0000 Harsh Swaminarayan http://harshswami9290.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/tomorrow/

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today – Franklin D. Roosevelt

L’ECCESSIVO POTERE PRIVATO TOGLIE DEMOCRAZIA AL POPOLO

 ”La libertà di una democrazia non è salda se il popolo tollera la crescita di un potere privato al punto che esso diventa più forte dello stato democratico. Questo, in essenza, è fascismo”.

                   Franklin D. Roosevelt 29 aprile 1938

Este artículo describe las conclusiones que se derivan de los trabajos realizados por la Comisión del Congreso de EE.UU. (nombrada para analizar las causas de la crisis financiera) y por el comité de la Cámara Baja del mismo Congreso (encargado de supervisar la rama ejecutiva del gobierno federal) sobre los orígenes de la crisis y las respuestas del gobierno federal a ella. Entre estas conclusiones –citadas en el artículo- destaca la excesiva influencia corrosiva que Wall Street tiene sobre las ramas legislativa y ejecutiva del gobierno estadounidense. El artículo detalla estas influencias y reflexiona también sobre la relevancia de estas conclusiones para España.

El Congreso de EEUU estableció el pasado 1 de septiembre una Comisión (compuesta por seis demócratas y cuatro republicanos) con el fin de analizar las causas de la crisis financiera, asignar responsabilidades y proponer medidas legislativas que prevengan la aparición de nuevas crisis. Está Comisión está dotada de un equipo técnico dirigido por Thomas Greene, que fue fiscal del Estado de California cuando se investigó el caso Enron, entre otros.

El Presidente (en inglés Chairman) de la Comisión, el demócrata Phil Angelides, intenta que el impacto de esta Comisión sea semejante al que tuvo la comisión Pecora (que debe su nombre a su Presidente, Fernandín Pecora), nombrada en el New Deal cuando el Presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt dirigió la recuperación de la economía estadounidense durante la Gran Depresión. Tal Comisión del Congreso propuso toda una serie de leyes que, una vez aprobadas por el Congreso, pasaron a ser la arquitectura regulatoria del sistema financiero estadounidense. Una pieza clave de esta arquitectura fue la Ley Glass-Steagall Act, que separó los bancos de depósitos (commercial banks) de los bancos de inversión (investment banks), a fin de proteger a la banca comercial de los riesgos que conllevan las actividades (muchas veces especulativas) de los bancos de inversión. Esta ley fue anulada por el Presidente Clinton siguiendo el consejo de su Secretario del Tesoro (equivalente a Ministro de Economía y Hacienda en EEUU) Larry Summers, y es ampliamente reconocido que su anulación es una de las causas más importantes del desarrollo de la crisis financiera.

Además de esta Comisión, en la Cámara Baja del Congreso existe un Comité, el Comité de la Reforma y Supervisión del Gobierno (House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform), presidido por Edolphus Towns, demócrata de Brooklin, Nueva York, que también está analizando las causas de la crisis. Tal Comité tiene el poder de llamar a cualquier miembro de la Administración Pública para que dé testimonio, incluidos miembros del Banco Central Estadounidense (The Federal Reserve Board – FRB), habiendo puesto en situaciones incómodas a los representantes del Banco. Tal Comité ha sido muy crítico con el comportamiento del FRB, no sólo en la génesis de la crisis, sino también en la manera como se ha llevado a cabo el rescate de la Banca en EEUU (centrada en Wall Street).

Cuatro son las conclusiones que se derivan de estas investigaciones. Una es que la eliminación de la citada ley Glass-Steagall facilitó la aparición de enormes megabancos que han gozado de una enorme influencia en el Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda y en el FRB. La mayor motivación de la Administración Bush y la Administración Obama ha sido salvar a estos megabancos a toda costa bajo el argumento de que son demasiado grandes para permitir que quiebren. Han considerado que su colapso dañaría a la economía estadounidense y a la mundial. Las medidas de apoyo a tales bancos han ido encaminadas a mantenerlos con el tamaño actual, y ello a costa de permitirles que sigan con sus prácticas habituales. Una pieza clave para su mantenimiento era salvar la compañía de seguros AIG (pues era la que aseguraba los instrumentos con mayor riesgo o derivativos, que poseían aquellos megabancos). La ayuda que significó el control de AIG por el Gobierno federal ha permitido canalizar gran número de productos tóxicos hacia tal compañía de seguros, así como hacia las compañías federalizadas como Fannie Mae y Federal Reserve Look. Tal canalización de dichos productos tóxicos se ha hecho de una manera opaca sin el conocimiento de la ciudadanía, pues el Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda era plenamente consciente de que se estaba salvando a los megabancos mediante la absorción de los productos tóxicos por parte de las instituciones bancarias federales.

Una segunda conclusión es que había un fraude generalizado en las prácticas de los megabancos, fraudes que eran conocidos por las agencias de regulación federal que mantuvieron una actitud laxa en su responsabilidad reguladora. La Comisión y el Comité explican este comportamiento por la enorme influencia que ejercen los megabancos sobre el gobierno federal, tanto a nivel del ejecutivo como a nivel del legislativo, influencia que se traduce en las conexiones existentes entre la clase política y la administración pública por un lado y los megabancos por el otro.

Una tercera conclusión importante a señalar es que la crisis financiera tiene, en realidad, causas políticas. Aunque los republicanos han sido los que han enfatizado más la desregulación de la banca y han sido los mayores responsables de la creación de una cultura de laxitud en el comportamiento de las agencias públicas reguladoras (consecuencia de sus creencias liberales), los demócratas han sido determinantes en el desarrollo de tales comportamientos. La terminación de la Glass-Steagall Act tuvo lugar en 1999, bajo la Administración Clinton, conocedora de la existencia de tales prácticas fraudulentas, pues eran conocidas por el Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda muchos años antes, desde el principio de su Administración.

Una cuarta conclusión es que la institución con mayor responsabilidad sobre esta colección de “irresponsabilidades” fue el FRB, que falló estrepitosamente en su función reguladora del sistema bancario, fallo que se atribuye a estar imbuida de una ideología liberal que sistemáticamente favorecía al capital financiero sobre el capital productivo y al mundo del capital sobre el mundo del trabajo, contribuyendo a un enorme crecimiento de la polarización de rentas, una de las causas de la crisis (ver mi artículo “La silenciada causa de la crisis”.  Público. 19.03.09).El gurú de tales políticas fue su gobernador, Alan Greenspan, que había sido canonizado por el establishment financiero, político y mediático de aquel país, refiriéndose a él como el Maestro. Las políticas crediticias del FRB jugaron un papel clave en la creación de las burbujas, de las cuales, la inmobiliaria había sido la última y más destructiva.

De estas conclusiones se derivan varias reflexiones. Una de ellas, ya mencionada en las conclusiones citadas anteriormente, es que la causa de la crisis es política y toca un tema que no debe soslayarse si quiere resolverse el problema. Y es la enorme influencia que el poder financiero tiene en la democracia estadounidense (y en la mayoría de democracias, incluyendo España). La financiación de las campañas electorales de EEUU por parte del capital financiero (con millones de dólares asignados a los miembros de los Comités que supervisan el capital financiero) está corrompiendo el sistema político. Es de una enorme incoherencia que incluso articulistas que se autodefinen como progresistas en España, defienden que poderes económicos puedan aportar fondos a los partidos y a los candidatos. Esta práctica corrompe a la democracia. Y el ejemplo de EEUU es contundente.

Las propuestas que se están barajando en el citado Comité de la Cámara Baja (prohibir que los bancos puedan contribuir a las campañas electorales de los miembros de los Comités que supervisan a la banca) son necesarias, pero dramáticamente insuficientes. La influencia de la banca y de las compañías de seguros va incluso más allá de la financiación de las campañas electorales de los políticos. Incluye otras maneras de ejercer su influencia, tales como el hecho de que la mayoría de lobistas que defienden los intereses de la Banca y que han trabajado antes en aquellos Comités que supervisan a la Banca. Estas redes de influencia también corrompen la democracia.

Además de los lobistas, existe la puerta rotativa de cargos políticos que proceden de la banca y cargos bancarios que proceden del mundo político. Geithner (el Ministro actual de Economía de la Administración Obama, encargado de rescatar a la banca) tiene como su jefe de gabinete al que había sido jefe del grupo de lobistas de Goldman Sachs (uno de los bancos más beneficiados en la tal llamada recuperación financiera federal). El secretario general de tal Ministerio había sido el delegado general de City Group (otro banco ayudado). Otro delegado de City Group trabaja en la Casa Blanca asesorando al Presidente Obama, el cual ha nombrado también a un economista que dirigió UBS (hoy en los tribunales por asesorar a ricos de cómo realizar fraude fiscal), como miembro del grupo de trabajo que trabaja en la recuperación económica.

Tal maridaje (bajo la administración Obama) del gobierno federal con Wall Street, continúa el existente bajo las administraciones anteriores. El Ministro de Economía de la Administración Bush junior fue Henry Paulson, presidente de Goldman Sachs, y uno de los mayores proponentes de la desregulación financiera, habiendo terminado la normativa de la Comisión de Seguridades e Intercambios (Securities and Exchange Commissions), que prohibía ciertas prácticas crediticias de tipo especulativo. Y el mismo Ministro actual de Economía, el Sr. Geithner, cuando era el director del FRB de Nueva York, fue uno de los mayores proponentes de la desregulación bancaria, conociéndose su amistad con los máximos dirigentes de Wall Street. Todos estos y otros datos explican que en una entrevista al que fue el principal economista (chief economist) del Fondo Monetario Internacional, Mr. Simon Johnson, éste definiera en un reciente artículo en Athlantic Monthly (may 2009), que lo que había ocurrido en EEUU era un golpe de estado “silencioso y silenciado” del capital financiero que había tomado el gobierno federal.

El neoliberalismo facilitó tal corrupción

Es importante subrayar que tales conexiones han representado la matriz material sobre la cual se ha basado el proyecto neoliberal. La fortaleza de este último es el síntoma del poder del capital financiero. Tal neoliberalismo ha sido la justificación de unas políticas enormemente corruptas, desarrolladas predominantemente en beneficio de los intereses del capital financiero. Creerse que los que promueven el neoliberalismo están equivocados es asumir que no saben lo que hacen. Lo saben y les está yendo muy bien. Como siempre ha hecho cualquier clase o élite dominante, ha identificado sus intereses con los intereses del país. Un ejemplo de ello es el Sr. Summers, uno de los diseñadores de las políticas de rescate de la banca. Summers es el chief economic advisor del Presidente Obama, que no tuvo ninguna duda en desarrollar el mayor programa de beneficencia asistencial que se haya conocido en la historia de cualquier país, beneficencia de asistencia, no a los pobres, sino a los bancos. El Sr. Summers, que fue uno de los arquitectos del programa de privatizaciones en los países del Este de Europa (responsable de que la esperanza de vida de Rusia descendiera dramáticamente) defendió sus políticas bajo el argumento de que defendía los intereses del país. En realidad, los únicos que se beneficiaron fueron los intereses bancarios (y empresariales) de EEUU, para los cuales trabajaba, incluyendo el City Group y los hedge funds (de los cuales ha recibido, en estos últimos años, cinco millones de dólares).

La pregunta que se han hecho sectores progresistas que apoyaron a Obama, es como pudo el presidente Obama nombrar a estas personas tan próximas a Wall Street, algunas de las cuales eran responsables de las medidas desreguladoras que habían desencadenado la crisis. La respuesta que dio Obama es que necesitaba nombrar a personas que conocían bien el sistema financiero para poder resolver la crisis, subrayando que él sería  quien dictaría las políticas a seguir. Obama, sin embargo, había aceptado el marco ideológico, el neoliberalismo, que había promovido las causas de la crisis. De ahí que el resultado ha sido que se han desarrollado políticas que han fortalecido a los megabancos. Podría haber nombrado a otros economistas, también conocedores del sistema financiero, que podrían haber seguido políticas distintas. Pero, escogió a aquellos economistas liberales porque encajaban con su percepción de lo que era necesario para resolver la crisis. Identificó los intereses de la banca con los intereses del país.

La relevancia de estos hechos en España

En la lectura de este artículo, el lector habrá podido ver algunas semejanzas con el caso español. El enorme fallo del Banco de España en la supervisión y regulación de la banca, en su laxitud reguladora, en su incapacidad de prevenir la burbuja inmobiliaria (la mayor responsable de la crisis financiera en España), su excesiva complicidad con la banca, su liberalismo financiero y económico, su falta de transparencia y responsabilidad pública, son todos ellos datos que debieran exigir el establecimiento de una comisión parlamentaria de análisis de cuáles han sido las causas de tal crisis en España, incluyendo también un estudio de las relaciones entre la Administración Pública por una parte y los intereses económicos y financieros por otra. La gran tolerancia hacia la existencia de estas relaciones (tipificada por el caso David Taguas, procedente de la Banca, que pasó de trabajar en La Moncloa diseñando políticas económicas y financieras, a dirigir el lobby inmobiliario constructor) es también síntoma de esta política corrupta que está dañando enormemente a la democracia española.

Por otra parte, la misma pregunta que las fuerzas progresistas estadounidenses le hacen a Obama, debiera hacerse al Presidente Zapatero. ¿Cómo es que muchos de los economistas de los sucesivos equipos económicos del gobierno socialista han pertenecido a la sensibilidad liberal (Taguas favorece la privatización de la Seguridad Social, como ha ocurrido en Chile), procedentes muchos de ellos de los centros de estudios de la Banca o del Banco de España? ¿Cómo es que el Gobierno nombró a Fernández Ordóñez, conocido liberal, Gobernador del Banco de España, institución que ha confundido los intereses de la Banca con los intereses de España y que ha sido uno de los agentes que han fallado más en esta crisis? Una respuesta a estas preguntas es que el Gobierno aceptó por demasiado tiempo las premisas liberales que causaron la crisis y que ahora están dificultando la recuperación económica. Sería de desear que el Gobierno recuperara plenamente su vocación transformadora que quedaba reflejada en su programa y que todavía necesita desarrollarse plenamente.  Para ello debe aliarse con las fuerzas a su izquierda que le permitan neutralizar a las fuerzas conservadoras y liberales promovidas por el capital financiero en España.

Publicado en la revista digital SISTEMA, 20 de noviembre de 2009

Fuente: vnavarro.org