On November 20, New York Times writer Colin Moynihan broke the news headlining:

"Radical Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terrorist Is Jailed," then saying:

"Defiant to the end as she embraced supporters outside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Lynne F. Stewart, the radical lawyer known for defending unpopular clients, surrendered on Thursday to begin serving her 28-month sentence for assisting terrorism."

Fact check:

Stewart did what all attorneys should, but few, in fact, do - observe the American Bar Association's Model Rules saying all lawyers are obligated to:

"devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."

Also to practice law ethically, morally and responsibly to assure everyone is afforded due process and judicial fairness in American courts. Sadly and disturbingly, Stewart was denied what she did for others heroically, unselfishly, and proudly. More on that below.

Stewart (prison number 53504-054) is now jailed at:

MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007

Betrayed by American Justice

For 30 years, Stewart worked heroically to defend America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted, never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. Where others wouldn't go, she defended controversial figures like David Gilbert of the Weather Underground, Richard Williams of the United Freedom Front, Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed of the Black Liberation Army, and many more like them. She knew the risk, but did it fearlessly and courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:

-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;

-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;

-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

-- two counts of making false statements."

She was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. When imposed, they prohibit discussion on topics the Justice Department (DOJ) rules outside of "legal representation," so lawyers can't discuss them with clients, thus inhibiting their defense.

At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark's request, she joined him as part of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. In his 1995 show trial, he was convicted and is now serving a life sentence for seditious conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an attack on American military installations, conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center attack despite evidence proving his innocence on all charges.

The DOJ's case wasn't about alleged crimes. It reflected his affiliations and anti-western views. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya - a 1997 US State Department-designated "foreign terrorist organization." In the 1980s, however, he helped the CIA recruit Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For his work, he got a US visa, green card, and State Department-CIA protection as long as he was valued. When no longer, he was targeted along with Stewart.

Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and according to the Center of Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner:

sent "a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."

Her attorney, Michael Tigar, called it:

"an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (with) at least three fundamental faults:

-- (it) attack(ed) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition;

-- the right to effective assistance of counsel (by) chill(ing) the defense; (and)

-- the 'evidence' in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private-attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails; I have never seen such an abuse of government power."

Her 2004 - 2005 show trial was a mockery of justice with echoes of the worst McCarthy-like tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court to prejudice the jury, and prosecutors vilified Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In addition, days before the verdict, the militant pro-Israeli Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying her address. It threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of business legally and effectively."

It was part of the orchestrated scheme inside and outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and intimidate other lawyers to expect the same treatment if they dare represent unpopular clients effectively.

On February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13 days of deliberation) she was convicted on all five counts. Under New York state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, but remained free on bond pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Stewart Ordered to Prison

The Justice for Lynne Stewart web site (lynnestewart.org) announced the news. On November 17, the Appeals Court revoked her bond, upheld the verdict, ordered her surrender forthwith, but stayed it until November 19 at 5PM to let her attorney file a motion for reconsideration. It was denied, so she must report to federal marshals as directed. A November 19 conversation with Lynne and her husband Ralph confirmed it.

The situation remains fluid, dire, and complicated by Stewart's battle with breast cancer. She has surgery scheduled for December 7, unlikely now, but if done in prison or where authorities direct, it won't be the quality she deserves.

In its ruling, the three judge panel (John Walker, Guido Calebresi and Robert Sack) was firm, hostile and belligerent in upholding the lower court's conviction. Judge Sack accused Stewart of lying and called for a longer sentence. "We think that whether (she) lied under oath at her trial is directly relevant to whether her sentence was appropriate," he wrote, and directed District Court Judge John Koeltl to re-sentence her "so as to reflect that finding." Judge Walker was even harsher, calling the original sentence "breathtakingly low." Judge Calabrese said: "I am at a loss for any rationale upon this record that could reasonably justify a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment for this defendant."

They all said Stewart was "convicted principally with respect to (her violating) measures by which (she) had agreed to abide," namely SAMs. They rejected her "argument that, as a lawyer, she was not bound by (them), and her belated argument collaterally attacking their constitutionality." They also:

"affirm(ed her conviction) of providing and concealing material support to the conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country (and) of conspiring to provide and conceal such support....We conclude that the charges were valid (and) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. We also reject Stewart's claims that her purported attempt to serve as a 'zealous advocate' for her client provides her with immunity from the convictions...."

"Finally, we affirm Stewart's convictions for knowingly and willfully making false statements....when she affirmed that she intended to, and would, abide by the SAMs. In light of her repeated and flagrant violation of (them), a reasonable factfinder could conclude that (her) representations that she intended to and would abide by the SAMs were knowingly false when made. We reject the remaining challenges to the convictions. (We) affirm the district court's rejection of Stewart's claim that she was selectively prosecuted on account of her gender or political beliefs....We therefore affirm the convictions in their entirety."

They redirected her case to District Court Judge Koeltl for re-sentencing. The DOJ wants 30 years. Koeltl originally imposed 28 months, let Stewart remain free on bond pending appeal, implied his decision might be overturned because of a gross miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the Bush administration at the time, and handed it a major defeat. Her fate is now in his hands, but justice has already been denied at a time we're all as vulnerable as she if we dare resist state policies, unchanged under an administration no different from its predecessor.

In a November 17 news conference, Stewart said:

"I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to." In criticizing the Court's decision, she said its timing "on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantanamo" suggests that lawyers appointed to represent them may face the same fate as she. "If you're going to lawyer for these people, you'd better toe very close to the line that the government has set out (because they'll) be watching you every inch of the way, (so those who don't) will end up like Lynne Stewart. This is a case that is bigger than just me personally (but she added that she'll) go on fighting."

So will her lawyer, Joshua Dratel, who said he'll pursue it "as far and as long as we can," including a possible Supreme Court review. The Obama US attorney's office was silent, effectively affirming a gross injustice at a time the due process and judicial fairness thresholds are so low that all Americans risk the same fate as Lynne.
_______________
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://republicbroadcasting.org/Global%20Research/index.php?cmd=archives.year&ProgramID=33&year=9

The number of home loans in the US that are either in foreclosure or at least one payment past due reached one in seven last month, a record high, according to a survey released Thursday by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

The survey found that nearly 10 percent of mortgage holders were at least one payment behind on their mortgages, while 4.47 percent of were in foreclosure. Both of these are the highest figures on records dating back to 1972. About 7 million households are behind on payments or in foreclosure.

These figures present just one indicator of the worsening conditions facing US workers caught up in the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The number of people behind on their mortgage payments has doubled since last year, as has the percentage in foreclosure, according to the survey.

The foreclosures were spread throughout all borrower categories, with high-quality, fixed-rate mortgages showing the fastest growth in delinquencies, not the sub-prime mortgages that initiated the foreclosure crisis.

LPS Applied Analytics, which also recently released a survey of late mortgage payments, found similar figures. The LPS survey found that the number of people three months behind on their payments, but not yet in foreclosure, reached 3.4 percent of US households, up from 1.5 percent 12 months before.

Unemployment is now a primary cause of home foreclosures. MBA chief economist Jay Brinkmann told Reuters: "It is all about unemployment, everything else is secondary. We expect unemployment to keep rising into the first quarter of 2010, which means we will most likely see even higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosures."

New unemployment claims stayed at 505,000 last week, according to figures released Thursday by the Labor Department. Economists were expecting a decrease in the number of new filings, but this did not materialize. The official US unemployment rate reached 10.2 percent in October, while the "real" unemployment rate, which includes involuntary part-time workers and those who have left the labor market, soared to 17.5 percent.

Home construction starts likewise showed an unexpected slump last month, falling 10.6 percent from September. There were 529,000 new housing construction projects last month, significantly lower than the 600,000 expected by analysts. "As we look out to 2010, we are expecting difficult conditions to continue," said Richard Dugas, chief executive of Pulte Homes, the largest US homebuilder.

The White House extended its first-time homebuyer tax credit this month to April 2010. Once this measure expires analysts expect a further deterioration in housing prices. Average real estate prices doubled in the first six years of this decade, but have fallen by 30 percent since 2006, with no recovery yet in sight.

The slew of bad data led several economists to revise their estimates for the fourth quarter growth downward. Macroeconomic Advisors, for example, revised its forecast down from 3.2 percent to 3 percent.

Companies continued to announce mass layoffs this week. America Online announced plans on Thursday to cut one third of its 6,900-person workforce ahead of its planned spinoff from Time Warner, Inc. At its height, the company employed 20,000 people. Aetna, the health insurer, announced Wednesday that it plans to lay off 3.5 percent of its 35,000 employees.

Those workers who have not been laid off are facing speedups and higher workloads. A survey of employers released Wednesday showed that half of employees report an increased workload over the previous six months, which contributed to a quarter of employees reporting "low morale."

While the Confidence Board's leading indicator, which estimates future economic growth, increased for the seventh month in a row, the rate of its growth slowed significantly in October. The index grew by 0.3 last month, down from 1 percent in September.

As the number of unemployed continues to increase, benefits are becoming harder to come by. A program passed this year that subsidizes healthcare for unemployed people is set to expire December 1st for the first people to take advantage of it. The subsidy, which paid for 65 percent of health-insurance costs for nine months, has not yet been extended. People who lose medical coverage for 63 days or more may not be covered for pre-existing conditions when they reapply for insurance.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke highlighted the devastating impact of the crisis in a speech before the National Economic Club Monday, warning of continued loan defaults and high unemployment. Bernanke noted that the number of people working part-time involuntarily has more than doubled since the beginning of the recession, while the average workweek for manufacturing workers has fallen to the lowest level in postwar history.

The Fed chairman noted the impact of the cost-cutting programs being put into effect by US companies, saying that, "together with the reduction in hours worked, slower wage growth has led to stagnation in labor income." He summed up the conditions facing workers: "The best thing we can say about the labor market right now is that it may be getting worse more slowly."

High unemployment is in fact a deliberate policy of the Obama administration, which is seeking to drive down the conditions of the working class in order to restore profitability of American companies. Obama has rejected any serious jobs program or further stimulus measures.

Meanwhile, Wall Street profits are likely to set a new record this year, according to a report released Tuesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The report noted that Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and a section of JPMorgan Chase are set to make $22.5 billion this year, compared to losses of $40.3 billion last year. There is every likelihood that the year-end bonuses at these banks will be equally unprecedented.

James Baldwin

Ariel Dorfman

As always, we read the final sentence that "The matter has been referred to the office of Ranpur mamaitadar." No action. No justice. But something must be done for the Dalits of India, as well as for the Adivasis. There is a limit to how much they are to be oppressed, marginalized and tortured by inhuman humans. There has to be a limit to the time - the decades and centuries, nay, even millennia, that these sweet people are to be brutalized by higher castes. We need to turn everything upside down. We need to re-write the Indian constitution and delete all mention of caste. We need to base all issues on economics. Let all the poor people receive assistance and jobs. Let all poor people be guaranteed food, clothes, shelter, health care and education. But let there also be an end to mental torture brought on by social discrimination carried out by higher castes. The greatest problem in India seems to be the police, because many laws have been passed by the Supreme Court but local police in the towns and villages never ensure they are carried out. Rather, the police protect those who break those laws They protect the people who perpetuate the caste system, who perpetuate the torture of marginalized peoples. So some kind of moral movement must be started in India to completely reform the police. All police should be sent to schools where they learn morality, compassion, kindness, respect for women, and above all respect for the most neglected, downtrodden human beings - the outcastes of the society. The police above all should be taking care of these people. At present the police serve as the instruments of oppression and torture - utterly needless torture. See what is happening in Lalgarh and entire Medinipur districts of West Bengal, where Maoists are catching the police and beheading them. There is a reason for their rage. It is because the police have passed all limits in their torture of the poor. So perhaps the first movement to start in India is redemption of all police departments across the land. The police in every country are extremely powerful. But that power MUST be accompanied by morality. by basic love and affection for the suffering humanity. So now, who will come forward to start such a movement? Who will rescue the suffering masses from the tortures of police atrocities across this land? Who will start the long task of educating police and turning them into compassionate human beings? - Garda Ghista

With starvation threatening one-sixth of the world's population, and the West's technological solutions called into question-the Green Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s failed to solve the problem, and now the Gene Revolution, or agricultural biotechnology, is under increasing attack-many think it's time for another way. Berkeley's Miguel Altieri, an associate professor of insect biology in the College of Natural Resources, has a world-wide reputation for his alternative solution: "agroecology," or sustainable agriculture, which respects the knowledge of indigenous peoples, protects the environment, and promotes social equity.

"I was trained in the West," says Altieri, "but after studying ancient agricultural systems, I realized that Western knowledge is inadequate to deal with the complexities of Third World agriculture." Altieri has an impressively broad range: he works in the fields alongside the world's poor farmers, writes influential books and articles about the principles he champions, and attends conferences around the world, speaking out against biotechnology and in favor of agroecology. His advice has been sought by peasants, a Prince, and the Pope.

Altieri came to Berkeley in 1980 to fill the post left vacant by the death of Robert van den Bosch, a professor of entomology from the 1940s until his death in 1978. Just before he died, van den Bosch wrote The Pesticide Conspiracy, which many have called a worthy successor to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. His book attacked the marketing and use of pesticides and portrayed modern agriculture as dominated by politics, not science.

The politics of agricultural science is also a key concern for Altieri. He warns against the increasing division in the Third World between the rich farmers who can afford modern technology, often used for producing export crops, and the poor farmers who lack capital and access to good land but who are often responsible for feeding their populations.

Altieri was born in Santiago, Chile, in 1950, to parents of differing politics and nationalities. His Italian-immigrant father, who was a tailor, had been a supporter of Mussolini; his Chilean mother, a progressive school teacher, was a socialist and a friend of Salvador Allende, who was elected President of Chile in 1970. While in high school, in the mid-1960s, Altieri spent a year in Los Angeles as an exchange student. Back home, he entered the University of Chile as a student of agronomy, a topic that did not capture his full attention until, in 1968, he took a course in ecology. After the Allende government was overthrown in 1973, Altieri went to Colombia, where he earned his master's degree, studying poly-culture (or mixed-crop) farming, at the National University of Colombia. By the time he earned his Ph.D. in entomology at the University of Florida, he had already published 24 articles in his field.

Altieri is a world traveler, spending six months of the year helping small farmers abroad, mostly in Latin America, the other six teaching at Berkeley. This semester alone, he has been to England to speak about sustainable agriculture at a conference organized by Prince Charles; to the Vatican for a meeting on the food needs of the developing world, where he met with the Pope; and back to Italy as a resident scholar at the Bellagio Institute, where he worked on the third edition of his pioneering text, Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture-while there, he was invited to a meeting in Belgium on biotechnology and the poor. Last month, he traveled to Vancouver for a conference comparing conventional, organic, and genetically modified food.

Based in Berkeley, he considers himself a messenger from the South. "I work here," he says in his office in Mulford Hall, "but I support groups there: non-governmental organizations, peasants' organizations, people who are promoting sustainable agriculture." His current message can be summarized in the title of his eighth book, Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The myths, environmental risks, and alternatives, published last month.

What is the common understanding of the cause of world hunger?

Most people perceive the problem of hunger and malnutrition as a gap between population and food production.

Meaning too many people-six billion on the planet-and not enough food? Exactly. But that's a Malthusian view of the world, which says that famine is inevitable because the population grows at a faster rate than food can be produced; there's no data that supports that view. In fact, today there's enough food in the world to feed nine billion people. The real problems are poverty and distribution: Three billion people live on $2 a day, and people lack access to land to produce the food they need.

Furthermore, most of the food that is being produced is fed to cattle. In the United States, seven out of ten pounds of grain are fed to animals. In Latin America, Asia, and Africa there are huge amounts of land that are devoted to soybean production for export to Europe to feed cattle-which, by the way, the Europeans are killing because of mad cow and foot-and-mouth diseases.

Seventy percent of grains in this country are fed to cattle?

Yes. And if it was possible to redistribute that food, so that instead of feeding cattle you fed people, you would immediately cease to see hunger.

What about the Green Revolution, the Western technological approach which used high-yielding crop plants, pesticides and fertilizers to increase production. Didn't this feed millions and millions of hungry people?

There's no denying that the Green Revolution raised the total output of grains. But it was the big and rich farmers of the flatlands-the ones who could afford to pay for fertilizers, pesticides, and technical advice-that benefited from the Green Revolution. It wasn't the poor farmers.

Some people say that if the Green Revolution didn't happen, maybe we would have two billion people starving today. There's no way we can know that. But the reality is that today we have one billion people starving. The levels of rural poverty in the Third World average between 50 and 70 percent; and these people live in marginal environments, on hillsides and in semi-arid areas, which were untouched by the Green Revolution.

In Latin America, 80 percent of the agricultural land is in the hands of 20 percent of the farmers; and this is the best agricultural land. And all those farmers are exporting their crops for feeding cattle in Europe. Twenty percent of the land is in the hands of 80 percent of the farmers, the peasants. But they are the ones who are producing 50 percent of the potatoes, 60 percent of the corn, and 70 percent of the beans. It is the small and poor farmers who are feeding the continent-not the large farmers.

What's happening today, as globalization takes hold, is that countries are forced to become agro-exporters, to exploit their "comparative advantage." There's no reason for Chile to be growing corn when they can grow fruits to sell here in the winter when it's summer down there. That's their comparative advantage. But it doesn't feed their own people.

The fact remains, there are 370 million rural households that are poor and exist in marginal environments. These people have a very important role in food security. And these are the ones I am interested in reaching.

What needs to be done for these small farmers ?

For small farmers in developing countries, it's not important to increase the productivity of one crop, but rather of the whole system, because they grow many crops, many trees sometimes, many animals. They're complex farming systems. But Western agronomists have been trained to understand agriculture from a unilateral perspective.

Let me give you an example: When I was studying in Florida, I went to Guatemala, to an international agricultural development project. There was an agronomist, an agricultural economist, and myself, a graduate student. We were interviewing some farmers. The main reason they brought me was because I speak Spanish [laughs].

The scientist saw that these farmers were planting corn every meter, and that it was full of weeds. Not only that, they were growing more than just corn; they were planting five seeds of corn and maybe three seeds of beans, with weeds interspersed among them.

And the American scientist said, "Your productivity is very low." He did some measurements and then drew up how they would grow it in Iowa-every six inches, and very dense. "Do this, and you're going to increase your productivity." All the farmers were watching, as I was translating, and finally one said, "And how do you feed your animals?" "What? They don't have animals [in the Iowa corn fields], they just grow corn." "Well, we do. And the grass in between is to feed the animals."

On top of that, these farmers were on hillsides, and the grass was protecting the soil. They were not interested in per-hectare production; they were interested in optimizing production of grain per plant, because they select the best seeds to keep for the next year. But all these reasons the peasant had for growing corn his way were just dismissed.

Wouldn't pesticides help the peasant farmer?

No. In the first place, he can't afford to use pesticides. Second, it is not desirable from an environmental or public health perspective-many pesticides still used in the South were banned in the North. In the United States alone, the social costs and the health costs of pesticides reach 8 billion dollars a year. These costs include human poisonings, elimination of pollinators and other beneficial insects, fish and wildlife losses, and so on.

We're losing 33 percent of our crops to pests before harvest, despite the fact that we are putting about 1 billion pounds of pesticides into the U.S. environment every year. That percentage is exactly the same as what was being lost in 1942 [before large-scale use of pesticides]. Exactly the same. Thus, the pesticide technology has failed. And the same actors that brought us the failed chemical-pesticide revolution are now bringing us what is going to be the failed biotechnology revolution.

What is the extent of agricultural biotechnology today?

There are 42 million hectares of transgenic, or genetically modified, crops in the world today-up from four million in 1994. Seventy-two percent of all that is in the United States. Most corn- and soybean-based products consumed by people in this country are GM, but people have no way of distinguishing them because they are not labeled.

The EPA, the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, even the National Academy of Sciences, all have reported that genetically modified foods are basically the same as conventional crops and are safe to eat. Right. But you wonder when you see things like StarLink, a variety of genetically engineered corn which is approved only for animal consumption, leaking into the human food supply. The corn caused allergic reactions in consumers, and was recalled by the USDA. However, a portion of the corn remains unaccounted for. Despite this, Aventis, the European company that developed StarLink, is asking the EPA to lift the restrictions on StarLink products, arguing that StarLink is safe to consume and that the unaccounted-for products should be allowed to remain on the market.

What are other possible effects of GM crops?

There is a lot of research showing potential environmental impacts. One form of genetically modified corn expresses the toxin found in Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt); this toxin can last up to 230 days in the soil and may kill the beneficial bacteria or invertebrates in the soil that are important in organic processes. Cornell researchers showed that monarch butterflies that fed on leaves dusted with pollen from this modified corn grew less and had higher mortality than larvae that fed on leaves dusted with normal pollen.

The point is that this is a study that a high school student could have done. But it was not required by the EPA, which conceded to corporate pressures by considering transgenic crops as substantially equivalent to conventionally bred crops. There are a lot of studies that could have and should have been done. But every piece of research that comes out is fought by the corporations with their own science and their own results.

Couldn't your own analysis be seen as politically biased?

Well, it is. This is a political debate. The whole debate on biotechnology today is political, it's not scientific. What happens in these international agricultural meetings is that I come in with my data, and somebody else comes with totally different data, data that shows that modern agricultural technologies are helping the poor.

But then you have independent scientists who have done all this research-
Independent scientists?

Independent in the sense of funding-meaning they aren't funded by major corporations.The point I'm trying to make is that we reach an impasse. You have your data, I have my data. So why don't we recognize that that we're analyzing this from different world views? You have your value system, I have my value system. Your value system says that we need to give peasants fertilizers and pesticides in order to modernize them. Or you see knowledge as a commodity, as a marketable good with cash value, and I see it as a public good.

I see my role differently. I see that what we need to do is to help peasants, to empower them-and then they can make their own decisions about what kind of developmental path they want to take. I don't want to impose anything. I just want to become a facilitator; I want to respect their knowledge. That's the difference.

But a strong selling point for biotechnology is that it will reduce pesticide use. Studies show that using Bt cotton saves about 450,000 kilos of active ingredient, nationally, and GM corn saves about 320,000 kilos, 9 percent of the average application rate of pesticides. But any integrated pest management program-which uses cultural practices such as crop rotations or cover crops and releases of beneficial insects-saves between 30 and 50 percent of insecticides. So why do we need a technology that only saves 9 percent?

The other point is that biotechnology is going to fail because of resistance. No entomologist-not even one from Monsanto-will question the fact that there's going to be resistance. Corporations are already preparing the second generation of transgenic crops in anticipation of this failure.

We have 560 arthropod species that are resistant because of the continued spraying with pesticides. Can you imagine what will happen to insects that are exposed every day, every hour to the Bt expressed by transgenic cotton and maize planted over about a million hectares? Insects are certainly going to become resistant, are going to be able to overcome this very short-sighted agroeconomic approach. Which means that the biotech approach is condemned to fail.

You see, it's a different conception of science we're talking about. I see science not as unique, true, universal. I see science as the product of a particular society. In the West, it's a way of viewing the world by those who say: We've got to dominate nature.

But I see the 500 ways in which 500 ethnic groups in Latin America view the world. And each one of them is a scientific approach, backed up by thousands of years of practice by farmers and peasants. So that means there are 501 approaches to nature in Latin America.

But the one that dominates is the Western one. It's arrogant because it says its way is the only true way, and it will not recognize the knowledge that poor farmers in the South have. There are indigenous people that recognize more than 1,000 species of plants, select for seeds that withstand drought or disease, classify soils according to color or taste, and develop systems where crops grow in the midst of frost at 3,800 meters above sea level.

I'm not talking about absolute right and absolute wrong here. There are merely different ways of seeing the world. What we need to establish is a respectful dialogue of wisdoms. And that's what is lacking.

How so?

A dialogue of wisdoms means that you have to bring to the table the people you're supposed to be helping. For example, there should be at the University of California-which is a land-grant university with a mission of helping farmers-at least one farmer on the Board of Regents. At least one. Our College of Natural Resources should periodically consult with farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists.

Let's move to alternatives to the West's technological solutions. In California, we certainly hear a lot about organic farming. There are a lot of studies that show that organic agriculture preserves the environment, builds up the soil, and that its food is more nutritious. In the U.S. there are about 12,000 organic farmers, the fastest growing sector in the agricultural economy.

But the "organic revolution" is in the North, in the United States and Europe. It is subjected to standards, and crops need to be certified as organic, which is an expensive process for Third World farmers. In the South, it's a totally different revolution: the agroecological revolution.

How does it differ?

In order to benefit the poor more directly, technologies must be applicable under the difficult conditions in which smallholders live. They must be environmentally sustainable and based on the use of local and indigenous resources, and not necessarily subjected to foreign standards. The emphasis must be on improving the productivity of the whole farming systems and not on the yields of specific crops, as emphasized by organic or conventional agriculture. To be of benefit to the rural poor, any agricultural innovation must operate on the basis of a "bottom-up" approach, using and building upon the resources already available: local people, their knowledge, and their natural resources. It must also seriously take into consideration the needs, aspirations, and circumstances of smallholders.

So, we're interested in a grass-roots approach that emerges from the knowledge of the people themselves-the poor people and their indigenous agricultural systems. We want to build on traditional agriculture with modern agroecological knowledge-which is basically modern agricultural science with a lot of influence from ecology and from social sciences like anthropology and sociology. Because we need to understand that agriculture is the product of the coevolution between natural and social systems. This builds upon traditional knowledge; it doesn't suppress it.

It's economically viable because it depends on local resources for managing the systems. It's socially activating because it is participatory-the research comes from the farmers; they have to be part of the research agenda, and they have to speak for the kinds of things that they need. Also, it's ecologically sound because it doesn't alter the system. It doesn't replace what the peasants have, it optimizes it.

The Green Revolution said to the small farmer: Out with your system; here come the monocultural, high-yielding varieties. What I say is: We need to optimize the system you have in place, building on traditional agriculture.

What are the results of agroecology?

The reason I went to England to see Prince Charles earlier this year was to report the results of 208 sustainable agricultural projects and agroecological approaches from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The studies showed that nine million farmers, working on more than 29 million hectares, have increased their overall yields from 50 to 100 percent. And these are in marginalized environments-hillsides and semi-desert areas-and they did so at one-tenth the cost of the Green Revolution. Not to mention the empowerment of the people-which can't be measured-and the biodiversity, the regeneration of the land, the conservation of the resources, and such things.

What's the problem with implementing agroecology on a wider scale?

There are several policy barriers, such as pesticide subsidies, and also a lack of political will to champion this more pro-poor approach. But I also think it's because the North wants to call the shots, set the agenda. It is very difficult for scientists from the North who are supposed to be specialists in international agriculture to accept that the South knows better.

They could talk to you.

Sure! Somehow people get the idea that there's this guy in Berkeley [laughs], he's opposing biotechnology, he's speaking up for the world's poor farmers. So in a way I become a little token, and I get invited to these international conferences, usually to present the minority view. Not many other people are doing this at the scientific level because they don't want to speak out.

Why not?

Because there are consequences. If you speak out against biotechnology, you're going to be called prejudiced, political, unscientific. When Robert van den Bosch spoke out against the pesticide industry, he was called a pseudo-scientist. In response to my speaking out, I have been called a third-rate scientist. I say: "It would be better to call me a Third World scientist. I'm proud of being that."

11/20/09 - "WPA" - Cloaked in the guise of combating terrorism and of national security and virtually in plain view, the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in this nation have been, and are continuing to be, steadily, systematically, and meticulously shredded. The
consequences are dire.

No matter what the pretext, one does not protect, preserve, and strengthen hard won civil liberties by limiting and thereby gutting and destroying them. Indeed the best, most effective and genuine means of assuring real national security is by ensuring civil liberties, judicial fairness, and equitable social and economic justice inside this nation itself; and no amount of government / judiciary intimidation, spying or policing actions at home, or military actions abroad, can or will ever bring this about, nor are they really intended to, despite any fallacious rhetoric to the contrary.

The case of seventy-year-old great grandmother, cancer survivor, former school librarian, long time political activist / organizer, and former New York City defense attorney Lynne Stewart is indicative of the U.S. Government's ongoing attempts to frighten, discredit, intimidate, and silence the people of this nation, and most particularly in this case, defense attorneys who dare to seriously exercise the constitutional right and duty to provide their clients with a vigorous and uncompromising legal defense.

Lynne Stewart, as a defense attorney, has for well over three decades, successfully defended clients who were the targets of U.S. Government subterfuge, police brutality, and prosecutorial subterfuge and discreditation. In so doing she constantly demonstrated to young lawyers what it really means to stand up and defend the people in both word and deed. The people that Lynne Stewart legally and vigorously defended ranged from members of the Black Panther Party, to the Weather Underground, to U.S. protestors demonstrating against (the then U.S. and Israeli supported) apartheid government of South Africa. Moreover, she did not hesitate to vigorously defend the human and legal rights of Muslims unjustly persecuted and targeted by U.S. Government agencies in this the 21st century. (Reference The Black Commentator of July 12, 2007.

Thus, Lynne Stewart herself became a target of the U.S. Government in the person of the then Bush / Cheney U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft. This scenario did not "change" under the present Obama / Biden / Rahm Emanuel administration or its current U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. If anything in 2009, matters became
even worse. As a direct result of U.S. Government subterfuge, entrapment, and disinformation (with corporate media complicity) against Lynne Stewart, she was on February 10, 2005, wrongfully and shockingly convicted of a bogus "conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism" charge relating to her legal defense of one of her clients. An appeal was immediately filed, in hopes that the appeal court would recognize and respect truth and justice and reverse this gross injustice. However, the appeal court on November 17, 2009, did just the opposite and upheld this bogus, outrageous, and retaliatory conviction and sentence against the people's lawyer - Lynne Portia Stewart.

This incredibly courageous, seventy-year-old former librarian, who is presently also battling a serious medical condition that requires surgery must never be abandoned by us. She did not abandon justice-loving people and we cannot abandon her. She is a target and a victim of the Patriot Act (the 21st century COINTELPRO) and the ongoing hysteria which was whipped up under the Bush / Cheney administration and is being continued and further tweaked under the Obama / Biden administration. We must remember that Lynne Stewart spoke and speaks truth to power on behalf of the every day people and we can do no less. DO NOT LET HER STAND ALONE! DO NOT ALLOW THIS CORRUPT, HYPOCRITICAL, WAR MONGERING GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIARY TO COWER US INTO SUBMISSION! Continue to follow the developments in Lynne Stewart's case closely, with a view towards reversing this gross injustice to her and to all of us! By supporting Lynne Stewart, we are loving and supporting the very best in ourselves. Bear in mind that the above-described developments with respect to Lynne Stewart, are part and parcel and yet another example, of the ongoing shredding of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in this nation.

The government actions against Lynne Stewart are intended to make us tremble and cower, neither of which must we do. Too much is at stake! Real national security can only be had when the people refuse to allow the government to quash our human and political rights for therein is our national security.

When, in the name of "national security" or of allegedly combating "terrorism," a government that cloaks its reprehensible acts of spying on its own people while simultaneously gutting their civil liberties is in reality fostering, not combating, terrorism. It's all about stifling any substantive informed discussion and dissent. Such a government is not worthy of support. Democracy, if it is to be real, is not some commodity to be bought, sold, or manipulated by government or corporations. It is contentious and must be vigorously exercised. The goal of the infamously notorious, unconstitutional, murderous, and amoral U.S. Government's Counter Intelligence Program, known as COINTELPRO, which was fervently carried out internally against the peoples of the United States, was to "neutralize" political dissent by "discrediting, framing, disrupting, imprisoning,and often murdering" individual political activists, and where possible, targeting entire political organizations. These systematic outrages were of course engaged in by local, state, and federal policing authorities working together throughout this nation; all in the nebulous, shrill name of so-called "national security."

The corporate news media played a deadly, covert, and insidious role of complicity by disseminating disinformation to assist in ensuring the deadly effectiveness of COINTELPRO. As a direct result of the U.S. Government COINTELPRO sponsored activities many people were framed, imprisoned, or murdered (including the U.S. government / police assassinations of Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark), not to mention the tens of thousands of families, lives and/or reputations were utterly shattered.

Thousands of targets of COINTELPRO included (but were by no means limited to) Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Huey P. Newton, H. Rap Brown (Jamil Al-Amin), and a host of many, many other men and women political activists nationwide. Entire organizations were COINTELPRO targets including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Black Panther Party (BPP), the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), etc. While COINTELPRO primarily targeted nonwhites, there were to be sure, whites who the U.S. Government also sought to "neutralize" intimidate, and discredit due to their unmitigated audacity to stand up and dissent against the U.S. policies of wars abroad and social, judicial and economic injustice at home; all in the bogus name of "national security." It should be noted that down to the present day, as a result of COINTELPRO, there are numerous political prisoners still languishing in 'America's' gulag prisons. This is and should be absolutely unacceptable to all of us.

Notwithstanding the deliberately misleading rhetoric of the Obama / Biden / Rahm Emanuel administration, this nation has entered an era of de facto renewed 21st century COINTELPRO activities and McCarthyism under the insipid guise of the "Patriot Act." This is the same Patriot Act that Barack Obama is seeking to extend, just as he has already extended and expanded the notorious activities of the U.S. Government's international kidnapping and torture program known as "rendition."

While the pro-apartheid Zionist Obama / Biden / Rahm Emanuel administration and its allies in the corporate media have cynically used the increasing pain and suffering of the 'American' people against we ourselves by turning the attention of the nation to a fake debate on "health reform" which is neither open, honest, nor representative of genuine systemic change for the hurting masses, the Obama administration pursues its wars abroad in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, and elsewhere while seeking to continue and strengthen the ill gotten gains of repression made under the previous Bush / Cheney administration by continuing the Patriot Act here at home, including among other provisions, the despicably undemocratic, patently unconstitutional, and outrageous portion within said Act known as the "lone wolf" provision.

Make no mistake about it: This political repression is being, and meant to be, directed against citizens and noncitizens alike in this nation of all colors and ethnicities. It is time to put aside our petty ideological squabbles and unite against this repression. No matter what the pretense, the PATRIOT ACT is the continuation of COINTELPRO today, which has now been codified into law. The Obama / Biden / Rahm Emanuel administration is demonstrating itself to be as hypocritical and amoral as its Bush / Cheney predecessors - -with one noteworthy exception: this present administration is, at least for the political moment, much more articulate and adept at misleading the people. It is therefore far more dangerously effective at economically, judicially, and socially emaciating the masses of people than the Bush / Cheney administration could have ever even dreamed of being.

It must be reiterated: The Patriot Act is the continuation of COINTELPRO and the corporate, self-described "news" media today continues in its shameful role of aiding and abetting - through disinformation, obfuscation, and omission - -the stripping away of real freedoms and civil liberties in this nation and around the world.

We must be aware of, but certainly not intimidated by these developments. Political repression at home is not merely on its way. It is in fact, in large measure already here, though not yet recognized by some. Both the liberals and the lunatic right wingers of the Democratic and Republican Parties (i.e. the Republicrats) are, in essence, moving this nation, at an ever increasing pace, towards deepening political repression. The so-called liberals pretend that the dangerous erosion of alleged freedoms and civil liberties is simply not happening right in front of their very eyes, while the right wingers are virtually inviting it (i.e. political repression) as a means to their ends.

Our task is to educate, agitate, and organize throughout this nation. We must be clear that the constant so-called specter of "terrorism" is, like the specter of "communism" during the McCarthy period of fear and repression, being fanned and fostered by the misguided, dishonest, hypocritical and undemocratic practices on the part of the U.S. Government and its corporate allies at home and abroad. Remember that democracy is not spread at the tip of a sword, in the muzzle of rifles, or by horrific explosions of cluster and/or so-called 'smart' bombs and the like. It is terrorism that is in fact fostered and spread by these things, not democracy.

We must always remember that unjust wars abroad, and political repression, subterfuge, and disinformation at home go hand and hand. We must struggle to reverse the increasing political repression in this nation and bring about an immediate end to the unjust U.S. wars abroad. We must struggle for genuine (not fake) single payer universal health care, for full employment, decent housing, and relevant education, judicial accountability and justice, an end to the new and hideous form of racism and economic apartheid gentrification in communities throughout this nation. We must struggle for real and serious systemic change and an end to corporate capitalist de facto hegemony.

No more unjust wars! No more COINTELPRO! No more PATRIOT ACT and its concomitant political repression at home! No more lies! Let us stop allowing this
administration to give political cover to repression at home and Empire abroad! Enough!
"Change we can believe in?" The only real change that we can believe in is the change that we the people demand, organize for, and bring about ourselves! Life to the masses of people in this nation and around the world! Onward then sisters and brothers! It's time to intensify in speaking truth to power and educate, agitate, and organize.

Remember: "Don't Mourn. ORGANIZE!"
_____________________
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board Member, Larry Pinkney, is a veteran of
the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New
Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully
self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In connection with his political
organizing activities in opposition to voter suppression, etc., Pinkney was
interviewed in 1988 on the nationally televised PBS NewsHour, formerly known as
The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book,
Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker, by
William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn].

November 18, 2009 - "Washington Post" Tuesday, November 17, 2009 --The nation's economic crisis has catapulted the number of Americans who lack enough food to the highest level since the government has been keeping track, according to a new federal report, which shows that nearly 50 million people -- including almost one child in four -- struggled last year to get enough to eat.

At a time when rising poverty, widespread unemployment and other effects of the recession have been well documented, the report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the government's first detailed portrait of the toll that the faltering economy has taken on Americans' access to food.

The magnitude of the increase in food shortages -- and, in some cases, outright hunger -- identified in the report startled even the nation's leading anti-poverty advocates, who have grown accustomed to longer lines lately at food banks and soup kitchens. The findings also intensify pressure on the White House to fulfill a pledge to stamp out childhood hunger made by President Obama, who called the report "unsettling."

The data show that dependable access to adequate food has especially deteriorated among families with children. In 2008, nearly 17 million children, or 22.5 percent, lived in households in which food at times was scarce -- 4 million children more than the year before. And the number of youngsters who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.

Among Americans of all ages, more than 16 percent -- or 49 million people -- sometimes ran short of nutritious food, compared with about 12 percent the year before. The deterioration in access to food during 2008 among both children and adults far eclipses that of any other single year in the report's history.

Around the Washington area, the data show, the extent of food shortages varies significantly. In the past three years, an average of 12.4 percent of households in the District had at least some problems getting enough food, slightly worse than the national average. In Maryland, the average was 9.6 percent, and in Virginia it was 8.6 percent.

The local and national findings are from a snapshot of food in the United States that the Agriculture Department has issued every year since 1995, based on Census Bureau surveys. It documents Americans who lack a dependable supply of adequate food -- people living with some amount of "food insecurity" in the lexicon of experts -- and those whose food shortages are so severe that they are hungry. The new report is based on a survey conducted in December.

Several independent advocates and policy experts on hunger said that they had been bracing for the latest report to show deepening shortages, but that they were nevertheless astonished by how much the problem has worsened. "This is unthinkable. It's like we are living in a Third World country," said Vicki Escarra, president of Feeding America, the largest organization representing food banks and other emergency food sources.

"It's frankly just deeply upsetting," said James D. Weill, president of the Washington-based Food and Action Center. As the economy eroded, Weill said, "you had more and more people getting pushed closer to the cliff's edge. Then this huge storm came along and pushed them over."

Obama, who pledged during last year's presidential campaign to eliminate hunger among children by 2015, reiterated that goal on Monday. "My Administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger," the president said in a statement. The solution begins with job creation, Obama said. And he ticked off steps that Congress and the administration have taken, or are planning, including increases in food stamp benefits and $85 million Congress just freed up through an appropriations bill to experiment with feeding more children during the summer, when subsidized school breakfasts and lunches are unavailable

In a briefing for reporters, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, "These numbers are a wake-up call . . . for us to get very serious about food security and hunger, about nutrition and food safety in this country."

Vilsack attributed the marked worsening in Americans' access to food primarily to the rise in unemployment, which now exceeds 10 percent, and in people who are underemployed. He acknowledged that "there could be additional increases" in the 2009 figures, due out a year from now, although he said it is not yet clear how much the problem might be eased by the measures the administration and Congress have taken this year to stimulate the economy.

The report's main author at USDA, Mark Nord, noted that other recent research by the agency has found that most families in which food is scarce contain at least one adult with a full-time job, suggesting that the problem lies at least partly in wages, not entirely an absence of work.

The report suggests that federal food assistance programs are only partly fulfilling their purpose, although Vilsack said that shortages would be much worse without them. Just more than half of the people surveyed who reported they had food shortages said that they had, in the previous month, participated in one of the government's largest anti-hunger and nutrition programs: food stamps, subsidized school lunches or WIC, the nutrition program for women with babies or young children.

Last year, people in 4.8 million households used private food pantries, compared with 3.9 million in 2007, while people in about 625,000 households resorted to soup kitchens, nearly 90,000 more than the year before.

Food shortages, the report shows, are particularly pronounced among women raising children alone. Last year, more than one in three single mothers reported that they struggled for food, and more than one in seven said that someone in their home had been hungry -- far eclipsing the food problem in any other kind of household. The report also found that people who are black or Hispanic were more than twice as likely as whites to report that food in their home was scarce.

In the survey used to measure food shortages, people were considered to have food insecurity if they answered "yes" to several of a series of questions. Among the questions were whether, in the past year, their food sometimes ran out before they had money to buy more, whether they could not afford to eat nutritionally balanced meals, and whether adults in the family sometimes cut the size of their meals -- or skipped them -- because they lacked money for food. The report defined the degree of their food insecurity by the number of the questions to which they answered yes.

© Copyright 1996-2009 The Washington Post Company

Salary & Govt. Concessions for a Member of Parliament

Monthly Salary: Rs. 12,000/-

Expense for Constitution per month: Rs. 10,000/-

Office expenditure per month: Rs. 14,000/-

Traveling concession (Rs. 8 per km): Rs. 48,000/-

(eg. For a visit from South India to Delhi & return: 6000 km)

Daily DA TA during parliament meets: Rs. 500/day

Charge for 1 class (A/C) in train: Free (For any number of times)
(All over India )

Charge for Business Class in flights: Free for 40 trips / year (With wife or P.A.)

Rent for MP hostel at Delhi: Free.

Electricity costs at home: Free up to 50,000 units.

Local phone call charge: Free up to 1, 70,000 calls..

TOTAL expense for a MP [having no qualification] per year: Rs.32, 00,000/-

[i.e. 2.66 lakh/month]
TOTAL expense for 5 years: Rs. 1, 60, 00,000/-

For 534 MPs, the expense for 5 years:
Rs. 8,54,40,00,000/-

(Nearly 855 crores)

AND THE PRIME MINISTER IS ASKING THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED, OUT PERFORMING CEOs TO CUT DOWN THEIR SALARIES...
..
This is how all our tax money is been swallowed and price hike on our regular commodities.........

And this is the present condition of our country:

855 crores could make their life livable!!

"Repent," the preacher cried out, startling those who heard him.

This was no street evangelist ranting at the passing crowd, but the archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England. His sharp admonition was pointed directly at a particular set of sinners, who undoubtedly had never given any thought to the morality of their actions: the barons of global banking.

As in our country, people in Europe are enraged at those hustlers of high finance who wrecked the world's economies, then flexed their political muscle to get governments to replenish their bankrupt vaults. Infuriatingly, these bailed-out bankers have now returned to business as usual, including grabbing monstrous bonus payments for themselves.

In Europe, such greed is not only being assailed politically, but it is also being cast as a matter of fundamental moral failure. As another of Britain's leading clergymen put it, "There is a general feeling that the level of bonuses we've seen have been obscene."

While top executives of Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and other big investment houses were initially puzzled and hurt by the public's moral outrage, their audacious sense of personal worth and entitlement quickly kicked back in. So Europeans are now witnessing the spectacle of bankers draping themselves in radiant robes of ethical purity.

"Profit is not satanic," the CEO of Barclays recently proclaimed. "Size is not necessarily evil," asserted the head of Deutsche Bank.

But leave it to Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs (and the world's highest-paid banker -- $68 million in 2007 alone) to combine self-pity with self-adulation in a grandiose PR effort to reposition financial thieves as paragons of social altruism. "I know I could slit my writs and people would cheer," he acknowledged in an interview published Nov. 8 in London's Sunday Times. But, he said of himself and his big banking brethren," We're very important. We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that create more growth and more wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It's a virtuous cycle."

And, just in case you missed the message of Blankfein's morality tale, he concluded by portraying himself as a mere banker "doing God's work."

Wow. What a wrathful god he must worship!

One wonders -- has Lord Blankfein even read about, much less visited, any of the millions of Americans who are out of work or out of business because of the financial schemes and scams that he and his peers conjured up? Who does he think he's fooling? Far from investing capital (including the trillions of dollars they took from us taxpayers) in companies and jobs, these financial whizzes continue to throw it into the global craps game of debt swaps and other speculative nonsense. The game enriches them and their super-wealthy clients, but it creates nothing whatsoever of social value.

Nonetheless, this clueless clique is actually claiming that we commoners should be applauding the return of their multimillion-dollar bonus bonanzas. Why? Because, they aver, the rich payouts allow them to contribute to charity.

Such narcissism reminds me of a story about a selfish, no-good rich man who died and tried to get into heaven. But you can't just walk through the Pearly Gates. An angel reviews your life, then St. Peter decides if you can enter. To counter the angel's negative review, the rich man argued that he had a history of charitable giving. He'd once tossed a nickel into a beggar's cup, he pointed out. Plus, some years later, he had aided a poor woman by giving her a nickel. Then there was the time he put a nickel into the Salvation Army kettle.

Hearing all this, the angel turned to St. Peter and asked, "What in the world should we do with this man?" And St. Peter said, "Give him back his 15 cents, and tell him to go to hell!"

Now that's a story that these big banksters need to hear -- and ponder.

The top US military commander in Afghanistan has warned that India's growing influence in the country could "exacerbate regional tensions" and encourage "countermeasures" by Pakistan, India's historic rival in south Asia.

In a confidential report submitted to US President Barack Obama on August 30, General Stanley McChrystal wrote, "Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India."

McChrystal's comments point to a strategic dilemma facing Washington. The US is anxious to court India as a counterweight to a rising China, has welcomed India's increasing involvement in Afghanistan, and calculates that Indian and American interests coincide in seeking to develop pipelines that would draw central Asia's oil reserves toward south Asia and the Indian Ocean.

It is also very eager to develop joint operations with the Indian military. When asked whether the US was ready to seek Indian military assistance in counter-terror operations and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Lieutenant General Benjamin R. Mixon, head of the US Army's Pacific Command, said, "The Indian Army is a professional force and the US Army will be comfortable with it anywhere."

But at the same time, the US is dependent on Pakistan's logistical and military support to salvage its war to subjugate Afghanistan and is well aware that its ever-escalating demands are undermining the Pakistani government's popular support and legitimacy and exacerbating the tensions within the shaky Pakistani federation.

India and Pakistan have been trading accusations about each other's involvement in Afghanistan for years. New Delhi claims that Pakistan's military-intelligence establishment continues to patronize the Taliban, whose rise to power in the mid-1990s took place under Pakistan's sponsorship. Islamabad counters that India is taking a disproportionate place in Afghanistan, with a view to squeezing Pakistan strategically, and that it has used its growing influence in Afghanistan to support the Balochi nationalist insurgency in Pakistan's western province.

After a bomb exploded outside the Indian embassy in Kabul on October 9, killing 17 people but none of the embassy personnel, Indian think-tanks and much of the press charged that the Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the attack, had carried it out at the behest of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. India's government, for its part, did not directly accuse Islamabad of responsibility, probably in deference to Washington's wishes. The Obama administration would not appreciate a further crisis in Indian-Pakistani relations when it is in the midst of a heated debate over its strategy in the so-called Af-Pak war. In any event, the Indo-Pakistani peace process has been frozen by New Delhi for all intents and purposes since the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack.

India did publicly blame the ISI for a similar attack on its Kabul embassy in July 2008, which killed 41 people, including a senior diplomat and the defence attaché.

Commenting on the most recent bombing targeting the Indian embassy in Kabul, Siddharth Varadarajan, the Hindu's strategic affairs editor wrote, "The attackers want to underline the McChrystal report and make the point that any attempt to rely on India or involve India (in any new US policy) will complicate matters."

Speaking shortly after last month's attack, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said New Delhi will take "whatever measures" are necessary to safeguard the security of "our personnel and our interests in Afghanistan."

Harsh V. Pant, currently a visiting professor at IIM-Bangalore, said that if India wants to be recognised as a global power its first step must be "to respond to the latest attack in Kabul with greater military engagement to support its developmental and political presence in Afghanistan."

India supported the US invasion of Afghanistan, provided intelligence, and helped facilitate the US's link-up with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. New Delhi saw the Afghan war as a golden opportunity to reverse Pakistan's increased influence in Afghanistan and to advance its own geopolitical interests in oil-rich central Asia.

During the administration of George W. Bush there were repeated tensions between Washington and New Delhi over the US's mercenary relationship with the Pakistani government and military. But overall, Indo-US ties greatly expanded, with the US declaring its eagerness to assist India in becoming a "world power" and toward that end, negotiating a unique status for India--a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, within the world nuclear regulatory regime.

Since Obama took office, Indo-US relations have become more fractious. New Delhi is apprehensive that its interests will get short-shrift due to Washington's focus on its relations with Pakistan and China.

India angrily rebuffed the suggestion made by Obama and his aides during the 2008 presidential campaign that in return for Pakistan doing Washington's bidding in the Af-Pak war, the US might assist Pakistan in resolving its six-decades' old dispute with India over Kashmir. New Delhi has also been troubled by Obama's support for a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). India rejects the NPT's norms as discriminatory and has refused to sign the CTBT on the grounds that it could imperil the development of India's "strategic deterrent," i.e. its nuclear weapons arsenal.

Yesterday India took angry exception to a paragraph in the joint statement that Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued at the conclusion of their summit meeting. The paragraph committed the two countries to working to "promote peace, stability and development" in south Asia. "The Government of India," declared its Foreign Ministry, "is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. A third country role cannot be envisaged."

The Indian government is also anxious about reports that the US and the puppet government of Hamid Karzai are intent on persuading sections of the Taliban to enter into peace negotiations and ultimately incorporation into Afghanistan's government. Indian officials and media commentators have repeatedly declared that there is no such thing as "good Taliban." Behind the rhetoric is the fear that Islamabad's influence in Afghanistan will grow significantly in the event of a rapprochement with elements hitherto associated with the Taliban.

When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan in 1996 with the support of Pakistan and the US, India lost all influence in Kabul. New Delhi never recognized the Taliban government.

"In a broad sense," declared a recent Hindustan Times editorial, "the presidential elections reflect the failure of the non-Taliban and non-Islamicist Afghan leadership to find a power-sharing formula among them. This makes Karzai and the present configuration in Kabul all the more dependent on the US government for support. If the US wavers, Mr. Karzai is almost certain to continue his policy of trying to find an accommodation with some elements of the Taliban. Neither of these scenarios is good news for India or other nations that have suffered the terrorist-friendly policies of the first Taliban regime."

Anxious to consolidate its position in post-2001 Afghanistan, the Indian government has invested more than $1.2 billion in rebuilding the country's infrastructure, including power plants, and in training Afghan civil servants and police. India is Afghanistan's sixth largest bilateral donor.

Last January, India completed construction of the 218 kilometre Zaranj-Delaram highway in southwest Afghanistan, which makes it possible to transport goods from Iran to Kabul and across Afghanistan. With the building of this highway, India has developed a land-route to Afghanistan that bypasses Pakistan. For decades Islamabad had effectively scuttled Indo-Afghan trade by refusing to allow Indo-Afghan truck traffic to traverse its territory.

This Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki travelled to India, for a two-day visit. The first high level contact between the two countries since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected last June, the Indo-Iranian talks reportedly focussed on energy cooperation, transit routes to central Asia, the sharing of information on anti-government insurgent activity in Pakistan-Afghanistan, and the possibility of reviving the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) natural gas pipeline project.

According to the Hindu, Mottaki and various Indian officials "also discussed prospects of trilateral dialogue between India, Iran and Afghanistan on transit routes to central Asia, with the Iranian port of Chabar to be the staging point for goods. 'Our interest in having a trilateral agreement was underlined,' said informed sources about the transit route beginning from the Chabar port. It was planned to construct a railway line from Chabar to Bam. From there, goods would be taken from the Afghan border town of Zaranj to Delaram on an Indian-built road to the Afghan garland highways, which provide access to several central Asian republics."

The new road certainly threatens Pakistan's commercial position in Afghanistan. At present 37 percent of Afghan's foreign trade is with Pakistan, 15.9 percent with the European Union and 12.5 percent the US.

There are more than 4,000 Indian workers and security personnel working on different aid and reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. Following the kidnap and murder of an Indian engineer by the Taliban in 2006, New Delhi sent personnel from the country's mountain-trained paramilitary force to protect Indian workers. Nearly 500 Indian police are currently deployed in Afghanistan.

The Indian Army has long planned for the deployment of its personnel in Afghanistan to train Afghan National Army (ANA) troops, but to date the Indian military's presence in the war-torn country has been limited to providing some English-language training and participating in a couple of humanitarian projects.

In an article published in early July in conjunction with a visit to India by Afghan army chief General Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, Indian commentator C. Raja Mohan argued that if India has thus far resisted appeals for greater military involvement from Kabul it is because of US opposition: "[W]ith Pakistan making a big deal out of Delhi's rather limited security cooperation with Kabul, Washington has over the last few years cautioned India against raising its profile in Afghanistan beyond economic reconstruction. Even the Bush Administration, which was so friendly to India, was not enthusiastic about seeing the extension of Indo-Pak rivalry into Afghanistan."

But sections of the military are unhappy with New Delhi's caution. Retired General Shankar Roychowdhury, a former Chief of Army Staff and a former Member of Parliament, has described the Afghan war as a "war of necessity" for India. He argues that building up the ANA is "the obvious area on which India should focus in its own long-term interests."

In addition to it embassy in Kabul, India has opened four consulates in Afghanistan, in Jalalabad, Kandahar, Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. Pakistan claims that these consulates are being used by the Indian foreign intelligence agency, the Research and Intelligence Wing (RAW), to create unrest across the border in Pakistan's Balochistan province. The Pakistan government has repeatedly accused India of involvement in the separatist conflict in Balochistan and has claimed that RAW is training secessionists.

On a recent trip to the US, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told the Los Angeles Times that India's "level of engagement [in Kabul] has to be commensurate with [the fact that] they do not share a border with Afghanistan, whereas we do ... If there is no massive reconstruction [in Afghanistan], if there are not long queues in Delhi waiting for visas to travel to Kabul, why do you have such a large [Indian] presence in Afghanistan? At times, it concerns us."

Indian think-tanks are leaning heavily on the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance government to intervene more actively in Afghanistan. M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, has noted, "Influential sections of Indian opinion are stridently calling for an outright Indian intervention in Afghanistan without awaiting the niceties of an American invitation letter."

Sections of the Indian ruling class see positive aspects to a substantial Indian military presence in Afghanistan. Sushant K. Singh, editor of the strategic affairs journal Pragati: The Indian National Interest Review, wrote recently, "An Indian military involvement in Afghanistan will shift the battleground away from Kashmir and the Indian mainland. Targeting the jihadi base will be a huge boost for India's anti-terrorist operations, especially in Kashmir, both militarily and psychologically."

He insists that the Indian military should operate independently in Afghanistan like "the 13,000 US soldiers under the Operation Enduring Freedom operating independently alongside the NATO-ISAF [International Security Assistance Force]." He called for an independent command structure for the Indian military presence, which could be deployed in western Afghanistan, "allowing US and ISAF forces to concentrate on the provinces adjoining Pakistan."

Think-tanks and press pundits are insisting that India cannot remain a "soft power." Dr. Subhash Kapila, a former military officer and diplomat, has written that India has so far been reluctant to resort to "hard power." However, he writes, "As India grows more powerful and her strategic worth figures in the global strategic calculus ... [it] may not continue to be reluctant and restrained." He called for a reorientation of US policy in south Asia from "Pakistan-Centric" to an "India-Centric" fixation.

The Indian government is looking to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to the US this month to take Indo-US relations to a new level. The Indian ambassador to the US recently boasted, "the India-US relationship has evolved into a truly comprehensive partnership of mutual trust and confidence ... that is increasingly global in reach, and [based on] deepening strategic understanding."

But despite the warming of relations over the past two decades, any Indo-US partnership remains fraught with tensions and ambivalences as the ruling elite of each country ruthlessly pursues its own interests.

US President Obama's visit to China this week focussed attention on the country's rising economic power, high growth rates and large currency reserves amid the continuing global economic crisis. A closer examination, however, reveals that China's hothouse economy rests on fragile foundations.

A Wall Street Journal poll of prominent economic analysts in early November pointed to slowing growth in the second half of 2009 as Beijing's huge stimulus measures began to wane. China's official growth statistics are based on changes in gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the corresponding period of the previous year. The National Bureau of Statistics figure for the third quarter was 8.9 percent, following 7.9 percent in the second quarter, suggesting a steady trend of recovery.

However, the standard method of measuring growth rates in most major economies is quarter-on-quarter on a seasonally adjusted annualised basis. Making this adjustment, the Wall Street Journal survey predicted that China's growth would fall to 8-9 percent in 2010 from a peak of about 15 percent in mid-2009 and 9.5 percent in the final quarter. The survey was conducted among international institutions including Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital, Capital Economics, China International Capital Corp., Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, UBS and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

While still strong compared to most other countries, China's slowing growth points to the limits of the government's 4 trillion yuan ($US586 billion) stimulus package and loose lending policy since last November. Industrial production rose by 16.1 percent in October year-on-year, the fastest pace since March 2008, but exports continued to slide by 13.8 percent.

Even before the global financial crisis, there were huge overcapacities in industry resulting in low profitability. As a result, the flood of state bank credit unleashed last year has not gone into productive investment, but has fuelled rampant and unsustainable speculation in the stock and real estate markets. New bank loans in the first 10 months of 2009 reached $1.3 trillion--a surge of 144 percent over the same period last year. Property sales jumped by 82 percent in October year-on-year.

The Financial Times warned recently that China was heading for a "Japan-style bubble" like that of the late 1980s, which burst with a spectacular collapse of Japanese share and property values, leading to prolonged economic stagnation.

The article explained: "At the 2008 peak, the price-to-book ratio of the Shanghai stock exchange was more than 7 times, well above the 5 times achieved by Japanese stock in 1989. After the turbulence of the past 18 months, the ratio has fallen to 3.3 times, still the world's second highest after India, and residential real estate trades at multiples of income that make the US housing boom look tame." The price-to-book ratio, which compares market share prices to the net assets of firms, is an important indicator of share overvaluation.

The Financial Times warned that American pressure for the revaluation of the yuan against the US dollar would only fuel speculation in China and exacerbate the dangers of a financial collapse. It pointed out that the implosion in Japan in 1989-90 took place after the revaluation of the Japanese yen, under the 1985 Plaza Accord, set off "a Godzilla-sized credit binge".

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are both urging caution. The World Bank's China economist Ardo Hanssson called for Beijing to tighten monetary policy before other countries. The World Bank is concerned that China's cheap credit is also fuelling equity and housing bubbles in other parts of Asia, especially Hong Kong and Singapore. It also pointed out that the projected growth of 7.8 percent in 2009 for East Asia was heavily dependent on China. Without China, the figure would be just 1 percent.

The IMF is arguing, however, that China and other Asian countries should maintain their stimulus spending to counter slow demand for their exports. Asian governments have spent more than $950 billion in stimulus measures, but still have not compensated for slower consumer spending on their exports in the US and Europe. The G7 advanced economies are expected to grow by only 1.25 percent next year.

The IMF acknowledged that "striking the right balance will be difficult" between continued stimulus measures and financial instability. Beijing's financial position, and thus its ability to sustain large stimulus spending, is not as solid as widely portrayed. Officially, China's public debt is just 5.3 trillion yuan or less than 18 percent of the GDP--far less than US (more than 80 percent of the GDP) or Japan (approaching 200 percent). But the actual size of China's debt could be higher.

The South China Morning Post explained: "Estimating how much higher is tricky, but the true number should include the off-budget debts of local governments, bad loans held by state asset management companies and on the books of state-owned banks, and the state sector's unfunded pension liabilities. The Finance Ministry's Research Institute for Fiscal Science has estimated the hidden debts of local governments at four trillion yuan. The International Monetary Fund estimated the legacy cost to the government of state banks' non-performing loans as about 3.7 trillion yuan. And estimates of the present value of the state's unfunded pension liabilities range anywhere from 1.3 trillion to 2.5 trillion yuan."

In total, China's real public debt is probably between 48 and 52 percent of GDP, not taking into account vast new bad loans from recent lending. Beijing has set a target of 10 trillion yuan in loans for 2009 and a similar amount for 2010. According to Morgan Stanley economist Wang Qing, some 5.5 trillion yuan could turn out to be bad loans, pushing Chinese government debt up to 55 percent of the GDP next year--in the same league as debt-stricken Britain.

Wang argued that the Chinese regime could always pay off its debts by selling tens of trillions of yuan in state assets--both enterprises and land. That only means another round of privatisations on top of more than two decades of plundering the state sector, which has led to huge job losses and the erosion of workers' conditions.

The contradictions of Chinese capitalism are rooted in its position in the global division of labour as a low-cost manufacturing platform for the world's major corporations to export to the US and other major markets. The economy is disproportionately based on manufacturing and fixed asset investment. The relatively small proportion going to consumption is the product of the deliberate suppression of wages to create an abundant supply of cheap labour. The imbalances are underscored by a 13.7 percentage-point decline in the share of GDP going to wages between 1997 and 2007, and corresponding 10.1 percentage-point rise in the share going to corporate profits.

China's rapid economic growth over the past decade was dependent on rising consumption in the US and Europe, which has now been limited by falling real wages and high household debt. Workers in China did not benefit from China's huge export earnings and high corporate savings, which were channelled back into the US to keep the yuan's exchange rate low and Chinese goods relatively competitive. As a result, the US was able to finance its rising deficits and keep interest rates low, which in turn underpinned the rampant speculation on Wall Street.

These interconnected processes were shattered by the 2008 global crisis. Far from reversing the previous imbalances, Beijing's stimulus package has propped up major corporations with export subsidies and incentives for car sales, and above all, through infrastructure projects for steel and cement industries. Only 20 percent of the package was allocated to social programs that would boost domestic spending. Most new bank loans were not taken by small and medium enterprises that employ the bulk of workers, but by large state, private and foreign corporations with close connections to the regime. As a result, 90 percent of the GDP growth in the first seven months of this year was driven by fixed asset investment, compounding existing overcapacity.

Social inequality is deepening. The stimulus package helped to expand the list of Chinese dollar billionaires from 101 last year to 130 this year. At the same time, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimated in September that 41 million Chinese workers had lost their jobs, mostly in the export sector, since the beginning of the financial crisis, or 40 percent of the world's total job losses.

As the impact of the stimulus package starts to wane, China confronts the prospect of falling growth rates and the danger of financial turmoil as well as rising social tensions and instability.