Friday, February 3, 2012

ROBERT LIPSYTE, http://robertlipsyte.com
“Jock Culture” correspondent for Tomdispatch.com, Lipsyte is author of several books on sports; most recently “An Accidental Sportswriter.” He just wrote: “Four Reasons to Watch the Super Bowl: Joe Hill, Joe Pa, Tebow, Wee Brains,” which states: “Where else will be you be able to watch more than 100 young men, most of them African-American, working for high wages in a totally unionized shop? … Even with a progressive attitude, watching the Super Bowl, which seems to float on rivers of oil — think car ads — and beer, is not exactly like holding a OWS-style general assembly in the red zone. Nevertheless, it’s a terrific visual of the American class divide. In their skyboxes, usually in jacket and tie, eating, drinking, and high-fiving — or scowling — are the one-percenters who own the team, which is usually not their only source of income.

“Below them, on the field, are their employees (many of them temporary one-percenters, given the median league salary of at least $560,000), using up the capital of their bodies. If you want to root for the Patriots or the Giants, fine. I’ll be rooting for the working class.” http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175497

TITHI BHATTACHARYA, http://www.occupypurdue.org
AP reports that Indiana “Gov. Mitch Daniels on Wednesday signed a bill passed by the Legislature that makes Indiana the 23rd state to ban labor contracts that require workers to pay union representation fees.” AP also notes that “Protesters upset … showed up with signs during NBC’s ‘Today’ show broadcast from downtown Indianapolis’ Super Bowl village.”

Tithi Bhattacharya is an associate professor at Purdue University and is active with Occupy Purdue. She said today: “Occupy Purdue in co-ordination with several union members and Occupy Bloomington is calling for a demonstration at noon on Sunday at the South Lawn of the state legislature. We stand in solidarity with the union members who came pouring into the statehouse all through last week to protest this union-busting legislation. We stand in solidarity with the NFL Players Union who have come out so strongly against this bill. We want the corporate-backed politicians and the 1% to know that they cannot showcase our state at the Super Bowl while attacking ordinary people and their livelihoods. Lucas Oil Stadium was built with 100% union labor, and as we protest in its shadow we want to honor and fight for that tradition of collective work, and collective power.” Bhattacharya appeared this morning on the program “Democracy Now!” http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/3/occupy_the_super_bowl_indianas_new

For more information, contact the Institute of Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

PM Wednesday, February 1, 2012

AP is reporting this afternoon in “Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation” that: “Stockholm’s County Administrative Board — the authority that supervises foundations and trusts in the city — has formally asked the Nobel Foundation to respond to allegations that the peace prize no longer reflects the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896.

“The move comes after persistent complaints by Norwegian peace researcher Fredrik Heffermehl, who claims the original purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.

“‘Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace,’ Heffermehl told The Associated Press on Wednesday. ‘And it’s indisputable that he had in mind the peace movement, the movement which is actively pursuing a new global order … where nations safely can drop national armaments.’

“Since World War II, especially, the prize committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, has widened the scope of the prize to include environmental, humanitarian and other efforts.

“For example, in 2007 the prize went to climate campaigner Al Gore and the U.N.’s panel on climate change, and in 2009 the committee cited President Barack Obama for ‘extraordinary efforts’ to boost international diplomacy.

“‘Do you see Obama as a promoter of abolishing the military as a tool of international affairs?’” Heffermehl asked rhetorically. http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-02-01-EU-Nobel-Peace-Prize/id-9ff8ef836ecb41e18d5653470a3cc6ec

Also see from Reuters: “Sweden Questions Nobel Peace Prize Selection Basis.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-nobel-peace-idUSTRE8101U820120201

FREDRIK HEFFERMEHL, http://nobelwill.org
Author of the books “Nobel’s Will” and “The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted,” Heffermehl, a Norwegian lawyer and author, argues that the Nobel committee has violated the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will, which established the prize. He states that for decades, the parties in the Norwegian parliament have misused the Nobel committee seats to reward party veterans lacking insight in the peace ideas that Nobel wished to support. Heffermehl writes that over half of the awards since 1946 have not conformed with the intention of Nobel, who wished to change the international system in order to end wars and armaments.

Heffermehl said today: “The Swedish inquiry responds to a complaint against mismanagement that I lodged last month. The Nobel Foundation has been asked to comment in particular on the secret private diaries of former committee chair Gunnar Jahn which indicate that no attention is paid to the directives in Nobel´s will. These diaries, [which were published for the first time by Heffermehl] show that Jahn repeatedly protested in vain against awards that ignored the intentions of Nobel. The diaries clearly demonstrate that the Norwegian awarding Committee already 50 years ago ceased to pay any regard to Nobel and what he wanted.

“The Norwegian Parliament had already then taken over the Nobel award and started using it as their own. I have now struggled for four years to have the committee respect the rights of the intended recipients, but I’ve found that in Norway there is no interest in Alfred Nobel and what he wanted.

“The Swedish inquiry also encourages the Board of the Nobel Foundation to comment on an article by a member of the Nobel family, Michael Nobel, who in an article last month in Aftenposten said that Norway may be deprived of control over the prize if the mismanagement continues.”

For more information, contact the Institute of Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

ELAINE HAGOPIAN,  http://www.arabichour.org
Hagopian is a Syrian-American sociologist, a professor emeritus of sociology at Simmons College in Boston and political interviewer for Arabic Hour TV. She said today: “The Syrian regime is brutal and was known to be brutal before the current uprising. But the Free Syrian Army endorsed by the Syrian National Council along with other opposition forces are also violent. The Syrian National Council is a group formed by overseas Syrians and supported by external forces. It is calling for international intervention, while the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change inside Syria rejects intervention. The tragedy of what is happening is that the original authentic opposition, which called for reform through peaceful demonstrations, is overrun by the violence.” Hagopian wrote the piece “Bashar Assad’s Missed Opportunity: Syria’s Pandoran Box.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/syria-s-pandoran-box

HAMID DABASHI, http://www.hamiddabashi.com
Available for a limited number of interviews, Dabashi holds a chair in comparative literature at Columbia University. His books include “Post-Orientalism: Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror,” “Iran: A People Interrupted” and “The Green Movement and the USA: The Fox and the Paradox.” His book on the Arab uprisings is forthcoming.

In a new interview with The Real News, he states: “You’re dealing, on one hand, with grassroots revolutionary uprisings, and on the other, with the fact that the United States, the European Union, and their regional allies (which include some Arab countries, such as United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, etc.) want to micromanage these revolutionary uprisings in a manner that suits their benefit. And then, like in Libya … people are confronted with this dilemma, what to do when you have severe crackdown, militant violent crackdown, on the part of Gaddafi or on the part of Hafiz Assad. These forces, such as Saudi Arabia or United States, European Union, appear as an angel of mercy to help the people, whereas the fact of the matter is that they are after their own economic interest.”

Dabashi also states that the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League are “really manipulated and controlled primarily by Saudi Arabia” and that in the Security Council, Russia and China are likely withholding support for assurances of their own economic benefit in a post-Assad Syria.

See Dabashi’s interviews with The Real News including the recent “The U.S./Saudi Agenda and the Syrian Rebellion” and “A Short History of Modern Syria.” http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=850&Itemid=851&jumival=HAMID+DABASHI&search=search

For more information, contact the Institute of Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Monday, January 30, 2012

DANA FRANK
Currently in Washington, D.C. and available for a very limited number of interviews, Frank just wrote the New York Times oped “In Honduras, a Mess Made in the U.S.,” which states: “It’s time to acknowledge the foreign policy disaster that American support for the Porfirio Lobo administration in Honduras has become. Ever since the June 28, 2009, coup that deposed Honduras’s democratically elected president, José Manuel Zelaya, the country has been descending deeper into a human rights and security abyss. That abyss is in good part the State Department’s making.

“The headlines have been full of horror stories about Honduras. According to the United Nations, it now has the world’s highest murder rate, and San Pedro Sula, its second city, is more dangerous than Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, a center for drug cartel violence.

“Much of the press in the United States has attributed this violence solely to drug trafficking and gangs. But the coup was what threw open the doors to a huge increase in drug trafficking and violence, and it unleashed a continuing wave of state-sponsored repression.

“The current government of President Lobo won power in a November 2009 election managed by the same figures who had initiated the coup. Most opposition candidates withdrew in protest, and all major international observers boycotted the election, except for the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which are financed by the United States.

“President Obama quickly recognized Mr. Lobo’s victory, even when most of Latin America would not. Mr. Lobo’s government is, in fact, a child of the coup. It retains most of the military figures who perpetrated the coup, and no one has gone to jail for starting it.

“This chain of events — a coup that the United States didn’t stop, a fraudulent election that it accepted — has now allowed corruption to mushroom. The judicial system hardly functions. Impunity reigns. At least 34 members of the opposition have disappeared or been killed, and more than 300 people have been killed by state security forces since the coup, according to the leading human rights organization Cofadeh. At least 13 journalists have been killed since Mr. Lobo took office, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. …

“And yet, in early October, Mr. Obama praised Mr. Lobo at the White House for leadership in a “restoration of democratic practices.” Since the coup the United States has maintained and in some areas increased military and police financing for Honduras and has been enlarging its military bases there, according to an analysis by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Congress, though, has finally begun to push back. Last May, 87 members signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling for a suspension of military and police aid to Honduras.” Frank is a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is at work on a book about the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s cold-war intervention in the Honduran labor movement. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/opinion/in-honduras-a-mess-helped-by-the-us.html

ALEX MAIN, http://www.cepr.net
Main is senior associate for international policy with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which released “Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Honduras,” which states: “Both the New York Times and Washington Post’s fact-checks on the GOP presidential debate Thursday night missed the mark regarding former Senator Rick Santorum’s (R-PA) comments about Honduras.” http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-honduras

Senior associate for International Policy with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Main said today: “The U.S. bears a large part of responsibility for the institutional breakdown and soaring murder rate in Honduras. The administration’s decision to unilaterally support flawed elections in Honduras and the pro-coup government of Porfirio Lobo further empowered the anti-democratic and criminal sectors that backed the June 2009 coup d’Etat that unseated the democratic government of Manuel Zelaya. Today, the U.S. continues to channel millions of dollars to Honduran security forces responsible for innumerable killings and human rights abuses despite calls from both the human rights community and many members of Congress to terminate this assistance. Tragically for Honduras, the Obama administration has chosen to shore up a corrupt and increasingly militarized regime in an attempt to forestall the rise of a progressive political movement that is sympathetic to the ‘pink tide’ governments of South America.”

See Washington Post: “Peace Corps withdraws from Honduras amid surging violence, claims of rights abuses.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/peace-corps-withdraws-from-honduras-amid-surging-violence-claims-of-rights-abuses/2012/01/18/gIQAvoWD7P_story.html

For more information, contact the Institute of Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

GLEN FORD,  http://www.BlackAgendaReport.com
Obama stated that fighting in Iraq “made the United States safer and more respected around the world.” Ford, who is executive editor of BlackAgendaReport.com, took issue with this in an interview with The Real News last night: “Obama Pledges to Maintain the Empire.” http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7842

WENONAH HAUTER, Darcey Rakestraw,  http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org
Executive director of Food & Water Watch, Hauter said today: “The president’s energy vision is troubling for our water resources. His speech touted the development of so-called ‘clean energy,’ but it may as well have been written by the oil and gas industry. His plan to open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources and to support shale gas development trades clean water for energy.

“President Obama should not confuse offshore oil and onshore shale gas development for clean energy. Although gas companies should absolutely be made to disclose the chemicals they use, simply disclosing chemicals does not prevent shale gas development from harming our essential water resources. To keep water safe and rural communities strong, we should ban fracking.

“Furthermore, the oil and gas industry’s job claims for shale gas development are grossly overestimated due to methodological flaws and reliance on economic modeling, rather than looking at the actual number of jobs created in communities with fracking. The only certainty about the expansion of the destructive oil and gas fracking is that it will bring profits to the multinational oil and gas companies. President Obama should look at the facts on how many jobs the oil and gas industry creates rather than writing federal energy policy based on the claims of the industry.

“When it comes to food, the President claimed he will not back down from making sure that our food is safe. But recent actions by his administration make that claim hard to believe. Just last week, the USDA announced its plan to deregulate the poultry industry by eliminating government inspectors and shifting to privatized inspection in many poultry plants. This is the opposite of making sure consumers are protected from unsafe food.”

MARK McLEOD, http://businessforsharedprosperity.org
McLeod is executive director of the Sustainable Business Alliance of Oakland/Berkeley and steering committee member of the American Sustainable Business Council. He said today: “I welcome the President’s effort to have wealthier Americans pay higher taxes. The last time in our nation’s history when there was such extreme disparity between the income and wealth of the 1% and the 99% was in 1928, just prior to the beginning of the Great Depression. That such wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of the population is not taxed more highly is both obscene and self-destructive. Our nation needs more revenue to invest in education, healthcare, renewable energy and other infrastructure in order to succeed in the very tough world we live in.”

THOMAS FERGUSON, http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/people/fellows/thomas-ferguson
Ferguson is professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and a senior fellow of the Roosevelt Institute. He said today: “Some of the President’s proposals are intriguing, but without details they are hard to assess — the mortgage refinancing program above all. What is clear is only sometimes reassuring. It is fine to talk exports and jobs, but the heart of those programs are mostly special subsidies to businesses. It would be far better for all of us if the president abandoned his fixation on the deficit for the next few years and focused on sustaining total demand in the economy instead of myriads of special subsidies. Nor do I see any reason why the Attorney General needs to be assisted by state attorneys general in investigating mortgage fraud. The latter have spearheaded all serious efforts to rein in the banks; this new federal/state initiative looks like an effort by the Feds to curb the more vigorous state efforts. The proposals on political money are weak indeed; the President is really punting on that issue, especially the role of secret funds. And there is a deep contradiction between the President’s emphasis on education and the actual conditions of the states. Most education funding from the federal government gets channeled through states and localities. But they are broke. And while it’s fine to cut interest rates on student loans, the real problem is that students are assuming way too much debt. A useful federal government initiative on public higher education has to address that as well as promoting accountability in the colleges and universities.”

Ferguson just appeared on The Real News: “On Obama SOTU: New Financial Fraud Commission Could Actually Slow Down Investigations.”
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7846

Ferguson’s “The Devil and Rick Santorum: Dilemmas of a Holy Owned Subsidiary,” appeared recently on Alternet:
http://www.alternet.org/story/153676/the_devil_and_rick_santorum%3A_dilemmas_of_a_holy_owned_subsidiary/

His recent studies of Congress and money have appeared in the Financial Times — http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7ead8528-b7af-11e0-8523-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1e9oKoy7f — and the Washington Spectator. http://www.washingtonspectator.org/articles/20111015postedprices.cfm

For more information, contact the Institute of Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

iWatchNews is reporting: “The Israeli-born wife of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is matching her husband and placing her own $5 million bet on a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich in the upcoming Florida primary.

“The gift came from Miriam Adelson, according to sources familiar with husband Sheldon’s previous $5 million donation to the super PAC ‘Winning Our Future.’ The funds, in the form of a wire transfer, are expected to be received by the PAC on Tuesday.” http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/23/7951/adelsons-double-down-gingrich-kick-another-5-million-super-pac

MAX BLUMENTHAL, https://twitter.com/#!/maxblumenthal
Blumenthal is writing fellow at The Nation Institute who recently wrote an investigation on Gingrich and his relationship to Sheldon Adelson. He said today: “After Newt Gingrich befriended Las Vegas casino baron Sheldon Adelson in the late 1990’s, Gingrich’s politics on the Middle East suddenly developed a hawkish, neoconservative edge. Adelson, who is America’s 8th wealthiest man, is a vocal supporter of the Greater Israel project of Jewish settlements and a military strike on Iran. In Israel, Adelson is the key financial benefactor of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Adelson funds Netanyahu’s political campaigns, bankrolls pro-Netanyahu think tanks, and owns a newspaper, Israel Hayom, that is considered Netanyahu’s house organ. Back in the U.S., Adelson pumped millions into rehabilitating Gingrich’s career after the former House Speaker’s ignominious political demise and descent into personal scandal. Thanks to Adelson, Gingrich was able to found a think tank that allowed him to build the infrastructure for his coming presidential bid.

“On the presidential trail, Gingrich injected an ugly tinge of Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry into the campaign. His remark to a right-wing Jewish news outlet that the Palestinians were ‘an invented people’ was met with widespread criticism — and a vigorous defense by Adelson. Days later, Adelson funneled $5 million into a pro-Gingrich Super PAC, turning the key to Gingrich’s stunning upset of Mitt Romney in South Carolina. Now, with Gingrich polling ahead of Romney in Florida, Adelson has pledged another $5 million, virtually guaranteeing that Gingrich will be competitive — and that more nasty attacks on Palestinians, Muslims, and Obama’s foreign policy lay on the horizon.

Adelson’s relationship with Netanyahu, and his motives for funding Gingrich, were outlined in detail in Blumenthal’s investigative report for the new Lebanese-based Al-Akhbar English, “The Bibi Connection,” earlier this month. Blumenthal wrote that Netanyahu is waging a “shadow campaign … intended to be a factor in defeating Obama and electing a Republican in his place.”

“The Bibi Connection” can be read here:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/bibi-connection

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:

Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Tuesday, January 17, 2011

At last night’s GOP debate, moderator Kelly Evans asked: “Governor Romney, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody, many, including Congressman Paul, have called it unconstitutional. At the same time the bill did provide money to continue funding U.S. troops. Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?”

Governor Romney: “Yes, I would have. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country…”

Rick Santorum took issue with Romney’s statement: “…If you are a citizen and you are being held indefinitely, then you have the right to go to a federal court … That is a standard that should be maintained and I would maintain that standard as president…”

Ron Paul added: “Now with the military appropriations defense act, this — this is — this is major. This says that the military can arrest an American citizen for [being] under suspicion, and he can be held indefinitely, without habeas corpus, and be denied a lawyer indefinitely even in a prison here.” Transcript: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/17/transcript-fox-news-channel-wall-street-journal-debate-in-south-carolina and video at 1:31: http://graphics.wsj.com/documents/WSJ_GOP_PRIMARY_2012/livecoverage/index.php

CHRIS HEDGES, (609) 332-8429, hedgesscoop@aol.com, http://www.truthdig.com/chris_hedges
Available for a limited number of interviews, Hedges recently wrote the piece “Why I’m Suing Barack Obama,” which states: “Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

“The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled ‘Counter-Terrorism,’ for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until ‘the end of hostilities.’ It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation.” http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116

Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded a Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism in 2002. His books include “Death of the Liberal Class” and “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Friday, December 9, 2011

REESE ERLICH, http://www.iranproject.org
Foreign correspondent Erlich’s books include “The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis” and “Conversations with Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence, and Empire.” He said: “The CIA has now acknowledged that a spy drone went down in Iran. Iranian authorities say their military shot it down; the U.S. maintains there were mechanical problems. The incident has forced the U.S. government to admit for the first time that it is conducting regular spying on Iran. Officials claim that the U.S. uses drones to look for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. More likely, the U.S. seeks information about existing conventional weapons and potential responses to a U.S. or Israeli military attack.

“The recent incident reveals that the U.S., not Iran, is the aggressor. The U.S. has used the excuse of a supposed nuclear weapons program to engage in spying, arming of ethnic guerrillas and targeted assassinations against Iranian scientists. Yet even the CIA and other intelligence agencies admit that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and is years away from developing an atomic bomb.”

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/katrina-vanden-heuvel
Reuters reports: “Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s opponents hope to bring large numbers of people out onto the streets across Russia on Saturday for rallies that will test their ability to channel outrage over allegations of election fraud into a powerful protest movement.” Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation and co-author of the book “Voices of Glasnost: Conversations With Gorbachev’s Reformers.” She said today: “In many ways, The Dec. 4 election results, despite real voting abuses, show discontent, change in the real political landscape in the country. Perhaps most important, and virtually ignored by the corporate media, is that the Russian Communist Party is now the country’s leading opposition party; many voted for it as a protest vote.

“What hasn’t changed is that Vladimir Putin will (likely) easily be elected president in March. Despite the growing and real public disillusionment with his rule, he remains the most popular politician in the country. And in the time between now and March, the Kremlin will — no doubt learning from its experience with these elections — become more adept at using its ‘administrative resources’ — state and Kremlin oligarchical money and control of state television — more effectively to make sure there are no similar setbacks in the March presidential election.

“In many other ways, though, we are witnessing a changed political and social landscape. The air of infallibility Putin has enjoyed — and counted on –for the past decade is gone. … Russian civil society is engaged and active in ways not seen since the Perestroika period of 1986-1991. (That may be one reason why former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the architect of perestroika, has called for new elections.)

“Corruption, abuse of power by elites and inequality have been fueling citizen protest and anger for many years. (And Western liberals should not avert their eyes from the powerful Nationalist movements — also part of civil society — in today’s Russia.) What’s different this time around is that activists, journalists and ordinary citizens have the ability to spread feisty viral videos on such issues on YouTube, or on ‘Zhivoi Zhurnal’ — Russia’s Facebook equivalent — ‘tvitter’ and on other internet outlets which remain fairly free and open (despite the control of television). The use of the new media was clear during the parliamentary vote as electoral observers, opposition figures and ordinary citizens saw documented abuses for all the world to see.”

FREDRIK HEFFERMEHL, http://nobelwill.org
Author of the book “The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted,” Heffermehl argues that the Nobel committee has violated the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will, which established the prize. He said today: “Dec. 10 will be a day for celebration and joy for everyone in this world and at least half the world will have a good personal reason to love the Nobel Committee, since this year the prize celebrates women and their equal rights and role; but, unfortunately, not so much their essential role in the struggle for peace and disarmament.

“The committee chair, Thorbjørn Jagland, said, when he presented the winners on Oct. 7 that the prize was awarded in support of the cause of women and their democratic rights. Why is he so adamantly keeping the purpose Nobel had in mind a secret? Nobel wished to support global disarmament through global law and strong international institutions. The committee consists of retired party hacks, who have during all their political lives supported a strong military force and the NATO alliance — their political leanings are the direct opposite of the peace vision that Nobel wished to support. Friends of the military cannot be the right persons to award a prize for disarmament.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

MICHAEL DORSEY, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~envs/faculty/dorsey.html
“The arrival of lead U.S. negotiator for the United States, Todd Stern, in Durban South Africa spells doom for Africa and the planet,” said Dartmouth College Professor Michael Dorsey, after leaving a closed briefing with U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Stern and the U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Johnathan Pershing.

“The lack of any form of visionary leadership on display was startling.” added Dorsey. “The U.S. government is no longer committed to doing just nothing. Worse than nothing, the U.S. plans to assess its performance in 2015 and maybe consider action in 2020. Such diplomatic delays are a deadly formula that will drive the displacement, wreak havoc, especially on African and other marginalized livelihoods globally. The UN’s latest estimate is that more than 150 million people could become early climate refugees. These people will be early victims of worsening and unfolding climate chaos if countries wait to consider to act until 2015.

“Because of the U.S.’s expressed commitment to delays, the world may indeed see the Durban Climate Summit as the place where a new form of climate injustice and apartheid began: Eco-apartheid against those on the margins of society and ecosystems.”

PATRICK BOND
Professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, Bond is author and editor of the just-released books “Politics of Climate Justice” and “Durban’s Climate Gamble.” Bond recently co-wrote the piece “Climate Cash Deals are Killing Us” with Dorsey http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/climate-cash-deals-are-killing-us-1.1183034

For more on the conference, now in its final week, see: http://cop17insouthafrica.wordpress.com

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
__________________________________________________________

PM Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Information, including contacts for different occupation cites, is at: http://www.occupytogether.org — and video from various cites is featured at: http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

JODY DODD
Dodd is part of the Occupy Philly legal collective. The webpage http://www.occupyphillymedia.org features more information including a video “Eviction - What the Mainstream Media Failed to Show the World.”

ERNESTO ARCE,  http://www.kpfk.org
Arce is a news producer for KPFK in Los Angeles and is the Southern California Bureau Chief for the Pacifica Evening News. He said today: “Although city officials praised what they called a mostly peaceful action, legal observers say the initial raid was unnecessarily rough. The eviction raised media access issues since only a select group of reporters was allowed to enter City Hall park.

“Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck gave me his word that the department’s action would be carried out in a humane way and without any surprises. This morning’s action seemed to contradict that pledge. Several hundred LAPD officers rushed the south steps of L.A. City Hall literally running over peaceful activists. Some protesters say they were caught by surprise, were corralled into the center of the park and did not hear either an order to disperse or the declaration of an unlawful assembly.

Arce added: “While city leaders lauded the police’s action, it’s clear that LAPD once again resorted to heavy-handed tactics. More than 200 people were arrested early this morning during the eviction of Occupy LA. Hundreds of Los Angeles police officers rushed out from all sides of City Hall shortly after midnight and surrounded protesters. LAPD says more than 1400 officers brought in on 30 metro buses took part in the massive operation.”

See: LA Times “Occupy LA: Protesters vow to make camp at banks, country clubs.” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-vows-to-press-on.html

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167