His comments were backed up by South Africa, Zimbabwe's giant neighbour, which some see as the key to solving Zimbabwe's problems.

Presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo said he was "irritated" by calls from UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to do more to end the "horrors" in Zimbabwe.

"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," he said.

"We will do things because we believe they are correct and right." [...]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4618341.stm

So.

In the USA, its OK for the government to demolish homes to make way for commercial development, but in Zimbabwe it is NOT OK to do this.

The homes being demolished in Zimbabwe are illegally built; there is even more 'right' for the state to demolish them than there is in the eminent domain case in thee USA, where one resident had been living since the early 1900's; the houses are all constructed legally, and the sole reason why they are to be moved is to make way for a commercial developer to make a profit.

This is what we call double standards and it is this sort of thing that totally discredits the western governments in the eyes of everyone who can see. Thankfully every nation on the African continent is openly refusing to budge on this, which is the correct position to take.

When you start to do things the right way, then and only then will you have the moral authority to advise anyone else what to do and how to do it.

By Charles Lane
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments can force property owners to sell and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the project's success is not guaranteed.

The landmark 5-4 ruling provided the strong affirmation state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed.

The ruling is expected to have no effect in Washington, which forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. At least seven other states forbid using eminent domain unless it is to eliminate blight.

Opponents ranging from property-rights activists to advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority yesterday, cited past cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include such traditional projects as bridges or highways as well as slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Stevens' opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, "[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The ruling resolved one of the remaining high-profile issues this term. The court is expected to rule Monday on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property.

The redevelopment program at issue in the case, Kelo v. New London, Conn., is the city's plan to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a new $300 million research center being built by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The complex was expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property-tax revenue.

New London, a former whaling town with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people.

But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. [...]

?

It is now nine months since I obtained the first of the "Downing Street memos," thrust into my hand by someone who asked me to meet him in a quiet watering hole in London for what I imagined would just be a friendly drink.

At the time, I was defense correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and a staunch supporter of the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The source was a friend. He'd given me a few stories before but nothing nearly as interesting as this.

The six leaked documents I took away with me that night were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush.

They focused on the period leading up to the Crawford, Texas, summit between Blair and Bush in early April 2002, and were most striking for the way in which British officials warned the prime minister, with remarkable prescience, what a mess post-war Iraq would become. Even by the cynical standards of realpolitik, the decision to overrule this expert advice seemed to be criminal. [...]

But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B.

Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

Michael Smith - Common Dreams

"In court Wednesday, the accused killer wore a gray sweater, concealing all but the bulge of a shock belt... Five bailiffs stood by, one in plain clothes, another with his hand on the button to send electric pulses through Overton should he make a drastic move." From news report of first day of Thomas Overton’s trial, Florida, 20 January 1999(1)

"Electricity speaks every language known to man. No translation necessary. Everybody is afraid of electricity, and rightfully so."(9)

Plot Summary for
Fortress (1993)

A futuristic prison movie. Protagonist and wife are nabbed at a future US emigration point with an illegal baby during population control. The resulting prison experience is the subject of the movie. The prison is a futuristic one run by a private corporation bent on mind control in various ways.

Summary written by Mark Allyn {allyn@netcom.com}

In a futuristic USA, it's forbidden to give birth to more than one child for each woman. As usual, you can escape to Mexico to avoid the authorities in USA, which is exactly what John and Karen Brennick were trying to do when Karen is pregnant with her second child (their first child was born dead). When they think they have made it they are discovered and put to prison (for 31 years), a modern prison called the "Fortress" where the prisoners are controlled by lasers, neutron-cannons, cameras, mind-scanners and electronic pain-causing devices in their stomachs. With those odds, John still plans to escape with his wife. [...]

http://imdb.com/title/tt0106950/

Pat Blackburn called on Mr Blair to be a witness in her case of income tax evasion after she withheld payments in protest at the war.

Mrs Blackburn has said that she has given the outstanding £15,000 she owes to "an independent stakeholder" but is refusing to hand over the money to the Inland Revenue until Mr Blair resigns or shows her evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. [...]

"It's not that I can't pay, it's that I'm not going to pay." [...]

Alun: you rightly point out that the ownership of Harold Moores changed a couple of years back. i wonder if you were aware that the new owner is Robert Maxwell's son, or at least a company or network of companies within which he is the overarching figure?

Irdial Discs: i remember reading The Anarchist's Cookbook on an Amiga 500 in the early 90s! i now realise i should have been reading a solid biography of Ghandi instead.

now listening to Slowdive and everything tastes of cherry.