Desiring, dionysiac, obsessive, the hyperconsumption society is kept in delirium of precarious sustainability by a desperate market economy, as its civilizational ex libris imperative: it is necessary to produce in excess, it is necessary to consume in excess, making the excess itself, by alienation of responsibility, the causal referent invested of the valorative power of engine that makes the capitalist system work: the excess is the reproducer of exclusions, of the inequalities that guarantee the active maintenance of the capitalist system’s capability to generate and reproduce the constitutive “surplus-values” vital to its survival.

The excess, murdering the middle class danger, guarantees the geometric growth of unemployment, poverty, hunger, exclusion, making available the slaves that feed the totemic capitalist machine. It is necessary that the poor become miserable for the rich to become opulent, the accumulation of wealth depends upon it. The system needs to accumulate, in order to relaunch itself.

Hyperconsumption is the autopoietic pathos of sustainability of the capitalist system’s (re)production mode, deliberately invested of the role of system’s engine. Unemployment, increasing suicides and hunger are consequences of a capitalist kairos, as collateral damage, thus it is considered by the dominant elites, with the justification that sacrifices must be made for the “greater good”: the survival of the “capitalist mode of production”, supported by the neoliberal dynamics, characterized by a Darwinian competition of egotistic somatization, responsible for the current systemic crisis.

The current systemic crisis is a crisis of the system and a crisis of existence in the system, and because we are the system, if the system collapses, so will we, we all, including the Laplacian elites, because we are all in the same raft, rich or poor.

Capitalism, with its large consuming belly managed by a small brain, has attained its Imperium phase. If the miserables resist, then, the Imperium offers a misery-imposed suicide as solution.

Stuckler, Basu, Suhrcke, Coutts and Mckee, in a study published in “The Lancet, Vol. 378, Issue 9786, pages 124 to 125, 9 July 2011”, confirmed how unemployment growth seems to be associated with increase in suicides among people younger than 65 years.

The authors’ study addresses, in particular, the 2008 recession. The study shows that, as the unemployment rose, the decreasing trend in suicide rates reversed in both new EU Member States and old EU Member States, with a larger percentual increase in the old States: less than 1% increase, in 2008, for the new members, while the increase for the old members was close to 7%. In 2009, the suicides “increased further”, in both old and new EU members, accompanying the increase in unemployment.

The study also concludes that road traffic fatalities fell considerably, in particular in the new EU members, which usually registered high road traffic fatalities. Suicides and road traffic fatalities registered as the two main drivers of short-term mortality.

Suicides, in Europe, rose mainly in countries facing the current Government debt crisis. Greece had a rise of about 17% in suicides, while Ireland had about a 13% rise. In Portugal, according to the Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), in 2010, there took place 1101 deaths by suicide which surpassed by 86 the deaths registered in road traffic accidents during the same period.

In an interview to the Diário Económico (Friday, May 4, 2012, page 48), Fernando Santos, the current coach of Greece by the Hellenic Football Federation, stated that a general apathy state is lived today in Greece: “Greece was one of the countries with the greatest growth, and all of a sudden”,…, “people thought: where is the money?”,…, Fernando Santos recalls this as a phase of indignation, which gave way to hope, with a possible solution of the problem by the “Troika”, but nothing of the sort came, instead, the worst of the scenarios took place,…, to a conflict phase, a “general apathy” and resentment followed, especially towards Germany and Angela Merkel.

Unemployment is not the only rising trend, the food crisis accompanies the current economic crisis.

Looking at FAO’s SOCO 2009 report, in the first half of 2008, food prices reached the highest levels, in over 30 years.

This trend, still according to FAO’s report, began in the second half of 2006, with the rising of the world prices of most food commodities, and, during the first half of 2008, the international US dollar prices of cereals also attained the highest levels in over 30 years.

In 2009, FAO predicted that this trend would continue, such that the world was placed before a “global food insecurity crisis”.

FAO’s predictions survived the test of falsifiability: the monthly real food price index, per data from FAO, has shown an increasing exponential growth trend, which seems to begin in 2001.

Source: FAO data trend estimated using Excel

The exponential growth in trend of food prices is accompanied by an also growth in volatility, which only adds to the crisis. From month to month. the variations in the food prices have become increasingly larger, in particular, in the last few years.

Source: Variation calculated for FAO's monthly real food price index data, in the period of 1990 to 2012

Food price volatility affects, by impact, the excluded majority: the ones that most suffer with this crisis, since not only are the food prices exponentially increasing in trend, they are doing so with greater uncertainty: from one month to the next, people may suffer a sudden hike in food prices.

The food crisis makes even more precarious the excluded majority’s survival. The food crisis is a crisis of existence is a crisis of survival is a crisis of life is a crisis of dignity.

It is interesting to look, in this instance, at the capitalist system’s mechanisms of classification. FAO addresses the food crisis as “a food insecurity crisis”…, “food insecurity”?! This is a pious capitalist term for “very hungry” and for “starving”, an exercise of exclusion by euphemism, very aesthetic, indeed.

One may see high levels of structural unemployment, suicides and hunger in countries with governments, in cognitive simulacrum, imposing increasing austerity measures, stimulating further inequalities and more unemployment, suicides and hunger, shortening the time between crises and shortening the lifetime of its populations, the macabre solution for the cost of aging populations.

Perhaps it is worth remembering some inspiring fragments of Roger Romero’s “Land of the Dead” plot: Fiddler’s Green, the place where the rich and powerful live in luxury, while the rest of the population struggles in desperation of survival; Fiddler’s Green, the land of the rich, protected by an electric fence and rivers. The zombies, then, come to Fiddler’s Green for reductive eating, breaking down Orwell’s “Animal Farm” (“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”)…, after Romero’s zombies, in the land of the dead, all are equal…

Maria Odete Madeira is a private sector researcher of science philosophy and systems science. She is particularly interested in ontology, cognition and neurocognition. You may find Maria Odete at her website, Twitter, Google+ and FaceBook.

However, the Paul campaign rejected the possibility of waging a battle at the national convention to unbind the Nevada delegates from having to vote for Romney. Carl Bunce, the Nevada chairman of Paul’s campaign, adopted a conciliatory tone on Sunday, and said that Ron Paul’s goal was to defeat President Obama in November, not to be a divisive factor within the GOP. “I do not want this party to fall apart. We are building a stronger party, we need to stay united. Just because you have the power doesn’t mean you always have to wield it. Just because you have the sword doesn’t mean you have to strike,” said Bunce. Regardless of Bunce’s statement, some Paul supporters are hoping that there might be a brokered convention where the nomination fight goes beyond the first ballot, opening the way for Paul to win.

Paul is very much behind Romney in the delegates count, with a bit less than 100 against 856 for Romney- according to a count by AP.  Romney is still 288 delegates short of the 1,144 that he needs to get the nomination. With Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich out of the race, Ron Paul is the last man standing in the way of  Mitt Romney’s nomination. Romney could get around 100 delegates in Tuesday’s primaries in North Carolina, West Virginia and Indiana. But even if Romney remains the “inevitable” GOP nominee in the eyes of most, Ron Paul has made some gains in recent days. Adding to his sweep in Nevada, Paul took 11 delegates away from Romney in Maine when the Texas congressman supporters won control of the Maine GOP convention on Sunday and elected Paul delegates to the Republican party national convention.

Ron Paul’s decision to stay in the race until the national convention will give him the opportunity to address important issues ignored by most US politicians and mainstream media. For example, Paul is a vehement opponent of CISPA ( Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act), which he views as another instrument to attack free speech protected by the First amendment of the US constitution. Last Friday, in San Diego, Ron Paul got a standing ovation after attacking the ongoing effort by the Federal government to censor the Internet. “Without the first amendment, it is very difficult for us to get our message out, and I want to make sure the first amendment is protected on the Internet as well. The first amendment wasn’t written so that you can talk about the weather, it was written so that you can talk about controversial things and even challenge our own government,” said Paul.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Gage Skidmore.

Latest Update 5/6/ 2012 at 11.00 AM PST: According to exit polls Hollande has defeated Sarkozy with 51.9 percent of the votes against 48.1 percent for the incumbent. Hollande is the first Socialist to be elected president in almost two decades since Mitterand. Celebrations are underway in France, notably at the Place de la Bastille in Paris.

On Sunday May 6, France will elect its next president. Beside the consequences for French people, this presidential election has geopolitical and economic ramifications for the policies, the cohesion, and even the survival of the European Union. President Sarkozy’s campaign slogan is “A strong France”, while his opponent socialist Francois Hollande is running on “The time for change is now”. If Hollande is elected, can he balance the rise of power of Germany and make sure the voices and interests of the people of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy are heard?

Sarkozy has been trailing consistently behind Hollande in the polls, and lost the first round of the elections, on April 22 nd, to the socialist candidate. Many French voters have had a falling out with the hyper-active Sarkozy, who can be called arguably the first American style French president. Sarkozy’s constant media exposure has become an invasion of privacy for many French people who like their politicians a bit more subdued than Americans. Mr Hollande is fully aware of this collective psychological element when he says that, if elected, he will be a “normal” president.

Sarkozy: More Petain than De Gaulle

The very first words of  Sarkozy’s  electoral pamphlet sent to French voters living overseas are: ” In a word in crisis, while so many of our European neighbours are going through great difficulties putting in jeopardy their unity and social model, I heard your anxiety, your sufferings and your expectations.” Playing on voters fear and anxiety is, of course, the oldest political trick in the book, and it doesn’t only apply to France. But Sarkozy is using it to portray himself as both, a benevolent father and a therapist: the only man who can “protect” France and French people in this “time of crisis”.

Ever since the French revolution, the motto of France has been “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. However, this changed for the few years of the shameful pro-German government of Petain during World War II to become “Work, Family, Motherland”. In Sarkozy’s electoral pamphlet, the three words- work, family and motherland- are used several times as key elements and sometime in bold letters such as “making the choice of work” and Sarkozy’s pledge to “protect the family”.

But regardless of projecting a sense of strength, and his eagerness of keeping himself, if not France, in the international limelight, Sarkozy has arguably made France considerably weaker by being the docile vassal of both Washington and Berlin. If his mentor former president Chirac had the courage to vehemently oppose the war in Iraq during the Bush era, Sarkozy is a weak opportunist going where the wind blows. Not only he has failed to oppose the sort of economic Fourth Reich imposed by Germany on the rest of the European Union, but he has also betrayed the traditional Gaullist foreign policy of  maintaining France’s independence and own voice-even if it was in opposition of Washington. For decades, France brought this kind of balance  in foreign policies, especially in the Middle-East, by being the only Western European country voicing criticisms  of Israel’s policies and actively defending Palestinian rights. Despite his claim to the contrary, Sarkozy has made France weaker not stronger on the world stage, but, if elected, can Hollande reverse this situation and oppose, if needed, either president Obama or Chancellor Merkel?

Hollande: Can he rise to the occasion and make a stand for social justice?

Curiously, Hollande’s dullness and lack of charisma are part of his appeal for a lot of French voters. If Sarkozy is a brash political “rock star”, Hollande is a technocrat claiming to have a passion for social justice. Even if  one of his electoral promises is to pay off France’s national debt by 2017, Hollande doesn’t think the policies of austerity favored by Merkel are good. To resolve France’s debt crisis, Hollande plans to cancel tax cuts for the wealthy and tax exemptions put in place by Sarkozy. Income tax would be at 75 percent for incomes topping one million euros. Hollande would also bring back the retirement age to 60- with full benefits- for people who have worked 42 years. 60,000 job cuts, made by Sarkozy, in public education would be recreated. But what are perhaps the most progressive of Hollande’s electoral promises are two of his pledges. The first one is to legalize gay marriage and adoption by gay couples. The second one is to grant the right to vote, in local elections, to residents without EU passports providing that they have been legal residents for at least five years.

Will xenophobia win the French election?

Unfortunately, the decisive voting block is likely to be the one of the far right Front National party of Marine Le Pen. She came third during the first round with a strong performance of around 20 percent of the vote. Even so Marine Le Pen has avoided the blunt xenophobic statements of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the message is still the same. She wants immigration to be reduced by 95 percent as well as  “national preferences” for French citizens for access to jobs and social services. On the Front National platform is also a withdrawal  from the euro zone and the European Union as well as reinstating the death penalty. Needless to say, in the past few weeks, Sarkozy has been tailoring his discourse to the Front National’s electorate by pledging to reduce immigration by 50 percent.

Just how peaceful the protest was, of course, was controversial at the time. In the days following the shootings, some people–including President Nixon–sided with the Guardsmen’s actions. “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy,” he said, referring to students running around with bricks and (possibly) torching the R.O.T.C. building.

Yet scrutiny by the media, the F.B.I. and Nixon’s Scranton Commission on Campus Unrest –along with multiple civil lawsuits–made it apparent that the students’ actions did not warrant 61 shots ringing into a crowded and chaotic campus quad. “Kent State was a national tragedy, ” the Scranton Commission concluded. “We must learn from the particular horror of Kent State and ensure it is never repeated.”

The military and police have, in fact, learned important lessons on crowd control and riot prevention from the massacre. No doubt countless lives have been saved as a result of more deliberate planning and careful handling of potentially volatile situations.

Still the legacy of that dark day, captured in Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s classic anthem “Ohio,” is a loss of innocence and a deeply embedded cynicism that pervades our national psyche and percolates particularly during tumultuous times. Something for protesters of all political persuasions to keep in mind.

Never forget.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

For some time I have been thinking about apps and what they do for us and to us. Apps may be great, but they are also a huge problem. To back me up, comes a story called “Selling You on Facebook” in The Wall Street Journal, yes, the Wall Street Journal, the one newspaper that I am sure is an object of loathing to anyone who regularly peruses this site for a left wing and progressive take on the world.

Non-political, the article’s premise is simple, one that I have been writing about recently. It says, “Many popular Facebook apps are obtaining sensitive information about users — and users’ friends – so don’t be surprised if details about your religious, political and even sexual preferences start popping up in unexpected places.” What the authors write is not a plot against freedom or social networks. They speak the truth. More importantly, the premise of the article extends to other apps as well and that is where the trouble begins.

We have a new player in the world of previously hidden information. The app. Apps are about giving – information of every kind, directions, instructions, name your poison. With all that and more, apps are fast becoming the single most important means of data collecting that people who do not believe in privacy, nor allow themselves to think that privacy is important, engage in at almost light speed. These amiable creatures called apps are taking over our lives.

In the recent not too distant past, advertisers used human focus groups to judge and help define new products and services. There were no algorithms to get in the way of the human equation. Mostly, these real people did a pretty good job. Hollywood movies and TV shows still use focus groups often to the dismay of the producers who believe their instincts work better in the art of storytelling.

If we do not know we should, that cookies on the Web provide anyone who gains access to them information about every move one makes as he or she surfs the Internet, often innocently and sometimes for other reasons.  As I write, apps are taking over for cookies by further devouring our online lives. Apps in a very short time have replaced cookies as the most important sales tool merchants of every type depend on.

At the rate we are going, apps will take over for both cookies and focus groups, dominating every choice we make. Our lives with all the different cyber platforms – meaning every mobile device including smart phones and tablets and every social network imaginable — control who we are and what we do and how we do everything beneath each clever, smooth, come-on interface. This will surely continue into the future. Face it, our online lives, however we perceive them, because of apps are now more than ever open for prying eyes to use the information they collect to sell us what we might not want and control us in ways that we never anticipated.

Yes, I know, apps have become very important in our lives and in how we live. They help when you are lost. They guide you to a good restaurant. They locate the nearest hospital. They find the closest gas station. They keep track of where your neighbors are, if you are so inclined to know where they are at all times. They can improve one’s life. They really do everything and more for a person in a complicated world that is more difficult to navigate every day. But addiction rules. As all addicts know, kicking a habit is nearly impossible.

I am willing to bet someone is working on an app as I write to cover the most unusual aspects of our lives. There are apps for everything and just about everything has an app. Pacman, once thought dead, is flourishing. This means that soon there will be an app for even more than we have apps for now. It does not mean apps are benign. If we succumb to these new apps, what little privacy we have will be lost forever. Privacy used to be, well, private. I care about privacy but many other people seem to revel in public exposure.

There are now probably more than a million apps available for the choosing. The making of an app has become a major tech industry. And if an app catches on, riches follow. One common theme impossible to ignore when exploring the effect of social media on how people live is the belief that social networks are about sharing. Sometimes people on social networks give away too much. That is because much of what is on all social networks is sophomoric. It is dorm room cool, which means that it is silly and self–gratifying. It depends on how needy one is.

You may wonder if anyone cares what you post, and because you may think no one does care, what you place for all to see has little interest beyond the words or photos on your page. This is all the better for the collectors of your data who mostly believe what they receive is too little. The maw they must fill is infinite. The craving for more data increases by the millisecond. It is voracious. Ignoring the need for privacy is now beyond help. It is a dead concept.

Using an app relieves a person from making direct eye-to-eye contact with another person. Technology today replaces the social experience of dealing with your fellow man and woman as if they were live and not microdots on a small screen. Using apps for everything obviates the need for real people in one’s life. Sorry, but Angry Birds are not real.

However, as long as I have free will, I am safe from this new invasion of my prime space. My hermit-like desire may be my last refuge, my final bastion of freedom. I have no apps.

Editor’s Note: Ron Steinman is executive editor and a columnist for online magazines, The Digital Journalist and The Digital Filmmaker. An award-winning producer for NBC News and NBC’s Today Show, he served as bureau chief in Saigon during the Vietnam War, and later as bureau chief in Hong Kong and London. At ABC News Productions, he produced documentaries for A&E, TLC, The History Channel, and Discovery. He is currently an independent documentary producer, director and writer through his company, Douglas/Steinman Productions. He is the author of seven books, including “Inside Television’s First War: A Saigon Journal,” that details how NBC News covered the war in Vietnam.

The latest act of our most recent high profile American tragedy played out in real time courtroom theatrics on Friday. George Zimmerman, the reviled Trayvon Martin shooter, now charged with second-degree murder, was granted $150, 000 bond. But the real drama, igniting audible gasps in the packed courtroom, came when Zimmerman took the stand and briefly testified.

“I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son,” Zimmerman, 28, said in a soft voice as he took the stand with shackles at his feet and waist. “I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not.” His lawyer, Mark O’Mara, later explained in a presser that his client was directly answering the Martin family’s public questions regarding Trayvon’s age and whether he had been carrying a gun.

Trayvon’s parents sat silently through the comments; his father Tracy Martin visibly shaken and weeping. They scurried out of the crowded courtroom after Judge Lester set bail. Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, labeled Zimmerman’s apology “self-serving” and described the family’s reaction to bond as “devastated.” It’s unclear if they were expecting a higher bail ( the prosecution had asked for a minimum of $ 1 million) or for a denial of bond altogether. In either event, it seems the prosecutor’s office hadn’t prepared them for the inevitable, Bail is a part of our system; granted frequently even in first degree murder cases.

Buckle up, folks. We’re in for another high-profile controversial case, and the full tilt media circus that surrounds it. In the bond hearing, alone, we gained insights into Zimmerman, O’Mara’s courtroom prowess and the strengths and weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Zimmerman’s past criminal record came under some scrutiny, including a violent altercation with police, described by O’Mara as his client “coming to defense of a friend.”

At the press conference, O’Mara, who is the anti-Jose Baez, exuding, in equal measure, both the savvy and humility of a truly seasoned defense attorney, made one possible slip-up. While discussing the incident with cops, he said Zimmerman acted because “in his head” they were doing something to his friend. If this comes before a jury, it may be evidence of Zimmerman’s propensity toward a paranoid mindset.

On the other hand, Zimmerman’s appearance and demeanor–both far more fragile than earlier photos–belie his media portrait as a quick-trigger racist vigilante. He may well be his own best witness.

Photographs just released showing bloody gashes on his head and what appears, at this point, anyway, to be a rather flimsy prosecution case may also serve to set him free.

Of course, we don’t know what will come; how all the evidence will play out in court (or exactly what that evidence is). “The special prosecutors don’t want to show their full hand,” Crump told reporters, indicating there is enough to warrant the second degree murder charge.

Let’s hope that’s true. Otherwise, if this prosecutor has over-charged what seems like a manslaughter case, the country, and most importantly the Martin family, may face another round of reckless Florida injustice deja vu. Such an outcome will surely bring them another brutal brush with devastation.

For now, at least the legal process, however imperfect it may prove to be, has finally started in earnest. That’s all the Martins had asked for. Now that they’ve gotten it, hopefully they’ll find some measure of justice in that.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

IF I WAS GOD

After a lifetime of studying and practicing religion, I decided I just couldn’t take it anymore. If anyone just stopped and applied any kind of logic to how religion operates, they would have to come to the conclusion that no god would be as petty, cruel and/or illogical as the ones religions across the world depict.

Still, just because I have come to despise religion and the limits it places on mankind, does not mean I have dismissed god from my life. On the contrary…, I still very much believe in a just and sensible god. But to imagine what this god is like, I would have to do the most unspeakable thing imaginable. I would actually have to pretend I was god. I would put myself in his shoes and evaluate everything he has to put with. It didn’t take long to realize how religion has taken everything good about god, and made it bad.

So let me present to you my version of:

“IF I WAS GOD…,”

• I would want you to look to me for what you can do…, not for what you can’t.
• I would want you to think for yourself and stop bothering me about every little damn thing.
• I’d tell you enough with the Hail Marys already! Enough is enough!
• I wouldn’t want poor people pressured into giving what little money they have to build crystal cathedrals.
• I would not want you killing in my name.
• I wouldn’t give a damn about the words you spoke. I’d only care about the hate behind those words.
• I wouldn’t want you worrying about what your neighbor is doing as long as he/she isn’t hurting anyone.
• I don’t want you telling people I’m going to send them to hell.
• I’d want you to stop depending on the manual. (Bible) When it comes time to deciding what is right or wrong…, use your brain. You know damn well what is right & wrong.
• I’d tell you to stop hiding behind the Bible. Stop using it to justify what you want to be right or wrong.
• Actually…, I’d tell you to throw the Bible away. It’s been twisted so much through the years that even I don’t recognize it anymore.
• I’d tell you the same thing Jesus said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That explains everything and anything.
• I wouldn’t want you getting pregnant and having a baby if you are not prepared or willing to take responsibility for him/her.
• I would say the best way to stop abortion is not get pregnant in the first place. Use birth control.
• I would ask you to have more faith in yourself.
• I would be glad that you believed in me, but we’d have to have a talk about this religion crap. It’s totally missing the point.
• I’d ask you WTF is a Pope?
• I wouldn’t want your belief in me, to limit you.
• I wouldn’t want guilt to be your guide.
• I’d want you to stop worrying about pleasing me all the time.
• I’d want you to be what you are. Be good…, but be what you are.
• I would tell you I don’t give a damn about the robes and special clothing.
• I wouldn’t care what foods you did or didn’t eat…, especially on Fridays.
• I wouldn’t care about these locations you feel a need to travel to because you think you will get closer to me.
• I wouldn’t care if you danced
• I wouldn’t care if you played cards
• I wouldn’t care if you went to the movies
• I wouldn’t care if you drank. Excess is what is harmful. Not the substance
• I’d laugh at those burka things. Like WTF are you even thinking?
• I wouldn’t want you punishing people for breaking these frivolous rules you keep making up
• I’d demand that you stop using me as an excuse for your wars, your bigotry and your obsessions.
• I’d be pissed that you use me to control people.
• I’d tell you to quit your silly rituals and superstitions. I mean what a joke!
• I’d want you to do things because they’re right. Not because you fear being sent to hell.
• I wouldn’t care less if you masturbated. In fact I’d recommend it.
• I would tell you arranged and forced marriages are ludicrous.
• I would say that you are in no position to judge others. How dare you?
• I would not care if you wanted to mangle your penis. But don’t do it for me.
• I’d tell you the only person you need to confess your sins to is yourself.
• I’d tell you stop repeating and chanting the same damn prayers over and over.
• I’d tell you stop sending your money to those idiots on TV who say I talk to them. If I talked to anyone, it wouldn’t be the. And I wouldn’t tell them to send have you send money.
• I’d tell a lot of you to just mellow out!
• I’d tell you to stop worrying what goes on in other people’s bedrooms.
• I’d tell you very loudly; “STOP USING ME AS YOUR CRUTCH!!! Stand up for goodness sake!”

Dick Clark, “America’s Oldest Teenager,”host of the pioneering ( and longest running variety show) “American Bandstand” died Wednesday at 82. The music industry maverick went on to become a powerhouse producer,shepherding a slew of shows and specials along with his trademark “Rockin’ Eve,” , which became a fixture of New Year’s celebrations.

Clark’s agent Paul Shefrin said in statement that the veteran host died this morning following a “massive heart attack.”

Born in Mount Vernon, N.Y on Nov. 30, 1929, Richard Wagstaff Clark began his lifelong career in show business before he was even out of high school. He started working in the mail room of WRUN, a radio station in upstate New York run by his father and uncle. It wasn’t long before the teenager was on the air, filling in for the weatherman and the announcer.

Clark pursued his passion at Syracuse University, working as a DJ on the student run station; eventually he took his talents on the road, landing a gig in Philadelphia. Within five years, he was spinning records and showcasing groups and dance crazes ( along with dance-crazy kids) on TV. In 1963 Clark–and “Bandstand” went Hollywood.

In a radio interview some years back, Clark, who was as perennially youthful and ebullient in person as he was on TV, summed up his success in one word, “enthusiasm.”

“If you like what you’re doing it shows,” he told me. And his passion for music and for the generations of fans who flocked to his shows was evident.

“Bandstand” ran for decades, never deviating from it’s simple and successful formula. Clean-cut kids danced to everything from Elvis to Disco; The Beatles to Kiss. Thousands of records were rated, dances and wild fashion fads were highlighted.

He also ran Dick Clark Productions, and began cranking out one hit show after another; his name became synonymous with everything from the ” $25,000 Pyramid” to “TV’s Bloopers & Practical Jokes” to the “American Music Awards.” In 1972, Dick Clark became synonymous with one of the biggest nights of the year as he launched “Dick Clark’s Rockin’ Eve,” TV’s most famous New Year’s Eve Party. After suffering a stroke in 2004, Ryan Seacrest signed on to help with the hosting duties, but Clark continued to make appearances.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications ran the numbers and figures Dick Clark Productions has turned out more than 7,500 hours of television programming, including more than 30 series and 250 specials, as well as more than 20 movies for theatre and TV.

All this earned Clark a long list of awards and accolades: Emmys, Grammys, induction in the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It also made him one of the richest men in Hollywood; he also had stakes in a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, theatres and real estate.

America’s Oldest Teenager has certainly left his indelible mark on generations of fans. There’s no disputing he helped change rock ‘n’ roll and TV forever. His signature sign-off was “For now, Dick Clark … so long,” always said with a salute. No doubt, today, generations of Americans are saluting back.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Since June 1967, Israel maintained total domination over Occupied Palestine.

Lawlessly, it includes controlling essential resources, air space, Gaza’s coastal waters, borders, who’s allowed to cross them, political, economic, and financial activities, internal movement, public assembly and speech, Palestine’s population registry, private property by seizures or demolition, and, of course, land.

Priority one is stealing it. Palestinians are forcibly dispossessed and displaced to expand settlements and for other development. Israel wants all valued parts as well as Jerusalem as its exclusive capital.

Overall, settlements, closed military zones, Jewish commercial areas, and others earmarked for development account for over 40% of West Bank land.

Since 1967, Israel established 121 settlements. Another 100 unauthorized outposts exist. In addition, Israel calls 12 annexed Jerusalem neighborhoods settlements. Settler enclaves also exist in Palestinian East Jerusalem.

Yet international law is clear. Fourth Geneva’s Article 49 states:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Moreover, in July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled:

“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development.” In addition, they’ve “been established in breach of international law” on sovereign Palestinian territory.

On March 22, Haaretz headlined, “UN human rights body to probe Israel’s settlement activities in West Bank,” saying:

The 47-member Human Rights Council (HRC) overwhelmingly approved a resolution to investigate what long ago should have been condemned. Russia and China were among 36 states voting yes. Ten nations abstained. America alone voted no.

The measure also called for Israel to disarm settlers and enforce criminal sanctions to protect Palestinians and their property. A three-member team will be named at a later date.

HRC is “charged with evaluating the effects of Israeli settlement construction on Palestinian human rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

The text of its decision states:

It will “dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council, to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

The decision also called on Israel “not to obstruct the process of investigation and to cooperate fully with the mission.”

Netanyahu called the HRC a “hypocritical council with an automatic majority against Israel.”

Israel’s Geneva ambassador, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, said “I am still stunned by the hypocrisy of the Human Rights Council. This council itself is adding fuel to the fire and fanning the flames which it should be trying to put out. Today will not be remembered as a great day for this council.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said:

“The Palestinians must understand that they can’t have it both ways: they can’t enjoy cooperation with Israel and at the same time initiate political clashes in international forums. Had the Palestinians wanted to solve the settlements issue, they would resume without delay a direct and unconditional negotiation on all core issues within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.”

Palestinian UN ambassador Ibrahim Khraishisaid said “when we see that Israel hasn’t stopped taking over our lands, we must act. If this situation continues, how will we be able to apply a two-state solution? The occupying power is violating international land….one day there will even be limits on the air that we breathe.”

Syria’s ambassador called settlement construction “piracy.”

Washington called the decision “one-sided and biased.”

For 45 years and counting, Israel occupied Palestine lawlessly. It dominates by state terror. Palestinians have no rights. Oppression is official policy. So is stealing all valued land and resources.

So far, it’s gotten away with it. Investigations won’t help, but if thoroughly pursued with follow-through it’s a good start perhaps.

As expected, Israel responded provocatively by severing ties with the HRC. According to Haaretz on March 27, ambassador Leshno-Yaar hadn’t yet gotten instructions on how to proceed.

Diplomats in Jerusalem and Geneva “were embarrassed by their inability to answer questions about the decision from reporters and foreign diplomats.”

Israel’s not an HRC member. It doesn’t matter either way. An unnamed “senior source” said “we will not allow visits from HRC members to Israel, and our ambassador has been instructed not to even answer phone calls from them.”

“The Human Rights Council secretariat and the commissioner, Navi Pillay, led the move to establish the investigative committee on settlements, which is why we will not work with them anymore or appear before the council.”

Austria and Belgium were the only EU nations voting yes. Israel responded by summoning their ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry for reprimands. Israel’s Deputy Director-General for Europe Rafi Shotz said:

“You assisted the politicization of the Human Rights Council and enabled a decision that will make only worsen relations between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Israeli lawlessness is egregious and longstanding. When criticized, it responds provocatively or like Captain Renault expressing shock about gambling at Rick’s from the film Casablanca – as Emile hands him his winnings and he thanks him.

It also retaliates against Palestinians unable to contest its abusive power. On March 25, Haaretz headlined, “Israel mulls ways to penalize PA in wake of UN human rights probe,” saying:

Sanctions are being considered, including freezing tax revenues to deprive the PA of vital funds needed to provide basic services. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz support the move.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials and others close to Netanyahu said HRC panel members are barred from entering Israel. Expect their investigation to proceed anyway.

Al Haq welcomed it, saying:

Israel’s refusal to cooperate “begs the question of what (it’s) afraid the fact-finding mission will reveal.”

No matter. International support is essential. It’s mostly needed to implement recommendations “without delay.” Otherwise expect another futile exercise like so many previous ones.

Words without teeth are worthless. Israel’s further emboldened to dominate ruthlessly, act violently, obstruct justice, prevent Palestinian self-determination, and assure peace process hypocrisy continues.

For decades, Israel remained unaccountable. It “benefit(s) from a climate of impunity, while the international community” yawns and does nothing. It’s high time that changed.

A Final Comment

On March 27, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, reported on human rights in Palestine during the HRC’s 19th session.

Her findings sharply criticized Israel for violating Fourth Geneva obligations. It states nations “responsible for violations of international humanitarian law (must) make full reparation for the loss or injury caused.”

Pillay acknowledged Israel’s lawlessness and unaccountability, especially with regard to Gaza.

No compensation amount can make up for decades of egregious crimes of war and against humanity, as well as millions of Palestinians harmed. Their nightmare continues daily.

__________________________________________________________________________

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-…