Why Inconsistencies,Contradictions & Irrelevancies in Our News Gives Rise to Conspiracy Theories!

American Democrats have handed over “tax cuts”, “spending cuts”...and probably “tapering off or slip sliding woman’s rights” over to the “old boys of the Republican party”. It is not just octogenarians of the Middle East who have enjoyed too much power and authority without accountability and responsibility. At least young people and women in the Middle East are coming out in droves to protest. Our octogenarian conservative white boys are actually accumulating power and authority.

Democrats gave away tax cuts to the very rich (2% of the population) that confused, disappointed and shocked most people. Now they have cut an extra billion (that is one with nine zeros) to an already “over stretched” budget reduction. This is like a sexist male survivalist telling his wife, “One group of friends tell me I am too liberal and indulge you too much. Another group of friends think that I am too conservative and physically abuse you too much. So I am going to please all of them, and henceforth will start verbally abusing you in public while holding your hand in private!”

Some male improvement this!

We can apply this analogy to the current American budget. It beats up on the poor, the middle class and hard working immigrants, while the Congress wants praise for compromise and competent concessions.

Some Democratic achievement this!

In America Conservatives do not apologize for physically or economically beating up on those who are at the bottom...while the Democrats apologize for their very existence! Its a wonder they have not committed Hari-kiri for what is going on in Japan.

American Republicans, it appears, like rubbing their feet on people they consider “doormats”, while Liberals and Progressives, a dwindling group among Democrats, have a new motto: “Pauper Progressives, Lackey Liberals and Doormat Democrats  – Kindly Rub Your Feet Hard On Us Anytime!"

No wonder these Democrats are losing respect fast! Blaming President Obama is easy and not fair. What are, and were, the old guards among the Democrats doing...other than accumulating power, authority and networking? And where are the hard ax liberal feminists who can kick without apologizing or asking?

The few we had in office, or thought we had, appear too congenial, too compliant to the status quo, too converted by elite needs, too contaminated by conservative politics, too controlled by beltway bucks and too curtailed by traditionalists.

I know Ms Hillary Clinton has disappointed many liberals and progressives. The liberal press now blames Ms Clinton, Ms Rice and Ms Powers – ladies with the lethal weapon of persuasive political talk with their Prince at the top - for the “humanitarian service through military bombing” in Libya.

Have our battle ax women now become battle-women with a bugle for all the wrong causes using all the wrong strategies? If so, where is the Democratic Dojo-kick for progressive policies going to come from? Next year, next time...next century?

With all these disappointments and disgruntlement new kinds of conspiracy theories are emerging about many current events. Here are some:

We now have YouTube videos (yes YouTube!) on how actions by some odd organization called HAARP (I never heard of it until now) could have been responsible for earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan - because the Japanese, their representatives and their government refused to renew the American military-base contract.

Wikipedia tells me that HAARP is an actual authentic organization, called High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, that has been around since 1990, for which the Department of Defense wanted to increase spending from $ 5 million to $ 75 million. Was this not-so-well known project, Journalist Sharon Weinberger called the “Moby Dick” for “conspiracy theorists" (including Jesse Ventura), ever under budget-cut scrutiny - especially by the hack-cost-happy Conservatives?

Can you blame young, confused or conflicted people for entertaining conspiracy theories? Especially when, in a middle of a terrible economy, we have a military action, not sanctioned by the Congress, against a dictator who actually opened up his country to American and European business interests and investments few years ago. Also, when more ruthless dictators around the world are being ignored – some actually being well financed. (Read Jeremy Scahill's “The Dangerous US Game in Yemen” in The Nation, March 30, 2011). How much did Mubarak, Saleh, Musharraf..., all military dictators, receive from the US while Saddam was being overthrown - and now Gaddafi?

Why did Libya, another oil country, become suddenly a humanitarian crisis (with many abstentions for the no-fly zone resolution in the UN), just within a few days (not even weeks) after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor problem unfolded (and still continues)?

One conspiracy theory purports, “France wanted a digression from the Daiichi nuclear reactor catastrophe - so its nuclear energy export policy will not get affected by the radioactive fiasco”.

(The fact that the Académie des Sciences and the Académie Nationale de Médecine - the French Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine - are big supporters of studies that attempt to prove the beneficial effects of low-level radiation known as hormesis, which the American Air Force and Nuclear Energy lobby groups also borrow and endorse, only adds to these conspiracy speculations. {Calabrese, Edward J. {2004-06-01}. "Hormesis: from marginalization to mainstream: A case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment". Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 197 [2]: 125–136. & Duport, P. [2003-09-11]. "A database of cancer induction by low-dose radiation in mammals: overview and initial observations". International Journal of Low Radiation. International Journal of Low Radiation 1 [11]: 120–131}.)

(Also for the record, the notion of radiation hormesis has been rejected by the National Research Council, part of the American National Academy of Sciences, after a 16 year long study on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Richard R. Monson, Associate Dean for Professional Education and Professor of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, also admits that the development of solid cancers in organs actually rise proportionally with exposure).

Another conspiracy theory assumes, “England wants to secure its oil fields in Libya with the help of the military - so any rebellion or a civil war would not affect its business operations.” The fact that BP (not Beyond Petroleum) has been trying very hard to make up for its losses with the Gulf oil spill in the United States only makes such assumptions plausible.

A third conspiracy theory suggests, “America wanted a more stable supply of oil - and conveniently found another easy unpopular isolated dictator, like Saddam Hussein a decade ago, to overthrow and take over his oil".

The fourth conspiracy theory speculates, "America is moving from a pan-Arab military control – mostly in the Middle East – to a pan-African imperial control  connected to AFRICOM".

The fifth conspiracy theory states that, "America had a plan to go into Libya more than ten years ago for several economic and geo-political reasons - and found an opportune moment to do so when everyone was focused on the triple disasters in Japan”.

The sixth conspiracy theory...you might have guessed by now!

Why are there so many conspiracy theories...some quite ridiculous?

Because our media no longer informs accurately, reports relevantly, investigates courageously, analysis intelligently, evaluates independently and opines reliably. Hence, I suggest reading up on all these conspiracy theories - as one or two might come out to be true in a few years.

But for some relevant intelligent insights and discussions, with experts and smart journalists, on earthquakes, tsunamis, missile testing, fracting, ionospheric research, nuclear energy, nuclear catastrophes, radioactivity, Libya, oil industries, North Africa, imperialism, corporate expansion, AFRICOM, etc. go to California, Canada, England, Germany, Taiwan, India, China, Russia, Australia, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile...even Pakistan (where their journalists have been asking some penetrating questions of their Parliamentarians, business leaders and military personnel).

And what do we have in the United States? We've got a Congressman, Louie Gohmert (a Republican from Texas), wasting professional time and precious resources trying to create a new law that would stop pregnant women tourists from having babies here and later returning to their home countries! Would he prefer that they stay - using up his tax dollars? Would he prefer that they not come at all - reducing tourist revenue? Or better still, would he prefer that they not seek any medical help for their delivery - and have babies in the shed like his prophet's mother?

If some global occurrences feel like sci-fi horror, some American domestic occurrences feel like a cuckoo's nest.

Oh, how they argue, convince and promote...

Protecting labor that work for our welfare...and sometimes put their lives on the line for us!

We must look with amazement and utter awe at the workers who continue to operate in radioactively dangerous environments in Japan to bring the unstable nuclear reactors under control, built by GE, Toshiba & Hitachi, while managers, administrators and corporate kings look for new ways to cover their backs and distort information (to avoid responsibility). Let us remember what varied workers do, go through, risk and die for – to do their job, to protect the innocent and save others around the world!

These brave men and women, who are exploited themselves in many ways, are the face of “labor”!

Today American Liberals, Progressives, labor rights' activists, Socialists and Marxists remember, with pain and horror, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, one of the deadliest workplace accident in New York City’s history, that killed more than 146 workers on March 25, 1911. Many of the workers, mostly young immigrant women, leaped to their death when they tried to escape after they found the emergency exits locked. (Watch Democracy Now's excellent coverage, March 25, 2011, of this fire and the labor law changes that followed).

How many fires in factories and warehouses have we heard about around the world where workers were thrust into small rooms, with little or no ventilation, no bathrooms, no windows, no emergency exits...not even a bucket of water or sand to put out a spark? Plenty!

Many workers, including children, work in appalling and dangerous conditions around the world - even today. They toil for hours under poor lighting, poor air circulation, with poorly constructed desks and chairs, using obsolete or outdated technology that is hard and painful to operate and without proper safety gears or updated protections. Many workers end up with bad eyes, bad lungs, bad posture, spinal problems, serious or severe disabilities, cancer and other chronic health problems because of the job they do. Many actually die at work, and because of work.

If we count the mental health problems due to bullying, brutish, dehumanizing, demanding, demeaning, dismissive, cruel, crude, humiliating, hurtful, insensitive, isolating and stressful work environments, the list of job related problems would increase a thousand fold - even for white collar workers.

A faculty, who underwent treatment for depression, once said to me cynically, "I guess we cannot change the work environment that wants more and more from us: more research, more publications, more teaching, more student load to carry, more administrative work, more community work, more grant writing, more regulations to follow, more niceness...and all under less pay, less sleep, less collegiality, less peer support, less recognition...with more sexism, racism, ethnocentrism....It never stops. I guess the system will never change...so we take tablets to cope better or change ourselves!"

If this is what teachers, faculty and white collar workers have to go through, imagine our garbage collectors, road workers, house cleaners, etc.?

In countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan lower status of workers, and their ill treatment, is sustained by centuries of feudalism, classicism, casteism, sexism and colonialism. Many white collar workers in these countries, including in computer industries, have bought into corporate culture and psychology for their own “middle class” lifestyles. Many have colluded with the upper classes and foreign companies that treat their land, resources and labor as exploitable disposable human waste.

In countries like the United States, where reports on disasters and deaths that occur in other countries are treated mostly as “media voyeurism” and as “mere information for its own self-survival”, there has been both stagnation of workers' rights and decline in labor protests – with the exception of few areas (like the mass protests in Madison, Wisconsin).

Many American middle class workers, blue or white collar, became too comfortable with their incomes, benefits, middle class lifestyles and community networks that they forgot to be vigilant to how their rights were being slowly eroded – even as they moved up the economic ladder. Many also, unfortunately, colluded with the big corporate boys (from car manufacturers to currency manipulators) to allow for policies and actions that were unkind to third world workers, sabotaged domestic labor laws and manipulated political systems to protect or sustain the status quo.

I had mentioned more than a decade ago that as “capital gets globalized” and the “rich get multinational”, with leadership that does not connect or commit to any community or issues other than its narrow economic interests and wealth accumulation, labor has been locally trapped or/and internationally exploited.

Workers are either stuck in their environments, and are unable to move for better jobs, better pay, better respect, better inclusion and better mobility, or they are forced to move for survival - while they continue to remain second class citizens or servile subordinates globally.

Work has many forms, faces and types. In many ways everyone who has to work for “survival”, and relies on their earned income, small savings and careful budgeting to manage and cope economically (including teachers and faculty), are “workers” and are part of the “working class”. We work, or are forced to work, to survive and struggle with all the psychological anxiety, challenges and stress of trying to manage “basic economic demands, obligations and requirements”.

Rich people, even many millionaires, who complain about “not having enough” so they can send their kids to expensive private schools, shop frequently at designer stores, go on expensive vacations and celebrate in exotic places, do not count! Whining by the rich or the upper classes over their victimization or economic struggles do not indicate “struggle for survival” (working or middle class).

If you have to work to pay your rent, food expenses, electricity, etc. you are working class. If you do not have more than six months of savings to pay your basic expenses (as you look for a job or consider a career change) you are working class. If you have to forgo visiting your own family for funerals or weddings because you cannot afford the travel and accommodation then you are working class. If you have to sell your family jewelry, your car or borrow money to pay for an emergency (like an accident, an illness or arrange a funeral) then you are part of a struggling working class. If you live in a rented accommodation, and cannot afford a house (even if you have worked for twenty years), you are poor or working class.

More than ninety percent of the world is working class! The five percent that is not owns eighty percent of the global wealth. More than eighty percent of the wealthy live or are from Western countries.

Exploitation and abuse of labor not only leads to labor resentment, incompetency, sloppiness and shoddiness (can you blame them?), it also leads to, as Alex Kerr argues in Dogs and Demons: The Fall of Modern Japan (2001), loss of intelligent knowledge, including important technical know-how, which can lead to mismanagement of very dangerous disasters - like the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor fiasco.

Corporations operate like bureaucracies...sometimes worse than Government bureaucracies. Corporations have often avoided responsibilities – even during times of danger and disaster caused by their neglect or actions. They point fingers at other corporations, at the press, at the public and at Governments (that they have tried to buy and control). They cover-up their oversights, errors, neglect and crimes.

In many instances Corporations lie, commit criminal violations and cover-up better than Governments: because they have more money, they are private and citizens' groups watch Governments more carefully and more often than Corporations. Example: American Libertarians and Tea Party activists have scrutinized Government policies and actions, including excessive Executive Power, better than many Corporate policies and actions.

Labor Unions and Workers' Rights have to expand beyond old manufacturing industries - as manufacturing itself has changed. Manufacturing has gotten mechanized, technically advanced and globalized. But labor rights and laws have not gotten more consistent, advanced and globalized. They remain local, they remain trapped in early 19th century Western laws and they are confined to jobs that are primarily industrial, physical and assembly-line focused.

We need reformed labor laws that can be pursued and implemented by new labor institutions, created by a global labor movement, that is more expansive, inclusive and can take actions against corporate exploitation, abuse, neglect, lies and criminality wherever it occurs. 

How many nuclear reactor catastrophes - that we now know were due to faults, defects and serious problems, including concerns about a possible tsunami effect, that were covered-up - do we have to contend with before we hold corporations accountable? How many workers must die, get injured or get put in harm's way for corporate greed and neglect?

How many workers: from Bangladesh to Bulgaria, from China to Chile, from England to El Salvador, from Nepal to Nigeria, from India to Ireland, from Pakistan to Portugal, from Sri Lanka to Singapore, from the United States to Uganda...must jump from a burning building, to their death, because they chose to work...and did so to merely survive?

As my gracious grandmother, Visalakshi, often mourned when listening to the news on human tragedies, “Oh my goodness, how much ugly karma must we accumulate for every human stupidity, greed and evil? When will human beings learn? It takes so little to be good and human, but so much more to be inhuman. Why do so many choose the latter?”

My grandmother passed away more than twenty years ago, and all I can say to her spirit after all these years is, “Patti, wish I knew! After all my education, books, travel and experience all I can admit to is, 'Human ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, cruelty and evil continues to baffle me!' Any advice from the other side?"

Lets work better and together for a global labor movement and institutions that protect, secure and serve labor...as they serve us! 

What is the difference between American media and Gaddafi's propaganda?

I tried five TV channels (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Link TV, Free Speech TV), and several radio stations, to get a balanced, reliable and an accurate take on this Libya crisis - from the tsunami crisis (that has left the American psyche) to the Daiichi nuclear reactor crisis (that is now a distant memory for most – though it was less than a week ago)...and the only decently thoughtful five minute coverage was from an obscure local Iowa news.

I had to go to a small radio station, way outside the Midwest, to be able to get some trustworthy reporting and intelligent analysis on Libya. I have been saying all along that “analyzing Gaddafi's badness or madness”, as it is going on in the popular media, should not be the priority. It is the belief  that a “military intervention” for what is a “humanitarian crisis” would succeed and be effective that needs to be analyzed.

Dr. Phyllis Bennis, at the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington D.C., admitted in a talk radio (March 19, 2011) that five countries on the United Nations' Security Council, big players in the UN and beyond, abstained from the UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya. Why is that not being discussed?

Though this Libya action is presented as a multilateral intervention, unlike the Iraq invasion of 2003, it is much more unilateral than it appears. France's role in pushing this resolution might be more symbolic – rather than serving as an actual military ally in the no-fly operation.

With all the focus on Libya, Bahrain and Yemen have been forgotten in much of the American news. Protesters there have been arrested, shot at, injured, many have gone missing and more than fifty people have been killed in Sanaa alone. The governments of Yemen and Bahrain have used “ruthless force” against their protesters. A MSNBC (supposedly more liberal and fair among the news agencies) reporter actually stated on Friday, 18th of March (paraphrased), “We are not covering Yemen and Bahrain because the protest there is of no interest to America. Their governments are good for us!”

Not even a pretense of independence, objectivity, detached reporting or real international-care in many American popular news agencies anymore. Should not someone be reprimanding these news media for such blatant admission of “inconsistency and hypocrisy”? In the media, even privately run by corporations, there is more competition and digression on commercial issues than on basic news reporting.

With all this we are supposed to believe that Gaddafi is the only one who indulges in propaganda?

It is easy to call all of this “theater of the absurd” - and then chuckle about it. That is what some powers would want – and they are not all conservative these days. While Japan has not received a lot of aid after a major catastrophe - though 50% of the American military-base expenses are borne by the Japanese government and their taxpayers, this excessive “delusion” that “resilience" and "a move-on, move-on psychology" alone will solve everything, popularized by the press, has to be confronted. Resilience requires the right support, sharing, cooperation, education, generosity and reciprocity.

In many ways Japan has dealt with one of its worst crisis with grace and humility. America has turned its economic woes, far from a catastrophe, into another military exercise in a region that it has treated with contempt and superiority for decades. And those who bring this up are usually silenced, marginalized and even unfairly attacked. As one ad for “Peace and Justice in the World” stated, “Thank you for not shooting me or ruining me!” Surviving certain countries, I guess, is the greatest achievement these days.

There are many ways that news is selectively used or manufactured to keep the status-quo, and the public preoccupied or distracted so certain agendas can be pushed through. Whether it is over throwing one dictator while funding another ; whether it is doctoring photos and visuals to create a story or a theme ; whether it is shifting or twisting arguments for one's cultural or economic convenience...or finding ways, insidious and militaristic, to attain, establish, protect and promote “power”.

How else, as my wonderful policy mentor once said, “Can we keep the Frankenstein of a system called 'development' going? We created it, we pursued it and now we kill to keep it! I am a good Christian...even I cannot imagine the karmic price we are going to pay for this?”

As one activist, and bless our world for such sensitively thinking and sweetly caring people, stated, “I have never felt as ashamed or as afraid of the US as I have for the last ten years”.

Are those ten years going to become twenty, thirty, forty...?

What is Going on With Libya - Though We Know What's Going to Go Over It Soon?

If  Dr.Susan Rice, America's ambassador to the UN, is sounding more like Dr. Condoleezza Rice, we now have a foreign policy in the Middle East that looks more like a post-cursor to Iraq 2003...using distraction this time, rather than deception, to keep people from reacting or protesting. A young journalist called it, “A brilliant move by men and women who operate with the same cunning as Gaddafi!”

While everybody was busy with the earthquake, tsunami and a possible nuclear reactor blowup in Japan, so was I, there were whole lot of people busy domestically passing conservative policies (in different US States), and pushing for a “No-Fly Zone” over Libya - which may be just a nice public relations word for “invasion and occupation with pizazz”.

Gaddafi went from being a terrorist to being a reasonable leader to being a popular ally to being a...terrorist again – all in forty years! Why? He is the same guy doing the same thing that he has done for years: being an arrogant, autocratic, bombastic, charming, demanding, erratic, fluctuating, shrewd, smart, sometimes-ruthless dictator. What changed?

We know Muammar al-Gaddafi was born in a Bedouin in 1942. As a boy Gaddafi attended a Muslim elementary school, during which time the major events occurring in the Arab world, including the struggles for independence, profoundly influenced him. Gaddafi entered the Libyan military academy at Benghazi in 1961 and, along with most of his colleagues from the Revolutionary Command Council, graduated sometime between 1965 -1966 (according to Wikipedia).

Like so many of his generation who found economic opportunity through military service (much like many minorities in the United States), or social acceptance through a military career (much like elite men in many cultures), Gaddafi joined a military training program at the Royal Military Academy of Sandhurst, England (though citation for this is needed). Later he attended another military school in Athens, Greece.

While Gaddafi identified strongly with early Arab nationalism, his strong statements against Western interference in the Middle East put him on a “watch target”, and later, he claimed, like Fidel Castro, on an “assassination target”.

Gaddafi and Libya were put on a “terrorist list” by the US government after his admission that he had been responsible for several bombings (including the downing of a Pan Am flight), and assassination attempts against several world leaders (though the latter has not all been confirmed).

Wikipedia states that it is “the frustration and shame felt by Libyan officers, who stood by helplessly at the time of Israel's swift and humiliating defeat of Arab armies on three fronts in 1967”, that fueled Gaddafi's determination to overthrow the Libyan monarchy and bring about Arab unity.

In September 1969 a small group of junior military officers, led by Gaddafi, staged a bloodless coup against King Idris while he was away in Turkey. The King's nephew, the Crown Prince Sayyid Hasan, was formally deposed, put under house arrest, and the new Libyan Arab Republic was born.

In wake of Gaddafi's success a plan was organized by one Sir Archibald David Stirling, a mountaineer and a World War II British Army officer who founded the Special Air Service (SAS) in 1941, to use mercenaries to restore the monarchy at the request of the deposed Crown Prince. The mercenaries were to spring 150 political prisoners from a Tripoli jail as a catalyst for a general uprising – strategy often used in this region to depose unpopular leaders. This particular scheme was called the "Hilton Assignment" - as an ironic comment on the comfort level at Libyan jails. The United States did not find Gaddafi sufficiently anti-Marxist to support this secret plot.

In the fifteen months before Stirling himself was captured the SAS (Special Air Service), which later became the Intelligence wing of the British air force, had destroyed over 250 aircraft on the ground, dozens of supply dumps, roads, wrecked railway communications, and had put hundreds of enemy vehicles out of action. Montgomery of Alamein, another officer with the British military, described David Stirling as “mad, quite mad”, but added that one needed men like Stirling in the time of war (Wikipedia).

Bill Stirling, brother of David Stirling, took over the SAS after his brother was captured. He later founded Watchguard International Ltd. - a company that did business with the Gulf States. Bill Stirling was also linked, along with an associate D. Rowley, in a failed attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1970-71. Stirling later became the founder of a private military company KAS International - Kas Enterprise (Pretoria Inquiry Confirms...”, The Independent, 18 January 1996).

Having survived several assassination attempts himself, both by the West and from some of his dissidents, Gaddafi was often accused of running the most repressive country in Africa. Gaddafi's regime has executed dissidents publicly, and the executions have often been broadcast on state television channels.

Freedom of the Press Index ranks Libya as one of the most censored countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Amnesty International listed twenty-five assassinations between 1980 and 1987 that Gaddafi supposedly attempted on world leaders. Gaddafi also waged several campaigns against his neighboring country of Chad, and withdrew troops from Chad only at the judgment of the International Court of Justice.

There is no doubt that Gaddafi is a notorious and ruthless dictator. But...what is prompting the sudden attempt (taken in March of 2011) to overthrow Gaddafi after forty years - ten of which Gaddafi spent successfully wooing Western leaders, including those countries that are now calling for a no-fly zone?

It was in March 2004 British Prime Minister Tony Blair became the first of many Westerns leaders to visit Libya. There he praised Gaddafi's acts of peace with the West. Prime Minister Blair had openly stated, before his visit, that he hoped Libya would become a strong ally with England and the United States in their international War on Terror.

He said, as quoted by the editor of The Daily Telegraph (13 of August 2009),

"In his four decades as Libya's 'Brother Leader', Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has gone from being the epitome of revolutionary chic to an eccentric statesman with entirely benign relations with the West."

On May 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya - once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction program. Gaddafi did. The State Department removed Libya from the list of nations supporting terrorism.

In July 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Gaddafi. He also successfully pursued Libya's first nuclear program contract.

On 4 March 2008 Gaddafi announced his intention to dissolve his country's existing administrative structure and disburse oil revenue directly to the people. The plan included abolishing all ministries, except those of defense, internal security, foreign affairs and several departments that implement strategic projects (Gaddafi Comes in From the Cold, In Express.co.uk, July 11, 2009).

In September 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Libya and met with Gaddafi as part of a North African tour. This was the first visit to Libya by a US Secretary of State since 1953.

In January 2009, Gaddafi contributed to an editorial in The New York Times - suggesting that he was in favor of a single-state solution that moved beyond old conflicts in the Middle East, and looked to a unified future of shared culture and mutual respect. This was not popular with many Palestinians and Muslims.

There are claims that even two years before Sept 11, 2001 Gaddafi pledged his commitment to fighting Al Queda, and  offered to open up Libya's weapons program to international inspection (in a conversation with the Italian Prime Minster, Berlusconi, in 2003). His offer was not pursed actively by the Clinton and Bush administration as Libya's weapons program was not considered a threat.

Obviously Gaddafi was trying to improve his image in, and connections with, the West - though he is known for his extremely erratic statements, with commentators often expressing doubt whether he is being sarcastic or just incoherent.

So what is going on with this sudden No-Fly Zone over Libya?

 Is reliable and thorough information on this matter over too?

Will the Business and Excitement of Nuclear Power Put Cost, Energy and Expansion Before Safety and People?

While the American mainstream media has already moved from disaster victims in Japan to its impact on "their stock market" and "A'me'rican priorities”, there is a great deal about the nuclear industry, nuclear reactors and its safety regulations that the public still have little knowledge about.

Nuclear industry is a multimillion dollar business that does not just involve private companies. There are governments that are involved in selling nuclear programs globally to help their economy and create jobs. France, the only country in the world that uses nuclear energy as its primary source of power, has a nuclear policy that is a big part of its export. The South African government indirectly supports nuclear energy policies around the world because it helps its uranium mining industry. (Uranium is a radioactive substance that is needed for nuclear reactor rods).

Korea is emerging as a major exporter of nuclear equipment globally. The British, who had the first commercial nuclear power station at Calder Hall in Sellafield, and the United States government have very close ties to companies that sell nuclear energy programs and help build reactors around the world.

In the United States there were both economic and political reasons to pursue civilian use of atomic energy - beyond its military application. U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower made his famous “Atoms for Peace” speech to the UN General Assembly in December 1953 to help disseminate nuclear reactor technology to many U.S. institutions and foreign governments.

Some would say the U.S. Department of Energy is also an unofficial Department of  American Nuclear Program and Weapons. Here is a brief statement on what the objectives of the Department of Energy (DOE) are (from Energy.Gov http://www.energy.gov/energysources/nuclear.htmdoes):

DOE's Nuclear Energy (NE) program promotes secure, competitive and environmentally responsible nuclear technologies to serve the present and future energy needs of the United States and the world.  With the significant energy and environmental challenges facing the nation in this new century, the benefits of clean and safe nuclear energy are increasingly apparent.

A key mission of DOE's nuclear energy research and development program is to strengthen that basic technology and, through some of the most advanced civilian technology research being conducted today, chart the way toward introduction of the next generation of nuclear power plants.

While the research and theoretical designs of nuclear reactors to produce electricity are fairly exact, impressive and reliable, application and implementation have huge problems: cost-wise, personnel-related system-wise, management-related and in predicting and preparing for all contingencies.

The Russians, after visiting Pennsylvania, stated that a Three Mile Island accident would never happen to their reactors...Seven years later the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown occurred. The Japanese Government stated that their nuclear technology and reactor designs were much more advanced and secure than the Chernobyl reactor...Twenty-five years later the same government is grappling with a possible nuclear catastrophe (unexpected and unprecedented).

Now you have American leaders, corporate heads and nuclear industries claiming that, with over 104 reactors all over the United States, “this will never happen in the United States...or to the American people!"

As one Australian journalist asked crudely, “Is this ignorance, stupidity, arrogance or a conservative belief that God always shines and pees nectar on America?”

The cost of building a nuclear reactor, smaller than the ones in Daiichi plant, is thirty times the cost of building an entire oil refinery, mining industry or burning fossil fuel for forty years.

All the energy sources have their own serious repercussions to health, the environment and human life. But the argument that nuclear energy is a cheap, environmentally friendly and safe energy source is highly exaggerated.

In a world where water is becoming scarce, and water-wars are going to be inevitable, the amount of water needed to run the cooling system in nuclear reactors, though officially considered to be small, is not that small when you take all the operating reactors around the world, and their spent fuel storage sites (that increase in size every six years as new rods replace the spent ones).

Added to this specific need is the additional water required to deal with any excess heating, explosions and fires that may occur accidentally, due to natural disasters or human errors and mismanagement.

The water needed for nuclear reactor cooling system has to be clean and fairly pure. There are many poor countries where ordinary people stand in long lines for hours for a bucket of clean drinking water...while large amounts of clean highly purified water is pumped into reactors to cool its hot radioactive rods.

Any sea water, which is mostly impure salt water, pumped into the condensers of the cooling system usually never comes in contact with reactor-water. But when this water is pumped back into the sea it is about ten degrees warmer than it was before it entered the condenser. Many environmentalists have observed that marine life is dramatically affected by ten degrees rise in coastal water temperature.

There are other safety concerns with nuclear reactors. American Republicans have often raised concerns that the computer systems in nuclear facilities, that operate complex set of machines and carefully coordinated operations, could fall into the hands of terrorists. But more realistically worrisome is the number of ill trained and inadequately supervised people, hired cheaply by corporations, who can make serious, dangerous or cumulative errors that could lead to a Union Carbide-like, Chernobyl-like or Fukushima Daiichi-like disasters.

In addition to this is the incompetency and corruption in so many governments around the world that make their nuclear safety regulations weak or inadequate, and the implementation of safety regulations erratic and more favorable to corporate priorities. 

As one scientist noted, “I am not afraid of the scientists in our nuclear facilities: many of whom are well educated - even brilliant, insightful, vigilant, careful and ultra intuitive in understanding or predicting problems in nuclear reactors - even in its daily operation. I am more concerned about the non-scientists who, without proper education, advanced knowledge in science and high level of expertise, are operating sophisticated technology and computer software that they cannot understand – let alone know how to correct when necessary!”

Large number of countries with nuclear reactors, including the United States, rank only thirty-fifth or lower in science and math education. Larger numbers have a huge illiterate population that cannot read or write, or can only do so at a third or fourth grade level.

Thirty-one countries operate nuclear power stations. Of these, twenty-seven countries have plans to build more nuclear reactors - while only four have no plans for expansion. Fifteen nations which do not currently have any nuclear power plant have plans to build their first reactors in the near future.

A PhD in physical chemistry , I know, stated, “Even I do not trust myself to handle lot of the work in these hyper-technologized, hyper-sensitive and hyper-dangerous nuclear reactors. How can we trust even ten percent of the staff not to make one serious mistake, at least every five or so years, that would lead to a catastrophe?"

Added to this possibility of human error and oversight in just one reactor, there are the unknowns, no matter how remote, that increase the probability of accidents as we build more reactors, manage existing ones, try to adequately maintain aging ones, and ensure safe storage of increasing numbers of radioactive spent fuel rods...contingencies after contingencies!

Welcome to Sci-Fi nightmare...already a reality!

You Can't Support Nuclear Energy Contributions or Reject Its Catastrophes with 9th Grade Science Education

Even a man with a PhD in physical chemistry, with advanced course work in nuclear chemistry, who also happens to have two additional degrees in engineering, I know, will have a hard time figuring and sorting out all the details (or lack of one), inconsistences and gaps in many of the debates, arguments, discussions and reporting that is going on about the nuclear reactors in Japan (from media personnel with lots of arrogance and opinions, but little science knowledge). Imagine the huge number of people, even in the United States, who have limited or no education in basic sciences?

How are we going to get adequate knowledge about nuclear reactors: what exactly do they do ; how exactly do they produce the energy we need ; what are their inherent dangers ; what are the dangers with specific reactors (like the Fukushima Daiichi one built by General Electric) ; what crises do natural catastrophes, like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes..., pose ; what kind of leakage would be serious ; what processes can we control or partially control ; and how do corporations, governments, the press and the public cover-up, ignore, minimize, trivialize or exaggerate nuclear energy problems and dangers, with such limited knowledge of science and its applications?

The world, and its press, public and passionate activists, cannot evaluate, challenge or change policies, programs and political structures, connected to nuclear energy (and/or nuclear weapons), with a ninth grade science knowledge!

Even smart engineers will tell you that they have inadequate knowledge of science, its elaborate and extensive theories, behind many of the designs and applications they work with. There is a joke that engineers know less than physicists, physicists know less than mathematicians, mathematicians know less than god...and god knows less than we think.

Many people do not know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, though nuclear reactors, where uranium enrichment and nuclear fission occur, are necessary to produce both.

Nuclear reactors are necessary to produce nuclear weapons, but once they are produced, as warheads or bombs, the rectors are no longer needed. Yet the left over uranium, plutonium and fission by-products (like cesium and radioactive iodine) can still pose a danger. They need to be contained in highly safe structures with periodic checks for leakage. There are reasons for communities that have “nuclear toxic dumps” in or near their neighborhoods to worry – as half-lives of these radioactive substances can last for thousands of years, and can degrade the storage containers slowly. How slowly remains unknown.

Nuclear reactors that help produce electric energy are a different matter. They need to be continuously operative to keep pumps running to carry and convert the heat, produced by a nuclear fission process, both to generate steam and electricity, as well as to avoid over-heating. These reactors use fission (not fusion – which is used more often in the manufacture of Hydrogen bombs), that involves the splitting of the nuclei of atoms of heavy particles - like uranium or plutonium – into lighter ones, to create a nuclear chain reaction that produces lots of heat...that help generate steam...that help run turbines...that help produce electricity.

This is not very different than why fossil fuels are burned to generate heat, energy and electricity. But unlike fossil fuel, a nuclear reactor can produce lots of heat over a long period of time – nearly half a century (an average life of a nuclear reactor).

Now we know why nuclear reactors are popular in some countries that need lots of energy for quick, rapid or big development. The United States has many reactors - and a few are located in earthquake zones, tornado paths and hurricane areas. Concerns about safe regular operations of reactors, and their long term stability, are legitimate.

The reason why enriched uranium is preferred in many nuclear reactors is because it does not fizzle (or predetonate) like plutonium. Also, plutonium is much more scarce, nearly non-existent, on planet earth. These substances, scarce or not, are highly radioactive and can stay in our environment for thousands of years. Once they contaminate a body, a community and an environment there is no choice but to live with it and/or evacuate the area. The dangers of radioactive contamination are serious: they can lead to swift or slow failure of vital organs, gradual or rapid growth in cancer, reproductive problems for men and women, higher birth defects and genetic illnesses that could continue for centuries.

In spite of the dangers of radioactive contamination nuclear reactors, that help to produce abundance of electricity, are unsafe only under specific conditions. These conditions have to do less with science of nuclear fusion, fission, reaction and energy generation...than with engineering, structural design of reactors, their location, their safe operation, regular maintenance and upkeep of reactors, adequate and thorough inspection of  nuclear facilities, and predicting or avoiding disasters - that create unpredictable conditions where containment of radioactive substances become difficult.

The problem is not with the science of “nuclear reaction or energy” - but its engineering, application, management, inspection, regulations and the options available for safe containment in times of danger and disaster.

If our press, public and politicians are so reactive, either in defending nuclear technology and reactors or in opposing them, based on limited or skewed knowledge (driven by ignorance, fear and selectivity), rather than knowing its contributions and challenges accurately and adequately, how are we going to find the real problem, or the real unpredictability, that would help us make intelligent decisions about continuing nuclear energy programs, improving nuclear reactor safety...or avoiding it all together?

Few in the press, even in the United States where reverence for science is high and research in science is advanced, are paying attention to the application of nuclear science, engineering of reactors and the corporate and/or State responsibility in monitoring, regulating and ensuring safety – at all times, of nuclear reactors. While there are always unknowns in science - especially in its application, even in highly controlled and strictly managed environments like a nuclear reactor, what is the cost - human and economic, to a remote possibility becoming a reality? Can we afford the huge risks...even of a small chance?

A defect in a car can kill one person or one family. A defect in a nuclear reactor can kill thousands of people if not millions...and can do so gradually over many decades. A hurricane that hits a town can hurt or kill hundreds of people instantly. But a hurricane that hits a nuclear reactor will either release huge amounts of radiation that will affect thousands of people, miles of land and generations of our future...or it will produce many unknowns, which in turn raises numerous other concerns and dangers.

An earthquake of 8.9 magnitude that hit Japan in March of 2011 is a very severe one, and they used to be rare. Such high magnitude earthquakes do not appear to be as rare as they once were. (Read Dr. Srinivasan's Earthquakes, Our Environment and Economic Activities, 2011, available on this blog). The effect of such high magnitude earthquakes on buildings, roads, bridges, towers, trucks and people is hard to predict - even with all kinds of scientific simulations. Imagine trying to predict its impact on something as complex as a nuclear reactor?

Who'd think, even few days ago, that a tsunami caused by an earthquake, and not the earthquake itself, would disable two types of backup generators that would power the cooling system - which helps prevent over-heating of the reactor rods and a possible meltdown? The sole purpose of the two backup power sources was to serve as an emergency alternative if the operating power failed due to an accident or a disaster? Who'd think all three sources of power would fail? This was an extremely unlikely scenario that no engineer, manager or a regulator could have predicted or planned for. But it happened! It happened!

Such disasters and their repercussions are hard to predict - let alone control. For some, such awful events are still too small, insignificant and remote to abandon, or revisit the legitimacy of, nuclear energy programs. For others, as small and remote as these dangers may be, it is never about Will it happen?, but When and How many lives will be permanently affected by it?

The three questions no one in the press or the public are asking (as of March, 2011):

Are the forty years of energy produced by these reactors in Japan, and lifestyle it has sustained, worth all the cost, suffering and anxiety that the people are now bearing – both psychologically and economically?

And what would be the physical, economic, environmental and psychological toll be if an actual meltdown, partial or not, occurred in Japan...or elsewhere?

Can we afford a lifetime and generations of incurable, painful and disabling diseases, no matter how remote the possibility, how small the community affected or how far away it occured, for an energy called nuclear energy? 

Though we should not criticize science too much, or stop its research and advancement, lets get better informed, educated and enlightened before we decide which science to follow, apply, improve or...reject!

Science, like our Gods, Goddesses or Mysteries, requires the right attention, respect, thought and humility, before we engage and pursue it for the right benefits. Hence the whole legitimacy of nuclear energy, the safety of its reactors, and its dangers (both known and unknown), no matter how remote, must all be intelligently revisited, reexamined and reaffirmed or...rejected!

What Did Japan do Right? What Did Japan do Wrong? Lessons for Asia

The Japanese are a proud race - though insulated by their geography and history. The island culture of the Japanese provided them with a unique understanding of their environment, their shared destiny and their vulnerability - significantly affected by their location on a seismic faultline that is active, intense and unpredictable.

Earthquakes and tsunamis (a word from the Japanese language and reality) are familiar to the people of this land ; is a normal part of their lives ; and something that they have learned to live with - through or without advanced technology.

Japan is the most seismically retrofitted society in the world. An earthquake of 7.0 magnitude, that killed over 200,000 people and devastated the entire country of Haiti, would have been well managed in Japan, and might not have caused any deaths. But an 8.9 magnitude earthquake is a different story. Such an earthquake would be difficult, as Indians say, "even for the Gods and the Goddesses to manage". (Kindly read Dr. Srinivasan's article "Earthquakes, Our Environment and Economic Activities, 2011, on the growing concern with increased frequency and higher magnitude earthquakes, available on this blog).

There has been a lot of analysis on how Japan's aging population, their huge debt and their economic stagnation have led to "poor innovation, management and administration" - even of its infrastructure. The Daiichi nuclear reactor, built in the 1970s, that is causing a lot of concern and panic (over a possible meltdown), has been under watch for both safety lapses, as well as general fragility associated with age and obsolete technology. 

America need not turn this disaster into a "Look how great we are!" attitude, with a tendency to gloat about our infrastructure, youthfully aging population and  better disaster-preparedness.

There are commercially several hundred nuclear reactors in the United States that currently produce electricity. Most Americans do not even know where they are located. Reactors that were once constructed to produce enriched uranium for bombs are no longer operational - as America has already used them to produce large numbers of nuclear weapons. 

The United States has the largest pile of nuclear warheads, more than 1,500, pointing all over the world. The START treaty has not come close to reducing this stockpile - that could destroy our entire planet within minutes if some extremists, Christian, Muslim, Neo-Nazis, etc..., got hold of it.

An 8.9 magnitude earthquake would have turned many communities and countries, including many towns in the US, with nuclear reactors into a dangerous toxic radiation rubble. Japan in this regard has coped and managed this problem well - though the general damage and death toll (as of March 2011) may still be large, compared to what Japan has had to contend with in the recent past.

Japan spent much of its last seventy years building its economy rapidly...allowing America to be its military eye and protection (through its bases - like in Okinawa), and to monitor its rise to power.

Japan, for all its celebration of its history and culture, is one of the most Westernized societies in the world. Japan has made the three piece suit its national attire and its kimono a mere museum piece (for cultural tourists and nostalgic elders).

Japan invented, modified or improved every gadget, gizmo and go-go technology for nearly forty years. This helped push the Japanese economy into the forefront - even to the envy of many Anglo and American men, who spent copious amount of time in many universities studying "Japanese corporations, business culture and its organizational efficiency".

Now...Japan looks old, jaded and a bit over-bought and over-sold. As a Japanese social psychologist once noted, "We were never that efficient, that aggressive or that innovative as we were made out to be. We were never that American either...But the US needed to sell that dimension of us for their own economic, geo-political and psycho-social reasons!"

Years ago I wondered how countries, that have a different topography, geography and history than the United States, can borrow, imitate or embrace models of development that are not suitable for their environment, culture or demographics.

Japan, being on one of the most seismically active zones in the world, should have chosen an energy-generating plan that successfully harnessed its waves and wind, rather than pursue nuclear energy - that require the storage and control of dangerous chemicals which could be easily released into the air, water and soil during a major earthquake, tsunami and/or volcanic eruption.

Iceland, a small island-country on one of the most seismically active zone (the mid-Atlantic ridge), much like Japan, has effectively harnessed its natural thermal emissions, produced by volcanic gases beneath and all around its ground, to produce and deliver heat to its citizens and residents. A nuclear reactor would be dangerous in a country where volcanic eruptions are a reality.

Simply borrowing and following American business models, social development theories, economic plans, its technology priorities and its youth culture are neither sensible nor useful for countries with a very different history, culture and geography.

If one simply follows, imitates and mimics other cultures, countries and their economic plans, without realizing its long term effects, which can be harmful rather than useful to one's economic stability, culture, social welfare and independence, one is likely to be driven by the excitement and energy of development rather than its true effects and costs.

An Indian spiritualist once stated, "If you merely take Yoga as an exercise routine or a meta-physical ritual, without understanding, appreciating and integrating the relevant culture behind it, and the complex thoughts and philosophies that helped develop it, then Yoga becomes just another Pilate-routine or a mumbo-jumbo that people neither truly understand nor appreciate".

What one borrows without full knowledge, or without knowing its relevant usefulness to oneself and our societies, is going to do more harm than good.

In a globalized world knowledge should flow in many directions - not just West to East, North to South, White to non-White or Rich to Poor. 

In a globalized economy capital should trickle down, be better shared, be better distributed and evenly rewarded for its generation..not just get concentrated in the hands of a few or selective institutions.

In a globalized environment there should be a better understanding of diverse and unique environments. We should not assume everything is America, everybody is, or should be, American, and everything American is relevant or makes sense for the world...and for America itself.

Japan should be admired for handling its devastation admirably...as an 8.9 earthquake is severe and will have serious reprecussions no matter where it occurs. On the other hand, we must also take time to reflect on a country that emulated America too much and too quickly...without realizing that it is a small island country in the Pacific Ring of Fire with a different history, culture and geography than the United States.

"Japan", as one Asian social worker noted, "was too tied culturally and economically to the West. Its seismic fault line divided it from the Western half of the Pacific, but its social and cultural fault line divided it from the rest of Asia. Japan is learning that it was, for too long, 'part of Asia while being apart'."

I guess what she is saying is that Japan must now join the rest of Asia to come up with better solutions for its domestic faultlines - not just related to its earthquakes, but to its economy and environment.

Nevertheless we, America and the rest of Asia, can learn a lot from Japan's extraordinary disaster preparedness  and management.

Earthquakes, Our Environment and Economic Activities

The earthquake that struck northeastern Japan in March of 2011, even by modern seismic measures, and for a country in the most seismically active zone in the world, the Pacific Ring of Fire, was an unusually high one. It measured 8.9 on the Moment Magnitude scale - denoted usually as "8.9 M".

Though 80% of all earthquakes on planet earth occur in the Pacific subduction zone, there has been some evidence that frequency of earthquakes, since recording began, has been growing - due to increased documentation and occurence. There is also a growing concern that earthquakes measuring more than 7.5 M may be on the increase.

Lets look at the historical records from a reputed reliable global agency, that reports all earthquakes around the world with high accuracy and regularity - the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and see if increase in earthquakes and their magnitude is actually occuring and can be numerically captured.

I have used the USGS records that document and rank (for historical consequences), available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical.php,
all the major earthquakes globally, to see any noticeable changes in frequency and severity in earthquakes, since 1995, around the world.

I used this official historical data, available to the public, to count the number of earthquakes above 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 on the Moment Magnitude scale (both as absolute numbers and as percentages of the total number of quakes recorded). I report on the earthquake with the highest measure on the Moment Magnitude (MM) scale for each year, and the quake that caused the most damage and devastation - as the severity of a quake does not determine the level of damage and deaths suffered by a community. (The acuity of a devastation depends on a whole range of environmental and social variables: where the epicenter was located, how shallow the quake was, how densely populated are the areas near the epicenter, how old or poorly built the buildings are, how efficient and organized is the disaster rescue operation, etc.).

In 1995 there were four earthquakes measuring 6.0 or more on the MM scale.  Only one earthquake measured over 7.0. It was the one on Sakhalin Island - measuring 7.1 and killing 1,989 people. The one that caused the most fatalities was the Kobe, Japan earthquake. It measured only 6.9 M and killed 5,502 people.

In 1996 there was only one major earthquake that measured more than 7.5 M. It was the Andreanof Island quake, measuring 7.9, in Alaska.

In 1997 there were five earthquakes that measured above 6.0 M - four of which were above 7.0. The largest were the South Fiji Island and the East Coast Kamchatka quakes - each measuring 7.8 on the MM scale. The Northern Iran quake, measuring 7.3, left 1,567 dead.

In 1998 there were eight earthquakes above 6.0, six of which were above 7.0 M. The highest recorded was on Balleny Island Region - measuring 8.1. The one that caused the highest fatalities was between Afghanistan-Tajikstan border region – killing 4,000 people.

In 1999 there were thirteen earthquakes of historical consequence and all of them were above 6.0. Nine of those were above 7.0 in the Moment Magnitude Scale. The highest were the 7.6 earthquakes of Izmit, Turkey (that occured in August) and the one that followed in Taiwan (in September) - each killed 17,118 and 2,400 people respectively.

In 2000 there were seven earthquakes of historical consequence, with only one measuring below 6.0 M and one measuring below 7.0 M. All the rest (five of them) were above 7.0. The highest recorded was in Papua New Guinea - measuring 8.0. The one that caused the most fatalities was the Sumatra, Indonesia quake, in the 7-8 range, that killed 103 people.

In 2001 there were seven earthquakes above 6.0 M - five of them were above 7.0. The one that caused the most fatalities was the Gujarat, India quake that killed over 20,000 people and measured 7.8 on the Moment Magnitude scale. The highest was off the coast of Peru - it measured 8.4 M.

In 2002 there was a huge jump in the number of earthquakes (of historical consequence). There were forty-four earthquakes – of which more than 50% (twenty-four in absolute numbers) were above 6.0 M. The number of earthquakes above 7.0 stood at thirteen - which is nearly 30% of all the quakes for this year. The highest was recorded in Alaska - measuring 7.9, while the one that caused the most deaths, 1,000 in all, was in the Kush mountains of Afghanistan.

In 2003 there were sixty-nine earthquakes (69!) of historical consequence (according to USGS). Of these thirty-nine (nearly 57%) were above 6.0 - thirteen of which measured above 7.0 M. This means that nearly 19% of the total earthquakes recorded measured above 7.0 M. The largest one was on Hokkaido island of Japan - measuring 8.3. The one that caused the most fatalities was the 6.6 earthquake in Southeastern Iran. It killed 31,000 people.

In 2004 forty-eight earthquakes were reported by USCS as of historical consequence. Thirty-five were above 6.0 on the MM scale - which approximates to 73% of all quakes of consequence for the year. Thirteen of these were above 7.0 - which is 37% of all quakes measuring above 6.0 on the MM scale. This is nearly double the number that was recorded the previous year. The highest two were the 8.1 earthquake on North Macquarie Island and the 9.1 earthquake near Sumatra island of Indonesia. The latter produced a deadly tsunami that killed 227, 898 people across several countries in Southeast and South Asia.

In 2005 there were forty-nine earthquakes of historical consequence, of which thirty-five were above 6.0 - approximately 71% of the earthquakes for this year. There were eleven quakes above 7.0 - which is 31% of all quakes measuring more than 6.0. What is even more intriguing is that five of the quakes recording 7.0-and-above on the Moment Magnitude scale were above 7.5. That is more than 40% of the quakes that record above 7.0 were now recording above 7.5 M - a deadly number for many communities around the world. The highest was the 8.6 earthquake in Northern Sumatra, Indonesia - again, that killed 1,313, while the worst, in terms of number of fatalities, was the Pakistan earthquake that killed 86,000 people.

In 2006 there were thirty-three earthquakes of historical consequence, of which twenty-six of them were above 6.0 - nearly 79% of the total quakes. Of these ten were above 7.0  - which is about 39% of all quakes measuring 6.0 M or more. For the first time there were two quakes, reported by the USGS, that were above 8.0. This means that 6% of the total quakes, and 8% of all quakes above 6.0, were now recording at 8.0 M and above. The highest was the 8.3 earthquake on Kuril Islands, and the worst was the Java, Indonesia earthquake that killed 5,749 - though it only recorded 6.3 on the Moment Magnitude scale.

In 2007 there were fifty-four (54) earthquakes recorded as historically consequential, with forty-nine of them above 6.0 on the Moment Magnitude scale. This means 91% of the quakes recorded were now above 6.0 . This is a huge spike from the 60%-75% just few years ago. Of the total ten quakes above 7.0 M four were above 8.0 M. This means that nearly 40% of the total quakes measuring 7.0 or more were now recording above 8.0 M. (The four earthquakes at the highest range were: the 8.0 earthquake near Central coast Peru, 8.1 earthquakes on East of Kuril Island, another 8.1 earthquake on the Solomon Islands, and a 8.5 earthquake on Southern Sumatra. The deadliest was the Peru quake that left more than 500 dead).

In 2008 there were forty-one earthquakes identified as of historical consequence. Of these thirty-five are recorded as being 6.0 or more - which is 84% of the total quakes. Twelve of these were above 7.0 M – which is 30% of the total quakes for the year. The highest recorded was in Eastern Szechuan province of China, measuring 7.9, and killing 87,587. The second highest measured 7.7 on the Moment Magnitude scale on the Sea of Okhotsk.

In 2009 there were sixty-six earthquakes (66) identified as historically important by the  USGS. Fifty-two recorded above 6.0 on the MM scale - which is 79% of the total quakes (reported by the USGS as historically consequential). Thirty-five of these measured between 6.0 and 7.0, sixteen between 7.0 and 8.0, and one above 8.0. This means that early 33% of the total quakes, one-third, that measured above 6.0 now recorded above 7.0 M. The highest, measuring 8.1, occurred on Samoa Islands and killed 192 people. The one that caused the maximum fatalities was the 7.5 Sumatra earthquake. It killed 1,117.

In 2010 there were fourteen earthquakes of historical consequence with thirteen of them recording above 6.0 M. That is 93% of the total quakes reported for this year (by USGS) recorded above 6.0 on the Moment Magnitude scale. Of this eight of them were between 7.0 and 8.0, and one above 8.0 M. Now 50% of all quakes measuring above 6.0 M now record above 7.0 M. The highest was the off-shore Chile quake that measured 8.8 on the MM scale and killed 577 people. The most devastating was the Haiti quake - that measured only 7.0 but killed more than 222,000 people. The next major one was the Southern Qinghai, China quake - measuring 6.9 and killing 2, 968.

In 2011, though the year is not over, the highest recorded earthquake was the one off of northeastern coastal Japan that measured 8.9 on the MM scale. It has killed approximately 2,000 people (though the full death toll, as of March 12, 2011, is yet to ascertained).

Without question there has been a doubling, and sometimes a tripling, of earthquakes measuring above 6.0 on the Moment Magnitude scale in the last ten years (partly due to better recording and reporting). Sometimes as much as 70 to 80 percent of all quakes measured were recording above 6.0 M, while nearly half of those above 6.0 were now recording over 7.0 M.

What is intriguing is that the number of quakes measuring more than 7.0, the kind that causes the most damage in many developing countries, have nearly doubled or tripled in the last ten years...with an additional increase in the number of quakes measuring 8.0 and above  - an extremely rare event.

Environmentalists worry that certain human activities, like mining, drilling, new technologies that attempt to extract minerals and oil at depth of two, three or four miles underground or underwater (where geological plates can be fragile), and innovative techniques that can fracture, or fract (a specific technique in mining and drilling), rocks and other underground materials with high pressure and chemicals, may be contributing to higher numbers of tremors and earthquakes – both in severity and frequency.

There is also an additional concern that as more countries attempt to test their nuclear technology – for nuclear energy and/or for military weapons - lot of controlled explosions (underground, underwater and close to remote islands on the Pacific or the Atlantic) might be contributing to, if not causing, more earthquakes...and possibly producing more severe quakes (above 7.5 on the Moment Magnitude scale).

Testing these concerns and theories is challenging. If development has to continue around the world in a meaningful and a safe manner, without hurting people and communities for whom sustainable development is necessary, while enforcing responsible economic actions on many rich countries, then technologies designed, modified, improved, expanded and implemented by scientists, businesses and corporations, have to be fully investigated and evaluated for public safety – both short and long term.

What exactly is the relationship between earthquakes, that are increasing in frequency and intensity around the world as the USGC chart itself reveals, and human activities?

What is it our leaders, communities, businesses, researchers and governments are doing, secretly or openly, or not doing, that might be contributing directly or indirectly to tremors, shakes and earthquakes all over the world...some of which can prove to be devastating?

Libelism, Islam, Islamaphobia and Libya...What are The Connections, And Where is America Going?

Read Disclaimer Clause at the Bottom First and Last

Southern Poverty Law Center has collected data on domestic terrorism and found that two-third of the violence conducted within the United States from 1980 up until 2010, that killed, injured and frighened innocent American citizens and residents, have been by non-Muslim groups. So, why is Representative Pete King of New York targeting Muslims, immigrants and citizens, most of whom are well adjusted well-acculturated people, who do not even have a traffic violation - let alone association with terrorist groups?

And how is this helping fight real national security threats - inside and outside the United States?

The recent Washington committee hearings, to analyze and address Muslim-American domestic terrorism, appears short-sighted and judgmental. Is this Islamaphobia at the highest level? And where is it coming from?

Islam has been tainted in the United States both by the Nation of Islam's association with some extremist African-American groups - that struggled against institutionalized racism, bigotry and prejudice, and Sept 11 - that stereotyped all Muslims as fundamentalists and terrorists.

Even the Sikh community, belonging to a religion very different from Islam, has been a target of hate-violence with several recent murders only because many of its men wear turbans - though the turbans are different than what is ordinarily worn by Muslim men.

When so much cultural ignorance and bigotry exists, even in some large diverse cities of America, one can only imagine the kind of stereotypes, slander and sick judgments that abound in many communities - particularly about Islam as well as other minority religions and spiritual traditions!

The United States in stead of moving forward, in its understanding and inclusion of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, as some may worry is moving backward. The answer is not to merely point to communities and countries around the world where diversity is limited or absent, and one State religion dominates and directs the affairs of the people.  If Al Qaeda and its philosophy becomes the "ultimate comparison" of what America should be, should not be, must try follow or avoid...then when is America going to be a true independent nation that is a beacon of light for all immigrants, citizens and people of  diversity?

When will there be real inclusion, integration and intelligent economic and political mobility for all Americans and residents? Will we ever move beyond the narrowest and lowest of denominators in our social and cultural analysis, evaluation and programs?

As Wisconsinites struggle for basic rights to collective bargaining ; as the Japanese struggle to recover from one of the worst earthquakes in global history ; as food prices shoot up globally, plunging millions of families into acute poverty...America's political focus seems to be on segregating and discriminating an entire community of Muslims and Muslim-Americans, while also debating possible military strikes against Libya - an Arab Muslim country! This is disturbing even for people concerned with real terrorism and violent Jihadism.

Many moderate, secular and patriotic Muslims who have spoken and taken action against extremist and anti-American elements within their communities now feel, no matter how much they give and how many confrontation they take on within their own groups, it will never be enough, and they will never be trusted. These hearings (there are more to come), headed by Representative Peter King, have already created an unbridgeable ever-increasing wedge between Muslims and Christians - Muslim and non-Muslim Americans - in many communities across the United States.

Disenfranchised young minority men, like in many poor communities throughout our history and across the globe, are going to become more isolated, angry and distrustful due to these hearings - becoming easy targets of extremist religious or political propaganda that will exploit their confusion and legitimate anger. 

There are already too many young men: Black, Brown or White, Muslim or non-Muslim, poor or rich, who are feeling lost and conflicted in a world that is changing rapidly - economically, socially and politically. Added to this internal conflict and confusion is the change in status of women that is intimidating traditional and patriarchal men -  many of whom find going into the kitchen and cooking a big challenge to their status quo and their familiar comfort zone.

On top of this rapid social-gender change is the globalization of capital, without labor rights, that is thrusting many poor and/or minority men and their families into poverty.

Nobody has yet publicly provided the data on Muslim American men drop-out-rate from schools and colleges, their unemployment and underemployment, and their economic struggles in the United States. But there is a lot of publicity on possible introduction of the Sharia law in the United States, one Muslim psychiatrist who went berserk and shot his colleagues, and one Muslim-American doctor who beheaded his wife. Imagine the bias and bigotry this kind of focus stirs up!

Many minority and poor men, and some women, both in the US and beyond find themselves outside their political system...that appears to not listen to them, include them and help protect or promote their interests.

Some Muslim women admit that they are treated better, trusted more and included often in the larger American social and cultural environment than their Muslim brothers, fathers or sons. Hence Muslim men feel their isolation, marginalization and vilification not only grew in the US after Sept 11, 2001...but has gotten worse.

There is not only an unfair sweeping judgment of Islam and Muslims - irrespective of where in the world they come from, what social position they occupy, what qualifications they hold and how much they give to the US military and pentagon -as fundamentally anti-democratic, but there is a growing feeling in the United States that most Muslims are anti-American.
 
Some would call this Hobbes' choice, which is no choice at all - damned if you do and damned if you don't. Many moderate Muslims who found themselves siding with Conservatives during the Iraq invasion and occupation are now wondering whether they were conned, deceived and merely used by the system that was intrinsically anti-Islamic.

If conspiracy theories began to fly around after the Iraq invasion they are beginning to fly again with these hearings. And the lack of organized effort to balance these hearings with appropriate focus on protecting minority rights without neglecting legitimate concerns over national security, even by the Democrats and Independents, have led to feelings of further marginalization among many Muslim Americans.

And for many Muslims, who come from communities and countries where there is limited religious diversity and little political democracy, America, once a beacon of light and hope, must now appear dim or dark.

Such hearings are already pushing many of our youth, Muslim or not, into political extremism, cultural myopia and/or religious fundamentalism - turning many minorities and immigrants, including non-Muslims, into victims of ethnocentricism and xenophobia.

I am glad there are counter voices of objection, protest and refusal to participate in these hearings...which is not a witch-hunt as much as a head-hunt - where real people of violence are ignored while innocent people are vilified.

Is Wisconsin Fifteen Years Too Late? Try Thirty! In 1981 Wisconsin Passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act

Read Disclaimer Clause First and Last

In my 1994-1995 ethnographic evaluation research in Kansas City, with the University of Kansas, on a national anti-poverty demonstration project, that was conducted across different cities and towns throughout America, I had a chance to interview a group of mothers over their forced "welfare-to-work" training program, and its poor success. They were able to demonstrate to me, what later research confirmed, that being on welfare was not only hard enough economically, but working, in poorly paying jobs with few benefits, made their economic condition worse. Something Conservatives, who love to shame and stigmatize welfare recipients and the welfare system, never admit.

It was hard enough for many single mothers to manage their rent, even in dilapidated buildings in run down neighborhoods, let alone pay for food, electricity and heating for themselves and their children. But when these women are forced to work, usually in low status jobs with poor pay and no benefit, they incur additional expenses that did not exist when they were on welfare.

Working mothers have to pay for childcare, health care, dental care, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses that they do not have to worry about when on welfare. It was obvious to me, during my research more than fifteen years ago, that the men who had designed welfare policies and welfare-to-work programs had not lived, or even observed up-close, the lives of women they were affecting. There was a social-economic-gender distance, fed by race, class and sex, between welfare program designers, enforcers, and aid-cutters and the poor single mothers of color trying to survive on a measly handout.

Michael Moore's touching film The Big One, made in the 90s, about the corporate mentality that had taken over some State governments, had a scene where a group of Black welfare mothers attempted to convince a Wisconsin legislator, who is supposed to represent them, that they wanted to work...if they could get a job, and the job provided enough so they did not have to beg, borrow or bow to hunger in the middle of a pay cycle.

These women, of course, were at the extreme end of poverty that most working and middle class protesters at the Wisconsin march of 2011 do not belong to. These poor mothers were begging to not have $50 or $100 cut from their meagre welfare checks. They were not protesting against benefit cuts or the repeal of collective bargaining rights. So, why did Wisconsinites take this long to wake up to what minority and some immigrant women have been acutely struggling with for a long time in their own State?

There is a popular belief that problems in the US do not receive social recognition, attention and importance unless it affects rich White boys or mainstream (middle class) America. Feminists have often joked on how "abortion" would be a sacrament if American Conservative Anglo men could get pregnant. Inner city Blacks, concerned about gangs and school violence, predicted that these problems, once hidden and segregated to poor minority communities, would receive public and policy attention only when it spilled over to middle class or/and suburban America. Problems with schools, guns, drugs and mental health services for our youth (or lack of one) did become part of our national debate and public policy concern with the shooting in Columbine - a predominantly Anglo community in the State of Colorado.

Middle America, Middle Class America and Mainstream America have woken up to problems that plagued immigrants, minorities, people of color, women and the poor mostly, and sometimes exclusively. But is this wake-up "too little too soon" as Michale Moore, a Middle Class Midwesterner, claims?

Are we, as Michael Lewis (of The Big Short, 2011, fame) and I worry, merely tweaking some marginal policies rather than doing real structural reform in Wisconsin and elsewhere?

The protests in Wisconsin are understandable and require support...but have too many changes already been introduced into our system that make it impossible for real reform - beyond a mere negotiation over breadcrumbs?

States' assertion to gain control over our debt and deficit is admirable - though the processes and the controversies (on what should be cut and how much) are going to be painful and difficult. But will the right decisions that balance responsible fiscal spending with socio-economic justice be made...and adequately implemented? That is a trillion dollar question! The two critical issues are at loggerheads - not in a long conversation and collaboration as they should!

America is still at the top on many things - though it maybe failing. But, as Niel Ferguson of Harvard University admits, "We maybe at the top of a cliff...a great place to feel good, important and superior from. But you can also fall off a cliff!"

Of course, the most realistic Americans - optimistic or pessimistic - are still at the bottom. Like the poor everywhere they endure more, they are more humble, they are more generous and they see America with the kind of eyes that few in the middle or at the top do.

My homeless friend Jim in Berkeley, California, noted, "We are not superior or exceptional. We are not that stupid either. We have a hard time saying, 'I am an average Joe' without becoming mediocre. I find homeless peers of mine more sensible, fair and value reading (more homeless people in California read voluntarily than high school students), than the guys driving nice cars and throwing profanities at me. We Americans always find one thing to blame, fixate on or fix. To create improvements, not just changes, we need a whole lot of people doing a whole lot of things at many levels of our system! If I were elected I'd start with education...I read and write better than kids who work in WalMart and K-Mart, and then our elections. We have too many elections, too much campaign money in those elections and too many candidates focused on the election victory exclusively. How are we ever going to have a smart citizen' society with that kind of a system?"

This from a homeless guy who pretty much says what academics at Harvard, Stanford, USC (my Alma mater)...have been saying - except he puts it crudely.

Bruce Jannson in his brilliant book  The Sixteen Trillion Dollar Mistake: How the U.S. Bungled its National Priorities from FDR to Clinton (2001) admits that honest numbers, gotten through reliable and valid data, beyond a level can not digress too much from the truth - though it can be distorted or hidden for political reasons. And the numbers tell us, loud, bright and clear, that social security, medicare and defense budget alone are going to eat up 35% of our GDP.

Added to this horrific truth is the fact - that Neil Ferugson, an economist at Harvard, also admits - interest alone on the treasury debt, not the defense debt, is going to be hard to pay off. Lot of the debt numbers that have been presented to the public do not include defense borrowing. Imagine if it did?

It is easy, amidst this growing pain, frustration and fear, to blame incompetent or inefficient government. That is what profitable businesses, an ignorant public and private media like to do.

American government is not big, bad or bold (with excessive spending). That is a myth! Small government is not necessarily better, efficient or relevant. And spending cuts, without smart planning and hard choices, are not going to save money. Axing aid and assistance to the poor, while subsidizing agribusinesses, bailing out failing financial companies and providing benefits to the rich - old or young, is going to suffocate America, and may push the economy over the cliff.

The real American terrorist might not be some Al-Queda bogeyman wearing pyjamas and a turban. It may be the idiots on all sides who are not thinking right...or doing right!

With growing classism, racism, sexism, xenophobia and Islamaphobia we are forgetting "Thinkingphobia" and "Truthophobia" -  fear of thinking and fear of the truth - that is all too prevalent.

Even Tea Party advocates have become soft on their rants and raves about "closing Congress" over extending the ceiling on the national debt...and they have been in Washington less than two months. Few want a shutdown as, unlike Brussels, a shutdown here will be a meltdown. But if young passionate newcomers to Washington,  elected representatives who made big statements, gestures, proposals and promises, cannot use a simple vote on a policy they hold dear...imagine these guys, and their peers, making structural changes? It is not happening!

Is Wisconsin fifteen years too late, as Michael Moore claimed? Try thirty! In 1981 Wisconsin passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act which allowed tax-free stock exchanges, tax deductions for merger loans, lower capital gains tax rates - that actually invited big mergers and acquisitions to occur.

Its been downhill for social and economic justice in Wisconsin, and like States, since then!

Corrosive Conservative Actions: Shooting Themselves in the Foot

Read Disclaimer Clause at the Bottom First and Last

I used to tell my students, in my women, gender and social work class, that women's rights, like a garden, had to be carefully watched, nurtured and protected, otherwise no matter how big and beautiful it will wither and die...or be killed!

American women's rights, hard fought and won in the 60s and the 70s, are now on a forced retreat and a political backslide. This time, not because of any callous oversight on the part of feminist organizations, but because the Conservatives have been meticulous and strategically shrewd in the way they have eroded women's rights and options from the ground up. Their actions are more than control of women's reproductive rights and related freedoms...it is a slow erosion of basic civil rights.

What Conservatives are forgetting is that in this kind of policy over-reach they might be threatening American individual rights, traditional male independence and their Constitutional privileges - entitlements they hold dear to their hearts. Are Conservatives shooting themselves in the foot?

There are three insidious reasons: religious, ideological and racial, behind these "reproductive restraints and choice removals". The religious and social belief that conception begins at birth - which labels abortion as a crime against life and a sin (in moral terms). The other is a broader ideological attack on feminism and women's rights - beyond reproductive choices - that are seen as an affront to traditional family values. Third is racial politics, that is not discussed much, based on the statistics and fear of the declining birthrate among white women.

Mellissa Harris-Perry in The Nation (Online March 21, 2011) writes:

Since the introduction of the birth control pill and the legalization of abortion, women in America have significantly reduced the number of children they bear. This decrease in fertility has been particularly striking among white women. Fewer white women marry, most marry much later than in previous generations, far more get divorced and the size of their families has decreased dramatically. Along with these changes, white women’s educational achievement has soared, their participation in the workforce has increased and their health outcomes, lifetime earnings and political participation have improved. Today, more than three in five American women work for pay outside the home.

However shrouded in the language of fiscal austerity, the GOP’s social agenda intends to undo these changes, forcing women back into the domestic sphere. While leaving abortion nominally legal, cuts to family planning services and the legalization of terror against abortion providers would create an environment of compulsory childbearing. Women who can’t control their fertility will be unable to compete for degrees or jobs with their male counterparts. Likewise, without affordable childcare women would be less likely to work outside the home. And without basic rights to organize, women teachers, nurses and other public sector workers would be compelled to accept lower wages and harsher working conditions, shoving many women out of the workforce altogether. In the Republicans’ future America, women will be encouraged to marry younger, to stay in difficult (even abusive) marriages and to rely on male wages.

All these reasons to restrict reproductive rights for women are hypocritical in that it overlooks male responsibility in avoiding pregnancy, or in becoming and being a responsible parent. It also overlooks what Conservatives constantly worry about: debt, deficit and excessive spending.

Unwanted children, young parents (married or not), unprepared parents, unwilling or reluctant parents, abusive parents, poor parents and large families...can be a big financial cost to society already reeling in debt and deficit. Also, while family values are touted as good for children, with an old fashioned romantic view of a home as having a father, a mother, two children and a dog in a happy healthy suburb exclusively, it overlooks an important conservative emphasis - "Individual Freedom"!

There is a Conservative loss to these emerging reproductive restrictions that many Republicans have not bothered to pay attention to:

For every woman who is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy there is a man who is forced to be a father - without choice.

For every woman who is expected to carry an unplanned pregnancy to full term there is a man who might continue his "unprotected sexual activities" without responsibility -because the woman is expected to carry all the weight (literally).

For every woman who is now compelled to have a child, only because contraception and/or abortion were unavailable, there is a man who has to pay for unwanted children - which consumes, indirectly, community or corporate money.

And, for every woman who is forced to have a child there will be a man who will abandon or ill treat that child - due to pressures of forced parenting that goes against his need and individual freedom.

Did the White Conservative boys in power, old and/or rich, think about these serious repercussions that erode into their own protection and pursuit of American freedom and the Constitution?