This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.

Many say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama's history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker that has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness, he has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by poetic promises of change. In reality, he is just another super-ambitious, lying mainstream politician that has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.

Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots: "Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ...The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies."

Sure, Obama says that small contributors will have access, but Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. Not exactly what $20 contributors get.

I remain troubled that Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospitals when her husband won the US Senate seat was $121,000. Within weeks of his swearing in, her salary went to over $320,000. The following year Obama did an earmark request for $1 million for her employer.

Todd Spivak of the Houston Press has documented how Obama accomplished next to nothing in his first six years in the Illinois legislature. But then Democrat Emil Jones Jr. an African American with thirty years in the legislature became head of the senate and explicitly decided to make the young Obama a US senator. He did this by making Obama a sponsor of 26 bills that became law. This gave Obama exactly what he needed to portray himself as a highly successful legislator. Has Obama repaid Jones? Yes. He has provided tens of millions in earmarks for Jones' district. As to such actions, Jones famously said: "Some call it pork; I call it steak."

Also, Obama's judgments about people he has used to advance his career have been appalling. These include a former domestic terrorist, a radical hate-selling pastor and a federally indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer. While he talks about bringing diverse interests together, he has never done that to any significant degree as a senator or candidate. Voters have been divided along race lines whether or not it was planned. If he was not black he would not be getting over 90 percent of the African-American vote, without which he would not have beaten Clinton. There is no valid reason for making someone president because of his race.

Make no mistake; I was never for Clinton either. And I never appreciated why anyone should prefer her because of her sex. Call me an idealist, but the only candidate for president worth voting for should have nothing to do with their color, gender or religion.

What are better options for voters?

One choice is to boycott the presidential election altogether and not be a co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy that our two-party political system has become. This requires facing the ugly reality that voting for Democrats or Republicans will never deliver the root, systemic reforms our failing democracy requires.

Better yet, if you feel compelled to vote, then vote for Ralph Nader. He has a distinguished record over many decades of working solely in the public interest without succumbing to corporate and other special interests seeking political favors. If honesty, integrity, intellectuality, independence, courageous policy positions and true political reforms matter to you, then Nader merits your support. This man of principles deserves your principled vote.

Here are some Nader positions that Obama and McCain do NOT support but that our nation sorely needs: a single payer universal health care system, aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare and crime, impeachment of Bush and Cheney, ending corporate personhood, adopting a carbon pollution tax, opening up ballot access. And Nader is a genuine supporter of the national peace movement to end the US occupation of Iraq. Note that Obama supported the reelection of Iraq war supporter Joe Lieberman. Unlike Obama, Nader is against government subsidies for turning corn into ethanol.

"We need a Jeffersonian revolution," says Nader. "If it doesn't happen, our democracy will continue to weaken and things will get worse. Right now, we have a two-party electoral dictatorship with each party looking for the highest corporate bidder." Amen.

I have been voting for Nader, the most legitimate populist and progressive, whenever he has been on my ballot. This wisdom by I.F. Stone keeps me committed to him: "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."

The fight is not about electing Nader president, but overthrowing the two-party plutocracy that is killing the middle class and fostering rising economic inequality. Should you have any negative thoughts about Nader because of the 2000 election, the facts refute blaming him for the Bush victory, including more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush (compared to 97,000 votes for Nader, only 25 percent of which would have voted for Gore) and over half of the registered Democrats that did not vote at all because Gore ran a terrible campaign.

Go to votenader.org to learn more and join this patriotic effort to spark a Second American Revolution. Enjoy yourself. Feel proud.

The end of everything we call life is close at hand and cannot be evaded. H.G. Wells, 1946

I recently received an email from a reader, frustrated with my insistence on holding a vision of what is possible alongside the dismal, inevitable current realities of civilization's collapse. Admonishing me to bear in mind America's Oprah and NASCAR world view and therefore abdicate any sense of optimism I might have, this reader accused me of suggesting that we should 12 Step our way through Armageddon. Rather than being offended, however, I was overcome with gratitude for this reader's image, frustrated with me as he may be, because in spite of the regular "wordsmithing" that I do as a writer, I always feel a sense of relief and validation when someone else gives words that I may not yet have for what I've been thinking, feeling, or doing.

With the image of the 12 Steps in mind, I decided to look more closely at them in relation to the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI) and notice how they might in fact be useful not only for recovering from addiction, but for navigating Armageddon. At first I felt shy about applying the Steps to the collapse of civilization, thinking that my readers would think I had seriously gone around the bend, but then someone sent me the "12 Steps Of Peak Oil" from a Vancouver newspaper. At that point, I realized how relevant the Steps might be not only to Peak Oil, but to Peak Civilization itself. Seasoned 12 Steppers argue that despite their 1930s origin, the Steps are applicable to any situation-no matter how monumental, and the collapse of civilization is about as big as it gets. So let's take a closer look.

Step 1: We admitted we were powerless - that our lives had become unmanageable.

Step 1 requires that I admit my powerlessness over the situation with which I'm confronted. Maybe you're thinking, "Well hey, that's no problem-did I ask for this debacle? All those years that I was an upstanding citizen and voted in elections and had faith in the American dream? What was that for? I did all the right things and now we're looking at Armageddon. Of course, I know that I'm powerless."

But that's not exactly what I mean by admitting that one is powerless. Many of us are stockpiling food, learning skills, busily relocating to other parts of the country or world, investing in precious metals, and so much more, but let's not forget that no matter how much we prepare, we're ultimately powerless over the outcome. While we may know that intellectually, letting it sink into the gut is a whole different story.

Powerless means that we don't know the outcome and can't control it, and that's really scary. I mean what it really all comes down to is the "D" word, you know: Death. And even if we end up celebrating a 100^th birthday eating soy cupcakes with our friends in some groovy ecovillage, collapse means that we'll be encountering many more endings than we can now imagine, beginning with the end of our current way of life no matter how small our footprint may be.

Control freaks won't do well with TEOTWAWKI; flexibility, on the other hand, is an essential attribute for survival. No matter how "manageable" our lives might be in the current moment, the collapse of empire is certain to challenge that and will compel us to align with others, give and receive support, trust our intuition as well as our intellect, and be willing to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. As a 12 Stepper might say, true empowerment lies in admitting one's powerlessness.

Step 2: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

People entering recovery often have a terrible time with this one. First of all, they feel they might have to buy into all that God stuff, but worse, they feel as if in order to recover, they have to admit that they are insane.

Let me hasten to emphasize that I too recoil at the use of the word "God" and wish to define "power greater than ourselves" as broadly as possible. Over the decades, countless atheists have benefited from using the 12 Steps for addiction recovery precisely because they were able to do the same. Atheists, agnostics, and feminists will have a much easier time with the Steps if they widen their concept of Higher Power to something non-theistic and gender-neutral.

"Insanity" as the Steps define it simply means that one does not recognize anything larger or more significant than one's own ego. Simply put, "something greater" could be one's concept of nature or one's confidence in the human spirit or anything else that one considers more benevolently powerful than oneself.

The 12 Steps inherently fly in the face of the ethics of civilization, based as those values are on the supremacy of the human ego-a pre-eminence that consciously or unconsciously deifies itself and whatever material gain it can amass unto itself at the expense of everyone and everything else. Now what could be more insane than that, and isn't everyone reading these words interested in transforming that paradigm into something more compassionate and sustainable? 12 Step programs further define insanity as doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over again, each time expecting different results. I can think of myriad examples of this in the culture of empire, starting with, "Maybe this time, if we just elect the right candidate for president then...."

12 Stepping into Armageddon begins with thoroughly examining how the culture of empire has inculcated us on every level and in every aspect of our lives. It means understanding how empire has programmed us to believe that we are all-powerful and that if we just do all the right things, we will succeed because our ego needs are the raison d'etre for our existence. When we are unable to recognize our powerlessness and resist acknowledging something greater than ourselves, we also rebel against the limits that life on this planet demand of us. We walk around as little "gods" and "goddesses" believing that we can consume whatever we like whenever we like at the expense of all other species as well as our own.

Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to that power.

OK, breathe. Remember-you don't have to use the word "God", and this Higher Power thing is gender-neutral.

This Step is particularly challenging because it requires action. Steps 1 and 2 just require me to admit something, but Step 3 asks me to DO something-something repugnant to the children of empire. It means I have to surrender my will to that "something greater". Eeeeeeew!

Step 3 is where the rubber meets the road-or not. In order to continue with the rest of the Steps, and therefore recovery, if that's what I'm using them for, or navigating collapse, as the case may be, I have to defer to a greater wisdom. What's even more distasteful is that I'm asked to surrender not only my will but my life.

Well, here we are again back to the dreaded "D" word. Anyone who has been researching and preparing for collapse knows the precarious position of the planet and the human race. If 200 species per day are going extinct, then the bottom line is that we are all staring our own mortality in the face as never before in human history. Collapse is, above all, forcing us to confront our personal mortality and that of our loved ones which is the principal reason so few are willing to deal with it. Who would sign up to feel that vulnerable? However, if we can allow that particular emotion, it becomes more possible to surrender our will and our life because what else do we have to lose?

The logical progression of the Steps is simply that since I'm powerless over the outcome, and there is something greater than my human ego and my five physical senses, it behooves me to consider abdicating my attempt to control what my finite humanity cannot. For this reason, I find that Step 3 relinquishes me from having "hope" because hope is ultimately another attempt to control what I cannot.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves

So now that I know that my ego can't manage my life, and I'm willing to surrender the outcome of my life and the world as I have known it to a power greater than myself, I have to look more deeply within. If we are using the Steps in relation to TEOTWAWKI, then a moral inventory could be a somewhat different experience than if we're applying the steps in relation to an addiction. Nevertheless, TEOTWAWKI is not unrelated to the addiction issue. In fact, humanity's addiction to material gain and economic growth has resulted in a delusional disregard for the earth's limits. An expression often heard among 12 Steppers is "self-will run riot" which pretty much summarizes humankind's obliviousness and even contempt toward the earth community.

But let's define our terms. Inventory simply means taking stock of what we have and don't have-what we may need more of or less of. The collapse of empire forces all of us, whether we consciously intend to or not, to consider our values and priorities. People losing houses, jobs, having to relocate out of necessity or by choice, finding that their pensions have suddenly evaporated or who have lost health insurance are forced to make tough decision about priorities.

Those of us who have been aware of collapse for some time and have been preparing for it are faced not only with making decisions such as the ones mentioned above, but are also compelled to look more deeply within to notice what qualities we need to develop in the face of collapse and which ones we may need to minimize. For example, I grew up as an only child and have lived an extremely independent life as an adult. I currently find myself working on reaching out to trusted others, making plans to live in community, and although fiercely committed to personal space and daily periods of solitude, consciously forsaking a life that is all about just me and my needs.

In so doing, I am taken to deeper layers of Step 4 as I contemplate my own part in the collapse of civilization. Although I have left a very small footprint on the earth for most of my life, I must own responsibility for the ways, no matter how small, in which I've polluted the ecosystem, my disconnection from the earth community, aspects of personal independence that have manifested in dysfunction, isolation, arrogance, and rationalization about my need for interdependent connection. In other words, although I'm not on the board of Monsanto, I have played a role in violating the human and more than human worlds.

5. Admitted the exact nature of our wrongs.

Taking a searching and fearless moral inventory compels us to admit our errors to ourselves, to something greater, and to someone else. I begin this process by verbalizing these errors to the power greater than me and then to whomever or whatever I have harmed.

With respect to TEOTWAWKI, I must apologize to generations younger than mine for the failure of my generation to preserve and protect the earth. For example, when teaching college students about the collapse of civilization and its repercussions, I'm often confronted with, "Yeah, and it's your fault and the fault of your generation." Without the slightest hesitation, I wholeheartedly agree, and I tell them that I am genuinely sorry. I also point out that collapse has built up over a period of centuries and that inherent within the values of civilization were the seeds of its own demise. Nevertheless, I have made choices in my lifetime that reinforced those values.

6. Were entirely ready to have all these defects of character removed.

Defects of character? What is this?

It's easy to become defensive around this Step unless one takes it to the next level. I define "defects of character" as those aspects of my personality that have resulted from the programming of empire, or my wounds, if you will. These are the qualities that I have taken on while growing up in empire culture which mitigate against the earth community and my connection with it. I'm very ready to have those removed, but I'm also aware that that means I may need to change my lifestyle, perhaps in drastic ways. Speaking only for myself, I need to look at my appetite for meat (which I've almost extinguished); my tendency to think of my own needs first even when I know I shouldn't; my workaholism, which although greatly diminished in recent years is not entirely absent; my tendency to isolate; my quickness to judge others-the list goes on and on. None of these qualities will be useful as collapse accelerates, and I am working to transform their presence in my life which the next Step facilitates.

7. Humbly asked for the shortcomings to be removed

Now I'm back to Step 3 and my relationship with "something greater". Because I've surrendered the outcome to it, I can also surrender my character defects and ask them to be transformed-a word that I personally prefer over "removed" since I have come to believe that no part of me can ever be totally removed. Like energy, parts of myself can be transformed but never made to disappear.

8. Made a list of all we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

While Steps 4 through 7 are about oneself, Steps 8, 9, and 10 are relational. Step 8 asks me to notice carefully who has been harmed by my empire-inflicted wounds. This definitely does not apply exclusively to people. Without meaning to, I've harmed animals, birds, trees, soil, water, air-myriad members of the earth community, and I need to reflect on that. In fact, even after learning about collapse and how I need to live differently, I have not changed my behavior to the extent that I want and need to. Step 8 is about willingness and paying attention.

9. Made direct amends wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

So now that I'm willing to make amends, I must do so. Certainly I must make amends to the people in my life that I've harmed, but just as important are those members of the more than human world that I've overlooked, minimized, disregarded, or just simply didn't notice. Just as a 9^th Step may require me to sit down with another human whom I've harmed and make amends, it may also require me to spend a day in the forest, or somewhere else in nature, expressing my regrets to trees, insects, streams, birds, or other non-humans for my obliviousness to them and the countless services they perform in the ecosytem from which I benefit.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

So Steps 6-9 are not one-shot deals. I am asked to practice them repeatedly. Inventory-taking is forever because what I have or don't have constantly changes, and it's important that I use both the "glass half empty" and "glass half full" approaches to my evolution. Just as I cannot successfully navigate collapse by myself, neither can I practice the Steps in isolation. I need the entire earth community in order to utilize them effectively.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with something greater

Some readers may recoil at the words "prayer" and "meditation", but I remind all of us of one of the key slogans of 12 Step programs which is: "Take what you like and leave the rest." If you find yourself reacting to "prayer" and "meditation", don't worry about it. The point of this Step is to improve conscious contact with something greater, and how we choose to do that is far less important than that we do it. Armageddon will not be easy to navigate, but it will be impossible without a conscious, working connection with a power greater than oneself.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Virtually every person preparing for collapse has had at least one, if not countless experiences, of attempting to share research, options, and the realities of collapse with others, only to find oneself blown off by the other person. Not unlike the individual addict who must be ready for recovery before fully applying the Steps, the people with whom we share information about TEOTWAWKI will either be ready to learn more or they will resist and maintain their head-in-the-sand posture. So we must be discreet and respectful, remembering that walking our talk (practicing these principles in all our affairs) is the most important message we can carry.

Waking up is an extraordinarily mixed blessing. With it comes tremendous clarity and joy, as well as sometimes excruciating sorrow as one witnesses more clearly civilization's trajectory of self-and-other destruction. Just as addicts in recovery frequently experience the tragic deaths of other addicts in their lives who will not engage in the recovery process, individuals preparing for collapse invariably encounter numerous loved ones about whom they care deeply who prefer to remain asleep. I feel sorrow daily for those I know who will probably never open their eyes. But I have opened mine, and I imagine that most people reading these words have as well. I carry that and these incredibly practical Steps with me, alongside a plethora of emotions and wonderfully awake allies, as each day we journey more deeply into Armageddon.

While I do not feel optimistic about survival in the abyss into which we appear to be descending, I believe that the principles inherent in the Steps can facilitate our planting seeds that may ultimately germinate and flourish as a new paradigm lived out by some of us and our descendents who are committed to creating lifeboats of localized, sustainable living that serve the entire earth community.

On February 12, 2008, Arab League information ministers issued a communique outlining 'tough' guidelines for Arab satellite channels. The new guidelines specifically prohibited the broadcasting of negative reporting of heads of state, religious or national figures.

How can the media in the Arab world fulfil its duties - as a platform from which civil society is able to monitor the state, and hold to account those who deviate from the principles of the relevant social and political contracts - under such 'guidelines'?

While only two countries - Qatar and Lebanon - refused to sign, many intellectuals, journalists and rights advocates protested. However, Abd A-Rahman A-Rashid, general manager of the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite channel, told the Media Line website that the Arab ministers' guidelines were largely ineffectual and would not stop the spread of information.

The story in the West naturally generated immense interest; for once again Arabs were wrangling with issues of freedom of expression, a value for which successive US administrations have supposedly advocated.

More, forums were abruptly held where the official transgressions of Arab governments were candidly chastised. In its monthly policy discussion, the Brookings Centre Doha raised the question: 'Forward or backward? The 2008 Arab satellite TV charter and the future of Arab Media, society and democracy'. Speakers included Saad Eddin Ibrahim, professor of Political Sociology at the American University in Cairo, Ibrahim Helal, deputy managing director, Al Jazeera English, and Michael Ratney, Charge d'Affaires at the American embassy. The session was chaired by Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Doha Centre and fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute. The Saban Center at the Brookings Institute is headed by Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, and despite his personal dedication to the cause of Israel, remains one of the most frequent guests on Arab TV stations.

What is painted to look like a classic conflict between corrupt governments and their fed up constituencies, the former labouring to gag the latter's freedom of expression, is a lot more convoluted. It is not that the corrupt elites are not indeed labouring to suppress dissent, or that the suppressed multitudes are not fiercely fighting back. In fact, it's this relationship that constitutes the push and pull which came to define Arab media in the first place. But who has decided that Arab satellite stations - or pan Arab print publications or other forms of media - represent in any way the interests of Arab masses, or have improved in any measurable way the welfare of Arab people, especially the poorer, discounted classes?

More, how could entities such as the Brookings Institute and its Saban Centre - known for holding and promoting policies that hardly deviate from that of the US administration, if not its most rigid qualities - become themselves mediators for such freedoms, which if genuinely granted would prove most harmful to the US administration and its interests in the Arab world?

So is the true state of Arab media, marred with confusion, uncertainty and mixed messages.

Since the advent of Aljazeera in 1996, something fundamental morphed in the world of Arab media. We have heard this argument numerous times and for good reason. True, but rash conclusions of 'the Aljazeera revolution' no longer suffice.

Aljazeera was not the only media forum that allowed for the expression of tabooed views, while censoring others. Egypt's Voice of the Arabs, during the Nasser years, for example, decried reactionary Arab regimes left and right, and it too enjoyed a large following amongst Arab masses from the gulf to the ocean and beyond. Media technology has advanced immensely since then, and Aljazeera is packed with less pan-Arab rhetoric and is much more discreet in its political leanings. The fact that Aljazeera refrains from any serious criticism of Qatar and is much more candid in targeting specific Arab countries is overlooked by many since, frankly the world of Qatari politics is relatively trivial in the greater scheme of things.

Since then, numerous copycats have sprung up across the Arab world. Satellite stations with or without political agendas have grown out of control and now number over 500. This was accompanied by a massive surge of newspapers and glossy magazines, most offering next to nothing in terms of content value. It was a media revolution that lacked true substance, thus impacting little the collective self-awareness of Arab peoples or the Arab individual's need for self-assertion in a time of considerable global transformation.

Those who are on good terms with the official authorities can easily be granted a license, and thus a new TV station or new magazine is welcomed into the fold. Those who are not would only need to relocate to London or another, preferably hostile Arab capital and resume his media 'mission.' Of course, funds for such endeavours are available on conditions, either to refrain from bashing certain entities and giving free hand to censure others, or to stay away from politics altogether.

With cheap American TV content and their Arab imitators, content per se is never an issue. It's quality content that poses a problem. To pretend that such low quality programs haven't deeply scarred Arab societies and their cultural and societal identities is to defy reality, but that is for another discussion.

The fact is that Arab media is largely political, with political, religious, nationalistic, even tribal leanings, affiliations and priorities. While some media have done less harm than others, none represent the untainted exception.

The Arab foreign ministers communiqué can be understood as a call for a truce between various Arab governments: you hold your journalists back from attacking me, I'll hold mine. It's neither a call for the suppression of civil society nor the gagging of free expression: the former is largely suppressed and truly free expression never fully existed.

Two points remain to be made; one is that dominating media in the West is afflicted by similar ailments, themselves owned by big corporations that pander to their respective official authorities, with the US being the most notable example.

And two, a truly independent media that is completely free from the whims of individuals or those holding the financial or political leverage is only possible in theory. What civil society usually aspires to achieve, however, are mediums that are less bias, less totalitarian and as representative of the whole as possible. This can only be achieved by collective struggle, organization and pressure, using home-grown platforms, as opposed to imported ones.

When civil society organizes and speaks out, neither a communiqué by a few ministers, nor a decree by a totalitarian ruler can silence it.

The following are excerpts from Baroud's upcoming book, "101 Ways to Survive a Refugee Camp."

We waited breathless. Breathing heavily was hazardous under these somewhat exceptional circumstances. The army, my father often advised, was sensitive to the slightest movements or sounds, including a whisper, a cough, or God forbid, a sneeze. Thus we sat completely still. Muneer, my younger brother was entrusted with the mission of peering through the rusty holes in the front door. It bothered me that I was not the one elected for the seemingly perilous mission. My father explained that Muneer was smaller and quicker, he could negotiate his way back and forth, seamlessly, between the observation ground and the room where everyone was hiding. The house's main door was riddled with holes; the upper half spoke of past battles between the neighbourhood's stone throwers and Israeli soldiers. The holes on the lower half, however were not those of bullets, but rust and corrosion. These holes often served us well. Muneer would lie on his belly and peek through them; he followed the movement of the soldiers as their military vehicles often used the space in front of our house. They pondered their moves from there, and often used our house' front step as a spot for lunch or tea. Worse, they often released their frustrations on the house's helpless residents, that being my family.

My father laid facedown for a long time. A military helicopter hovered in place for a little while and then disappeared, perhaps following a moving target, I thought. Helicopters were the best way to chase down fidayeen - freedom fighters - as they sought escape in the refugee camp's orchards. Did they find the one who planted the bomb? But what about the bomb itself? News was still scarce and my father was still laying on the chipped tiles behind the door. Suddenly engines of military vehicles outside began charging one after the other. Some began moving away. The noise increasingly subsided. Foot soldiers seemed to be the only ones left behind. One could tell through the continuous murmurs and chatter. The bewilderment intensified, although this time with some hopeful prospects. Are we really meant to survive the unfolding ordeal? My father began making his way back, crawling back to the kitchen. He often crawled that way to show off some of his training in the army many years back. We looked at him with inquiring eyes. My mother abandoned her figurative corner for a few moments, and joined us. "Its our bag of trash," my father said in a tone that was meant to dispel the mystery. "They thought our trash was a bomb."

My father opted to throw our trash in the street just hours earlier. Garbage accumulated for weeks in our house as the military curfew kept us indoors without a chance to step foot outside. So a few hours earlier, he did what we had urged him to do for days, since we couldn't cope with the suffocating odor. He opened the double doors for a few seconds and threw one black garbage bag as far as he could to the middle of the open space in front of the house. Little did he know that his desperado act would send the Israeli army on high alert; would invite bomb squads, helicopters and perhaps every available tank and military vehicle to our unsuspecting neighbourhood.

Within minutes, the serenity and silence of the military curfew was back. Except that watermelon rinds and my father's used Kent packs and other items, were scattered about the street. "Whose God damn idea was it to throw the trash in the street?" my father mumbled. No one answered. My father puffed on his cigarette and quickly delved into a contemplating mode. "I have never seen such military build- up since the war of '67," he said. His surreal look was interrupted by one hardly audible chuckle, and that was enough to ignite a storm of laughter among my brothers and even my mother which lasted for a long long time.

I took my turn peeking through the rust holes to get a piece of the excitement and follow the progress of the trash as it was scattered by the wind and hungry cats in every possible direction. "Hey guys, the chains of the tanks softened the area outside. It should be really good for soccer when the curfew is lifted," I declared jubilantly.

And the curfew was indeed lifted, some forty days later.

From Portland Oregon Live we get the following two and a half minute video coverage:

As I suspected, there is a "velvet" threat in several articles that action many be taken against the ILWU, or compensation for losses pursued.

I am proud of the workers of the ILWU! Thank you for standing up. I hope that your action inspires resistance across the country.

Here is a sampling of articles relating to the strike:

Longshoremen defy work order, stay off the job on May Day - Portland Oregonian

All Out on May Day! - Portland IndyMedia

No work at ports as longshore protests war. From Tacoma, Wa. News Tribune.

Protesters unite in peace on May Day - Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Dockworkers take May Day off, idling all West Coast ports - LA Times

Anti-war strikes hit US ports - Al Jazeera

Just days after the Hamas-Fatah clash last June in Gaza, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas looked firm and composed as he shook hands with members of his new emergency government. He made sure his move appeared as legitimate as possible, issuing decrees that outlawed the armed militias of Hamas, and also suspended consequential clauses in the Palestinian Basic Law, which had thus far served as a constitution.

This system, when truly representative, is indeed precious and meaningful. Considering the impossible circumstances under which Palestinian democracy in particular was spawned and nurtured -- military occupation, international pressure, extreme poverty -- it was also deeply historic. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that followed the US occupation in Iraq, Arabs showed themselves as ultimately capable of carrying out democratic process.

Unfortunately, the achievement of democracy cannot guarantee its preservation.

Almost immediately after Hamas' sizable election victory in January 2006, both local and international forces scrambled to suffocate and reverse the outcome of this vote. Conceited intellectuals wrote about the incompatibility of Islam and democracy, politicians decried Hamas' victory as signalling the encroachment of militarism and extremism, and world leaders clambered to affiliate themselves with the 'legitimate' Abbas, as opposed to the 'illegitimate' Hamas. Indeed, it was a mockery.

For Israel, the clash between Abbas' Fatah and Islamic Hamas was a golden opportunity, one that is comparable to the benefits gleaned from another opportune moment, the terrorist attacks of September 11. The latter was recently -- and not for the first time -- described by Israeli Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu as good for Israel (Haaretz, April 16).

The Palestinian fight was also good for Israel; no longer would the nuisance of Palestinian democracy compete with Israel's self-ascribed "only democracy in the Middle East." More, Palestinians were once again depicted as the unruly mob, incapable of producing responsible peacemakers and creating an environment of 'security', which the state of Israel so often claims to covet.

As for Abbas and his ministers, they knew too well that the newfound American-Israeli fondness for them was conditional. After all they are the same people, holding the same position and playing the same roles that they have always played. They are the ministers, aides, friends and officials of late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who were, like their president, repeatedly shunned. They also understood well their new appeal in representing the antithesis to Hamas. Rather than rejecting the role of the stooges, Abbas' cabinet ministers played along.

Suddenly the conflict that was hitherto seen as one between Israel and the Palestinians became one between Abbas and his supporters (Israel and the US) on one hand, and Hamas alone on the other. The problem as reported in mainstream media ceased being about settlements, occupation, and violations of international law, but rather about the anti-democratic 'forces of darkness' in Gaza as opposed to the forces of peace and civilization in Ramallah and Tel Aviv. To re-enforce these highly deceptive images with 'action', Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated their quest for illusive peace. This started in Annapolis and was followed by regular, although equally futile 'rounds' of talks in Israel. Few expected such meets to yield any meaningful outcomes; they were clearly intended only to further isolate Hamas and underscore the Abbas-Israeli alliance.

In order for the show to go on, Hamas and Fatah will not be allowed to reconcile, at least not until Israel and the US decide to change tactics. Of course this doesn't mean that there is no basis for reconciliation. Palestinian factionalism equals capitulation in the face of a harsh, emboldened enemy. Recently we have seen the 2005 Cairo Agreement, the 2007 Mecca Agreement and the March 2008 Yemen Agreement. But to win the approval of Israel in the West Bank -- and to avoid the tragic fate of Gaza -- Abbas is not interested in the points of agreement, but rather in the points of discord. Aljazeera reported that Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah member who signed the Hamas-Fatah memorandum in March, was chastised openly for keeping Abbas "in the dark", regarding the nature of the agreement. Al-Ahmad insisted that Abbas knew exactly what the agreement stipulated. It seems that a document that merely highlights a course of action towards full reconciliation between the two parties was too much for Israel to accept. Not even the blood of over 120 Palestinians in Gaza, who were killed in the matter of six days in early March, seemed a strong enough motive to override Israel's threats of Palestinian unity signalling the end of the futile 'peace process'.

And, of course, there is the money trail. Just days before the Yemen fiasco, the US had agreed to transfer $150 million in support to the Palestinian Authority as "part of past pledges to boost President Mahmoud Abbas' government." Boost against whom? Surely not Israel.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad reportedly said it was "the largest sum of assistance of any kind to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority by any donor in one tranche since the Palestinian Authority's inception (in 1994)." Heart-rending indeed, Mr Fayyad, but one must wonder how much of the money will go to feed the starving in Gaza, or rehabilitate the refugee camps of the West Bank?

While such noble efforts by the UN's John Dugard, former US President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have brought much needed attention to the plight of Palestinians and Gazans in particular, PA officials are too busy attending donor's conferences and issuing empty statements which few even bother to read. They act as if they are a neutral party caught in the middle of religious fanatics and Israel. Their fight no longer seems even remotely related to Palestine or its people. These are hardly the qualities of any liberation movement or leadership anywhere, in any period of history, recent or otherwise. Neither Abbas nor Fayyad are likely to be the exception.