Saturday, 28 February 2015
Contrived Brouhaha
When thieves have a falling out, it is common to look for the “good guy” as though everything is relative and subject to comparative analysis. Not so here. Assume their feud is real, we still have Tweedledum and Tweedledee, a race to the political-ideological-moral bottom when the scope is enlarged to take in the fuller position of both and the respective countries they each represent: America and Israel, joined at the hip, no matter personality differences of the current leadership, macro- and micro-hegemonic policies, goals, and aspirations to destroy all opposition to their presumed superiority and place in the global sun. To effect their national purposes, which in reality are the same in a sybaritic relationship of mutual war-criminality, drawing sustenance from one another’s extremism, there is an underlying long-term authoritarianism making them absolutely callous to the human suffering each inflicts on the weak.
The weaker, more helpless the better, not only as a testing ground for advanced weaponry, flirtation with the doctrine and practice of total war, and means of societal domestic regimentation, but as part of the psychopathology of conquest, success over the victim merely whets the appetite for more atrocities, more sadism, arrogance, claimed legitimacy in furtherance of what turn out to be fairly ordinary results of statecraft: a permanent-war-footing, militarism a central, justified, largely unexamined value shaping the ethos of righteousness in the use of disproportionate force, contempt for critics and victims alike, and, readily translatable from attitude to action, ground-zero annihilation, preferably through artillery and air power, always to teach the lesson of submission, bowing to superiority, discouraging resistance.
Given the inlaid paradigm of self-appointed proconsul to the world, well-publicized tiffs over specific policy decisions count for naught insofar as endangering the most basic posture of counterrevolution whether regional or global or in fact, for each, both. The US and Israel, Emperor and Praetorian Guard, colossi astride the international order, the intertwining of intervention, assassination, regime change, espionage, each nation cooperating with, and learning from, the other, a perpetual-motion machine lest breakdown, displacement, loss of will occur. Killing becomes the elixir of life, whether Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, for one, ethnic cleansing to inaugurate the New State, then the follow-up, the Palestinian Territories and, chiefly now, GAZA, the Bergen-Belsen of the Arab world, for the other. Gaza is the war-crime of the new century; so today all Netanyahu is doing is raising the stakes on the partnership—arms will continue to flow, military and intelligence communities to coordinate as one, same old, same old, since the late 1940s.
Why? Americans’ love for the Jewish people? Doubtful. Lobbying activities of Jewish organizations in the US? Not sufficient unto itself as an explanation. Rather, Israel had proven itself a trusted ally of the US from the earliest days of the Cold War, perhaps doubly useful because of the pseudo-socialist façade of the kibbutz imagery, providing a welcome crack in the American line-up of friends and allies many of whom were fascist in origin or practice. Geopolitics cannot be gainsaid, a US-inclined military-strategic oasis at the heart of the European underbelly, with ready access to North Africa and the Far East as well. But even geopolitics, in the immediate sense of regional control, hardly reveals a developing affinity of purpose. Israel, by the early 1950s, was code for everything to which America professed a desire to be, strong, ruthless, a beacon of legitimate repression (“legitimate” because unsuccessfully challenged), the worthy protagonist of the forces of evil arrayed against God, democracy, and freedom.
With a Manichean view of these proportions, love always trumps differences of the moment. In truth, it is hard to exceed Obama in the virtues of totalitarianism. Israelis need not worry about being sold down the river; even on Iran, America on his watch has inflicted sanctions and cyber-espionage sufficient to give the most skeptical grounds for assurance. Diplomacy, when it comes to the Enemy, is sleight-of-hand for pressures aimed at capitulation and humiliation. Rather, if Obama is not responsible for the imbroglio with Israel, Netanyahu is, and daily proves himself more dysfunctional to the relationship. This is not surprising, because, a faithful microcosm of Israel’s own descent into a collective state of hubris mirroring his own, the relationship itself is a strain on both partners, neither one willing to draw back from a seeming abyss of belligerence, perhaps to keep up with the other.
Where are we now? The internal polity of each eschews peace, a universal blanket of counterterrorism providing cover for a myriad of sins of commission and omission, Ukraine and Gaza co-mixed as foci for a wider conflict embroiling Asia too, with Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership the economic weapon to take on China, as already the case with Russia, in both cases a geopolitical strategy having military grounding, NATO to the Russian border, the US “pivot” establishing mainline forces in the Pacific. Israel applauds the renewed Cold War, knowing its implications—as deep-grained reactionism—for watching Israel’s own back; America applauds the atrocities in Gaza, knowing its implications—ditto—for instructing the weak and powerless in proper lessons of humility toward the all-powerful. When and how will it all end? I am not a Spenglerian; nevertheless, the situation grows increasingly dire, not least because of the bloodless character of the leaders of both nations.
Norman Pollack has written on Populism. His interests are social theory and the structural analysis of capitalism and fascism. He can be reached at pollackn@msu.edu.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/obama-netanyahu-feud/
For Suffering Palestinians, the Obama-Netanyahu "Rift" Is a Side Show
Ali Abunimah
Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress next week has led to much talk of a rift between the Israeli prime minister and the US president, and even between their two countries. Tuesday, national security adviser Susan E. Rice said the growing partisanship regarding Israel is "destructive of the fabric of the relationship."
Citing protocol of not meeting foreign leaders too close to an election, President Obama will shun his Israeli counterpart in Washington, and Vice President Joe Biden will stay away from the joint session of Congress when Netanyahu appears.
The dispute has taken on rancorous partisan tones with over two dozen Democratic lawmakers vowing to boycott the speech. They charge that Netanyahu's goal is to undermine the president's diplomacy with Iran, and that Republican House Speaker John Boehner invited the Israeli leader to defy and humiliate the White House.
Yet all those objecting to the speech, whether in the United States, or Netanyahu's rivals at home where he faces an election next month, protest that their concern is to guarantee US-Israeli relations on whose strength the very future of Israel is said to hang.
But what all this sound and fury misses is that for the Palestinians there is no meaningful Obama-Netanyahu rift. Indeed US-Israeli relations have never been stronger, nor more damaging to the prospects for peace and justice and for the very survival of the Palestinian people.
Just look at the recent record. Last December, the Palestinian Authority put forward a tepid resolution in the UN Security Council that did little more than repeat long-standing US policy on the outlines of a two-state solution. Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power marshaled all her resources to defeat it.
She claimed that the resolution was "deeply imbalanced" and took "no account of Israel's legitimate security concerns."
The next day, after disappointed Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas signed the treaty acceding to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Obama's State Department declared itself "deeply troubled," accusing Palestinians of an "escalatory step" that "badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace."
Power said the Palestinian move "really poses a profound threat to Israel."
These words are perverse. Israel's 51-day long attack on Gaza that left more than 2,200 people dead didn't "damage the atmosphere" as far as the Obama administration was concerned, but any Palestinian effort to use international bodies in pursuit of justice and accountability is tantamount to an act of war.
I challenge Ms. Power to go and repeat her words to any of the 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza still living in the damp and freezing rubble of their homes, to the surviving parents of more than 500 children killed in the Israeli attack, or to the thousands who will live with lifelong injuries.
Neither the ambassador nor her president has commented on the findings of Amnesty International, which said that Israel "brazenly flouted the laws of war by carrying out a series of attacks on civilian homes, displaying callous indifference to the carnage caused."
Few Palestinians will forget that when Israeli fire was raining down on them, the Obama administration authorized the transfer of grenades and mortar rounds to resupply the Israeli army.
Last summer's war was something even Hamas leaders tried to avoid. After it began, armed Palestinian groups declared that their goal was a ceasefire accompanied by a lifting of the eight-year siege that has devastated Gaza's economy and isolated its 1.8 million people from the rest of humanity.
Since the war, promises that the siege would be lifted have been broken. Billions pledged in reconstruction aid have failed to materialize. As a result, cash-strapped UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees, has suspended repairs on Gaza homes.
Israel's view tends to be unquestioningly echoed by US officials and media: that Palestinians are at fault for the repeated surges of violence.
Yet even senior Israeli leaders and officers have often acknowledged that Palestinian armed groups, especially Hamas, have meticulously stuck to ceasefire agreements, as they are doing currently.
Despite this, the US put no pressure on Israel to end the years-long blockade.
As a result, the lesson Palestinians have repeatedly learned is that whether they fight or stay quiet, Israel will be allowed to do as it pleases. It can besiege and slaughter them in Gaza, seize and colonize their land in the West Bank, deprive them of their most fundamental rights, and Obama will have Israel's back.
Just because Obama, Netanyahu and their partisan followers may be peeved at each other does not change the basic dynamic of full US support for Israel's occupation of millions of Palestinians, the continuation of which guarantees ongoing suffering with regional repercussions.
Sure enough, despite the supposed rift, the US is proceeding with the sale of more of the most advanced F-35 fighter jets to Israel.
That's why Palestinians do not see any substantive Obama-Netanyahu rift on life and death matters for them. But there urgently needs to be one.
It is long past time for the American people and their representatives to challenge Israel on its seemingly permanent subjugation of the Palestinians.
Ali Abunimah is author of The Battle for Justice in Palestine (2014) and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada.
Gaza Rebuild Effort Could Take 100 Years: Oxfam
'Only an end to the blockade of Gaza will ensure that people can rebuild their lives.' —Catherine Essoyan, Oxfam
Despair and destruction continue to envelop the blockaded Gaza strip, where the rebuilding of vital structures could take up to a century, Oxfam International has warned.
The organization's statement comes six months after a ceasefire agreement ended Israel's 50-day assault on Gaza, which left over 2,100 Palestinians dead, decimated thousands of structures, and weakened already damaged infrastructure systems.
Oxfam is one of 30 international aid agencies that operate in Gaza, including the Norwegian Refugee Council and United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), to issue a joint statement Thursday expressing alarm at the slow pace of reconstruction and worsening living conditions for Gaza's residents.
Among the families hit by the destruction this summer was that of Abdel Momen Abu Hujair, who farms in Johr El-Diek. His wife, Um Mohammed, told the Norwegian Refugee Council:
Is this what our lives have come into? Living in a shack after we invested all what we had to build a house? I am very depressed and feel unable to take care of my children. I used to help them with their studies; their performance at school is now deteriorating. I feel no hope for the future or reconstruction. I am afraid we will spend the rest of our lives in this shack, in suffering and despair.
In their joint statement, the organizations lay out some of the ongoing problems:
since July, the situation has deteriorated dramatically. Approximately 100,000 Palestinians remain displaced this winter, living in dire conditions in schools and makeshift shelters not designed for long-term stay. Scheduled power cuts persist for up to 18 hours a day. The continued non-payment of the salaries of public sector employees and the lack of progress in the national unity government further increases tensions. With severe restrictions on movement, most of the 1.8 million residents are trapped in the coastal enclave, with no hope for the future.Bearing the brunt of this suffering are the most vulnerable, including the elderly, persons with disabilities, women and nearly one million children, who have experienced unimaginable suffering in three major conflicts in six short years. Children lack access to quality education, with over 400,000 of them in need of immediate psychosocial support.
"I am afraid we will spend the rest of our lives in this shack, in suffering and despair."The statement adds that "Israel, as the occupying power, is the main duty bearer and must comply with its obligations under international law," and concludes: "We must not fail in Gaza."
In an update earlier this month, UNRWA said a funding shortfall had forced it "to suspend its cash assistance program supporting repairs and providing rental subsidies to Palestine refugee families in Gaza," and Oxfam pointed to the responsibility of the international community as well.
"Only an end to the blockade of Gaza will ensure that people can rebuild their lives," Catherine Essoyan, Oxfam's Regional Director, said in a media statement.
"Families have been living in homes without roofs, walls or windows for the past six months. Many have just six hours of electricity a day and are without running water. Every day that people are unable to build is putting more lives at risk. It is utterly deplorable that the international community is once again failing the people of Gaza when they need it most," Essoyan stated.
But Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah writes that little change to the dire situation will come if aid agencies continue to make appeals to the vague "international community" and avoid putting blame on "the home governments of many of the international civil society organizations have been complicit in Israel’s military attacks and siege on Gaza."
He continues: "Aid agencies should not have waited six long months to speak out. Now that they have done so, they should have called for specific punitive measures against the party they correctly call the 'occupying power' to force it to end its siege."
"Israel, moreover, could not carry on the way it does without the complicity of 'Western' governments: the aid agencies should hold their governments accountable and pressure them to end their complicity," Abunimah writes.
Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued reports finding that some of Israel's actions during the summer assault amounted to war crimes, but the head of a UN war crimes inquiry into the operation announced his resignation this month, stating: "This work in defense of human rights appears to have made me a huge target for malicious attacks."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/27/gaza-rebuild-effort-could-take-100-years-oxfam
The US, Palestine and the pursuit of justice
US court ruling against PLO and Palestinian Authority maybe the best thing that has happened to Palestinians in years.
Daoud Kuttab
Daoud Kuttab, an award-winning Palestinian journalist, is a former Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University.
In an ironic way, the judgement by a US court against the PLO and the Palestinian Authority maybe the best thing that has happened to Palestinians in years. By opening up the US courts to so-called victims of terrorism, the US administration has, consciously or unconsciously, walked into a trap that could ultimately prove in favour of Palestinians.
According to the New York Times, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were found liable on Monday by a jury in Manhattan for their role in knowingly supporting six attacks in Israel between 2002 and 2004 in which Americans were killed and injured.
Once the US courts agree to adjudicate cases of violence against Americans in the Middle East, they will have no choice but to take similar cases by Jewish terrorist groups against American Palestinians and ultimately state terrorism acts by the State of Israel.
There are plenty of cases of Palestinian Americans injured and killed by Israel, and Israeli citizens. Americans own properties in the occupied West Bank that have been damaged or expropriated by Israel and Israelis.
Pursuit of justice
In reaching the various legal instruments connected with the Oslo Accords, Palestinians agreed to an Israeli demand that no Palestinian will be allowed to sue Israel or Israelis for injuries that occurred during the Palestinian Intifada (uprising). No such agreement exists with the US and there is no reason why in pursuit of justice, Palestinian Americans can't seek justice as well.
Furthermore, Palestinians at large have a much more legitimate case in seeking retribution for crimes of war that have been occurring regularly since 1967. The US Congress might be unhappy with the UN recognised state of Palestine joining the ICC, but it can't have justice work only in one direction. If Americans want to apply the value of justice and equality, then they have to accept that if American courts are going to be involved in forcing the PLO to pay for actions carried out by individuals then by the same token it must allow Palestinians to do the same thing with Israelis.
If the PLO/PA fail in their bid to overturn the unusual and highly irregular hundreds of millions of dollars in judgement against the Palestinians, then the Palestinian government must make demands of Washington that are similar to those made by Israel. The US must commit through legal instruments not to allow the legal pursuit against Palestinians.
Having Americans from New York take a case against the PLO in New York is highly prejudicial. It is impossible for Palestinians to get a fair trial in a highly politicised pro-Israeli court system. Taking a small part of the conflict and putting it on trial while ignoring decades of occupation, death and destruction is simply preposterous.
If anything, it's the Palestinians who are the real victims in this conflict and they should be the ones suing Israel and Israelis for their systematic violations of Palestinian life, land and well being.
The larger issue
The fact that a New York court has acted as if it were the International Criminal Court carrying out judgements and demanding compensation for those injured in a Middle East conflict, raise an even larger issue. Will the US courts take other cases reflecting the various world conflicts that are brewing throughout the globe?
In 2003, an Israeli bulldozer driver premeditatedly ran over a 23-year-old American peace activist, Rachel Corrie. The Israeli driver has not been held accountable for his act. Will an American court agree to sue Israel and the Israeli army for which the bulldozer driver worked?
If terrorism is the killing of civilians for a political cause, does the killing of peace activists constitute as terrorism or state terrorism? In October 2014, a Palestinian-American teen born in New Orleans, Orwa Abd al-Wahhab Hammad, was killed by Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories; will his family be allowed to sue and can they choose the most sympathetic district to file the legal case against them in this case?
US officials are bound to say that the legal system in America is totally independent. This might be true on most local cases, but once American judges operating in a district that is biased a certain way, start acting unilaterally against one party (and the injured one to boot) this will not accomplish the coveted "justice".
Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris professor of Journalism at Princeton University.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
Photography’s default history is told as art – it shouldn’t be
Elizabeth Edwards
Professor in Photographic History at De Montfort University

Linnaeus Tripe, Front of the Mundapum at Secundermalie, 1858. © Wilson Centre for Photography
We all think we know what photographs are, and why we have them. Photographs are everywhere. For the past 150 years they have penetrated, entangled and perhaps defined almost every area of human endeavour that we care to name – medicine, industry, tourism, relationships, archaeology, social policy – and that’s just for starters. They have rendered both the visible and invisible in certain ways that have shaped our world.
Some of the earliest efforts to represent that world are to be found in the Tate Britain’s new exhibition Salt and Silver, featuring salt prints taken between 1840 and 1860. Salt printsare the result of the first negative/positive process that made photography the reproducible form with which we are familiar. They are beautiful and jewel-like, their photographic chemicals absorbed deep into the fibres of their papers. It gives them a softness which, combined with fading caused by chemical instability, produces ethereal qualities quite unlike anything else. These are precious, connoisseurial objects, the exhibition strap-line – “rare and revealing” – makes that clear to us.
But these fragile and precious prints (they cost a fortune at auction) caused me to ponder the kinds of photographic histories are presented to the public. Why does the default value of photography always seem to be “art”? This implies that photography’s ultimate purpose is aesthetic discernment and expression. But I don’t think that this alone communicates the importance or power of photography.

Other histories
This was really brought home to me when I belatedly visited the Science Museum’s Drawn by Light, an array of material from the Royal Photographic Society’s collection. Science and photographic practice were important strands in the exhibition. But these interests slipped almost seamlessly into a narrative of photography’s aesthetic aspirations and the great names of the photographic canon: from Julia Margaret Cameron to Martin Parr. Despite some interesting juxtapositions, somehow they crowded out the other important voices.
It’s a shame that this is the photographic history that is told by default. There are hundreds of photographic histories, in science, medicine, architecture, industry. But these are too often shoe-horned into a category called “art” to be made visible or interesting.

Recently I was talking to a colleague working on industrial photographs. These provide a visual narrative of how we have structured an economic base, of practices that have involved the labour of thousands upon thousands of ordinary people (that category beloved of politicians). Fascinating, but nobody wanted to do an exhibition because this was not “art”, he was told.
There are a multitude of reasons for this: the institutional and disciplinary investments in making photographs one kind of thing and not another, the siren pull of the art market which dictates what is desirable and important and what is not. But what of the rest – the photographic workhorses that have shaped ideas since the 1850s? While pleasingly evident in new academic work, they are largely written out of gallery agendas, except as the odd foray into “comparative material”.
The cosy canon
Canons of anything come with a cosy conceptual cogency. They provide frameworks, which save you the hard work of thinking outside the box. Certainly other kinds of photographs intrude into gallery spaces. But they often do so – not because of their intrinsic historical interest, but because they appeal to contemporary aesthetic sensibilities.
It is in this way that some 19th-century photographers have been “recognised” through the application of those sensibilities. This might be as proto-modernists (Roger Fenton’s The Queen’s Target for example), surrealists (the fascination with a photograph Benjamin Stone took in 1898), post-modernists or whatever. Juxtaposed with contemporary art photography this may be fun and quirky and provide an interesting provocation. But I’m not sure it does anything to explain the richness of photography’s contribution to the way we see the world. It doesn’t challenge us, it doesn’t explain why we, as an exhibition-going public, need to know about it.

There are, of course, notable exceptions. Autograph’s brave and ghastly, but historically and emotionally compelling, exhibition Without Sanctuary (2011) on American lynching photographs, was all the more shocking because the photographs were presented as cultural objects, scruffy, damaged postcards that people wrote on and handled.
Or the Photographer’s Gallery Mass Observation: This is Your Photo (2013) which integrated photographs with the wider archive. Even more so their current exhibition Human Rights Human Wrongs. But these important forays tend to be stand-alone, issue-led exhibitions rather than integrated into histories of photographic culture.

This brings me back to the Tate exhibition. The content of the salt prints is wide and varied, signalling how the all-embracing reach of photography was seeded from the beginning, yet that it tends to get lost in the aesthetic and connoisseurial histories of photography that dominate, as we are asked to contemplate the fine object.
But the photographs here are more than precious and beautiful objects. Photographs of Middle Eastern antiquities were perhaps part of a desire for scientific archaeological evidence in an imperial age. Others are part of the post-rebellion political need for consolidation through a search for authentic origins of Indian heritage – one later refigured within nationalist frameworks (Linneaus Tripe’s architectural studies in India).
Yet perversely the very immediacy of photographs also confronts us with the unknowability of other people’s lives in other ages. That is what makes them so compelling and opens them to possibilities beyond structures of the canon – if we allow them to.
http://theconversation.com/photographys-default-history-is-told-as-art-it-shouldnt-be-37734
The Ideology of the American Media is That it Believes That It Doesn’t Have any Ideology
The Self-Hypnotized
by WILLIAM BLUM
So NBC’s evening news anchor, Brian Williams, has been caught telling untruths about various events in recent years. What could be worse for a reporter? How about not knowing what’s going on in the world? In your own country? At your own employer? As a case in point I give you Williams’ rival, Scott Pelley, evening news anchor at CBS.
In August 2002, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told American newscaster Dan Rather on CBS: “We do not possess any nuclear or biological or chemical weapons.”
In December, Aziz stated to Ted Koppel on ABC: “The fact is that we don’t have weapons of mass destruction. We don’t have chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry.”
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein himself told CBS’s Rather in February 2003: “These missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations [as to range] in Iraq. They are no longer there.”
Moreover, Gen. Hussein Kamel, former head of Iraq’s secret weapons program, and a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, told the UN in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed its banned missiles and chemical and biological weapons soon after the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
There are yet other examples of Iraqi officials telling the world, before the 2003 American invasion, that the WMD were non-existent.
Enter Scott Pelley. In January 2008, as a CBS reporter, Pelley interviewed FBI agent George Piro, who had interviewed Saddam Hussein before he was executed:
PELLEY: And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?PIRO: He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s, and those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.PELLEY: He had ordered them destroyed?PIRO: Yes.PELLEY: So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk? Why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?
For a journalist there might actually be something as bad as not knowing what’s going on in his area of news coverage, even on his own station. After Brian Williams’ fall from grace, his former boss at NBC, Bob Wright, defended Williams by pointing to his favorable coverage of the military, saying: “He has been the strongest supporter of the military of any of the news players. He never comes back with negative stories, he wouldn’t question if we’re spending too much.”
I think it’s safe to say that members of the American mainstream media are not embarrassed by such a “compliment”.
In his acceptance speech for the 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature, Harold Pinter made the following observation:
Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognized as crimes at all.It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power . His latest book is: America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy. He can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/the-ideology-of-the-american-media-is-that-it-believes-that-it-doesnt-have-any-ideology/
THE FULL BODY PROJECT BY LEONARD NIMOY
You know it’s funny, the concept of beauty and all. Who decides that kind of stuff anyways, and why do we seem to always abide by their definitions? It’s the television and magazines that do it to us. But we’re the ones that reinforce it.
I think we just need to have our own personal standards for shit. Our own set of values and what not. We don’t have to subscribe to the trends of the day, rather, we can create our own. I think that’s what Leonard’s getting at in this project. His photos challenge our general notion of feminine beauty, offering a fresh and pleasantly honest depiction of what beauty means to him.
“I asked them to be proud,” said Leonard. “A condition they took to easily. Having completed the compositions that were initially planned, I then asked them to play some music that they had brought with them, and they quickly responded to the rhythms, dancing in a free-form circular movement within the space. It was clear that they were comfortable with the situation, with each other, and were enjoying themselves.”
At the end of the day we just gotta be happy with who we are, and if we’re not, take on the responsibility to change. We got one life and one body. Much love to the big girls, the small girls and everyone in between.












Posted By Max Gibson
Posted By Max Gibson
