Why, what else…Evo AND Lula!
Found at ABI today. Reposted for no reason other than that it’s a nice shot of them…and I like it.
Why, what else…Evo AND Lula!
Found at ABI today. Reposted for no reason other than that it’s a nice shot of them…and I like it.
Guys, I love you all to bits, but damn, some of you are SO dense:
Please, PLEASE don’t be this dim when it comes to condoms, ‘kay?(Meanwhile, here’s the lowdown on all the birth control methods “explained” above. Read and learn.)
Translation mine.And now there are way more than that. And Chavecito currently stands at how many followers?Spokespersons for the Twitter social networking site, Laura Gómez and Jenna Dawn, “are delighted” that presidents, including Hugo Chávez with his @chavezcandanga, are opening accounts. “Presidents in general, as in the case of Venezuela, generate a lot of traffic; we’re happy that President Hugo Chávez uses the platform.”Dawn and Gómez were the two representatives of Twitter who participated in the first congress of the network in Latin America called “Hey, what are you tweeting? #140Mexico”, organized by El Universal de México. The conference played host to representatives of the Daily Newspapers Group of America.The spokeswomen confirmed that Chávez, along with his counterparts Sebastián Piñera of Chile, Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, and Felipe Calderón, of Mexico, contacted them to verify their accounts.In Venezuela, there were 3,839 Twitter accounts in January 2009. By December 31 of the same year, there were 225,807.
(I love his current tweet–it’s the local equivalent to “It’s raining, it’s pouring, the old man is snoring!” Only it’s an old woman and she’s in a cave. I bet it’s sung to the same tune, too.)Compare that to Piñera:
And El Narco:
Heh.I couldn’t find one for Calderón yet. I guess he’s not tweeting after all? Better get it in gear, Felipe, there are an awful lot of parodists out there impersonating you, and some are downright rude.




I predict that Professor Polakow-Suransky will be getting a lot of hate mail. Truth-tellers often do. Just look what happened to Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed the truth two decades ago. He got taken back to jail today, in an instance of very convenient timing. No doubt he’ll be duly silenced as part of the conditions of his latest incarceration. But it won’t do any good; the cat is already out of the bag (even the Federation of American Scientists is aware of the Israeli nuke program), and the Guardian report only confirms what’s already long been known:Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of “ambiguity” in neither confirming nor denying their existence.The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
Emphasis added.Looks like those two seemingly strange bedfellows are not so unlikely a pair after all. They were scratching each other’s backs rather nicely. Apartheid South Africa providing yellowcake uranium so Apartheid Israel could supply warheads. It stands to reason that they would have such a dandy reciprocal relationship: Israel was (and still is) cracking down on its internal Arab population, trying to starve it out; South Africa did the same to its blacks. Israel wields the nuclear menace over its Arab neighbors; South Africa was hoping to do the same with its black neighbors. The two are far more similar than they are different when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy.And of course, there’s always this:South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials “formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal”.Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.The memo, marked “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: “In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: “Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available.” The document then records: “Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice.” The “three sizes” are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel’s prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
Ceci n’est pas un mur d’apartheid. Ceci n’est pas un grand prison.And if you believe that’s not an apartheid wall, enclosing the world’s largest existing prison camp, I’ve got some lovely oceanfront property in Saskatchewan that I’ll sell you for a song.PS to all the hasbara trolls writing me from the safety of London, England and other places totally out of touch with reality:
Take note that anything you try to spam here, including false “facts” and charmingly futile death wishes for me, will be deleted and reported to your ISP, so that you will learn not to abuse your online privileges in future. Good day, and get fucked.

Translation: Yes, we’re going to use provocs. But we’re gonna be coy and ask the media to hold up the mask for us. And here’s why that would be:Toronto – The RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit (ISU) of the G20 is refusing to rule out the use of Agent Provocateurs to get protesters to commit illegal acts, the Toronto Media Co-op has learned.During a G20 forum on April 30th held by Toronto City Councilors, Constable George Tucker, a member of the G20 planning team responsible for Public Affairs, Communications & Corporate Relations, was asked if Agent Provocateurs would be used.He responded: “I’m not at liberty to discuss security issues in an open format”.
Illegal in Canada, but it’s been used here before. I’ve blogged previously on this; seems that Québec police have quite blatantly broken this law. It’s hard to plant a bunch of burly cops among some scrawny little anarchists, non?And oh yeah, it’s been done at OTHER G-20 summits, too. Most recently in London. It’s something of a pattern at any summits starting with the letter G!Gary Davidson, a retired RCMP officer who was active in VIP security, says they are illegal, although he does not think the RCMP uses them: “I cannot speak for other police forces [such as Toronto Police Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, etc.] but I can say that although the RCMP probably would have plain clothed police mixed in with the crowd, the RCMP has never used provocateurs. Basically, they hope all the protesters just go away. To the best of my knowledge, the use of Agent Provocateurs is illegal in Canada and that the RCMP would not and has not engaged in such practice,” he explained in an e-mail.
“Lawful”, but not legal?Coyness: Also a fascist strategy. Toronto G-20 protesters, consider this your heads-up. Watch out for guys who look like they have regular access to a gym and steroids, ‘kay?During a phone interview with the Media Co-op, Constable Meghan Gray with the TPS G20 Planning Team responsible for Public Affairs, Communications & Community Relations, was also asked directly whether Agent Provocateurs would be used.Toronto Media Co-op: Can you confirm or deny that you will be using agent provocateurs? Do you think they are illegal?Meaghan Gray: “Like [my co-worker], George Tucker, those are operational issues, I can’t speak to that.”TMC: “A source from the RCMP has told me their use is illegal. Are you saying you can’t rule out an illegal activity will be used?”Gray: “Well…I’d have to ask someone else about that….I’ll get somebody to get back to you.”Gray responded via e-mail 2 hours later.“I have spoken with my colleagues on the Public Affairs Team and as I stated, with respect to your questions regarding Agents Provocateurs, the Integrated Security Unit for the G8-G20 Summits will not discuss operational details,” she wrote.Though Gray stated that “all police efforts will be lawful”, this is not the first time that an ISU for a summit has been asked about Agent Provocateurs. Nor is it the first time they have refused to respond.