home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Special Double Issue Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
Hamas Chief on Israel’s Decline
Khaled Meshal talks to CounterPunch about Israel’s terrorism, Hamas’rockets and what Hamas will settle for. ALSO: What’s the body count from neoliberal terrorism in India? The largest wave of suicides in human history. India’s best journalist, P. Sainath, lays out the awful story. How did Harvard Law School behave in the McCarthy witch hunts? With sickening cowardice. Famed attorney Jonathan Lubell describes how the School tried to force him to testify and how the Harvard Law Review slammed the door in his face. What causes autism? Steven Higgs tracks the chemicals that may cause developmental disabilities. Alexander Cockburn honors one of England’s greatest environmental writers, the late Roger Deakin. Get your Legacy Edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Note to Nation Readers:
For the Two Books for $30 Offer Call Us at 1-800-840-3683
|
Today's Stories January 15, 2009 Pam Martens January 14, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Kathy Kelly Franklin Lamb Mike Whitney Paul Craig Roberts Glen Ford Aditya Chakrabortty Dave Lindorff Jonathan Cook David Swanson Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day
January 13, 2009 Norman Finkelstein Jonathan Cook Michael Neumann Coleen Rowley / Robert Sandels Saul Landau David Swanson Wajahat Ali Sam Bahour Stanley Heller Robert Jensen Robin Mittenthal Website of the Day
January 12, 2009 Uri Avnery Paul Craig Roberts Mike Whitney Ewa Jasiewicz Bill Quigley Dave Lindorff Bill and Kathleen Christison Jonathan Cook Andy Worthington Kara N. Tina Brenda Norrell Nour Kharma Website of the Day
January 9/11, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Kathy Kelly Bill Quigley George Ciccariello-Maher Elaine C. Hagopian Mike Roselle Steve Hendricks Gary Leupp Jonathan Cook Karim Makdisi Rannie Amiri Peter Morici Peter Montague Ralph Nader Andy Worthington Nadia Hijab Dan Bacher Catherine Fenton David Macaray Valia Kaimaki Richard Morse David Yearsley Charles R. Larson Richard Rhames Stephen Martin Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend January 8, 2009 Jean Bricmont / Franklin Lamb Paul Craig Roberts Kevin Alexander Gray Chris Floyd Ewa Jasiewicz Steve Conn Harvey Wasserman Wayne S. Smith Linda Mamoun Adam Turl Chris Papaleonardos Website of the Day January 7, 2009 Saree Makdisi Franklin Lamb William Blum Belén Fernández Lawrence Davidson Allan Nairn Jonathan Cook Muhammad Idrees Ahmad Deepak Tripathi Cal Winslow Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dr. Hannah Safran Website of the Day January 6, 2009 Pam Martens Victoria Buch Neve Gordon Tami Sarfatti / Mike Whitney Alan Farago Gary Leupp Larry Everest Ron Jacobs David Macaray Stephanie Basile Stacey Warde Website of the Day January 5, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Sousan Hammad Wajahat Ali Mats Svensson Jen Marlowe Muhammad Ali Khalidi Brian Cloughley Faheem Hussain William Cook Dr. Trudy Bond Christopher Ketcham Steve Early Dave Lindorff Website of the Day January 2 - 4, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Uri Avnery Jonathan Cook Paul Craig Roberts Brian Eno Ralph Nader Omar Barghouti Graham Usher P. Sainath Belén Fernández Deb Reich Gary Leupp Michael Yates Joanne Mariner Seth Sandronsky Cynthia McKinney Sonja Karkar Deepak Tripathi Robert Fantina John Ross Norm Kent Larry Portis Richard Rhames Dee C. Lubell David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Marc Catone Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
January 1, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Oren Ben-Dor Wajahat Ali Saul Landau David Michael Green Website of the Day December 31, 2008 Pam Martens Neve Gordon / Ted Honderich Brian Cloughley Ron Jacobs Vijay Prashad Franklin Lamb Mike Whitney David Macaray Richard Thieme Mary Lynn Cramer Stephen Lendman Worthy Group of the Day December 30, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts Tariq Ali Robert Bryce Jonathan Cook Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff Brian McKenna John Walsh Ramzy Baroud Bob Sommer Worthy Activist of the Day
December 29, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Neve Gordon Joshua Frank George Salzman / Norman Solomon Ewa Jasiewicz Rob Larson Kenneth Libby Robert Weissman Elsa Johnson Nicola Nasser Belén Fernández Worthy Group of the Day December 26-28, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Dr Eyad Al Serraj Jeffrey St. Clair Bradley Simpson Ralph Nader Gary Leupp Ellen Cantarow Matt Landon David Macaray Patrick Bond Norm Kent Brian T. Ketcham Rannie Amiri Larry Portis Richard Rhames Stephen Lendman James L. Secor Ramzy Baroud Harold Pinter Cpt. Paul Watson Howard Lisnoff Michael Dee Steve Conn Poets' Basement Worthy Group of the Weekend December 25, 2008 Judy Gumbo Albert Rev. William E. Alberts Hannah Mermelstein Worthy Group of the Day December 24, 2008 Bill Quigley Saul Landau Sam Smith Brian Cloughley John Ross Eric Walberg Norm Kent Stephen Martin Worthy Group of the Day December 23, 2008 Michael Hudson Michael Yates Chuck Spinney Vijay Prashad Brian Horejsi David Macaray Neil Watkins / David Michael Green Worthy Group of the Day
|
January 15, 2009 Chu, Holdren and the Nuclear LobbyObama and the Military - Industrial - Scientific ComplexBy KARL GROSSMAN Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address as president 48 years ago is famous for his warning of the rise of a “military-industrial complex” in the United States. In fact, the original draft of the speech warned not only of a “military-industrial complex” but of the “military-industrial-scientific complex.” Only because of the plea of Eisenhower’s science advisor, James Killian, was the word “scientific” eliminated. The “military-industrial-scientific complex” was the far more accurate description of the complex of vested interests manipulating the U.S. then—and now. As the incoming president, Barack Obama, draws from this federal scientific establishment for appointments, the warning needs to be sounded again. Obama has named as his secretary of energy Dr. Steven Chu, a physicist and director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a staunch advocate of nuclear power—typical of the sentiment of those in the national nuclear laboratory system. At his confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dr. Chu declared that nuclear power “is going to be an important part of our energy mix.” He also spoke for an $18.5 billion loan guarantee program for new nuclear power plants. As his science advisor, Obama has appointed physicist John Holdren, who in 1970 “started my career working on nuclear fusion” at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, he noted in a speech last year. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is where the hydrogen bomb, based on fusion, was developed. But, said Dr. Holdren in his January 17, 2008 talk on “Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge,” he “decided” that fusion “was not going to work by the time I died” in terms of non-military use. So he “started looking at approaches to meet our energy needs that could help more quickly.” He has long considered fission, how atomic bombs and nuclear power plants work, as a source of energy particularly to deal with global warming. This despite the overall “nuclear cycle”—which includes uranium mining and milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of radioactive waste—having significant greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming. Dr. Holdren, although he moved on to teaching positions at the University of California at Berkeley and Harvard and the directorship of the Woods Hole Research Center, remained “an active consultant until 1994” to Lawrence Livermore, stated a press release issued by Woods Hole upon his nomination by Obama last month as science advisor. (For more on Holdren see Jeffrey St. Clair's profile of the scientist and his promotion of nuclear power in Born Under a Bad Sky.) Eisenhower in the January 17, 1961 address declared: “In the council of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” And although allowing the removal of “scientific,” he then went on in the speech with other words on the issue. He said: “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent dates. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists and laboratories.” “In the same fashion,” he continued, “the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” Eisenhower warned: “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposing danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.” The system of U.S. national laboratories which grew out of the crash program of World War II to build atomic bombs, the Manhattan Project, was—and is—the base for much of the scientific establishment about which Eisenhower was concerned. With the war over, the scientists, engineers and corporate contractors at the facilities that had sprung up continued to build atomic bombs, thousands of them, and then came the drive to build an even more lethal nuclear weapon: the hydrogen bomb. But nuclear weapons don’t lend themselves to commercial spin-off. What else could be done, they asked, with nuclear technology to perpetuate the jobs and contracts which began with the Manhattan Project during the war? After the end of World War II, the Manhattan Project was turned into the Atomic Energy Commission. Under it, and at the former Manhattan Project laboratories the commission took over and the new laboratories it built, the push was on for all sorts of other things nuclear: nuclear power plants, food irradiation, nuclear-powered airplanes and spacecraft, atomic devices for excavation including their use to create harbors—anything to bring more activity and money to the scientific vested interests established during the war. David E. Lillienthal, the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, used words similar to those of Eisenhower in a series of lectures in 1963 at Princeton University and in a book published that year, Change, Hope, and the Bomb. Lillienthal said: “The classic picture of the scientist as a creative individual, a man obsessed, working alone through the night, a man in a laboratory pursuing an idea—this has changed. Now scientists are ranked in platoons. They are the organization men. In many cases, the independent and humble search for new truths about nature has become confused with the bureaucratic impulse to justify expenses and see that next year’s budget is bigger than last’s.” He spoke about the “elaborate and even luxurious [national] laboratories that have grown up at Oak Ridge, Argonne, Brookhaven” and the push to use nuclear devices for “blowing out harbors, making explosions underground to produce steam, and so on.” They demonstrated, he said, “how far scientists and administrators will go to try to establish a nonmilitary use” for nuclear technology. In Dr. Steven Chu, Obama chose as his energy secretary someone who has long been known for promoting nuclear power. “Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio,” he declared in a 2008 speech. “The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this.” At his confirmation hearing this week, he spoke of how nuclear power produces purportedly “carbon-free” energy. Dr. Chu joined with other national laboratory directors in 2008 in a statement titled “A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy.” He will have a key role in charting the energy future of the United States in his new role as head of the Department of Energy, an agency of 15,000 employees which runs the national nuclear laboratory system. The Department of Energy was given control of the national laboratories after the Atomic Energy Commission was dismantled in 1974 because, determined Congress, it was in conflict of interest having the power of both promoting and regulating nuclear power. The Department of Energy was given the nuclear promotional role and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission formed to regulate nuclear technology (very poorly, as it has turned out). Dr. Chu’s Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory was an original laboratory of the Manhattan Project and then called the Radiation Laboratory. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, at which Dr. Holdren worked, was set up in 1952 as an offshoot of Lawrence Berkeley—its establishment spearheaded by Dr. Edward Teller as he sought to develop a fusion weapon, the hydrogen bomb. Essentially, he was given his own national laboratory to do that. Dr. Teller became the long-time director of Lawrence Livermore. Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore, both in California, are named after Ernest Orlando Lawrence who had been director of the Radiation Laboratory. An extensive report on Dr. Holdren and nuclear power during the Clinton years was done by Jeffrey St. Clair in CounterPunch, titled “Nuclear Saviors: Kyoto, Gore and the Atomic Lobby. ” St. Clair describes how Dr. Holdren was “tapped” by then Vice President “Gore and Clinton’s science advisor Jack Gibbons to head a task force on energy and climate policy as part of the Presidential Commission on Science and Technology. Holdren’s panel was well-stocked with allies of the nuclear lobby…With this roster of advisors, it’s not surprising that Holdren’s report largely parrots the line advanced by the Nuclear Energy Institute [the main nuclear industry trade group], calling for increased research and development subsidies for fusion and fission, export of U.S. nuclear technology and the creation of a new Nuclear Energy Research Institute to underwrite ‘new reactor designs with high-efficiency, lower-cost and improved safety to compete in the global market.’” On fusion, “Holdren and his gang” recommended $280 million in “fusion research, a proven waste of money in terms of energy production.” The scheme, said the piece, was to “funnel fusion energy research money to places like Lawrence Livermore Lab and its mammoth National Ignition Facility.” Dr. Holdren’s appointment is being applauded by nuclear advocate Rod Adams on his “Atomic Insights Blog” . It “provides one more reason for believing that the second Atomic Age is gaining momentum and will soon be a self-evident reality,” says Adams. The science advisor in the eight years of the administration of George W. Bush also has national nuclear laboratory ties. Dr. John H. Marburger, III is a physicist and former director of Brookhaven National Laboratory. In November, he was back at that laboratory located on Long Island giving speeches on “science policy” including one titled “Science and Money” and a second “Science and Politics” in which he discussed in a lecture hall full of Brookhaven National Laboratory scientists “how,” he explained, “government organizes itself to take advantage of science and how scientists organize themselves to take advantage of government.” Video of the Marburger speeches is available at http://www.bnl.gov/video/video_list.asp?show=lectures If Obama wants to think “outside the box,” the appointments of Chu and Holdren don’t make it, as does, for example, his consideration of CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general. Obama is pulling, most conventionally, from the scientific establishment in placing Chu and Holdren in top positions. If President Obama—seeing the light as Eisenhower and Lillienthal finally did—ever got ready to warn about the “military-industrial-scientific complex,” would science advisor Holdren, following Eisenhower’s science advisor Killian, also plead with him to eliminate the word “scientific?” And how otherwise will he attempt to sway Obama? Meanwhile, CLEAN, a movement of state and local organizations and individuals seeking to have the U.S. government promote the use of safe, clean, renewable energy technologies, has organized a “national call-in day to the White House” on January 21st, Obama’s first day in office. “American energy policy is overly influenced or outright controlled by the major, non-renewable energy providers—Coal, Nuclear, Oil—and not by the United States citizenry or for our common good,” says CLEAN on its website. “This energy policy and the political climate that enables it has created a reliance on fossil fuels that now endangers our health, environment, security, and economic prosperity. CLEAN will advance this new energy future by educating and coordinating the citizenry to exercise its own power and influence and reclaim its rightful role in democratic self-determination.”For more information, go to CLEAN’s website at http://theclean.org or the website of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (http://www.nirs.org) which is participating in the initiative and whose executive director, Michael Mariotte, comments: “We want to make it known that the American people are saying yes to renewables, yes to energy efficiency…and no to nuclear power.” Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and author of books involving NASA including The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat To Our Planet and writer and narrator of television programs among them Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens (www.envirovideo.com).
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Waiting for
Lightning
|